Balance and Gameplay discussion.

If Minor States are on and you have automatic war through the entire BC era, shouldn't the Great Wall wonder block other Minor States' warriors, etc, from entering your territory? After all, the other Minor States are essentially barbarians during this period, and the usefulness of the Great Wall suffers tremendously if it only keeps out what are technically "barbarians" under vanilla BtS standards...

What do you guys think?
It's an interesting idea, but it would be far too powerful. Basically this would make you immune to all players who didn't know writing, that would be unbalanced, so it couldn't be implemented.
 
Mohawk Sentry: Is a little weak. Biggest problem though is the scout itself. You could try pumping it. But maybe it would do better as an explorer? You would have more room to manuver with giving it abilities. Any UU before axes gets weaker the larger the map gets. I get by just fine with only ever building 1 or 2 scouts.

Keshik: I like it. Maybe is a bit powerful. Definitely keep its city raider. For one thing it is an original UU with that. Take it away and what are you left with... apretty lame UU. Youve already handicapped the Mongols by not alowing it to upgrade to cuirassier. Only thing you could do is take away its first strike. But the keshik is like the legion in my eyes. It should be powerful.

Hoplite: Ohh hoplite why must you be a pain. I sound like a broken record but hoplite needs tweeking. It has more abilities than anyother UU but it is missing out on one. The +25% vs swords that regular Axes have. So it actually sucks against swords and totally gets stomped by Legions. Not sure what to do about it though. Looks like you wanted a symmetrical unit by giving it all those +50%'s. Maybe one of those could go to make room for a +50 vs sword, but which one? Maybe the free formation? That might actually be one of its more powerful abilities. Even with the +50 vs sword it would still gets narrowly beat out by Legions, which is how it should be. I dont know, Ive been trying to find a powerful but not OP balance for it since Alpha. Damn yous hoplite.

Holkan: jesus this thing sucks. Immune to first strikes, thats it, thats all it has.

Ronin: maybe it could be boosted a bit now that theres only two japanese UU's. Or maybe you shouldve take out, ronin and left in Daimyo to give them one melee and one mounted UU.

Missile Cruiser: why does the missle cruiser cost 220? Thats only 10 more than the cruiser. The battleship costs 280, so shouldnt the MC cost 300 or more?

Pathfinders & explorers: why cant explorers upgrade to pathfinders? I dont see anything wrong with them doing that.

Thats all I can think of for now.
 
I actually found that the battleship could use a boost. It is as strong as a heavy cruiser almost (I believe from the top of my head) and less strong than a missile cruiser. I would make them equally strong (40-40 or 38-40 or something). A battleship is a strong ship even against a modern missile cruiser :) (if it didn't have missiles that is).
I actually also think a dreadnought could use a beef. I have had a dreadnought destroyed quite a few times by a protected cruiser (or two). I would beef the dreadnought up to 32 or something.
 
Holkan: jesus this thing sucks. Immune to first strikes, thats it, thats all it has.
I'm not experienced enough to really know for sure whether this is a rare situation, but I was pulling a Chariot/Horseman/Archer attack (?!) in about 2000 BC last night, hoping to wipe out the Mayans, and I foolishly upgraded my archers to Drill 1>Shock to deal with any spears. A lot of my archers only had Drill 1, actually, waiting around for the xp for Shock.

Well, we didn't run into spearmen... we ran into Holkans...

Which were an effective counter to ALL of my units.

I had to pillage his copper source instead. :lol:

Then I discovered that that didn't stop anything. :lol:

By the way, I was impressed by the AI here. He pulled a very effective defensive strategy, and harassed fleeing horsemen really well with those Holkan.
 
I'm not experienced enough to really know for sure whether this is a rare situation, but I was pulling a Chariot/Horseman/Archer attack (?!) in about 2000 BC last night, hoping to wipe out the Mayans, and I foolishly upgraded my archers to Drill 1>Shock to deal with any spears. A lot of my archers only had Drill 1, actually, waiting around for the xp for Shock.

Well, we didn't run into spearmen... we ran into Holkan...

Which was an effective counter to ALL of my units.

I had to pillage his copper source instead. :lol:

By the way, I was impressed by the AI here. He pulled a very effective defensive strategy, and harassed fleeing horsemen really well with those Holkan.

