Balance: Frigates

[Browd]

I think he means in the Renaissance and Industrial Eras.

GW Bombers are Modern and Bombers and Rocket Artillery are Atomic Era, but once you hit Modern you're upgrading your Frigates to Battleships anyway.

 

[Polisurgist]

I think he means in the Renaissance and Industrial Eras.

GW Bombers are Modern and Bombers and Rocket Artillery are Atomic Era, but once you hit Modern you're upgrading your Frigates to Battleships anyway.

Sure, but it still applies that Frigate dominance is just another epoch in the game where a unit shows up that can trump strategies that don't account for it. I don't see the huge problem here, or at least I don't see how Frigates are unbalanced in a way that Crossbows, Artillery, Bombers or Rocket Artillery aren't. The best anyone's come up with in response to "if you're going to rely on coastal cities, try having a navy of your own" has been "it's hard to defend against five frigates when you only have one." Not terribly convincing to me.

 

[Light Cleric]

My only complaint about Frigates/Battleships is when they end up being used for defense on small lakes that you can't bring your own ships into. The AI having loads of Bombardment II or III Frigates, even worse, Battleships, patrolling a "coast" that is actually an inland lake is kind of dumb lol.

Although it is kind of silly to me that Bombardment is a flat +33% per rank vs all land units instead of being terrain based, and Targeting is only +15% per rank vs ships(remember when naval combat had a .4 defense multiplier applied so ships always wreck each other? )

 

[Smote]

I don't see how Frigates are unbalanced in a way that Crossbows, Artillery, Bombers or Rocket Artillery aren't.

1. Every city can build land units to stall vs these, so you aren't screwed if your capital is not on the coast.
2. Each of these units (except bombers) have a huge "defender's advantage" that is quite hard to overcome. This is because they are slow units. They typically have to advance into a terrain that favors the defender, either because of tile constraints or vision in defenders territory or roads. This advance takes many turns and the defender has time to prepare. This is totally different from boats on ocean, which always have space to maneuver.
3. Each of these units can be fought against with a different unit from the time effectively.

I'm surprised you don't mention Xcoms or nukes, which are similarly imbalanced, but they come late enough that I don't really care.

 

[Sturmgewher88mm]

The answer to frigates is preparation and more frigates. If your getting wiped out by them, then you don't have enough.

Reminds me of a Civ IV game where I got pushed off the continent and escaped to sea, only to have my galleys and caravels wiped out by three frigates..

 

[johnny_rudeboy]

Perhaps add boom chains and later on water mines when gunpowder is discovered? A work boat could go out and construct either of those, to make who ever attacking the city and sail over that hex getting a 50 HP damage, the boom chain or mine gets destroyed. Cities who have boom chains and water mines outside their city can not work any water tiles nor can they use cargo ships.
It would make it harder capturing cities from the sea during the renaissance and later on.
And these constructions should only be for short time use. If you see and enemy armada coming for you. Build or buy work boats and close the harbour.

 

[Smote]

Perhaps add boom chains and later on water mines when gunpowder is discovered? A work boat could go out and construct either of those, to make who ever attacking the city and sail over that hex getting a 50 HP damage, the boom chain or mine gets destroyed. Cities who have boom chains and water mines outside their city can not work any water tiles nor can they use cargo ships.
It would make it harder capturing cities from the sea during the renaissance and later on.
And these constructions should only be for short time use. If you see and enemy armada coming for you. Build or buy work boats and close the harbour.

That would be really cool!

 

[Smote]

The answer to frigates is preparation and more frigates. If your getting wiped out by them, then you don't have enough.

Yup. I wish there was more strategy diversity here.

 

[Callonia]

IF I remember right, you can build coastal fortresses in civ 3, and they can bombard the enemy ships that approach the city.

