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

[JamesNinelives]

Maybe a small tweak is in order, but nothing massive.

I think we can agree on that. I was skeptical at first, and I don't think Deity should be what we balance things around. But that doesn't mean that Deity players experiences should be considered. I don't feel that as a whole they are asking for big changes changes;

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.

Just trying to make sense of what they are observing, and try to achieve a better balance.

the people arguing against this being a problem are doing so anecdotally without any math to support their contention that this is fine.

I think most of us support some change at this point. That said, most what we talk about is 'anecdotal'. That's what we playtest for, to experience the changes personally. I'm happy to learn more about how city CS works though!

 

[SuperNoobCamper]

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.

I think you are missing the entire point of the discussion, Naval warfare itself is not problematic but naval melee vs cities with the recent changes in any water-dominant map is absolutely ridiculous; a single melee attack from an ironclad without having any anti-city promotions dealing 150 damage to a city with arsenal is not ok by any mean, not even siege weapons do this amount of damage in one hit.
What we are proposing is a malus against cities to naval melee units whose CS and mobility are unmatched without even accounting for land topographic obstacles that slow down even the most mobile land units.
IMO naval siege should be just as effective as land siege -if not arguing for even harder-, i don't remeber ever taking a city via land siege in one turn but with a big enough navy i can take more than one in a single turn which again is neither fair for me or the AI.

 

[Gazebo]

I have a feeling I'm not going to make it to arsenals...

Spoiler :

View attachment 550747

View attachment 550748

View attachment 550749

I know the point is to highlight that navies are a bit OP right now, but can we just stop and admire that the AI is finally able to wage successful naval wars?

G

 

[SuperNoobCamper]

I'm in love with AI behaviour this patch tbh, they are not the passive pacificst of the first beta of march or the 7 vs 1 of january and february .... I have no idea if this was tweaked in the latest version or it's just confirmation bias on my behalf but the AI seem to handle naval fights better than before .... Not that it competes with human performance but it seems like an upgrade for me.

I know the point is to highlight that navies are a bit OP right now, but can we just stop and admire that the AI is finally able to wage successful naval wars?

G

 

[Stalker0]

I know the point is to highlight that navies are a bit OP right now, but can we just stop and admire that the AI is finally able to wage successful naval wars?

G

Come here G I'll give your head pat

To me its even more than just the use of navy in wars. The AI was started to learn how to incorporate land units incursions alongside their navy for extra effect.

Spoiler :

 

[tothePAIN]

I know the point is to highlight that navies are a bit OP right now, but can we just stop and admire that the AI is finally able to wage successful naval wars?

G

@Gazebo

I'm very impressed and happy about it. The AI is kicking my butt most games. The AI is also aggressive and takes advantage of weakness.

Right now, it's kind of weird because some units have bonuses against cities and it makes them much, much stronger against cities than against regular units. The strength of the cities isn't increased by very much, if at all with defensive buildings.

 

[SolutionIt]

I kind of agree with this. The games I've seen where people are getting cities taken by ironclads are those where their navy has been eliminated - usually because they are fighting against multiple enemies and are significantly outnumbered. I think a big part of the reason this is happening is the recent diplo changes that have large negative modifiers for building wonders. Recursive has taken feedback on that and adjusted the modifiers so that the next version is less likely to recreate this situation. IMO it's worth waiting for the next beta and testing the changes that are already in the works.

Yeah those wonders modifiers are pretty ridiculous ngl. Glad that is getting addressed cause there are too many wonders in the game for you to be pissing people off just by building 4 of them.

 

[SilentReply]

I had started to write some of this up to post in the balance poll that was just posted, but figured this would be better for more detailed discussion. I know much of this has already been stated but I think I can offer some details other were asking for - particularly in regards to garrison mechanics.