Against your stack of Horses and archers, normal spearman units would have been just as effective. Drill 1 only gives a first strike chance, and shock only makes the archer a 3.75:strength:, not to mention horses die to normal spears anyway. Also the spears, having higher base strength, would benefit more from promotions and any defensive bonuses.

So maybe a couple more normal spear might have died, but you still wouldve got owned. Archers really arent an offensive unit, unless theyre Mali Skirmishers. You shouldve brought axes and swords. Its also curious why you only ran into holkans and not other units.
 
I have a suggestion pertaining to the Great Wall.

If Minor States are on and you have automatic war through the entire BC era, shouldn't the Great Wall wonder block other Minor States' warriors, etc, from entering your territory?

Don't forget that the Great Wall also gives +100% great general emergence within your own borders and this effect is thus strengthened by the early wars.

How is the Mohawk Sentry? I'm concerned it may be an underpowered unit. Have people found it useful?

Mohawk Sentry: Is a little weak. Biggest problem though is the scout itself. You could try pumping it. But maybe it would do better as an explorer? You would have more room to manuver with giving it abilities. Any UU before axes gets weaker the larger the map gets. I get by just fine with only ever building 1 or 2 scouts.

Agree with achilleszero. You could also opt for two UU's, one based on the scout, the other on the explorer. Then they both don't have to be strong and you have a long period in the game with special unique abilities. In a sense, it would then be a bit comparable to the indian fast worker which would also be weaker if it only got its extra movement point during a small period of the game.

How is the Keshik? I'm concerned it may be overpowered.

Keshik: I like it. Maybe is a bit powerful. Definitely keep its city raider. For one thing it is an original UU with that. Take it away and what are you left with... apretty lame UU. Youve already handicapped the Mongols by not alowing it to upgrade to cuirassier. Only thing you could do is take away its first strike. But the keshik is like the legion in my eyes. It should be powerful.

I won't quickly say that a unique unit is overpowered because a unique unit should be special and hard to counter. However a knights is normally a great unit in the field with only the pikeman that could stand against it. Against cities, they are decent, but because they can't get city raider, they can't face against city defenders with good city garrison promotions. With city raider ...
City raider I promotions will also go to the future units like cavalry, tanks, gunships, so it's not simply a one unit promotion and it allows the further city raider promotions so we'll see city raider III mongolian tanks.
Why not just a +20% bonus vs city without the promotion? It's not that mongols have special tanks and gunships.
(In general, I'm in favour of bonuses that aren't transferred to future units but are only useful for the unique unit itself.)

Hoplite: Ohh hoplite why must you be a pain. I sound like a broken record but hoplite needs tweeking. It has more abilities than anyother UU but it is missing out on one. The +25% vs swords that regular Axes have. So it actually sucks against swords and totally gets stomped by Legions.

:confused: One on one, it's equal in strength to swords (6 vs 6) and it's a little cheaper.

Holkan: jesus this thing sucks. Immune to first strikes, thats it, thats all it has.

It's cheaper and doesn't require resources... But I agree that being cheap and not requiring resources aren't the most interesting bonuses for gameplay. As a player, you usually want something special for using it. Its bonus of course helps a bit against archer defended cities.

Missile Cruiser: why does the missle cruiser cost 220? Thats only 10 more than the cruiser. The battleship costs 280, so shouldnt the MC cost 300 or more?

I always found that one interesting. Battleships were historically extremely expensive and nowadays, ships aren't build with such extreme armour protection. The strength from modern ships in real life is due to their long range deadly missiles and protective measures which aren't based on armour.
You could argue that they should be a bit more expensive than the stealth destroyer. Maybe 240? But it also works as it is now.

Pathfinders & explorers: why cant explorers upgrade to pathfinders? I dont see anything wrong with them doing that.

They do...

I actually found that the battleship could use a boost. It is as strong as a heavy cruiser almost (I believe from the top of my head) and less strong than a missile cruiser. I would make them equally strong (40-40 or 38-40 or something). A battleship is a strong ship even against a modern missile cruiser :) (if it didn't have missiles that is).

Battleships get a 25% bonus against capital ships like heavy cruisers and missile cruisers. This makes them equal to missile cruisers and 25% stronger than heavy cruisers in direct combat against these units.
 
Against your stack of Horses and archers, normal spearman units would have been just as effective. Drill 1 only gives a first strike chance, and shock only makes the archer a 3.75:strength:, not to mention horses die to normal spears anyway. Also the spears, having higher base strength, would benefit more from promotions and any defensive bonuses.

