1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

City combat strength after renaissance era needs to get a closer inspection & revision.

Discussion in 'Community Patch Project' started by SuperNoobCamper, Mar 29, 2020.

  1. JamesNinelives

    JamesNinelives Emperor

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2019
    Messages:
    1,573
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Australia
    Something I noticed in a recent game was certain cities flipping many times during a war. This was due to one side (The Huns) having a strong army and the other side (Spain) having a strong navy. Neither could eliminate the other's numbers but they could capture one of the cities the enemy held every 2 turns (sometimes every turn). I assume this is because any fortifications the city had were lost and it is on low hp. It does seem less than ideal to have this back-and-forth going on.

    I was able to sneak in and liberate both cities to their original owner, Portugal, which created a buffer. I expect it to only be temporary though, as the Portugese forces are outnumbered and outgunned.
    Spoiler :
    20200401053518_1.jpg
     
    Cokolwiek likes this.
  2. Cokolwiek

    Cokolwiek Prince

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2019
    Messages:
    512
    Gender:
    Male
    I agree with most of your points, but I wasn't trying to advocate for naval melee nerf in naval straighten or any adjustments for naval warfare at all. I only think that nerfing melee ships somewhat when it comes to modifiers versus cities should be considered.
     
    Last edited: Mar 31, 2020
    JamesNinelives likes this.
  3. tothePAIN

    tothePAIN King

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2018
    Messages:
    648
    Gender:
    Male
    This is what cities vs. ironclads is like. Frustrating. I'm trying to defend a city that can only be hit by one ironclad and one cruiser. But its taking serious damage.

    Where's my navy? It's on the east coast. 19 ships, but I can't bring it to bear there yet. This is theoretically an inland, protected port. But it's getting crushed, even with an arsenal, a great general, field guns, and the defense process.
     

    Attached Files:

    JamesNinelives likes this.
  4. Ragic

    Ragic Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2020
    Messages:
    30
    Gender:
    Male
    Remember that to those of us not testing the beta the ‘current state of the mod’ is a bit different from the game you’re all describing. Would be nice to get an update to that soon. Quarantine and all that. So if it’s close to an acceptable state, I hope they go ahead and update.
     
    JamesNinelives likes this.
  5. JamesNinelives

    JamesNinelives Emperor

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2019
    Messages:
    1,573
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Australia
    That's a fair point. I do think there is a stable release coming soon.

    At this point I think nerfing (or removing) the ironclad bonus vs. cities should help with this issue without affecting balance in other areas too much.
     
    Last edited: Apr 1, 2020
    burleigh likes this.
  6. tothePAIN

    tothePAIN King

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2018
    Messages:
    648
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm pretty sure that in a fight of 2 ironclads vs a city with an arsenal and a single gatling gun defender, the 2 ironclads take the city. Is that what we want?
     
  7. tothePAIN

    tothePAIN King

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2018
    Messages:
    648
    Gender:
    Male
    So I'm going to point out that Ironclads have more strength than riflemen.

    Also, I think I just realized - CS strength isn't working properly. Or at least, if it is, I'm completely confused about how it is supposed to work.

    I've got a rifleman in a city with a great general nearby, so the effective strength should be more than the rifleman strength of 50 cs, right? I've got walls (+6), castle (+6), and arsenal (+12). So the CS of the city should be... 74?

    The city CS is showing 52.

    Can someone explain how this is supposed to work? That might explain some of the problems.

    Edit: I've added an order and the CS is still the same. Something is messed up.
    @Gazebo?
     
    Last edited: Apr 1, 2020
    vyyt and JamesNinelives like this.
  8. JamesNinelives

    JamesNinelives Emperor

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2019
    Messages:
    1,573
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Australia
    I don't think that's how it is supposed to work, but I'm not 100% sure how it is supposed to be work. So I would appreciate someone explaining it as well :).
     
  9. Zanteogo

    Zanteogo King

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2015
    Messages:
    800
    The problem is the game can't be balanced for people playing on the highest difficulty.. the patch can't be centered around elite players.

    "Navy is too strong"
    "Then build a better defensive Navy"
    "I can't, I play deity"

    Well.. then play an easier difficulty? I can tell you for a fact, for us that play on the middle difficulty this is not an issue.
     
  10. Rosete

    Rosete Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2020
    Messages:
    9
    Gender:
    Male
    Judging from the image, I think you are caught with your pants very much down here. Portugal seems to be ahead by quite a bit from looking at the score; and it is bringing a large force to take out your city.

