Between Frigate and Destroyer

[jkp1187]

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.

Why? The problem with adding the armored cruiser comes from the fact that oil-fired ships in Civ IV are meant to be elevated over coal-fired ships for gameplay/strategy reasons. And, as I said earlier, the problem that I'd like to avoid is one where a land-based warmonger can avoid the need for an oil-based navy by spamming armored cruisers. So by making the Armored Cruiser cost as much (or almost as much...let's say somewhere between 160 and 200 hammers), and weaker (let's say ~ strength 18), the incentive to do so is at least reduced. the ACs would then be stronger than ironclads and regular transports, and able to take down any sail-based navy, without being a tremendous threat to regular Destroyers.

 

[Wolfshanze]

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

Except I don't know of any WWII destroyers that have 50% more firepower then a WWI Dreadnought.

So how would you have a Str-20 Dreadnought compared to a Str-30 destroyer? That would make zero sense compared to real-world stats.

WWI dreadnoughts were still in-service in WWII and routinely sunk WWII destroyers with ease.

 

[cFccFc]

Chill mate, I think he can choose for himself He only wants one more ship, not 6 even if its really really good.

 

[Wolfshanze]

Chill mate, I think he can choose for himself He only wants one more ship, not 6 even if its really really good.

Who said anything about adding 6 ships? You are the guys who need to chill mate. I said a WWI Dreadnought is a lot more powerful then a WWII destroyer.

Would anyone like to debate what I just said is not a fact, or would you like to pretend I'm talking about something completely differant then what I just said... because you guys are doing that an awful lot around here.

Please read what I type, and stop assuming I'm talking about something completely differant then what I type.

A WWI Dreadnought is much stronger then a WWII destroyer... that's what I typed... are you going to talk about something else, or what I typed?

 

[Wodan]

I agree with Wolfshanze... despite using "lower tech", a WWI dreadnought is more powerful than a WWII destroyer for sure.

Basically, consider dreadnoughts as the first battleships. The term changed after WWI mostly to comply with the Washington Naval Treaty, exacerbated by most everybody scrapping their obsolete dreadnoughts anyway, as the war ended. New builds were called "battleships".

There should be no problem with adding a "Cruiser" type ship. There are all kinds of cruiser sizes and strengths, and they were used by most every naval power (still are). So, it would be easy to justify just about any gameplay you wanted.

Wodan

 

[Molybdeus]

WWI dreadnoughts were still in-service in WWII and routinely sunk WWII destroyers with ease.

Are you certain of that? I could be wrong, but if memory serves correctly most battleship sized ships have historically had a great deal of difficulty in defeating destroyers. See the Battle of Leyte Gulf, for instance. The only thing I can recall even close to a dreadnought that manhandled destroyers was the Sharnhorst, and it was a 1930's era battlecruiser rather than a 1910's era dreadnought. Which dreadnought do you remember that defeated several destroyers in WW2?

EDIT: The Warspite might have sunk a couple of destroyers, now that I think about it. But at Narvik she had the support of a superior number of her own destroyers against german destroyers. Without that support she would have probably been torpedo fodder.

 

[PimpyMicPimp]

Just so you all know, Wolf's mod is great and the new ships add a lot to the naval game and are not overwhelming at all. The AI also knows how to use the ships, which is huge in my opinion. I've played it on epic and all ships got a fair amount of use.

Alright, I'll stop the endorsment, I just thought I'd let you guys know it's a solid mod and he's dedicated to making it even better.

 

[Wolfshanze]

Are you certain of that? I could be wrong, but if memory serves correctly most battleship sized ships have historically had a great deal of difficulty in defeating destroyers. See the Battle of Leyte Gulf, for instance. The only thing I can recall even close to a dreadnought that manhandled destroyers was the Sharnhorst, and it was a 1930's era battlecruiser rather than a 1910's era dreadnought. Which dreadnought do you remember that defeated several destroyers in WW2?

EDIT: The Warspite might have sunk a couple of destroyers, now that I think about it. But at Narvik she had the support of a superior number of her own destroyers against german destroyers. Without that support she would have probably been torpedo fodder.

Narvik is a fine example... also throw-in just about any battle in the Med, as the British Mediterranean fleet used almost exclusively WWI dreadnoughts... also, don't forget many Jap battleships were actually WWI designs... the Kongos for instance were originally built to WWI specs and sank several American destroyers. I'm just going off the top of my head, but quite honestly folks... WWI dreadnoughts ARE more powerful then WWII destroyers... that's not a guess... it just is what it is.