So maybe a couple more normal spear might have died, but you still wouldve got owned. Archers really arent an offensive unit, unless theyre Mali Skirmishers. You shouldve brought axes and swords. Its also curious why you only ran into holkans and not other units.
Do spears have more :strength: than Holkans in LoR? If so, they shouldn't.

I didn't have any copper for the infantry units. I was expecting only a couple of spears, using my tons of archers mainly as defense while my cavalry overran everything else. I think 4:strength: spears would obviously have gone down much more easily than the Holkans did. But this may be a very rare situation--I mean, I didn't have copper. I'll leave it to the judgment of more experienced players. :salute:
 
Don't forget that the Great Wall also gives +100% great general emergence within your own borders and this effect is thus strengthened by the early wars.
That's true. I guess that does a lot to shift the balance around.
 
Re Hoplite: It's meant to be assymetrically ballanced. It is an extremely powerfull UU, yet it leaves you vulnerable to swords. That's the intent, and I like it.

Re Holkan. The ability to build Spears without copper is actually pretty useful. You have to remember I play on random, and have been saved by the Hulkan in a game before, I would have lost without it. I have no intent to change it. Though maybe the Maya could use a second UU, the Atlatatl or however you spell that. A replacement for the archer with a withdrawl chance. Actually yes, that's a good idea, we need a model for this though.

Re Battleships & Dreads: The cost and balance of these units is set up to mirror historical or real world facts (no one uses battleships anymore because they are too expensive) while maintaining gameplay. Remember cruisers are more advanced, ie they come later then battleships, the balance with them is fine IMHO.

Re Keshik: Well no real complaints about it being overpowered.

Re Mohawk Sentry: So you guys want to have the sentry be split into a scout and explorer variant? what should they be called?
 
Re Keshik: Well no real complaints about it being overpowered.

Re Mohawk Sentry: So you guys want to have the sentry be split into a scout and explorer variant? what should they be called?

I think the city raider I of the Keshik is a bit too powerful as explained above.

I have no good ideas for the names of the scout/explorer.
 
Re Battleships & Dreads: The cost and balance of these units is set up to mirror historical or real world facts (no one uses battleships anymore because they are too expensive) while maintaining gameplay. Remember cruisers are more advanced, ie they come later then battleships, the balance with them is fine IMHO.

I think their power is just fine. Its the cost that concerns me. The cruisers should atleast cost as much as the battleship. Since they come later youre cities will be able to handle the extra hammers better. Also since they are so much more powerful in the game they shouldnt be cheaper. Having them cheaper means a crap load of cruisers getting cranked out. 280 hammers back in the day was a lot more than 280 hammers now. How much did the MC cost in vanilla?

Do spears have more :strength: than Holkans in LoR? If so, they shouldn't.

They have the same strength. They would go down easier, but not by much. I forgot about not needing copper, so thats a plus for them. But your 1-2 first strike shocking archers are still going in for a tuff time against normal spear.

I think the city raider I of the Keshik is a bit too powerful as explained above.

Ok I have to agree with ya. Maybe an innate city attack bonus would be better. CR3 cavalry would be bad. Maybe +30% city attack instead of +20% since they cant increase it anymore if they cant get CR.
 
I think their power is just fine. Its the cost that concerns me. The cruisers should atleast cost as much as the battleship. Since they come later youre cities will be able to handle the extra hammers better. Also since they are so much more powerful in the game they shouldnt be cheaper. Having them cheaper means a crap load of cruisers getting cranked out. 280 hammers back in the day was a lot more than 280 hammers now. How much did the MC cost in vanilla?

Normal BTS prices: battleship 225, Missile Cruiser 260. It's actually the battleship which was made extremely expensive not the Missile Cruiser that was made cheap in this mod. I personally like that as battleships were a major investment for nations in that era.

Carriers/supercarriers are a bit cheap though.

They have the same strength. They would go down easier, but not by much. I forgot about not needing copper, so thats a plus for them. But your 1-2 first strike shocking archers are still going in for a tuff time against normal spear.

And Holkans are cheaper. But I agree those aren't the most awe inspiring bonuses.

Ok I have to agree with ya. Maybe an innate city attack bonus would be better. CR3 cavalry would be bad. Maybe +30% city attack instead of +20% since they cant increase it anymore if they cant get CR.

+30% is pretty strong, but more balanced than the CR promotion line. It would be a strong ability for a unique unit, but the Mongols were very powerful in that era and conquered large areas, so ok.
 
