Coal powered cruisers should -from a historical perspective- go in between frigates and oil powered destroyers. The lack of a bombard between trebuchets and cannons is another irritation of mine.
Between Frigate and Destroyer
- Thread starter Colossian
- Start date
Coal powered cruisers should -from a historical perspective- go in between frigates and oil powered destroyers. The lack of a bombard between trebuchets and cannons is another irritation of mine.
Wolfshanze
CFC Historian
A lot of folks talk about the resources needed... guess I'll add what resources are required with the units I added...
After Frigates, Ships of the Line and Galleons, this is what I did:
Age of Steam:
Ironclad Gunboat (same as default Ironclad... coastal only) - Coal
Ironclad Cruiser (ocean going... light/fast) - Coal
Ironclad Battleship (ocean going... heavy/slow) - Coal
Paddle Steamer (Age of Steam transport) - Coal
Industrial Age:
Protected Cruiser (light/fast) - Coal
Pre-Dreadnought (heavy/slow) - Coal
Transport (now Liberty Class vessel) - Coal/Oil
WWI era:
Destroyer Escort (light/fast) - Coal/Oil
Dreadnought (heavy/slow) - Coal/Oil
Getting back to default Civ4, you then finally progress to what we already have...
WWII era:
Destroyer (light/fast) - Oil
Battleship (heavy/slow) - Oil
PimpyMicPimp
Regrets His Username.
Wolfs mod does make the naval game a lot more interesting, and the changes of age arn't as massive a shock. The models are pretty nice, too. I do wish there was a Super Dreadnaught nation unit, though. 
But that's just me.
But that's just me.
Warlord Sam
2500 hours and counting..
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2001
- Messages
- 379
Wolf's mod looks good, but I sure wish he wouldn't take anyone saying they weren't interested in his mod as a personal attack against him in which he needs to defend himself
Ace of Gold
MAKE WAY FOR THE BAD GUY
some modern french ships will be cool
It should come a bit after that. I think requiring Railroad would be good. I have been testing the following.
Cruiser
Str 16, +60% vs. Destroyer [25.6 vs Destroyer]. Move 6. Cost 150. Requires Iron & Coal. Available w/ Steel and Railroad.
2 Cruisers vs. 3 Ironclads [300 hammers each]: Cruisers win roughly 5 out of 8.
4 Cruisers vs. 3 Destroyers [600 hammers each]: Cruisers win roughly 3 out of 8.
This seems to be a reasonable unit in both the ironclad and destroyer age and in between. Trades well at cost vs. ironclads and poorly vs. destroyers, but makes for an interesting fight versus either.
The ironclad is fine in its own way, but is insufficient to being able to fend off a few destroyers in case some civ managed to get those before you did. It happened to me multiple times that when attacking destroyers with 3 or more ironclads, the ironclads got beat (obviously) but without so much as harming the destroyer.
Besides that, frigates are a little too expensive to upgrade to destroyers so your experienced frigates have to wait to get upgraded until you have loads of cash or they get sacked.
Finally, ironclads cannot be used to protect your galleons travelling to another continent. In combination with airships your frigates are sitting ducks.
So one unit in between the ironclad and destroyer around and about Str 18 would be very nice (perhaps with the possiblity to promote them with collateral like battleships).
But the Wolfshanze mod or most mods for that fact contain too many units. I suspect the AI does not know when to build them and having that many options will obviously build at least two or more types of them and considering the mass production of caravels (see Odd behaviour topic) at the wrong time, this could happen with all these new units too.
About the Cuirassier: I like this unit and I've always wanted a unit in between knights and cavs.
Besides that, frigates are a little too expensive to upgrade to destroyers so your experienced frigates have to wait to get upgraded until you have loads of cash or they get sacked.
Finally, ironclads cannot be used to protect your galleons travelling to another continent. In combination with airships your frigates are sitting ducks.
So one unit in between the ironclad and destroyer around and about Str 18 would be very nice (perhaps with the possiblity to promote them with collateral like battleships).
But the Wolfshanze mod or most mods for that fact contain too many units. I suspect the AI does not know when to build them and having that many options will obviously build at least two or more types of them and considering the mass production of caravels (see Odd behaviour topic) at the wrong time, this could happen with all these new units too.
About the Cuirassier: I like this unit and I've always wanted a unit in between knights and cavs.
PibbZ
Paladin
I totally agree. There are eras of the game that i enjoy more, like the magical first 2500 years, and the medieval era. I always try to start a crusade in this era, and focusing on knights, longbowmen and macemen / pikemen / trebs. Its so lovely!
These units stay viable for a long time, especially if you're quick to feudalism. I frowned upon the introducition of the cuirassier, as its only a couple of techs away when you first get Guilds. They are lovely during the colonial era though, gives me the colonization feeling all over again
On subject, ships. I LOVE the age of sail, privateers is usually responsible for 2-3 great generals (Victoria), and a LOT of cash. However, the transistion to Destroyer might seem a bit harsh, ive learned to live with it. Its a pretty huge gap between these two, and my games focus on naval warfare is fading when more civs build up a lot of frigates and ship of the line.