 

[Solipsism]

Sure, but it still applies that Frigate dominance is just another epoch in the game where a unit shows up that can trump strategies that don't account for it. I don't see the huge problem here, or at least I don't see how Frigates are unbalanced in a way that Crossbows, Artillery, Bombers or Rocket Artillery aren't. The best anyone's come up with in response to "if you're going to rely on coastal cities, try having a navy of your own" has been "it's hard to defend against five frigates when you only have one." Not terribly convincing to me.

Say crossbows had like double the attack, were untouchable by land melee units, moved 5 hexes unhindered by terrain and, unless the enemy had the previous technology in the line, they could quickly move to unattackable hexes. Then assume the same technology gave you a similar melee unit that allowed you to capture enemy units instead of destroying them, negating any negliable price for conquest that would otherwise happen. Then you are right.

MP on a coastal map = rush to frigates then spam until one player conquers them all. If you don't believe me join our next civ game

And to continue the opium wars saga, the battle were largely fought on land with cannons and marines although the fleet provided mobility. The privateer = marines makes for an unnecessary abstraction when we have land units available. The brits would never have taken the chinese forts if they did not also have more modern rifles and cannons (bottom branch of the research tree).

In gameplay terms, naval battles would be far more interesting if they would do something else than steamrolling cities. A great system for setting up and protecting valuable transports and trade routes is there, but rarely used since the fleet usually ends up conquering capitals instead.

 

[Deggial]

And, once again, I want to promote my "Coastal Fortification"-idea.

Make them a Great Admiral improvement:

- buildable at coastal tiles (adjacent to land only) anywhere on the map, but not inside other culture influence zones
- converts a 2 hex range of water tiles into your culture. (Though no culture flipping of already acclaimed enemy borders.)
- casts a ZoC of 2 hex against enemy ships. (= slows ships down like the Great Wall does on land.)
- can attack ships within 2 hex range.
(- ships may heal additional 10 HP/turn if stationed inside. This is not really necessary, as the cultural influence zone itself already allows ships to heal.)

The idea behind this:
a) helps to defend coastal cities against raids
b) helps to defend naval trade routes against raids
c) may control straits (I love especially this aspect)
d) may be used as sea outpost far away from the own empire.

--
furthermore:
e) is very close to the Great General's ability but not exactly the same.
f) is longer lasting and not so out-of-time in early eras than mine fields.
g) While canals are an interesting and maybe needed addition to the game, I don't think they fit very well to Admirals. After all, canals are mainly used for civil purposes (trading!) and should be a wonder or even a standard (but very expensive) tile improvement.

---

Additionaly, after rading the thread, some more suggestions come into my mind:
- Fix (is it a fix? or does it work as intended? If so: change it!) the fortification bonus of canons in fortresses.
- Give canons in fortrsses +1 range. (Might be too much, though.)
This would increase the usefulness of forts, which I always felt as necessary. Maybe I don't understand to use them properly, but I never build them (at least in the workable city radius).

As some others pointed out, the best way to counter mobile units (the frigates) are other mobile units, not static fortifications. In the long run, they will always lose (as they should!) and I can not see an unbalance inhere.
But with the proposals above, it should be possible to build up a worthwhile coastal deffense to withstand at least against a middle sized fleet.

 

[Polisurgist]

Say crossbows had like double the attack, were untouchable by land melee units, moved 5 hexes unhindered by terrain and, unless the enemy had the previous technology in the line, they could quickly move to unattackable hexes. Then assume the same technology gave you a similar melee unit that allowed you to capture enemy units instead of destroying them, negating any negliable price for conquest that would otherwise happen. Then you are right.

MP on a coastal map = rush to frigates then spam until one player conquers them all. If you don't believe me join our next civ game

Again, if your goal is to convince me that you're an idiot if you don't build ships to protect your coastal cities and possibly to take others, then congratulations.

If you'd also like to convince me that I should build mounted units and tanks on an endless expanse of flat land, you'll find me similarly persuadable. It might also be possible to talk me into not slamming my face in a car door.