 

[mice]

Just so you all know, Wolf's mod is great and the new ships add a lot to the naval game and are not overwhelming at all. The AI also knows how to use the ships, which is huge in my opinion. I've played it on epic and all ships got a fair amount of use.

Alright, I'll stop the endorsment, I just thought I'd let you guys know it's a solid mod and he's dedicated to making it even better.

Mmm. I agree with that.

 

[PimpyMicPimp]

WWI dreadnoughts ARE more powerful then WWII destroyers... that's not a guess... it just is what it is.

They don't call them Dreadnaughts for nothing. Dreadnaughts are your Praetorians while Destroyers are you stack protecting shock axe.

 

[6K Man]

Narvik is a fine example... also throw-in just about any battle in the Med, as the British Mediterranean fleet used almost exclusively WWI dreadnoughts... also, don't forget many Jap battleships were actually WWI designs... the Kongos for instance were originally built to WWI specs and sank several American destroyers. I'm just going off the top of my head, but quite honestly folks... WWI dreadnoughts ARE more powerful then WWII destroyers... that's not a guess... it just is what it is.

The Warspite and Kongo classes were the last word in Dreadnoughts before WWII. They aren't really representative of the WWI-era dreadnought, any more than a Spruance is representative of all pre-Stealth destroyers.

Moreover, the Warspites and Kongos were extensively modernized in the 20s and 30s. Contemporary ships that were not modernized (Royal Sovereigns and Nagatos) saw comparatively little WW2 action.

/nitpick

 

[6K Man]

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.

I like this approach to unit strength. I might want to tweak the Destroyers vs. Submarines dynamic (Str 20 vs St 24 doesn't seem quite right), but otherwise, it makes sense.

However, it still leaves us with nothing between Frigate/Ironclad and (now) Cruiser. In a way, I can see Destroyers coming before Cruisers - torpedo boats (predecessor of Destroyers) were around before Subs were.

Perhaps
Ironclad, Str 12, at Steel
Destroyer, Str 20, at Combustion (+25% vs Subs at Industrialization)
Cruiser, Str 30, at Assembly Line
Battleship, Str 40, at Industrialization

and Submarine moved back to Electricity, might work?

 

[Wolfshanze]

The Warspite and Kongo classes were the last word in Dreadnoughts before WWII. They aren't really representative of the WWI-era dreadnought, any more than a Spruance is representative of all pre-Stealth destroyers.

Moreover, the Warspites and Kongos were extensively modernized in the 20s and 30s. Contemporary ships that were not modernized (Royal Sovereigns and Nagatos) saw comparatively little WW2 action.

/nitpick

So the Queen Elizabeth and Kongo classes, despite being built in WWI, and laid-out on WWI designs (they certainly weren't laid-out on WWII designs during WWI), are now magically NOT WWI Dreadnoughts?

The QE and Kongo classes were indeed updated between the wars... so if you built a WWI Dreadnought in Civ4 and it was still around in the WWII era, you can't assume it too wasn't updated?

Do you want to get into debates about guns, armor and firepower? I'll gladly take you down that road 6K Man.

Just how far do you want to try and avoid admiting the obvious... that a WWI Dreadnought is clearly superior to a WWII Destroyer. Or are you going to sit here with a straight face and tell us all in your expert opinion that a WWII Destroyer is clearly superior to a WWI Dreadnought by about 50% as the OP poster that I questioned had hypothised?

/common sense

Moderator Action: Warned! - There's no call for the above, so stop it now!
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Wolfshanze]

and Submarine moved back to Electricity, might work?

I moved Submarine back to Electricity + Combustion... which is earlier then default Civ4, but makes perfect sense since the first successfull subs were Diesel/Electric.

On the note of Ironclad-12, Destroyer-20, Cruiser-30, BB-40... while it may make sense in a progression of Str, it doesn't make sense in regards to the biggest ships of the day.

While certainly torpedo boats begat torpedo boat destroyers which begat destroyers, none of them were the class-A ships of their day. I'd also say cruisers predate torpedo boats if one is into "nitpicking".

By 1890, the Pre-Dreadnoughts were appearing and ruling the waves... not torpedo boats or destroyers... in WWI, Dreadnoughts ruled... not cruisers.

Just Sayin

/nitpick

 

[SLM]

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.