I'd love to see ONE ship in between though, or make the Ironclad an ocean-going vessel, and maybe give it bonuses based on resources? +2 strength if you have access to coal, and an additional +1 or +2 str if you have access to iron? Not sure but it could be a solution.
Why is this suddenly at Wolfshanze thread?
I`d like to see the Destroyer nerfed, but with a modifier against certain other ships such as subs. I think it is way too powerful now.
I also think we need a dreadnought class battleship and the graphics for the transport should be changed so it doesn`t look like a WW2 era ship. I think the stats are OK.
I`d like to see the Destroyer nerfed, but with a modifier against certain other ships such as subs. I think it is way too powerful now.
I also think we need a dreadnought class battleship and the graphics for the transport should be changed so it doesn`t look like a WW2 era ship. I think the stats are OK.
Wodan
Deity
Like I said, there already is something between frigate and destroyer. You may disagree with its gameplay value, but that's a different question than was asked.
Wodan
jkp1187
Unindicted Co-Conspirator
Like I said, there already is something between frigate and destroyer. You may disagree with its gameplay value, but that's a different question than was asked.
Wodan
Which is why I suggested that it might be best to replace the Ironclad as opposed to throwing a new unit in between Ironclad and Destroyer....
It just seems that if you're going to create an ocean-going coal-fired ship, there's almost no point to having an Ironclad.
Wodan
Deity
No, I disagree there. There's plenty of "room" for an ocean-going coal-fired ship between Ironclad and Destroyer. As SLM said (which I agree with), multiple Ironclads have a very tough time facing up against a single Destroyer.
It's like the progression from Macemen to Riflemen. Ironclads are the "Musketmen". They're okay as is, IMO; though yes they have their limitations. What we need to add is a analogue to the Grenadier.
Wodan
It's like the progression from Macemen to Riflemen. Ironclads are the "Musketmen". They're okay as is, IMO; though yes they have their limitations. What we need to add is a analogue to the Grenadier.
Wodan
Wolfshanze
CFC Historian
Exactly what do you think the nations of the world used in the 2nd half of the 19th century if not coal-fired, ocean-going ironclads? That's what all the major naval powers were using for nearly half a century.
Just because Firaxis doesn't know their history doesn't mean everyone needs to latch onto Firaxis' wrong vision of what an Ironclad is and treat it like the Bible of history. Folks... go to the library, look on-line... every major power used ocean going ironclads for half a century. If you think Ironclad means Monitor/Merrimac (actually CSS Virginia), then you don't know what the average Ironclad actually was.
There were lots of ocean going ironclads that were much bigger/stronger then the ironclad riverboats Firaxis included.
Also, besides the Ironclad era (1855-1890), there are two distinct naval eras between Ironclads and WWII... the Pre-Dreadnought era of the roughly 1890-1906 and the Dreadnought era of WWI.
Which is why I suggested that it might be best to replace the Ironclad as opposed to throwing a new unit in between Ironclad and Destroyer....
It just seems that if you're going to create an ocean-going coal-fired ship, there's almost no point to having an Ironclad.
I see the Ironclad in Civ4 as being primarily a defensive unit, in that it is limited in speed and to coastal waters. Great for protecting your fish, crab, and clam resources.
It's 50% stronger (12) than the frigate (8), which is a good amount. The problem is that there is a 150% jump in strength from the ironclad to the destroyer (30). That pretty-much makes fighting destroyers with anything else a waste of time. (*)
What's missing is middle jump in strength, say about 18. That would give a 50% increase over ironclads (and make it ocean-going capable to compete with destroyers). Then, the jump from 18 to 30 would be a 66% increase in strength, which is manageable to fight against with numbers.
I don't really see the need in the ship-of-the-line. Perhaps replace it with the strength-18 ship that is needed. Easy mod, I suppose, if one simply wants to change its strength and tech/resource requirements. But I really don't like messing with the base game too much, in case it confuses the AI.
(*) One solution to the destroyer vs. ironclad problem is to use airships to beat down the destroyers before attacking. So, I suppose the warfare against them isn't entirely futile.
jkp1187
Unindicted Co-Conspirator
Well, the real problem here, I think, is that the designers chose to favor oil-based navies over coal. I understand this decision and, from a game-play perspective, think it works fine; in truth, my desire for the armored cruiser comes more from historical nostalgia than anything else. Apparently, the designers wanted to make oil-based navies superior in every way to coal- or sail-based navies.
So Ironclads can't leave the coast, and can't beat Destroyers. Otherwise, for reasons related to the way naval combat works in the game, the land-based warmonger might get away with spamming armored cruisers whenever he needed escorts for his transports and not need to worry about securing oil.
The oceangoing Armored Cruiser might upset that balance.
