No wonder VD used to crash when I reached the industrial age. Any idea how many flavors per unit the game can manage during the modern era?
Feedback: Units
- Thread starter Xyth
- Start date
No wonder VD used to crash when I reached the industrial age. Any idea how many flavors per unit the game can manage during the modern era?
Yep, I've ruled it out. Settling as citizen specialists is a much better option.
The only way to give it a tech restriction is by making a new 'modern' worker unit that regular workers can upgrade to. I'd prefer not to do this but it's reasonably straightforward to do if necessary. So far in my testing it doesn't seem necessary. Using Workers to build improvements always brings bigger long term benefits than settling them.
It depends on many factors, mapsize and number of civilizations in play having the most effect. The quality and optimization of the art itself also plays a big part. But when it comes the later eras, the fewer flavour graphics the better. At this stage I don't know what's plausible.
Simon_Jester
Prince
- Joined
- May 13, 2011
- Messages
- 495
Nonono, the gunship fills the "cavalry" niche, is what I mean.
Also, the role really does rightfully belong to Mechanized Infantry; those are the people who really do use Humvees and (more importantly) APCs and whatnot in battle.
Sounds good to me.
Actually, I think immunity to collateral damage would be the major selling point for the Ballista and the Machine Gun. Now that most Siege units are susceptible to collateral damage, immunity becomes more valuable than ever. The first strikes are simply an added bonus. That said, I think there is a more elegant way to introduce immunity to collateral damage to the game. It involves Drill promotions:
The problem with Drill promotions is that they are markedly inferior to Combat promotions, for four reasons:
- Drill I is an incredibly weak promotion that only gives a first strike chance; about half of the time, it does nothing at all.
- Certain Mounted units and every unit that takes the Flanking II promotion are immune to first strikes. Combat promotions cannot be circumvented.
- The higher Combat promotions provide bonus healing in neutral and enemy territory.
- Combat promotions lead to more and better promotions.
Here's what Drill promotions look like now:
Drill I: 1 first strike chance (0-1 first strikes overall)
Drill II: 1 first strike (1-2 first strikes overall), 20% reduced collateral damage
Drill III: 2 first strike chances (1-4 first strikes overall), 20% reduced collateral damage (40% overall)
Drill IV: 2 first strikes (3-6 first strikes overall), 20% reduced collateral damage (60% overall), +10% vs. Mounted units
As you can see, they are weighted heavily in favour of the later promotions, in contrast to the smooth progression of Combat promotions. This is what I would suggest instead:
Drill I: 1 first strike, 25% reduced collateral damage
Drill II: 2 first strike chances (1-3 first strikes overall), 25% reduced collateral damage (50% overall)
Drill III: 1 first strike (2-4 first strikes overall), 25% reduced collateral damage (75% overall)
Drill IV: 2 first strike chances (2-6 first strikes overall), immunity to collateral damage, +10% vs. Mounted units
Commando: 1 first strike, can use enemy roads
That way, even if the first strikes are negated, the resistance to collateral damage remains.
(The extra first strike on Commando gives Aggressive leaders an slight advantage in the early game, before road networks are fully built. It also keep the number of first strikes in the promotion tree constant.)
I would also add the following prerequisites:
Charge: requires Combat I or Drill I
Amphibious: requires Combat II or Drill I
Blitz: requires Combat III or Drill II
March: requires Combat III or Medic I or Drill II
Sentry: requires Combat III or Flanking I or Drill II
Commando: requires Combat IV or Drill III
Combat VI: renamed Veteran, requires Warlord and either Combat V or Drill IV
Note that Drill promotions should often have lower prerequisites than Combat promotions because they are weaker and there are only 4 of them.
Even with these changes, I still think there's a niche for a Medieval era unit with innate immunity to collateral damage, such as the Ballista.
But better Drill promotions are more important than an extra unit.
Well, naval units can't attack cities, so I'm not sure what purpose that would serve.