    Your city isn't defending against 1 ironclad/1 cruise. You're fighting against the "strongest civ" (score wise); your city is being hit with an armada of ironclad and cruise + infantry support + embarked forces ready to "d-day". There are enough mele ships for the AI to cycle them around and strike your city every turn. The AI also brought infantry to hold the position for after the city is taken. I think the frustration is understandable, I would be too. But I don't believe it is evidence that naval needs a change. I think a large attacking force such as this requires a big defensive force to repel.

    Let us flip this around, say you're the Portugal player bringing the might of your navy down on this French city, only to be repelled by a city with an arsenal and a handful of units defending. If I bring that much unit to such a lop-sided fight, I expect to smash it. Not for my force to be repelled by a small garrison force.
     
    Zanteogo likes this.
  11. tothePAIN

    tothePAIN King

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2018
    Messages:
    648
    Gender:
    Male
    So... you're wrong about me being caught with my pants down.

    I'm the one that declared war on Portugal. Maria threatened to runaway with the game. She went tradition / statecraft / rationalism and was about 9 techs ahead. I was Authority / Artistry / Imperialism. So I declared war and ultimately, after a 40 turn war, vassalized her. She didn't catch me with my pants down. But the way the continent was set up, I couldn't build up a significant navy in the western waters of my empire. This is a deity game, so Portugal had a massive fleet. I built up a fleet of about 9 ironclads and 9 cruisers beforehand but it took a long while for them to make their way around Portugals outer cities (conquering them on the way for bases to reheal, even if Portugal ultimately took the cities back.) The war lasted a really long time - both of us with 70% reduction in production from being over our supply limit due to war weariness, because I couldn't hold Portugal's capital city because the ironclads could just take it back after a turn. Portugal wouldn't sue for peace, even with a warscore of 100, if there was a chance to retake its capital.

    The infantry support + embarked forces ultimately never got farther than 2 tiles into my territory. All enemy land units that got farther than 2 units died. Portugal did the majority of the damage to the city, each turn, with one ironclad and one cruiser.

    I had a massive force, that could get there in 2 turns, by railroads, and did cycle troops in and out. But ultimately, the city just ended up being traded back and forth at one population, because an attack from a single ironclad could destroy it.

    The damage done in the first image was done in one turn by an ironclad and a cruiser. It means that a city falls to 4 attacks from an ironclad and 4 attacks from a cruiser. If the city hadn't been set up the way it was, that could happen in 2 turns. I'd like it to take about twice that. If I hadn't been prepared, the city would have fallen much faster.

    As seen from my above posts, I currently think that there is a bug in the way that city CS is calculated. This is making city defense particularly challenging at this point where naval is dominant. I don't understand how city defense is calculated. Is it the strength of the unit inside + boosts from defensive buildings? Because in the first image, I have an field gun (40) + walls (6) + castle (6) + order (3) + arsenal (12) and the city set to defense process. I would think my city would have 67 strength but it had 54. @Rosete do you understand how the city strength is supposed to work? 54 CS against ironclads that have 3 upgrades (+45%) and +33% against cities for an effective strength of ~105. For comparison, field guns, at that point, have a comparable strength against cities with 3 upgrades.
     

    Attached Files:

  12. Zanteogo

    Zanteogo King

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2015
    Messages:
    800
    Again, the game should not be balanced around deity players, the game should also not be balanced for unique situations.

    The best defense against a naval assault is a defensive navy as well as ranged units supporting from land.

    If we nerf naval units because deity players cannot complete with AI naval units, it effects players who play across all difficulty levels.
     
  13. tothePAIN

    tothePAIN King

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2018
    Messages:
    648
    Gender:
    Male
    If we nerf naval units because emperor players can abuse naval units at a certain point in the game to take advantage of the AI, then we improve the balance of this mod to make it more fair and challenging.

    I enjoy the challenge but I'm speaking up because this is an area that is unbalanced. Previous posters in this thread have noted that a strong navy feels like an exploit against the AI. If its true when humans are using a navy, then that suggests that it needs to be fixed.

    Want me to go down to emperor, build a navy, and show how this difference between naval strength and city cs can be exploited by humans? Because I can do that too.
     
  14. Zanteogo

    Zanteogo King

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2015
    Messages:
    800
    Then perhaps the AI needs to be taught how to defend better? Though my experience the AI has become much better than they used to. They are quick to mass and defend with naval fleets.