I also don't think Railroad is sufficient distance away from the Ironclad-enabling techs (Steam Power + Steel) to make the Ironclad era anything but short. Steam + Steel are also the prereqs for Railroads...so that means - what? Time to build two ironclads before Armored Cruisers are available?
Believe me, I'd love to have them in...but I'm just not sure the balance works.
So Ironclads can't leave the coast, and can't beat Destroyers. Otherwise, for reasons related to the way naval combat works in the game, the land-based warmonger might get away with spamming armored cruisers whenever he needed escorts for his transports and not need to worry about securing oil.
The oceangoing Armored Cruiser might upset that balance.
I also don't think Railroad is sufficient distance away from the Ironclad-enabling techs (Steam Power + Steel) to make the Ironclad era anything but short. Steam + Steel are also the prereqs for Railroads...so that means - what? Time to build two ironclads before Armored Cruisers are available?
Believe me, I'd love to have them in...but I'm just not sure the balance works.
Wolfshanze
CFC Historian
Adding a few units doesn't confuse the AI so long as they are in a "logical progression".
I suppose if you added "weighted" units (units with twice the firepower but half the cost of another unit) you might be able to confuse the computer in what to buy, but as long as the item you add is between two units in strength and cost, I have NEVER seen the AI act funny about added units. They use them normally, then move-on when newer units come about.
Lets be honest... the game was built with user mods in mind... the AI can certainly handle some new units.
I've been giving my prior responses about asking for another unit between ironclad and destroyer a second thought. I no longer think it is needed, and Firaxis intentionally wanted large gaps in naval strength.
There are 5 main eras in naval power:
1. The trireme (strength 2, limited to coast).
2. The caravel (strength 3, 50% more powerful, ocean-faring).
3. The frigate (strength 8 , 166% more powerful, ocean-faring).
4. The ironclad (strength 12, 50% more powerful, limited to coast).
5. The destroyer (strength 30, 150% more powerful, ocean-faring).
Notice the two huge leaps in strength, when you go from caravel to frigate, and then from ironclad to destroyer. This makes getting the techs for frigates and destroyers key, if you want to fight a naval war.
I don't think Firaxis goofed up and simply missed units to bridge these gaps. I think they intended those large leaps in strength. It was likely for game-balance reasons, to allow the player a choice to concentrate on land or sea techs, and to separate the game into major eras.
It's a bit of a bummer to half to dock all your ships when the enemy gets frigates (and again at destroyer), but I think that gives a naval strategy a fighting chance against an opponent concentrating on land units. Firaxis must have wanted the naval techs to play an important role, and make the player keep up or forget about intercontinental wars.
I'm still not sure if I like it, but I'm beginning to understand the rational.
There are 5 main eras in naval power:
1. The trireme (strength 2, limited to coast).
2. The caravel (strength 3, 50% more powerful, ocean-faring).
3. The frigate (strength 8 , 166% more powerful, ocean-faring).
4. The ironclad (strength 12, 50% more powerful, limited to coast).
5. The destroyer (strength 30, 150% more powerful, ocean-faring).
Notice the two huge leaps in strength, when you go from caravel to frigate, and then from ironclad to destroyer. This makes getting the techs for frigates and destroyers key, if you want to fight a naval war.
I don't think Firaxis goofed up and simply missed units to bridge these gaps. I think they intended those large leaps in strength. It was likely for game-balance reasons, to allow the player a choice to concentrate on land or sea techs, and to separate the game into major eras.
It's a bit of a bummer to half to dock all your ships when the enemy gets frigates (and again at destroyer), but I think that gives a naval strategy a fighting chance against an opponent concentrating on land units. Firaxis must have wanted the naval techs to play an important role, and make the player keep up or forget about intercontinental wars.
I'm still not sure if I like it, but I'm beginning to understand the rational.
Wolfshanze
CFC Historian
Yes, Firaxis is all-knowing, they never make mistakes or ommisions and every single nuance of the game is a deliberate masterpiece of foresight and planning.
The designers of the game, for a lack of a better word, are simply perfect, in all that they do.
Frankly, I don't know why any mods exist... there is clearly nothing to be improved upon... Firaxis left no room for improvement anywhere.
The designers of the game, for a lack of a better word, are simply perfect, in all that they do.
Frankly, I don't know why any mods exist... there is clearly nothing to be improved upon... Firaxis left no room for improvement anywhere.
Hey wolf, what is your problem anyway? You seem to take every message (directed to you or not) as some form of personal assault on you. I think you need to chill out, and realize that other people have different ideas than you. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean your honor is being attacked. Jeeesh... get over yourself!
Actually I would give the ironclad a bonus vs. the new vessel (so it remains useful defensively, but the new vessel can damage destroyers), and make the new vessel significantly more expensive. It would become simply, ironclad is more cost effective if you don't need to cross oceans or try to fight destroyers.
Wolfhanze: You are insulting people because they want to remain with the current core gameplay, even though your mod states it attempts to remain as close to the core gameply as possible.....
Similar threads
