Between Frigate and Destroyer

[jkp1187]

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.

Maybe. But you'd have to make Ironclads a comparative bargain vs. the Armored Cruiser.

Maybe the Armored Cruiser would have to be 200h, also, to make the economics of the Ironclad a worthwhile choice?

Unfortunately, this also doesn't feel right historically (and, in my mind, historical realism was the main reason I wanted to have an Armored Cruiser....)

 

[Woody1]

To keep things balanced with the destroyer, you can't have the cruiser cost as much as a destroyer. The higher-tech units should be more expensive.

 

[Wolfshanze]

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!

Newsflash... I don't think anyone has attacked me, nor am I attacking anyone else. A differance of opinion is a differance of opinion. When someone says "Firaxis did it intentionally and it makes perfect sense..." forgive me if I chuckle a bit... you guys have the thinest skins of anyone around. I've been on this planet for a long time and you guys stress over the simplest things.

I don't think I'm better then anyone else... but I do think I have the same rights as you to voice an opinion. You said Firaxis did it intentionally... I think not.

 

[Woody1]

Firaxis has had 2 expansion packs + numerous patches to "fix" the problem if they wanted to do so. Warlords added the trireme as the same strength as the galley. BTS added the ship-of-the-line, the same strength as the frigate. If they wanted to create ships in strength between the ironclad and the destroyer, they would have done so long ago.

I'm not saying I like the gap between ironclad and destroyer (or between caravelle and frigate for that matter), but it seems pretty evident to me that Firaxis intended the gap to be there. It was likely done for either gameplay reasons or for realism. Probably, the former. They certainly want oil to be a major necessity during the industrial stage. Much like horses are critical for wars in the early-mid game.

 

[STowey]

I tried to solve this problem on the cheap. I simply made Ship o the lines 12 strength and removed the +50% frig bonus then made Ironclads strength 18. They still cant beat Destroyers easy but after an Air ship hits them they are around 22 strength which means 2 ironclads can sink them.

 

[Tantor]

Now that I`ve read a lot of comments I`m also inclined to believe that the gap between Dreadnought and Destroyer is intentional, but I still feel somethings not right. Coastal going ironclads were never a vessel to be reconned with in naval history and destroyers have never ruled the waves. Even if the stats are more or less maintained i think the ironcladunit should become a seagoing predreadnought and the destroyer should be an armoured cruiser. Destroyers have always been support, escort an ASW vessels. They have never been able to sink properly screened capital ships or enforce naval supremacy on their own.

 

[SLM]

Firaxis has had 2 expansion packs + numerous patches to "fix" the problem if they wanted to do so. Warlords added the trireme as the same strength as the galley. BTS added the ship-of-the-line, the same strength as the frigate. If they wanted to create ships in strength between the ironclad and the destroyer, they would have done so long ago.
...

Agreed, there have been numerous windows of opportunity for Firaxis to implement a unit between ironclad/destroyer, however, it's only in BtS that I see AI SOD's (and I really mean BIG SOD's) of destroyers and what not. No way you could possibly defend against such stacks with even a quadruple amount of ironclads.

...
I'm not saying I like the gap between ironclad and destroyer (or between caravelle and frigate for that matter), but it seems pretty evident to me that Firaxis intended the gap to be there. It was likely done for either gameplay reasons or for realism. Probably, the former. They certainly want oil to be a major necessity during the industrial stage. Much like horses are critical for wars in the early-mid game.

"It's not a bug, It's a feature!"
The difference with land based units is that you'll always have cats. That's part of the problem here (the defense part), because if ironclads had a collateral damage promotion, defense against destroyers would just be a matter of numbers. That still wouldn't fix the unable to cross the ocean with them part, but I could live with that. Of course, adding a collateral damage promotion to ironclads would make them very very powerful for their time, so (I think) it would be better to add a new unit between ironclad and destroyer.

 

[Woody1]

Ironclads are already very powerful for their time. Why would introducing a cat promotion make them too powerful? Of all the suggestions so far to deal with destroyers, I like that one the best.