    My issue is that navel units as a whole have become much less important then they used to in mid game. Mostly due to ranged naval units not being able to attack more than one space into land. I'm ok with this, it allows naval units to control the water and coastal cities but being totally useless for anything else.

    With the current setup I am required to make sure I am careful to not neglect my navel forces, if I do I get punished. If I expand my empire too wide along the coast without defenses to defend it, I get punished.

    I'm alright with maybe lowering the effectiveness of naval damage to cities sightly.. but honestly am get tired of the explanation why players are unable to combat the waves of unending navel units is because they are playing deity.
     
  15. tothePAIN

    tothePAIN King

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2018
    Messages:
    648
    Gender:
    Male
    In simpler terms, I think it comes down to this:

    How quickly should a navy be able to take a city that is defended by land forces but not by a navy? Are there cities that are well positioned enough that they shouldn't be able to be taken purely by a navy?

    I would say if the city is exposed to multiple naval melee ships, so be it if it falls quickly. But right now, cities are falling too fast. Even on lower levels, there are going to be situations where a city needs to be defended by land alone. It should be possible against a purely naval attack if the city is well positioned.
     
    vyyt likes this.
  16. Stalker0

    Stalker0 Baller Magnus

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2005
    Messages:
    7,203
    In my last game, I had a fleet ready to go against the Vikings, who I knew was eyeing a couple of CS. I was on his door. He declares....took out 2 CS before my navy could even get there (they hadn't yet gotten to build the upgraded arsenals I've been using).
     
    vyyt and JamesNinelives like this.
  17. Stalker0

    Stalker0 Baller Magnus

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2005
    Messages:
    7,203
    I have a feeling I'm not going to make it to arsenals...

    Spoiler :

    upload_2020-4-2_17-11-2.png

    upload_2020-4-2_17-11-31.png

    upload_2020-4-2_17-12-4.png
     
    vyyt likes this.
  18. Zanteogo

    Zanteogo King

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2015
    Messages:
    800
    Again, you should need to have a defensive navy to effectively hold off later game ships. Ship have such a limited role as it stands now. If you expand too much that you can't cover your coast line effectively that should be on you. Dealing with costal and ocean things is literally all ships do.

    If it's such an issue (something I haven't seen), then what's stoping you from doing the same thing to the AI? When I attempt to do so I am often greeted by an AI ship fleet that forces me to contend with it as well as the land units attacking when I attempt to take cities. Sure I might be able to rush a city, but I won't be able to hold it. I will also take heavy ship loses in return.

    I'm not against tweaking ship to city damage. I just don't think the reason people are giving are 100% right. "I didn't have any ships defending and the AI came in with their ships and caused me problems" seems like poor planing and over expansion. Maybe a small tweak is in order, but nothing massive.

    The "I shouldn't need ships to hold costal cities" has me asking... Then what do you want ships to do?

    The "I can't build ships to match the AI cause I am playing the hardest difficultly level" excuse doesn't fly either. Don't play it then. It's supposed to be almost impossible.
     
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2020
  19. AndreyK

    AndreyK Warlord

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2017
    Messages:
    288
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Yakutsk, Russia
    For me it's not the case I don't have ships, ships are simply recently (2-3) months got too powerful against cities - because cities CS was nerfed, their garrisons get damaged inside the city more than outside. Naval units were buffed before and cities nerfed after.
    Also I want to point out that units specially designed to take cities - siege units do much less damage than naval, and I think that even not much compare to regular land units.
    I firmly believe that is a problem for AI much bigger than to a human player. AI cities, especially City-States fall to naval units very quick.
    I propose significant buff to cities and some buff to siege units to make them relevant.
     
    vyyt likes this.
  20. tothePAIN

    tothePAIN King

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2018
    Messages:
    648
    Gender:
    Male
    So... how many hits from ships are fair? Because right now, it's too few.

    A single land ship can't take a city in 4 hits with the support of a single field gun. I'd say that an ironclad and a cruiser shouldn't be able to do the same.

    Also, does anyone understand how city strength is calculated? @Stalker0? Because the people arguing against this being a problem are doing so anecdotally without any math to support their contention that this is fine. City strength was reworked a few months ago and we're still figuring out where it works well and where its unbalanced.
     
    JamesNinelives and Patee like this.

Share This Page