Normal BTS prices: battleship 225, Missile Cruiser 260. It's actually the battleship which was made extremely expensive not the Missile Cruiser that was made cheap in this mod. I personally like that as battleships were a major investment for nations in that era.

Carriers/supercarriers are a bit cheap though.

Yeah they were huge investments. But somehow nations used to field much larger navies back then as well.

Missle Cruisers are cheaper in LoR, they cost 220. I still think battleships should be cheaper or atleast the same price as missle cruisers. Having a superior unit be cheaper doesnt seem right. My biggest problem with this is that missle cruisers got a hammer reduction at the same time. Boosting the price of the battleship was enough, MC's didnt need to be cheaper. In fact, due to your cities' production constantly getting bigger, MC's should be atleast a little more expensive. In the era of MC's one of your production cities will probably be able to produce probably over 1.5x the amount of battleships you would have been able to produce, with the current 280&220 hammers setup.

+30% is pretty strong, but more balanced than the CR promotion line. It would be a strong ability for a unique unit, but the Mongols were very powerful in that era and conquered large areas, so ok.

I think 30% city attack would be reasonable. Mongols would have the Ger and would easily be able to produce cr2 or even CR3 very easily. So it would actually be a huge nerf. Maybe also they should get back their innate -1 terrain cost, if they lose the CR promotion line (cant remember if they have that anymore or not).
 
Yeah they were huge investments. But somehow nations used to field much larger navies back then as well.

Those same nations used to try to conquer eachother every 20 or 30 years in that era, so a relatively large share of production was invested in ways to kill the other one more efficient. It's probably the reason for such revolutionary jumps in military destructive abilities between 1850 and 1950.

Missle Cruisers are cheaper in LoR, they cost 220. I still think battleships should be cheaper or atleast the same price as missle cruisers. Having a superior unit be cheaper doesnt seem right. My biggest problem with this is that missle cruisers got a hammer reduction at the same time. Boosting the price of the battleship was enough, MC's didnt need to be cheaper. In fact, due to your cities' production constantly getting bigger, MC's should be atleast a little more expensive. In the era of MC's one of your production cities will probably be able to produce probably over 1.5x the amount of battleships you would have been able to produce, with the current 280&220 hammers setup.

Productivity likely won't rise very much anymore in the latest part of the late game because all the production modifiers have already been invented and also implemented in the most productive cities. But yes, it will mean that in the late game, it's easier to build a significant force of ships and possible to build a larger force of ships for the same investment. But that's not a bad thing for me, so you won't convince me that way.

Battleships became obsolete because the heavy armour was very expensive and not that useful anymore. This mod finally obsoletes the unit due to its cost, something that was not done in any other version of civ.

By the way (a bit unrelated), longbowmen were also initially obsoleted by musketmen because musketmen could be trained a lot easier and thus were cheaper. It took a while before musketmen became more effective man for man. It would have been nice if such a thing was in the game. But it's probably hard to balance that. I always imagine that the musketman represents a larger number of men so that the unit is stronger but also more expensive.

The missile cruiser is in real life cheaper and more effective in combat. I don't see a game balance problem by implementing that into the game.

I think 30% city attack would be reasonable. Mongols would have the Ger and would easily be able to produce cr2 or even CR3 very easily. So it would actually be a huge nerf. Maybe also they should get back their innate -1 terrain cost, if they lose the CR promotion line (cant remember if they have that anymore or not).

I had already agreed with the 30% bonus. The unit also gets a first strike and a 15% chance to retreat. All in all a great bonus. It will be very hard to stop it cost efficiently when it attacks cities or in the field. It will definitely be one of the very best unique units in the game. But then, the mongols did a lot of conquering so its thematically correct to give them a unique unit that tests the boundaries of balance.

By the way, not really balance related, but I think a city attack bonus is thematically very weird for a horse archer. These units weren't used to directly attack cities. The Mongols did a lot of conquering but that doesn't mean that this has to be represented by a city attack bonus for their most well known unit.

But I agree with the unit bonuses that we're talking about now from a balance perspective.
 
The Mongols used their gifted horsemen to annhilate opponents in the open field. They took cities with fear, and failing that, Chinese engineers and siege equipment. Giving Keshiks a City Attack Bonus doesn't seem to fit with that.
 