Without Blitz you always need at least the same amount. With Collateral you'd be more likely to kill the same stack with less ships in multiple turns and have a higher chance that your ships survive after the first attack(s).
It depends a bit on the opposing stack. If the amount of units in that stack is equal or less than the max collateral unit amount as defined in the XML, you'd probably only lose the first attacking ship if any. I've tested this with Worldbuilder btw.

Also, on the subject of ironclad vs destroyer: if you put 10 ironclads with collateral (50/5) against 5 destroyers, you'd kill at least one but most of the time 2 destroyers and put the rest of them below 12 HP. Against a stack of 10 destroyers you still have no chance whatsoever to kill a single one.

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.

That would be nice but how can you give a bonus against a unit that does not yet exist? That sounds a bit illogical.

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.

Same thing: destroyers do not exist yet.

About what's stronger a WW1 Dreadnought or a WW2 battleship: that's really not the issue here in my opinion. It's not reality or history but rather gameplay that's the most important factor of including or not including units and what's missing in the current gameplay is a unit between ironclad and destroyer with a strength between 12 and 30. Lowering the current destroyer's strength to allow historical accuracy would have to mean that the entire naval unit system in Civ4 needs to be changed also.

 

[Woody1]

That would be nice but how can you give a bonus against a unit that does not yet exist? That sounds a bit illogical.

The game already does that for grenadiers. They get a 50% bonus over riflemen, which don't appear until shortly afterwards.

 

[6K Man]

So the Queen Elizabeth and Kongo classes, despite being built in WWI, and laid-out on WWI designs (they certainly weren't laid-out on WWII designs during WWI), are now magically NOT WWI Dreadnoughts?

The QE and Kongo classes were indeed updated between the wars... so if you built a WWI Dreadnought in Civ4 and it was still around in the WWII era, you can't assume it too wasn't updated?

Do you want to get into debates about guns, armor and firepower? I'll gladly take you down that road 6K Man.

Just how far do you want to try and avoid admiting the obvious... that a WWI Dreadnought is clearly superior to a WWII Destroyer. Or are you going to sit here with a straight face and tell us all in your expert opinion that a WWII Destroyer is clearly superior to a WWI Dreadnought by about 50% as the OP poster that I questioned had hypothised?

/common sense

(emphasis in bold added)

It didn't really bother me that you were being an ass in this thread, but when that behaviour is directed at me, it makes me wonder why I would bother debating you.

Why are you so defensive/pissy?

Moderator Action: Warned! - Let it go, no sense in feeding it.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[kazapp]

I moved Submarine back to Electricity + Combustion... which is earlier then default Civ4, but makes perfect sense since the first successfull subs were Diesel/Electric.

Sorry, I'm confused: by "moving back" do you mean "making available earlier" or "making available later"? And in comparison to what?

On the note of Ironclad-12, Destroyer-20, Cruiser-30, BB-40... while it may make sense in a progression of Str, it doesn't make sense in regards to the biggest ships of the day.

Okay, let me summarize my thinking. (Everything not said here is not my opinion )

By making the cruiser come first, it can represent dreadnoughts and early battleships. Then, somewhat later, it is replaced by a stronger unit, which we'll call battleship. This covers the incremental increase in pre-WWI, WWI and finally WWII ships-with-big-guns design quite nicely. Exactly when the cruiser should appear I don't have a definite opinion on, though picking the same techs as when the standard game Destroyer comes have the advantage we know that will work for the game...

Then you have subs and sub-hunters (destroyers). To emulate this, subs should appear before destroyers in the tech-tree, but only just. (And even the same tech would work) You can still send subs against enemies w/o destroyers, it was only Germany that didn't have the luxury of that option.

I agree the Sub's strength of 24 is calibrated against the Destroyer's 30. But I don't want to change the sub's strength, as it is correct visavi other ships. Probably it is easiest to give Destroyers a bonus attacking Subs and the Sub a penalty attacking Destroyers.

Or what did you mean by your post, Wolfshanze? That Strengths of 30 and 40 isn't representative of the power of oil-based capital ships (compared to the baselines of 8 for Sail and 12 for Coal?)

 

[Nay]

We clearly need 2 things here:

A ship between Clad and Destroyer
A transport for more then the current number of units.

Or, decrease the cost of transport ships. Seriously.
I dont like increasing my army by 30% just to sail them 3 spaces away.

 

[Methos]

Moderator Action: The flaming and trolling stop now. You all can discuss your arguments without resorting to bashing and taunting each other. It either stops, or this thread gets closed and something more serious than mere warnings are given.

This is a good topic, so let's try and keep it from turning into a flame war.