 

[eldiablonoche]

Yup. I wish there was more strategy diversity here.

Oddly, I view this in the opposite light. Some of the suggestions about changing/buffing land units/improvements result in less diversity because then you'd only need to go down one part (the bottom) of the tech tree to combat top and bottom strategies.

The point of balance is that if you neglect one aspect then you're at a huge disadvantage to certain strategies. If you want to combat naval, naval is the best option. If nothing land units were a wholly viable strat against navy, you'd never need to build naval units except to conquer.

Aside from the theory, if you only have a small navy (even 2 frigates) vs a larger invasion (say... 6 frigates and a privateer) you'll be able to use your navy, your city, AND any land ranged units (xbows, cannons) to defend. One frigate and one land unit can be in the city and therefore unhurtable until you cycle out for a wounded unit... or you can have a more balanced tech approach.

I guess I just don't see a balance problem.

 

[Smote]

The land ranged units die in 2 shots is the problem, while doing under 20 damage to a frigate per shot. Test it. I've killed a full health crossbow in a single bombard from an armory/heroic epic frigate before. The land units are nearly irrelevant vs promoted frigates. The frigates already have excellent base states, and the Bombard upgrade makes them absurdly OP vs land units. So in your scenario, the small navy would lose any boats outside the city, and any land units outside the city in the 1st turn of combat. Then it'd just be the city and garrison'd forces. We know how that goes.

 

[Solipsism]

Again, if your goal is to convince me that you're an idiot if you don't build ships to protect your coastal cities and possibly to take others, then congratulations.

If you'd also like to convince me that I should build mounted units and tanks on an endless expanse of flat land, you'll find me similarly persuadable. It might also be possible to talk me into not slamming my face in a car door.

Good that you are agreeable. Now due to how the fleet mechanics work, the biggest fleet take little losses in naval battle due to replacements from privateers and no defensive bonuses. They take almost no damage when capturing a city.

A defensive fleet is almost useless and will be largely captured or at best decimated at a very slight cost to the attacker. But then again, you will not even have a defensive fleet worth mentioning unless you reach the same tech at basically the same time as the attackers.

Oddly, I view this in the opposite light. Some of the suggestions about changing/buffing land units/improvements result in less diversity because then you'd only need to go down one part (the bottom) of the tech tree to combat top and bottom strategies.

The point of balance is that if you neglect one aspect then you're at a huge disadvantage to certain strategies. If you want to combat naval, naval is the best option. If nothing land units were a wholly viable strat against navy, you'd never need to build naval units except to conquer.

Aside from the theory, if you only have a small navy (even 2 frigates) vs a larger invasion (say... 6 frigates and a privateer) you'll be able to use your navy, your city, AND any land ranged units (xbows, cannons) to defend. One frigate and one land unit can be in the city and therefore unhurtable until you cycle out for a wounded unit... or you can have a more balanced tech approach.

I guess I just don't see a balance problem.

Well I partly agree, although the top part is very productive for science, religion and culture as well. The problem is that most cities on many maps are coastal and for coastal cities the naval assault is currently much more effective than land-based attacks. The bottom part of the tree becomes useless. And if your target is on another continent this choice is even easier.

2 frigates+land units+city vs 6 frigates and a privateer means death to the city and about 1 lost frigate. It goes like this: Turn 1 4 frigates bombard the city, 2 frigates plus privateer capture defending frigate not in city. Turn 1 city + frigates + crossbows retaliate and sink two frigates. Turn 2 frigates bombard city and privateer capture.

Sum: Player 1 - 1 frigate, + 1 city, player 2: -2 frigates - 1 city

Now if you get the proper technology before your opponent, there are no defending frigates and you can take any coastal city at no cost. It is a tech rush to win naval control.

Especially the balance of cities vs units is completely different for naval battles vs land-based ones, and not this impalance should be in the other direction. It is easier to capture a city by land than by sea alone and has definitely been so throughout history.

