Balance: Frigates

[Rohili]

What Smote is trying to explain is that the first (human) player that reach Navigation and get iron has the huge ability to whipe out a couple of coastal cities without a problem. I repeat : without a single problem.

I'm not sure I understand this. Frigates alone can't take a city; they only help weaken it. You will still need land units or privateers to actually take it.

And Civ has always been a game where a tech lead invariably gives you a huge military advantage. It's no different from saying that the first player to reach nuclear missiles has the huge ability to wipe out a few cities without a problem.

 

[General McUgly]

In general, I don't have much of a problem with this; there are just a couple epochs in the game where one type of unit is king, and dealing with the advent of frigates or bombers or composite bowmen is just one of those things. They're hard but not impossible to defend against.

But if you went for the bottom of the tech tree, you could have cannons when your opponent has frigates, and you can make your coastal forts by using forts...on the coast, and plopping cannons in those.

(cue everyone saying how they don't ever build forts) BUILD FORTS! At least build forts during the time that you need them and tear them up later on.

If you aren't going naval, don't build cities on the tip of capes, where they can be surrounded by 15 Frigates, build them on straight coasts where you can defend them with land units.

Exactly, it just takes strategy and some knowledge of the beast you're facing.

Hell, build them in a small natural harbor(a cove even), and start some concentrated trebuchet/cannon fire on any frigate unfortunate enough to visit you.

 

[Smote]

But if you went for the bottom of the tech tree, you could have cannons when your opponent has frigates, and you can make your coastal forts by using forts...on the coast, and plopping cannons in those.

(cue everyone saying how they don't ever build forts) BUILD FORTS! At least build forts during the time that you need them and tear them up later on.

This is exactly what I think the solution should be. But the power numbers for the units need to make this viable, instead of it just being a concept. Currently, they don't. As I said earlier, a big defense upgrade for cannons in forts and a bonus vs naval units would work here.

Once again: I agree that you can use your own navy to defend against an enemy navy. But it shouldn't be required. You should be able to say: I have tons of guns on my coast, and you can't come close. You can have the rest of the ocean.

This major unit imbalance gives people that start away from the coast on a map where oceans are relevant a major disadvantage, since any coastal city they build will not be able to be defended during the Rennaissance. They will not have enough coastal hammers to compete in a battle for naval supremacy with an enemy civ that does have their capital on the coast.

Now, a solution is of course to not build any cities on the coast. However, I think there should be some way of defending a straight coastline vs naval vessels.

Something like this: http://www.eveandersson.com/photo-display/large/portugal/sagres-fortaleza-cannon-3.html

 

[johnny_rudeboy]

Now, a solution is of course to not build any cities on the coast. However, I think there should be some way of defending a straight coastline vs naval vessels.

Something like this: http://www.eveandersson.com/photo-display/large/portugal/sagres-fortaleza-cannon-3.html

http://civilization.wikia.com/wiki/Cannon_(Civ5)


If you dont go for the upper tech tree because you are not a coastal civ well then expect to be at disadvantage when you settle on the coast and thus enters the naval civs world.

 

[Walter R]

http://civilization.wikia.com/wiki/Cannon_(Civ5)


If you dont go for the upper tech tree because you are not a coastal civ well then expect to be at disadvantage when you settle on the coast and thus enters the naval civs world.

Sorry Smote I tend to agree. And as Polisurgist was implying, there's always a viable counter-measure. I play as England a lot, and I can assure you there are coastal cities I will happily attack with my SOTL and ones I will avoid until the modern era (i.e. when I have air support). And remember, line-of-sight is a killer for units without indirect fire - if you can't attack a target with several ships at the same time you are extremely vulnerable (one or two ships only do not want to get into a slugfest with a well defended city)

 

[greygamer]

Archipelago are considered easy largely because of Frigates, using strategies like those detailed above. The fact that the AI is so bad at naval/ranged combat only compounds that. Of course Frigates or Ships of the Line were how the dominant powers of the time projected their power overseas. However even the English built coastal defences (i.e. Martello towers) to protect against the massed firepower of a naval fleet.