I see. Well then: definitely not!
As I said, I'm not sure it's necessary. The 75% withdrawal chance compensates for the loss of the 50% vs. Siege units bonus.
Full steam ahead, I say.
Highwayhoss
Red Lantern of Civ4 Earth
Regarding Naval Units: I do agree that VD has far too many Naval units in the Industrial Age; this reflects the massive changes in navies during the late 19th century. Civ4 and HR do not need all those units. What is needed however are units to fill in evolutionary gaps. My suggested rule would be one type of ship per era. For example let us look at naval transports; here are the naval transports of Civ4/HR:
For the modern era, there are some possible ideas. One set of ideas regards submarines which IMHO are sadly undervalued, especially the impact of nuclear propulsion on subs, which made them much more lethal. I suggest having the attack submarine (which should be changed to Oil only) be able to upgrade to one of two new Nuclear sub classes at the Tech Fission (both require uranium only):
In addition I also suggest for the modern era an improved version of the destroyer to complement the stealth destroyer (which I point out cannot see subs); this ship would have the ability to see and sink subs and also have a high intercept against aircraft. I also suggest a supercarrier as an upgrade to the standard carrier.
As for aircraft, I suggest three broad classes of aircraft: fighters (to fight other aircraft), attack aircraft (light bombers) and heavy bombers. Both fighters and attack Aircraft can operate off of carriers. Also maybe a long range jet recon craft AKA SR-71?
OK these are my double copper Lincolns; thoughts?
- Galley-Classical
- Galleon-Renaissance
- Transport-Industrial
- Cog-medieval, upgrades from Galley upgrades to Galleon (basically a weaker coastal version of the Galleon)
- Paddle Steamer-industrial, upgrades from Galleon upgrades to transport (OK I know this violates my one unit per era rule but I felt this was needed because of the gap between Galleons and transports).
- Amphibious Assault Ship-Modern, upgrades from transport
For the modern era, there are some possible ideas. One set of ideas regards submarines which IMHO are sadly undervalued, especially the impact of nuclear propulsion on subs, which made them much more lethal. I suggest having the attack submarine (which should be changed to Oil only) be able to upgrade to one of two new Nuclear sub classes at the Tech Fission (both require uranium only):
- SSN-dedicated hunter killer sub capable of killing modern warships and subs.
- SSBN-Missile Carrier, can carry 4 missiles.
In addition I also suggest for the modern era an improved version of the destroyer to complement the stealth destroyer (which I point out cannot see subs); this ship would have the ability to see and sink subs and also have a high intercept against aircraft. I also suggest a supercarrier as an upgrade to the standard carrier.
As for aircraft, I suggest three broad classes of aircraft: fighters (to fight other aircraft), attack aircraft (light bombers) and heavy bombers. Both fighters and attack Aircraft can operate off of carriers. Also maybe a long range jet recon craft AKA SR-71?
OK these are my double copper Lincolns; thoughts?
I could possibly imagine a Humvee unit as the modern era Skirmisher unit, depending on whether we find room to expand that as a unit class though.
I agree that collateral immunity is desirable, I just want to ensure that the other aspects don't take too much from Archery units. This is why I like the 'target/defend first' mechanics, it's interesting and very underused in the game. I just haven't thought through yet how best to apply it.
Yeah I was thinking of improving the Drill promotions too. Your suggestions here look fairly reasonable, though I'm hesitant to allow full immunity to collateral damage. 20% each level for a final total of 80% perhaps.
I don't think this is necessary.
Definitely agree that the Drill promotions should unlock more promotions than currently though.
I'm working on making coast/ocean terrain a bit more interesting in 0.9.5 (extended coastal waters, reefs, possibly deep ocean) so depending on how that turns out may allow a bit more diversity in navies.
Interesting. I'm a bit too bogged down in 0.9.5 stuff atm to research these or take VD MEE apart but feedback from others on these ideas would be great. When I get to working on the modern era techtree again I'll keep these in mind.