Btw, I like the coastal fortress idea too, although it might not be a complete solution to the problem.

 

[Quineloe]

You're being like the AI at lower difficulties. Use tactics. Try a hit-and-run kinda thing using cannons, trade fire, then run back and heal. They can't heal outside of friendly territory.

And build some frigates around yourself for defense. And if you're so frustrated, play Korea and use Turtle Ships: those things can crush Frigates, they can even beat a Ship of the Line!

Did you just suggest hit and run with a unit that can only move two tiles and has to set up prior to firing?

Frigates kill all units of their era in two attacks with bombardment promotions. They don't need to set up to attack. They swoop in and kill every single unit you have on the coast. Units you don't have on the coast have a hard time getting there to shoot the frigates, and if they hit the damage isn't anywhere close enough to sink a frigate. Then you have only damaged one of the enemy fleet, the others will destroy all your newly arrived units on their next turn.

Frigates should have never had a range of two. The attack range of rated ships cannons was never that long, a classical era catapult was capable of lobbing a rock twice as far as a ship mounted cannon could effectively shoot.

 

[DarthSheldonPhD]

While this applies to the OP (balancing frigates), it's more of a general statement. The game seems to have lost an interesting aspect of it's military unit progression. From CivI-CivIII, military units worked on a rock/paper/scissors basis (spearman beat knight, knight beats swordsman, swordsman beat spearman), and we really don't do that anymore. Now they operate on a "novel unit of the era" basis, where a carpet of Cbows with a paper melee unit to capture was one wave, a carpet of pikes the next wave, Frigates with a capture privateer, and so on. What's unfortunate is that the 1UPT rule would make the old format of rock/paper/scissors incredibly interesting. While there are still some units designed to counter others, all the different multipliers, along with sheer number pounding, make them all but irrelevant.

I miss the days when I wouldn't dare attack a spearman with a horseman.

 

[Sturmgewher88mm]

If instead you could prepare some sort of land-based defense, this situation would not be so one-sided. This is the frustrating thing about Renaissance navies. You are *required* to have more boats than your opponent, assuming you have any important coastal cities. There is no alternative. This is because once you lose your first naval battle, you can no longer build a navy or your ships are sunk immediately.

I always make a strong navy one of my top priorities, so I've never suffered at the hands of "unbalanced frigate fleets". I always have about six frigates and a caravel or two patrolling the world's oceans, and I've only had to defend against a few naval fleets, which were crushed within a few turns. This is mostly because I believe that offense is the best defense, and I usually take the fight to the enemy before they get a chance at my territory.

The best answer to this scenario of "3 frigates and a city vs. 6 frigates and a privateer" is to sink the privateer only, hide one ship in the city, and have the other two escape to hunt down any reinforcements. They can bombard the city all they want, but they can't do any real harm without a melee unit. Then you can leisurely pick off the frigates with the city and the hidden frigate.

 

[Callonia]

IF I remember right, you can build coastal fortresses in civ 3, and they can bombard the enemy ships that approach the city.

HAHA I knew it! I wasn't crazy after all!

http://www.civfanatics.com/civ3/improvements/
Coastal Fortress

Cost: 40
Culture: 0

Upkeep: 0
Provides a naval bombardment defense of 8, +50% against naval attacks, and automatically bombards passing enemy ships

Building a coastal fortress shouldn't require a great admiral. Would be ridiculous. Although that would only be a sensible suggestion towards people that play only on tiny maps. That's just plain horrid idea for huge maps when there is easily hundreds of coastal cities.

If it really must be it, then it needs to be a deathstar of coastal fortresses, with normal coastal fortresses being built by workers or cities. Like how workers can build forts but only great generals can build citadels.

 

[Dogmouth]

Nerfing frigates would make iron -- one of the most important strategic resources in all of history -- even more useless than it already is. Frigates are the only reason anyone cares about iron anymore.