Perhaps work boats should be able to build something similar unlockable by Chemistry? It would have similar charactistics to a Frigate, maybe slightly less ranged strength. They would be built on coast or atoll tiles but could be plundered by naval melee units.

 

[eldiablonoche]

Until the city power reaches around 50 (60?) there is no land-based solution to an attack force of 8 frigates and a privateer. This seems silly.

You can say the same thing about something in every era though... rush crossbows or composites and bring 8 of them with 1 melee and you'll rip a couple cities down. same with frigates, artillery, cannons if you know what you're doing, bombers, nukes, xcoms...

Heck, if you rush submarines they have no counters except other subs and you can cripple any coastal power (all naval units, resources, trade routes gone) for dozens of turns with no counters. I don't see any imbalances, just strategies.

 

[Solipsism]

I think there is a difference here between those who play multiplayer and those who defend against silly AI frigates...

Frigates are indeed terribly unbalanced. 5-6 frigates and a privateer will let you conquer every coastal city in 1-2 turns practically without damage. The age of sail is just a big coastal city conquest and experienced players avoid to settle on the coast because of it. There is no land-based defense. Expensive cannons and forts will die easily to frigates and are immobile in comparison. Try it.

I'd say a combinaton of nerfing frigates/privateers, add coastal fortress and reduce overall city damage to ranged attacks in general (with greater weakness to melee). Alternatively remove all naval bombardment damage to cities or something similarly radical.

This about realism.. well, the opium wars were not fought and won by frigates but by marines.

Fleets should be at a great disadvantage against land-based fortifications. Their advantage is mobility and the ability to bockade. Heck, did Britain occupy the whole French coast during the Napoleon wars with their fleet? Did Germany sail straight into Leningrad in WW2? Invading overseas should be an obstacle even to a naval power, disregarding the mobility advantage. This is a major problem of the current battle system.

 

[Polisurgist]

I think there is a difference here between those who play multiplayer and those who defend against silly AI frigates...

Here's Tired Civ Argument #1. You'd get it if you played against humans more!!! If this were really the root of the problem, then a human with that fleet of 5-6 frigates and a privateer would be able to steamroll over the AI even better than your hypothetical human-on-human genocide, and I for one just don't see it happen all that much, mostly because the AI is smart enough to build 1-2 frigates of their own.

Frigates are indeed terribly unbalanced. 5-6 frigates and a privateer will let you conquer every coastal city in 1-2 turns practically without damage. The age of sail is just a big coastal city conquest and experienced players avoid to settle on the coast because of it. There is no land-based defense. Expensive cannons and forts will die easily to frigates and are immobile in comparison. Try it.[/quotes]
Experienced players who've pre-determined that they aren't going to build a navy are rather smart to then not build on the coast, yes. Like experienced players who've pre-determined they aren't going to build any mounted units are smart not to go out of their way to settle near horses. And how I, as an experienced cook, know not to stuff my hand into a soup pot full of boiling water.

I'd say a combinaton of nerfing frigates/privateers, add coastal fortress and reduce overall city damage to ranged attacks in general (with greater weakness to melee). Alternatively remove all naval bombardment damage to cities or something similarly radical.

This about realism.. well, the opium wars were not fought and won by frigates but by marines.

Aside from this being Tired Civ Argument #2, those marines (prior to the actual Marine unit) are represented in the game by...melee ships, which attack via boarding action. Those are your Privateers finishing the job in the age of sail.

I think something like giving anything with a bonus vs. cities a similar bonus vs. naval units or something that works vs. naval attack the way a bomb shelter works against nuclear (hell, do something like this for air raids too) wouldn't subtract terribly from the game, but they wouldn't add much either. There's no reason why the person who overlooks a rather simple precaution is entitled to immunity from that vector of attack.