Productivity likely won't rise very much anymore in the latest part of the late game because all the production modifiers have already been invented and also implemented in the most productive cities. But yes, it will mean that in the late game, it's easier to build a significant force of ships and possible to build a larger force of ships for the same investment. But that's not a bad thing for me, so you won't convince me that way.

Battleships became obsolete because the heavy armour was very expensive and not that useful anymore. This mod finally obsoletes the unit due to its cost, something that was not done in any other version of civ.

The missile cruiser is in real life cheaper and more effective in combat. I don't see a game balance problem by implementing that into the game.

Ok I may have to conceed this one as I probably wont convince anyone. And I guess it would be more fun to have cheap MC's. But never being one to leave well enough alone, I still disagree.

Yes they seem tohave been obsoleted. But I would think that the missile cruiser having a greater power and ability to carry missiles would be enough. Every other jump in technology gives whatever civ has the lead a better chance by giving them a stronger unit. Not a stronger unit and cheaper unit. It will be a doubly huge deficit for the civ that is behind.

The Iowa class battleships, last battleships to be built, cost 125 million in 1940's. Thats 1.5 billion in todays money (probably more since materials like steel probably dont inflate at the same rate). The Ticonderoga Class Missile Cruisers cost 1 billion in the early 1980's. Thats 2 billion dollars today. So really the battleship costed less than the cruiser. Whats more is the Iowa class cost 60% more than anyother battleship ever built and more to maintain it. So the Cruisers are way more expensive than the battleships, probably due to all its high tech armament. 3 times now the us navy has brought the iowa's out of retirement. And every time was supposed to be the last.

The Mongols used their gifted horsemen to annhilate opponents in the open field. They took cities with fear, and failing that, Chinese engineers and siege equipment. Giving Keshiks a City Attack Bonus doesn't seem to fit with that.

Youre probably right. But until the day comes, when the AI does more than wall up in its cities, something has to give. All the mongol warriors were mounted so mongol maces and pikes doesnt seem to fit either.
 
Ok I may have to conceed this one as I probably wont convince anyone. And I guess it would be more fun to have cheap MC's. But never being one to leave well enough alone, I still disagree.

Yes they seem tohave been obsoleted. But I would think that the missile cruiser having a greater power and ability to carry missiles would be enough. Every other jump in technology gives whatever civ has the lead a better chance by giving them a stronger unit. Not a stronger unit and cheaper unit. It will be a doubly huge deficit for the civ that is behind.

The Iowa class battleships, last battleships to be built, cost 125 million in 1940's. Thats 1.5 billion in todays money (probably more since materials like steel probably dont inflate at the same rate). The Ticonderoga Class Missile Cruisers cost 1 billion in the early 1980's. Thats 2 billion dollars today. So really the battleship costed less than the cruiser. Whats more is the Iowa class cost 60% more than anyother battleship ever built and more to maintain it. So the Cruisers are way more expensive than the battleships, probably due to all its high tech armament. 3 times now the us navy has brought the iowa's out of retirement. And every time was supposed to be the last.

If your figures are correct, then those are very good points. What you're actually saying is that the obsolescence of the battleship due to very high cost is a mythos. Or maybe it's just the obsolescence of thick armour but other new elements also cost a lot.

By the way: in the present setup, the battleship has 50% odds when going one-on-one with the missile cruiser which is not correct. I think it wouldn't stand a chance in reality because it would be destroyed before it ever could fire its big guns (which would of course instantly annihilate a missile cruiser).

I think the Iowa's wouldn't have been brought back from retirement if the US had been fighting foes that had equally advanced military hardware as they had. But if the enemy doesn't have good military hardware, then those shells are probably cheaper than missiles and your ships aren't going to be sunk by enemy missiles anyway. In the end it's just a calculation of how to kill the enemy the cheapest.

Youre probably right. But until the day comes, when the AI does more than wall up in its cities, something has to give. All the mongol warriors were mounted so mongol maces and pikes doesnt seem to fit either.

The mongol keshik would still play an important part in destroying the enemy SOD. But you're right that civ combat is too much focussed on cities and thus city taking units are very valuable.
 
If your figures are correct, then those are very good points. What you're actually saying is that the obsolescence of the battleship due to very high cost is a mythos. Or maybe it's just the obsolescence of thick armour but other new elements also cost a lot.