Here are the main points that summarize the issue from my perspective:

• Naval melee units tend to bring a large power spike in combat strength, far above that of most land units of the same era
  
• Defensive buildings can not raise the combat strength of cities to compete because they do not stack with garrison unit strength
• Naval melee units suffer a 50% penalty in regards to garrison strength (intended?), which prevents them from otherwise offering a solution
• HP recovery of cities is very slow
  
• Defense process halves the ranged combat strength of cities - bug?
• Naval melee units can attack forts, often making them a liability rather than a potential solution
  
• The ironclads 33% bonus vs cities, and naval siege/vanguard promotions, exacerbate all of the above

So a very typical scenario when ironclads come around is that you have a city with walls/castle/garrisoned unit, but the limiting factor for combat strength is the garrisoned unit. Lets say you have a musketman garrisoned, the combat strength of the city will be 30 - matching the ranged strength of the musketman. Even if you have an arsenal at this point, the CS will still be 30. Garrison an ironclad yourself? The CS is still 60 * 0.5 = 30.

Whereas the ironclad has base 60 *1.33 bonus vs cities = 80. Typically the ironclad will have at least a few promotions that will increase the combat strength by another 20-45%, even as high as 95 - 130% with just one of naval siege or vanguard. The actual combat strength of ironclads vs cities ends up being anywhere from 100-250.

In general this results in coastal cities being a massive liability on higher difficulties. However the player can also use this to their own advantage in the right circumstances. In my current game, an unprotected channel allowed me to waltz through the Netherlands' empire taking cities in one or two turns with a single naval siege/vanguard ironclad and a few supporting units (most of which were just an afterthought). I ended up taking six cities including the capital in a handful of turns.

Spoiler I have a Sea Beggar too :

 

[tommytoxen]

i use the ships no city capture mod so never really noticed this. only problem is it doesn't include corvettes for some reason.

so while ships can damage cities they'll have to get boots on the ground to actually take them before & after corvettes.

 

[JamesNinelives]

I had started to write some of this up to post in the balance poll that was just posted, but figured this would be better for more detailed discussion. I know much of this has already been stated but I think I can offer some details other were asking for - particularly in regards to garrison mechanics.

Here are the main points that summarize the issue from my perspective:

• Naval melee units tend to bring a large power spike in combat strength, far above that of most land units of the same era
  
• Defensive buildings can not raise the combat strength of cities to compete because they do not stack with garrison unit strength
• Naval melee units suffer a 50% penalty in regards to garrison strength (intended?), which prevents them from otherwise offering a solution
• HP recovery of cities is very slow
  
• Defense process halves the ranged combat strength of cities - bug?
• Naval melee units can attack forts, often making them a liability rather than a potential solution
  
• The ironclads 33% bonus vs cities, and naval siege/vanguard promotions, exacerbate all of the above

So a very typical scenario when ironclads come around is that you have a city with walls/castle/garrisoned unit, but the limiting factor for combat strength is the garrisoned unit. Lets say you have a musketman garrisoned, the combat strength of the city will be 30 - matching the ranged strength of the musketman. Even if you have an arsenal at this point, the CS will still be 30. Garrison an ironclad yourself? The CS is still 60 * 0.5 = 30.

Whereas the ironclad has base 60 *1.33 bonus vs cities = 80. Typically the ironclad will have at least a few promotions that will increase the combat strength by another 20-45%, even as high as 95 - 130% with just one of naval siege or vanguard. The actual combat strength of ironclads vs cities ends up being anywhere from 100-250.

In general this results in coastal cities being a massive liability on higher difficulties. However the player can also use this to their own advantage in the right circumstances. In my current game, an unprotected channel allowed me to waltz through the Netherlands' empire taking cities in one or two turns with a single naval siege/vanguard ironclad and a few supporting units (most of which were just an afterthought). I ended up taking six cities including the capital in a handful of turns.

Spoiler I have a Sea Beggar too :

View attachment 552178

Well said.

And ouch. Poor Nederlands .