BNW naval units

[Ahriman]

Navies are one interesting area that BNW has managed to change indirectly, through sea trade routes.

One of the big problems we had before with vanilla navies is that naval melee just wasn't very meaningful in itself, because an anti-ship role was weak when your opponent didn't need to bother building a navy. Thus, ships that could not bombard land tiles were generally weak, and needed to be very strong to be valuable.
That is no longer the case in BNW, because an anti-ship role to give naval superiority is now meaningful in itself.

I think this means that we no longer need to try to distinguish "light" and "heavy" naval units, which both have ranged attacks.

The main problems with BNW naval design are:
a) Very large multi-era upgrade gaps between units. The frigate upgrades to the battleship, which is incredibly painful.
b) Prize ships on the privateers is still too powerful especially when it upgrades (and detracts from Ottomans).
c) There is still a problem with naval melee in the early game, when naval trade routes have not yet been established.

I suggest then the following design, with two main unit lines, and a couple of subsidiary ones.

Ranged line: Trireme -> Galleass -> Ship of the Line -> Dreadnought -> Battleship -> Missile cruiser.

Melee line: Liburna -> Caravel -> Galleon -> Ironclad -> Destroyer -> Modern destroyer

Submarine line (ranged attack range 1, can only target ships, high attack modest defense, is not invisible - because the AI can't handle that well): Submarine -> Nuclear submarine

Carrier line: Carrier -> Modern carrier.

Ship of the line, dreadnought, battleship, and missile cruiser each require a strategic resource. Other units do not.
The galleon does not have the prize ships or city raider promotion.

We include the "heal outside of territory" promotion, anti-land, anti-ship, and anti-city promotions.
Melee ships do not have move after attack.
Ships could also be slightly faster, and most things that increase ship speed could also increase embarked unit speed.

This is a fairly simple design that fixes the main problems without adding too much clutter of new units.

[It sounds like we might now have an "ignore zone of control" ability with BNW, since there is a tenet that gives this to tanks; that might be nice for submarines.]

For reference, here was the big G&K naval discussion thread:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=466201

 

[Thalassicus]

I agree with those three flaws about BWN ship design. I'm focusing the project on the most essential features, and I don't consider the common/strong ship split vital anymore. I originally did that so we can have some variety in ship types. We've got that now with melee and ranged ships. I will merge common with strong ships.

I noticed the "ignore ZOC" thing too and immediately thought of submarines. However, after thinking about it a long time I'm less certain. It's cool and realistic, but might make destroyers less valuable, since they won't be able to block subs from reaching our valuable carriers. It's already hard enough to do that with the high move speeds and low zone of control of ships. If anything, I wish we could make ships have a 2-range zone of control, so we can actually screen our fleets effectively.

I've got the naval promotions you mentioned in today's release. The main differences from the unmodded game are naval recon for healing, sight, and speed. I can't live without those promotions, and it was one of the first things I added back when starting BNW.

 

[Tomice]

Very good starting point, but I'd be careful about your current plan for submarines.

If we define it by high ranged strenght, it would be THE unit to mass-produce for naval superiority. A "critical mass" of submarines would annihilate almost any opposition, because the enemy would be decimated before he can answer.

Maybe moderate ranged strenght, high speed and move-after-attack would be a better role? They could be hit-and-run units like the Keshik.

 

[Ahriman]

I noticed the "ignore ZOC" thing too and immediately thought of submarines. However, after thinking about it a long time I'm less certain. It's cool and realistic, but might make destroyers less valuable, since they won't be able to block subs from reaching our valuable carriers.

Yeah, that's certainly an issue. Making subs range 1 might help too. So would anti-ship torpedo bomber promotions for aircraft, that actually make aircraft nasty vs ships, and so make it worth bringing a carrier along (right now battleship >> carrier in terms of cost effetciveness).

Very good starting point, but I'd be careful about your current plan for submarines.