Would the AI know how to use it?

 

[SLM]

I didn't say too powerful, but very very powerful Anyway, it would be close enough to too powerfull because then any stack of frigates and galleons has no chance of survival whatsoever against a few ironclads. It now takes about as much ironclads to kill the same amount of frigates. With collateral it would probably take at least less than half that amount. So that would make the ironclad the destroyer of their timeperiod, hence creating the same problem though shifted in time.

 

[Woody1]

Well, even with collatoral damage, it would still take at least as many ironclads as numbers in the defender stack to kill the whole stack in one turn. With collatoral damage, it would mean that the ironclads would suffer less overall damage, and perhaps not suffer any losses at all.

Maybe a simpler solution is to give the ironclads a 50% bonus when fighting destroyers. Then, they'd at least stand a (small) chance against destroyers, while not unbalancing anything else.

 

[Colossian]

IThere 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).

Isn't it nice?
4. The ironclad (strength 12, +100% or +50% Defence vs. Destroyer)
Only Defence. I think it's more logic. It seems like MachineGun. It must be easy to add to the next patch 3.14 or something. I know FIRAXIS is too busy to fix a pile of bugs. But, plz more listen to ISLAND players.

 

[kazapp]

@Wolfshanze: this is not your personal thread. Could you please stop replying to those who like to discuss a much smaller change than your mod? That includes this post of mine, by the way.

@Everybody else: As a minimal change, I suggest either (but not both) of the following:

1) add +1 move to the Ironclad
2) remove the "coast-only" limitation from the Ironclad.

My rationale is that I agree there is a positive value from having relatively large leaps of naval tech (especially on slower speeds than Marathon). The problem is that the number of turns between Frigate and Destroyer isn't really that great.

More specifically;

Not being allowed to move into Ocean squares has a huge drawback - you cannot effectively protect your coast at all: you cannot intercept invading navies before they do their main damage, which isn't bombarding or naval battles - it is to unload armies. Being limited to coastal often means that enemies can avoid you altogether, as they can move inland, unload, and move back out into Ocean waters in a single move.

This fact alone makes the Ironclad a much slower unit than Age of Sail ones. That it has a slow speed only adds insult to injury.

Therefore, my first suggestion is a somewhat conservative one: adding movement is a small boon, but doesn't really change the base fact it remains relatively worthless on most maps except to protect seafood and block off strategic narrow passages. It still is a "slow" unit, as it cannot catch Oceanic vessels, and because of the inherent longer paths you must take if you have to hug the coastline (especially with the BtS change that enemy culture does not turn ocean squares into coastal for purposes of movement any longer).

Do note that by their very existence, Ships of the Line (as introduced by BtS) has made Ironclads less slow! This is because you need to move your invasion stacks at the speed of the slowest unit, and if the defender can build SotL, this means you must include some SotL's yourself. This is part of why my suggestion is +1 Move only, and not more.

My second suggestion is more radical, but it does transform naval warfare so that a coal-based navy is introduced. In this case, I believe there needs to be no further changes: no coal-based transport ship, and certainly no faster coal-driven ships (the oceanic Ironclad should remain slow). In both cases I say so because the Age of Coal was never a true revolution, a clean sweep; like the Age of Oil was. And so alternative 2) nicely provides an intermediate Age without unduly shortening the lifespan of the sailing ships.

The fact that coal-based navies remain less interesting to build simply because oil-units are waiting around the corner is simply a problem I choose to not fix, as I do not believe this feature is broken. With a small change (or not so small, as in my suggestion 2) people will probably still start to build Ironclads whenever they need a new Frigate/SotL.

Again, my views are not in the slightest directed towards the efforts of any mod-builder, including Wolfshanze, and no criticism should be implied. I am responding to the topic as originally posted, and only that. Please start a new topic if you wish to discuss any specific mods.

Regards,
kazapp

 

[Colossian]

1) add +1 move to the Ironclad
2) remove the "coast-only" limitation from the Ironclad.