 

[johnny_rudeboy]

England did occupy Beijing at the end of the 2nd opium war but it was their naval superiority that made that possible. And it was their fleet that won the first war. Land based military have always been lower on the list then navy or air force. Rule the seas and rule the sky and you also rule the earth. If you control the sea you basically control the world trade and having a strong navy should reflect that. Why do ppl think Egypt is still so important? Well they control the Suez channel. Why is America, during a time of financial crisis investing in their Pacific navy? Well, to have control of the trade routes. For the same reasons China is now putting carriers in the water.
One of the key elements for WW1 was Germany´s Berlin-to-Baghdad railway in cooperation with the Ottomans that would allow Germany to upgrade their fleet and fuel it with oil rather then coal. And could push them perhaps not above the English, not at that time anyway, but it would close the gap between the two. And why was that important? Well, because every one at that time understood that just like in the past, in the future, the one who control the sea will control the trade. What point would it be for German factories to produce so much goods if they cant secure the shipping to overseas markets?

One of the key reasons for the Spanish empire to collapse was that their navy was surpassed by other major powers such as England at the time. I might add that it was the use of their navy that made it sure they actually got an empire in the first place. The battle of Havana is a good example.

A short summery of the opium wars.
http://www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/history/opium-wars.html

Info about the Baghdad railway.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baghdad_Railway#Role_in_origins_of_World_War_I

Info about the battle of Havana
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Havana_(1762)

Edit: Might add that key reason for Japan declaring war on the US was because the US had stopped supplying them with oil. Reason for that? Well Japans warmongering was backed by a strong navy fuelled by oil. Halting Japan meant you would have to halt their fleet. Easiest way to do that was to cut them off from the oil. Again, the importance off naval superiority.

 

[Smote]

To the suggestion of "just build a boat or 2, you'll be fine:"

Try defending 3 frigates + 1 city vs 5 frigates + 1 privateer.

Assuming you do tactics perfectly:
Turn 1: You sink 1 frigate, 1 of your frigates is sunk, 1 is damaged, privateer failed to capture the frigate
Turn 2: You sink a frigate (unlikely), swap the hurt one into the city, lose the other frigate, privateer failed to capture the frigate.

Now its 3 frigates + privateer against 1 frigate + city. Then they sit there, wait for reinforcements, and you can't add frigates because they'll immediately die. In 10 turns or so, the city is lost. This is optimal circumstances with a coastal city when you don't have as many boats as your opponent.

Assuming opponent does tactics perfectly:
Rd 1: Opponent immediately damages and captures a frigate, badly wounds another, now its 6 frigates and 1 privateer vs 2 frigates and 1 city. You sink the privateer.
Rd 2. Opponent sinks the frigate outside the city, waits for another privateer. You lose the city.

So at the end of the day, you are gonna have 1 frigate, opponent will have 3-7 frigates, and your city will soon be captured when your opponent receives reinforcements, since you are unable to mass a navy.

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.

 

[Tabarnak]

Grenadiers at gunpowder is a good alternative. Getting cannons before astronomy and navigation is even more painful for obvious reasons. You need to know the rest of the world fast and leverage trades.

If you stay isolated you screw yourself. Coastal cities are more powerful than inland ones when managed properly. You can't deny that. Frigates are a must because of these reasons but also because it's the strongest unit at that time. No iron to upgrade can be annoying too.

Or Physics with specially trained trebuchets to put down boats(bonus against sea units) with a storng cover bonus too.

 

[johnny_rudeboy]

You just dont get it Smote. Build forts on the coast and put cannons in them. Sure, even that is not enough if the attacking armada is big enough. And it should not be. Coastal cities have fallen all the time through out history, even the well protected ones.

And what you are looking for is a way to stay safely on the cost with minimum effort while another Civ have invested beakers and hammers to get an advantage on that specific terrain. Is that fair?

You dont hear players who like to play naval games complaining that their enemies have stronger land units then they have? If you dont want to build a strong navy your self, dont care for building coastal forts, well then stay off the coast.

Edit: And frigates can not heal out side of friendly territory, something your defending ships dont have to worry about. If it gets badly injured, well place it our of harms way inside the city until its healed up.