If we define it by high ranged strenght, it would be THE unit to mass-produce for naval superiority. A "critical mass" of submarines would annihilate almost any opposition, because the enemy would be decimated before he can answer.

Maybe moderate ranged strenght, high speed and move-after-attack would be a better role? They could be hit-and-run units like the Keshik.

Subs should be the unit to produce for naval superiority. Because that's all they do. They can't effect cities or land units. And they aren't fast.
And they should have low defense, so I'd imagine that 2 destroyers should be able to kill one.
I don't like move after attack, it is too easy to exploit against the AI - the AI already can't handle camel archers or keshiks well.
High speed and move after attack also don't really make thematic sense for subs - an alpha strike role fits their historic role much better.

If all you do is mass produce subs, then you can control the seas (in one zone of the map) but that's it. Destroyers or battleships have more flexibility, in that they are faster, can help vs cities, or can bombard land units.

 

[Tomice]

You're right, that makes both subs and destroyers valuable if we balance the stats right.

 

[mystikx21]

Destroyers (or Modern Destroyers/Frigates) can also have an ASW promotion that makes them a little better at sub-hunting to work as counterunit. That's one way to make the stat balance without making destroyers too powerful otherwise. Speed and range are factors, but 1-range subs is pretty obvious instead of 3.

 

[Stalker0]

For those of you who have some naval games under your belt, how has the naval ai been?

Is it any good at protecting trade routes? Does it naval combat make sense?

 

[Stalker0]

Ship of the line, dreadnought, battleship, and missile cruiser each require a strategic resource. Other units do not.

I really like the idea of ranged ships require a strategic resource while melee ships do not. Basically it means that any one can field a navy, but only those with strategic resources can use the navy for land dominance.

 

[Tomice]

What about anti-air? IIRC in unmodded BNW battleships have no interception ability, while missile cruisers are very strong in this role. Destroyers are somewhere inbetween. Guess this is somewhat random from a gameplay perspective.

In reality, ship roles are blurred today. Any ship that houses an AEGIS style radar is good at anti-air, the difference is mainly in the number of available missile silos. Then again, the same "Vertical launching system" cells can be used to launch Tomahawk cruise missiles or torpedoes. So effectively, any AEGIS and VLS-equipped ship (from cruisers to frigates in size) should probably be represented by the same game unit, which would be a successor to destroyers, not battleships.

Battleships have no direct counterpart in present-day navies. Missiles and carrier-based planes outrange them so much that they became pointless (IOWA-class Battleships firing range is a few dozen kilometers, Tomahawks fly up to 1500km)

There is the "Zumwalt"-class currently in development which should focus on gun-turrets again (with precision-guided shells that are a hybrid between ballistic and self-propelled - range over 100km). But it mostly fills a niche role (cheap, short range coastal bombardement- cruise missiles are expensive). The concept is much criticized however and no such ship has yet been built. Instead, the Iowa-class battleships have been kept ready until 2006 to fill this niche (they were built in WW2!) and even now, as museum ships, they should be kept in good shape to reactivate them when needed.


Back to gameplay:
We could make missile cruisers a successor to destroyers, not battleships. Making them melee with strong anti-air and limiting their land-attack role to their cruise missile payload would be historically accurate (and give CM's a bigger role).
And instead of adding a modern destroyer as melee unit we could add a Zumwalt-class representation as battleship upgrade (IF we even need an upgrade, BS's could just become less important in the ultra-lategame).

 

[mitsho]

But which strategic ressource?

Iron (as the swords line is finished)? But Iron is on the opposite side of the tech tree, not necessarily good for the AI, right?
Coal? Should we really mix up peaceful and war strategic ressources?
Oil? It's not nearly as valuable enough as it is...

And I wouldn't want to change ressources mid-upgrade. Also doesn't that mean we/the AI will keep a few Galleasses around it can't upgrade? So we end up with Iron, I'd really like to introduce a Naval National Wonder (Naval Academy), that maybe can give an additonal iron for those of bad luck? Or not...