What would the difference (in game terms) be between Light and Heavy bombers?
Highwayhoss
Red Lantern of Civ4 Earth
Heavy Bombers would have a higher strength plus do more Bombard and Collateral Damage with the penalty toward naval units (and possibly a lesser penalty toward mechanized units like tanks and mechanized infantry); they would also have a longer range. Light Bombers would be shorter range with less bombard damage and little collateral damage but have no unit penalties. Basically heavy bombers would be more useful toward attacking cities and large unit stacks while light bombers would be more useful for targeting individual units (especially ships).
Here are my suggestions for new Air Units plus real life examples:
- Early Fighter-available with Physics-use to counter Airships. Example: Sopwith Camel
- Light Bomber-available with Flight. Examples: Stuka, TBF Avenger
- Jet Bomber-available with Advanced Flight. Example: B-52
- Close Support Aircraft (advanced light bomber)-available with Advanced Flight. Example: A-10
- Stealth Fighter-available with Stealth,Robotics Example: F-22
I was thinking something like this for aircraft
Fighter:
Biplane --> fighter --> jet fighter
Attack aircraft:
Ground attack (WW1) --> dive bomber --> STOVL (Harrier)
Bomber:
Airship --> Bomber --> Jet bomber (With stealth bombers being a separate unit that doesn't upgrade from anything)
Fighter:
Biplane --> fighter --> jet fighter
Attack aircraft:
Ground attack (WW1) --> dive bomber --> STOVL (Harrier)
Bomber:
Airship --> Bomber --> Jet bomber (With stealth bombers being a separate unit that doesn't upgrade from anything)
Howard Mahler
Since Civ 1
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2003
- Messages
- 619
1. Is it possible to allow the Great General to be one of great people the allowed to start a golden age? (So if you needed 2, one could be a Great General and one a Great Merchant, for example.)
2. Would this be a worthwhile revision?
2. Would this be a worthwhile revision?
Howard Mahler
Since Civ 1
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2003
- Messages
- 619
I do not believe I have never built this upgrade to the Scout.
I am not sure I have ever seen the AI build an Explorer.
But perhaps the Explorer should be available much earlier.
Maybe it could be made a little stronger and.or interesting somehow.
Just a thought.
I am not sure I have ever seen the AI build an Explorer.
But perhaps the Explorer should be available much earlier.
Maybe it could be made a little stronger and.or interesting somehow.
Just a thought.
I don't have a strong opinion on whether or not to introduce new Industrial- and Modern-Era units.
So I'll restrict my comments to existing units:
Airships: These units were poorly designed in BtS. They arrived well before other Air units, at Physics instead of Flight, and did not have any proper counter. Thus, they could strike with impunity for around ~20% damage per unit: rather significant, when you consider they reduced the effective strength all units by a generation, demoting Grenadiers to Musketmen, Cavalry to Cuirassiers. Historically, Airships were not nearly as powerful: they were considered too vulnerable for use at the front lines and were relegated to reconnaissance work.
The situation in HR is slightly different: Airships are unlocked at the same time as other Air units, at Pneumatics instead of Flight. Unfortunately, this means that Airships are immediately supplanted by Bombers. Granted, Bombers also require Radio, Explosives, and Oil; but these are all available in the same column of the tech tree, or earlier. In short, Airships desperately need a distinct role that fits their history. I suggest you redesign them as the ultimate scouting vessels: strip their bombard ability but give them a passive 6-tile sight radius. That way, players can skip the tedium of assigning scouting missions every turn.
Of course, I'm very much open to other suggestions on this point.
Fighters: Does anyone have a full explanation for interception mechanics? The Fighter apparently has a 100% interception chance. Does that mean it is guaranteed to intercept one enemy Air Unit every turn, should one come into range? How much damage will it do, on average? How much damage will it take in return? How do the promotions on the intercepting and the intercepted unit affect these calculations?