Good idea but 2 movements are enough to kill Frigates. The problem is Destroyer. Do you know how many Frigates/Ironclads die to kill Destroyer?

 

[kazapp]

Regarding Ironclad vs Destroyer, I believe the game correctly represents the huge increase in lethality that world war tech brought about.

If there should be any change, it would be to introduce Cruisers to the game.

I suggest the current Destroyer is simply renamed Cruiser, and that a Destroyer unit with Strength 20 is introduced at the same time as Battleship.

Thus you have:
Cruiser (Str 30) comes first;
Destroyer (Str 20) and Battleship (Str 40) comes slightly later.

The Destroyer should obviously have certain advantages:
1) Make destroyers fairly cheap compared to costly Cruisers/Battleships.
2) Make Frigates upgrade to Destroyer in addition to Cruiser. Not only does this answer the complaint that Age of Sail units are too expensive to upgrade, it also nicely carves out a brief era where Cruisers rule, but then encourages a shift from WWI-style navies to WWII-style ones.
3) Cruisers and Battleships (and Carriers) are to remain useless vs submarines

I think Destroyers should not be able to see subs until the tech that is concurrent with radar. The idea is for subs to have a very short window of opportunity where they can reign supreme, but that they become massacred by (relatively cheap) Destroyers as soon as they can find them. In other words, the fact that I suggest that the price of the unit that finds (and thus kills) subs is lowered, is quite intentional. This is most easily emulated by postponing Destroyers until Battleships, hopefully (I haven't checked the tech tree) allowing Subs to be build before that, when only clueless Cruisers units are available for protection (=they can escort Transports, but they can't hunt down the subs).

At least until nuclear energy becomes available, but that's another unit and another discussion.

 

[kazapp]

Good idea but 2 movements are enough to kill Frigates. The problem is Destroyer. Do you know how many Ironclads die to kill Destroyer?

What do you mean by "2 movements are enough to kill Frigates"?

---

As I have stated in my other post, I view Ironclads as icing on the sailing cake, not a stand-alone age of their own. As soon as Age of Oil comes, I honestly think it is both appropriate for game balance as well as historical reasons that they become obsolete.

But by introducing a weaker Destroyer they will retain some use (however slight): to protect backwaters where an attacker might not want to send Cruisers and Battleships. You need significantly fewer Ironclads against a Str 20 unit than a Str 30 one. They will still be able to threaten merchant shipping (i.e. Ironclads vs unescorted Transports).

Against a concerted attack (i.e. one featuring Cruisers, Battleships or Carriers) I believe Civ correctly depicts the result, i.e. coalers are blown out of the water with no damage done to the oilies.

 

[Colossian]

Thus you have:
Cruiser (Str 30) comes first;
Destroyer (Str 20) and Battleship (Str 40) comes later.

I must add;

Cruiser (Str 30, Movements 4) comes first;
Destroyer (Str 20, Movements 8) and Battleship (Str 40, Movements 6) comes later.

 

[kazapp]

Sure, if you play enormous maps.

On standard size and smaller, I feel these speeds are too fast, too diverse. A speed difference of just one is actually huge. So my suggestion deliberatedly does not change the speeds of any of the oil units...

Actually, even if you play enormous maps, a speed difference of just one is still huge. If land is separated by several turns, then that difference is amplified over those several turns.

But we seem to agree on the basics!

 

[Mista]

I keep hearing 'historical'. IIRC battleships, destroyers, cruisers and carriers since WWII all have similar speeds. I don't remember much abour the coal ships, but the big coal fired cruisers and dreadnoughts might have been slower.

 

[GIO888]

Coal powered Dreadnaught please, stregth 20. that's all we need IMHO.

And remember, you wouldn't bring a sword to a gunfight, so why do people act surprised when they bring wood and sail to an inline-artillery steel-hulled Naval battle?

 

[Woody1]

You need significantly fewer Ironclads against a Str 20 unit than a Str 30 one.

You can use airships to beat destroyers down to strength 21, before attacking with a stack of ironclads. You'd still lose a lot of ironclads, but it's at least possible to beat them with those odds.