But in general I like that, it keeps ranged naval units "good, but rare" and increases the significance of Aircraft Carriers.

What about the roles of the two main lines. We have as roles:
1) City attack (we don't really want ships to be very good at this, right?)
2) Protect Trade Routes / Kill Ships
3) Ranged Support for Land Units
4) Exploration/Recon

So the melee line obviously takes over the roles of 4,2 and 1 (in order of importance). The thing is, the submarine doesn't fit well into that rooster. It takes away from the melee line as we then effectively have two of those. If the subs take the anti-naval ones, do we push up the city attack? But that's not really realistic... Can we introduce a "Raider line" specialising in attacking trade routes and make the other melee line the anti-naval one? Or do we just take the sub as a freak accident one?

Looking at the wiki page, submarines do seem to be the most numerous ship in use today, so maybe they should be the continuation of the melee line (Trireme -> Caravel -> Frigate-> Submarines), while there's a ressource ranged (Galley -> Galleon -> Ship of the Line -> Battleship -> Missile Cruiser), specialising in land support and a non-ressource hybrid. Is the Venetian UU really a hybrid as implied in one of the preview vids? In that case I could see a "short range, healthy defense, able to attack melee, but not necessarily the best at it/escort" line (Privateer -> Ironclad -> Destroyer -> M. Destroyer). One can also switch the submarines and Ironclad et all and keep the roles. I'm just trying to fit the subs in gameplay-wise here...

Also, why in the op line up is the Frigate missing, but we got the Dreadnought? (just curious)

EDIT: And while I posted, there's the role I was missing, anti-air. But don't we want to emphasize air combat (as the AI is good at it?). And don't carriers + fighters take that role? So, can anyone make a table of the unit roles?

 

[Tomice]

The destroyer would be faster than the submarine (scouting) and have an additional anti air and city invasion role in Ahrimans concept. Sight and recon promotions should also only be available to destroyers. The submarine on the other hand would be stronger in a direct duel, especially due to it not taking damage when attacking.
We could also make the sub more durable against ranged attacks and airplanes, so that the melee destroyers are still their counter as they historically were (or other subs of course).

In my extension of Ahrimans concept, both the destroyer and the sub would get upgrades that give them situational land-attack ability through cruise missiles.

 

[mitsho]

True, not sure if that is good enough of a distinction. Need more thought.

One other ability that isn't present in naval combat so far is the "healer". A vanguard equivalent would be a unique role so far not found in ships, kinda like a defensive trade protector? It does clash however strongly with the Great Admiral, but I feel that one could have a overhaul anyways...

 

[mystikx21]

There's a "supply" promotion that provides for the healing already for ships, plus the admiral effect. I think we're fine without a healer ship.

 

[Ahriman]

What about anti-air? IIRC in unmodded BNW battleships have no interception ability, while missile cruisers are very strong in this role. Destroyers are somewhere inbetween. Guess this is somewhat random from a gameplay perspective.

IMO this should depend on whether the AI can effectively use carriers and interceptors or not. If it can, then leave interception off, and be forced to use aircraft to provide AA.
If it can't, then we could consider some AA capabilities on destroyers and/or carriers.

But which strategic ressource?

Iron (as the swords line is finished)? But Iron is on the opposite side of the tech tree, not necessarily good for the AI, right?
Coal? Should we really mix up peaceful and war strategic ressources?
Oil? It's not nearly as valuable enough as it is...

Well, the ship of the line would need iron, the dreadnought coal and the battleship and missile cruiser oil.

Iron comes 2 eras before Navigation tech, so opposite side of the tech tree doesn't seem relevant.
I think mixing peaceful and war strategic resources is fine - and the vanilla game already does this.
Oil will be much scarcer in Communitas than it is in BNW, and with that scarcity you'll have to decide whether it goes on battleships or tanks. I assume that aircraft will return to an aluminium requirement.

Also doesn't that mean we/the AI will keep a few Galleasses around it can't upgrade?