 

[Smote]

The battle of Havana is an excellent example of why coastal fortresses need to be added.

In civ, Havana would likely be a city with space for 3-4 frigates to bombard, and a castle. This would likely put it at power ~35. There would be 1 frigate inside it, as well as a crossbowman, representing the defensive forces. A fleet of 7 frigates + 1 privateer will be able to conquer this.

In RL, the British did not just send their navies to bombard the defenses. They landed 13,000+ troops and built siege equipment, and started bombarding the Fortress of Morro for a week and a half, at which point yellow fever and a fire ruined the siege.

"On 1 July, the British launched a combined land and naval attack on the Morro. The fleet detached 4 ships of the line for this purpose: HMS Stirling Castle, HMS Dragon, HMS Marlborough and HMS Cambridge. The naval and land artilleries simultaneously opened fire on the Morro. However, naval guns were ineffective, the fort being located too high. Counter-fire from 30 guns of the Morro inflicted 192 casualties and seriously damaged the ships, three of which later sank, forcing them to withdraw. Meanwhile, the bombardment by the land artillery was far more effective. By the end of the day, only 3 Spanish guns were still effective on the side of the Morro facing the British batteries."

You can see how the Morro was devastatingly effective against the British fleet. This is how it should be in Civ: there needs to be some sort of land-based defense that is very effective towards boats, like the aforementioned coastal fortresses, or cannons in forts, or something.

The British took the Morro by pounding it with cannons for a month (500-600 daily hits) while building a mine towards the Morro and filling it with explosives. Once they detonated the mine, forming a ditch with cover from fire from the fort, they could rush it and capture it. They eventually took the town after another couple weeks.

Frigates are extremely fast, extremely powerful ranged units at the time in which you get them. All this talk of vs power 30+ cities is deceptive: many cities are not even 20 power when you arrive at frigates. And while frigates can conquer cities up to about power 50-60, you should see how devastating they are to power 18 cities.

The suggestion of nerfing ranged unit damage against cities makes a lot of sense. They really shouldn't be the primary way of taking down a city's defenses like they are now.

 

[Smote]

You just dont get it Smote. Build forts on the coast and put cannons in them.

The problem is, which you don't seem to understand, is that cannons in forts currently do not help at all. Cannons do not receive defensive bonuses from forts.

 

[Polisurgist]

If you stay isolated you screw yourself. Coastal cities are more powerful than inland ones when managed properly. You can't deny that. Frigates are a must because of these reasons but also because it's the strongest unit at that time. No iron to upgrade can be annoying too.

I think you have a great solution here.

Seriously, why is this different than any other unit which can overpower a certain tactic?

 

[Smote]

Yes, I agree Tabarnak, that getting Metallurgy instead of Astronomy is painful for the reasons you mentioned (diplomacy, trade deals, city states, seeing the map, finding natural wonders). The problem is that building tons of coastal defenses should at least be work well at staving off naval attacks, which it currently doesn't. There just isn't an option to do this, until artillery, where you can then just line your coast with 10 or so artillery and say "yo, frigates, come at me bro." But frigates are far earlier in the tech tree than artillery. Cannons just don't have the power numbers to do anything against frigates, especially if the frigates have the bombard upgrades.

 

[Smote]

Seriously, why is this different than any other unit which can overpower a certain tactic?

No other unit is ranged, has much higher combat numbers than everything else in its era, and is extremely fast (5 movement.)

 

[johnny_rudeboy]

The problem is, which you don't seem to understand, is that cannons in forts currently do not help at all. Cannons do not receive defensive bonuses from forts.

They dont? I know they cant fortify, but why should they, they are there to be used. But the fort should give a defensive bonus to cannons. And you can always have a cannon behind it to take damaged cannons place on the front line.

 

[Polisurgist]

No other unit is ranged, has much higher combat numbers than everything else in its era, and is extremely fast (5 movement.)

Bombers don't? Rocket Artillery doesn't?