BNW naval units

[ExpiredReign]

Am I correct in seeing 'Triremes' having the 25% against Land unit promotion?

How are they supposed to use that?

 

[albie_123]

Against embarked units.

 

[ExpiredReign]

Hmmm. So that's 25% on top of the penalty embarked units receive?

Seems a bit steep. And why not the Galley?

I suppose all the upgrade units from Trireme have too?

Not complaining. Just never noticed it before and trying to understand the rationale.

 

[mystikx21]

Embarked units could get a couple of bonuses
1) amphib promo should 2x their defence, and possibly make them faster when embarked (if possible).
2) their per-era defence should probably go up a bit anyway.

 

[ExpiredReign]

Giving promotions to land units to counter the 25% against them will only work for Military units, as they will be the only ones to get them, and it doesn't explain the rationale of giving the bonus to MELEE ships in the 1st place. Nor does it answer why RANGED ships aren't just as efficient against embarked units.

 

[xInVicTuSx]

Lets not pile on too many buffs to embarked units, remember you need to cover them with navies you know.

 

[ExpiredReign]

I don't think embarked units need ANY buffs.

I just want to know why 'Triremes' get a bonus against them.

 

[xInVicTuSx]

I dunno, i would support increased speed for embarked units with the Amphibious promotion.
Trying to give myself a real reason to get it afterall... though i probably don't notice how much I could save because of all the river crossing penalties, particularly against cities.

 

[Thalassicus]

Melee ships are designed to kill anything at sea. They have a bonus vs embarked because they take damage attacking embarked units, unlike ranged ships. Without this bonus, ranged ships would be better than melee ships at killing embarked armies.

Embarked units currently defend at half the strength of same-era Soldiers (warrior, sword, infantry, etc). I can change this easily.

 

[mystikx21]

I think some of us had something in mind to be 66%. 50% was too low in GEM.

Ranged ships are generally better at killing embarks without the bonus, agreed.

 

[Thalassicus]

It's strange because I remember having that conversation... maybe we already raised it once? I think vanilla might have them set to 33%. I'm okay with doing 66%. It will mainly help AIs.

 

[Ahriman]

I'm not sure I have any evidence for an opinion on what the value should be, but in general I would say the easier it is to kill embarked units, the more things favor the human player over the AI.

The human can keep their embarked units out of danger much better than the AI can.

 

[mystikx21]

Vanilla has it at 33%. I think we did have this conversation, but it didn't end up in the mod at 66% before. The general reason is that the AI doesn't protect embarked units as well, yes.

 

[Tomice]

Please take care with making destroyers move after attack if that is the plan. It is too easy to take cities with 3 or 4 melee ships (very easy to build quickly) since you can rotate them in and out of danger. AS they are now I have to bring both melee and ranged so the ranged can soften the city up before the melee takes it, I like this much better.

I think the hit&run idea was only brought up briefly some pages ago (by me I fear) but quickly dismissed due to AI and balance issues.

IIRC the very plausible point (by Ahriman I think) was that the human ability to exploit move-after-attack increases with each additional movement point - and ships can have a lot of them!

 

[mystikx21]

It was very easy to attack with several hunter ships in GEM with move after attack on, move them in, attack/get gold, back off to heal, repeat. This was a huge player advantage and basically made more than a couple of ranged capital ships useless. Unless the intention is to have 1 move after attack, it's very imbalancing for ships versus horses/tanks where the likelihood is maybe one or two moves left over to retreat or re-position.

I think the anti-unit and speed advantages plus raiding capability on cities and trade is sufficient to make them worthwhile at this point without it. They don't need to be all-powerful units, just good flexible units.

 

[Stalker0]

I think the anti-unit and speed advantages plus raiding capability on cities and trade is sufficient to make them worthwhile at this point without it. They don't need to be all-powerful units, just good flexible units.

Plus if we stick with the core the fact that they don't take strategic resources. So even if ranged ships are still better, you still have encouragement for combined arms.

 

[ExpiredReign]

This may be a bit 'out of left field' but if we make hunter ships better at taking out embarked units then the AI is horribly outdone for this reason:

The AI constantly jumps its units in and out of the water when it is being attacked even when it could make a better stand on the hex it was in or even when it could garrison that unit. It has no concept of taking more damage when in the water as it is.

AI or player hunter ships can just pick 'em off 1 by 1 when they take a dip.

 

[albie_123]

Yeah, it's frustrating because pathfinding is one aspect that the AI is really horrible at. It'll often go into the water when it could just move some units around.

I'm not sure if this happens enough to nullify the fact that we want embarked units to be easy to kill, though.

 

[ExpiredReign]

I'm not sure we should even be making embarked units easier to kill.

The mechanic is, I assume, trying to resemble workers/soldiers/missionaries in small boats making short voyages up and down the coast.

Triremes and their upgrades are not very maneuverable compared to small craft so their immense power is offset against the small size and maneuverability of the embarked unit.

If they hit you then sure, you're sunk, but the chances are not always in the favour of the one with the biggest gun.

Later on when we might be conducting an invasion then we always have naval support. This I took to represent the more involved landing craft idea. Rather than a band of soldiers crossing a bay.

Anyway that's how I looked at it.

 

[albie_123]

I don't think you're understanding the reasons why embarked units are easier to kill. It has little, if nothing, to do with 'realism'.

It has to do with the fact that if embarked units are relatively strong compared to naval units - even able to hold their own - there is little reason to focus on a navy or naval techs. If a Civ, never having built a navy, can still move their army from one continent to the other despite the enemy Civ having a navy of -any- significance (even if it is outdated), there's something wrong.

Let me put it this way: I would rather see Modern Armor sunk by Frigates than Modern Armor traveling the ocean unprotected.

It's not good gameplay-wise or particularly realism-wise to allow advanced conquerors to ignore their navy.