Hypothetically, sure, but in practice iron is not rare, and once longswords upgrade to arquebus then your iron is free anyway.
Also, this is the current BNW design, where galleass -> frigate.

City attack (we don't really want ships to be very good at this, right?)

I don't think this is the case. I think you should be able to have melee and ranged lines good at city attack if they get the appropriate promotions - but then they're much less effective at naval superiority or land bombardment. I think a big enough navy should be able to take poorly defended coastal cities without too much difficulty.

Looking at the wiki page, submarines do seem to be the most numerous ship in use today

Destroyers and frigates are still very common, especially outside the US navy. I'm against melee submarines; destroyers attacking cities is less immersion-breaking for me than submarines would be.

Also, why in the op line up is the Frigate missing, but we got the Dreadnought? (just curious)

Frigate I find ambiguous as it can refer to an age of sail unit or a modern unit.
Dreadnought has much clearer era/flavor associations, and "feels" tougher, which a strategic resource unit should do. Strategic resources for light frigates feels weird.

The destroyer would be faster than the submarine (scouting) and have an additional anti air and city invasion role in Ahrimans concept. Sight and recon promotions should also only be available to destroyers. The submarine on the other hand would be stronger in a direct duel, especially due to it not taking damage when attacking.

Right. Melee ships as high speed is important, but we don't want super-fast submarines.
Another realistic way to balance subs could be to give them low sight range, so that you want to use them in counterpart to other scouts. Lots of historic flavor in wolfpacks searching around for ships to kill.

There's a "supply" promotion that provides for the healing already for ships, plus the admiral effect. I think we're fine without a healer ship.

Agreed.

 

[mystikx21]

Further vote, as expected against melee subs.

If they're strong enough in the anti-ship role that does two things
1) Puts a premium on destroyers for speed and sight to hunt them down and kill them instead of just having a battleship navy. Mixed arms here are important (and more fun). A sight penalty to subs would also discourage just using submarines to do that kind of work and using some destroyers instead.
2) Puts a bit of a premium on land trade routes if you can't secure the sea lanes for a spell.

If subs are melee, that means we get them attacking cities, which is lame realistically (destroyers at least could be described as escorting surface ships of marines), and it reduces their striking power on convoys and capital ships (they take damage, then get swarmed). Ranged gives them a one-shot attack to try to kill or maim something and then be healthier to try to get away.

 

[Tomice]

+1 for low sight on subs.

 

[ExpiredReign]

Agree on all comments with regards to Submarines needing to change.

Give them low sight (+1)
Remove the Melee attack. No more city taking with a sub. Just weird!
Perhaps remove the opponents ZOC against subs. Give them a better chance to slip through the net.

Not sure about making them more durable against air attacks.

Whilst it is true to think of them as difficult to hit whilst submerged. The reality was for the greater part of submarine use in wartime they were easily dispatched by aircraft since they had to surface regularly to recharge their batteries. Maybe give the Nuclear Sub more strength (if it doesn't already).

 

[albie_123]

I think making Subs inherently better at surviving air attacks would make it too difficult - especially for the AI - to take back control of a sub-infested ocean.

Apart from that, brilliant plan.

One question: Do AI still entirely ignore carriers, acting as if they can't build them?

 

[xInVicTuSx]

One question: Do AI still entirely ignore carriers, acting as if they can't build them?

I've seen one in the game I'm in now. They didn't have time to put planes on them though because i was pressuring them pretty hard. So I don't know if they know how to use them but they do build them.

 

[Ahriman]

I've seen the AI put planes in a carrier, and launch airstrikes from that carrier.

They do build more carriers than they really need though - I wonder if they build enough to hold their entire airforce.

I've also seen the AI mass it's navy in peacetime in a big flotilla, rather than spreading it out piecemeal all across its coasts, allowing it to be destroyed easily one unit at a time.

But the lack of upgrades is still a big problem, because if I get to upgrade my navy first to modern era ships, I can then start a war and annihilate your entire age of sail navy in a couple of turns; the strength gap is that much.