By the way: in the present setup, the battleship has 50% odds when going one-on-one with the missile cruiser which is not correct. I think it wouldn't stand a chance in reality because it would be destroyed before it ever could fire its big guns (which would of course instantly annihilate a missile cruiser).

I think the Iowa's wouldn't have been brought back from retirement if the US had been fighting foes that had equally advanced military hardware as they had. But if the enemy doesn't have good military hardware, then those shells are probably cheaper than missiles and your ships aren't going to be sunk by enemy missiles anyway. In the end it's just a calculation of how to kill the enemy the cheapest.

I like the current LoR set up of the cruiser and battleship, as far as power goes. Missle Cruiser is more powerful but both bombard and the same rate. Its mostly huge imbalance of cost that concerns me. Irregardless of my figures, for gameplay it double rewards the player with greater powered unit and more of said unit.

Dont know if it is entirely a mythos about battleships. Definately most of it is true. Alot of it is "not putting all your eggs in one basket thing." It was supposed to be obseleted by the advent of aircraft carriers. But obviously they still make large capitol ships, just not quite so big.

The US is probably one of the few who could afford to field a battleship, and only barely. I think the high cost of maintanence is several fold. For one they need an enourmous crew, and they are so old alot of thier parts arent made anymore and need replacing. Im just naturally skeptical of military "experts". Twice, that I know of, they said the age of the dogfight is over. When clearly it wasnt and wont be for a while. They went so far as to make F-4's without guns, until they started getting shot down by technologically inferior MiG's.
 
I like the current LoR set up of the cruiser and battleship, as far as power goes. Missle Cruiser is more powerful but both bombard and the same rate. Its mostly huge imbalance of cost that concerns me. Irregardless of my figures, for gameplay it double rewards the player with greater powered unit and more of said unit.

Dont know if it is entirely a mythos about battleships. Definately most of it is true. Alot of it is "not putting all your eggs in one basket thing." It was supposed to be obseleted by the advent of aircraft carriers. But obviously they still make large capitol ships, just not quite so big.

The US is probably one of the few who could afford to field a battleship, and only barely. I think the high cost of maintanence is several fold. For one they need an enourmous crew, and they are so old alot of thier parts arent made anymore and need replacing. Im just naturally skeptical of military "experts". Twice, that I know of, they said the age of the dogfight is over. When clearly it wasnt and wont be for a while. They went so far as to make F-4's without guns, until they started getting shot down by technologically inferior MiG's.

(reality, not the game) I think it's actually a worse case for the navy: I think their whole era is over. Any capital ship can be sunk by powerful ship killing missiles which can be fired from airplanes and land based locations. Missiles exist that stay close to the water and can fly at supersonic speeds over large distances. And such missiles only cost a tiny tiny fraction of what the capital ship costs so you can afford to lose a few to any defensive measures that might exist or are developed.

Aircraft carriers can easily be replaced by airborne refuelling which is far more flexible and a lot faster if you want to suddenly strike a distant target.

The only reason that these ships still exist is because the most powerful nations elect to fight against nations that don't own such missiles or don't have the means to deliver such weapons. In that case, it is nice to have a moveable airbase close to the enemy.

I think that if the world was divided into two powerful nations separated by an ocean with the present technology, then both wouldn't be able to move their navy close the others lands because it would be annihilated. And because heavy material cannot be transported en masse through the air over an ocean, it would be hard to fight eachother with conventional weapons on eachothers lands. The whole war would consist of bombing and missiles and fighter airplanes until one or the other was weakened so badly that it became possible to transport military hardware over the ocean to the others lands. (all of this assumes a conventional conflict without nukes which is probably not even that realistic with that setup).
 
O/T:

The Battleship was rendered obsolete, because the Aircraft Carrier could do much more, and for a cheaper price (less steel, less crew, etc - more bang for your buck). The Iowa-class Battleships were taken out of mothballs in the '80s principally at the behest of the Marines who wanted the gunfire support for amphibious landings, and the advent of the Tomahawk cruise missile which made the Battleships decent weapon platforms for surface engagements with the Soviet navy. With automation increases, the crew was able to be cut, as well. With the end of the Cold War, the expense of the platforms was unjustifiable and they were retired for good. Oh, and in reference to the lack of parts mentioned earlier, this actually occurred. One of the great impediments to the idea of bringing the Battleships back on line was the lack of Barrel Liners for the 16" guns (which couldn't be manufactured anymore). Luckily, the Navy lucked into finding a warehouse full of the things.
 
Top Bottom