Bombers: Bombers need to be balanced against the new Siege units. Roughly speaking, they should do half the collateral damage to twice the number of units as Artillery. That way, neither unit overshadows the other.
Submarines: I agree with Highwayhoss: Submarines are sadly undervalued. By the time they are available, most players have at least one Airship or Destroyer around, so they are always visible. Frankly, I think you should move collateral damage from the Battleship to the Submarine. Battleships already have the strongest base strength and city bombardment of all Naval units, so they really don't need collateral damage. Meanwhile, submarines are the ideal candidate for collateral damage: with low base strength and a high withdrawal chance, they can approach and disrupt enemy stacks; then retreat and allow the main fleet to engage. Basically, they can be the Siege units of the sea.
That works, too. As it is, fixing the distribution of first strikes is most important.
I'll go further and say that Drill promotions should unlock every promotion that Combat promotions unlock. That said, allow me to make one minor correction to the list above.
Charge: requires Combat I or Drill I
Amphibious: requires Combat II or Drill I
Sentry: requires Combat III or Flanking I or Drill II
Blitz: requires Combat III or Drill II
March: requires Combat III or Medic I or Drill III
Commando: requires Combat IV or Drill III
Combat VI: renamed Veteran, requires Warlord and either Combat V or Drill IV
Medic I is supposed to be a shortcut to March: Combat I-Medic I-March or Drill I-Medic I-March. Therefore, March must be unlocked by Drill III not Drill II.
So I'll restrict my comments to existing units:
Airships: These units were poorly designed in BtS. They arrived well before other Air units, at Physics instead of Flight, and did not have any proper counter. Thus, they could strike with impunity for around ~20% damage per unit: rather significant, when you consider they reduced the effective strength all units by a generation, demoting Grenadiers to Musketmen, Cavalry to Cuirassiers. Historically, Airships were not nearly as powerful: they were considered too vulnerable for use at the front lines and were relegated to reconnaissance work.
The situation in HR is slightly different: Airships are unlocked at the same time as other Air units, at Pneumatics instead of Flight. Unfortunately, this means that Airships are immediately supplanted by Bombers. Granted, Bombers also require Radio, Explosives, and Oil; but these are all available in the same column of the tech tree, or earlier. In short, Airships desperately need a distinct role that fits their history. I suggest you redesign them as the ultimate scouting vessels: strip their bombard ability but give them a passive 6-tile sight radius. That way, players can skip the tedium of assigning scouting missions every turn.
Of course, I'm very much open to other suggestions on this point.
Fighters: Does anyone have a full explanation for interception mechanics? The Fighter apparently has a 100% interception chance. Does that mean it is guaranteed to intercept one enemy Air Unit every turn, should one come into range? How much damage will it do, on average? How much damage will it take in return? How do the promotions on the intercepting and the intercepted unit affect these calculations?
Bombers: Bombers need to be balanced against the new Siege units. Roughly speaking, they should do half the collateral damage to twice the number of units as Artillery. That way, neither unit overshadows the other.
Submarines: I agree with Highwayhoss: Submarines are sadly undervalued. By the time they are available, most players have at least one Airship or Destroyer around, so they are always visible. Frankly, I think you should move collateral damage from the Battleship to the Submarine. Battleships already have the strongest base strength and city bombardment of all Naval units, so they really don't need collateral damage. Meanwhile, submarines are the ideal candidate for collateral damage: with low base strength and a high withdrawal chance, they can approach and disrupt enemy stacks; then retreat and allow the main fleet to engage. Basically, they can be the Siege units of the sea.
That works, too. As it is, fixing the distribution of first strikes is most important.
I'll go further and say that Drill promotions should unlock every promotion that Combat promotions unlock. That said, allow me to make one minor correction to the list above.
Charge: requires Combat I or Drill I
Amphibious: requires Combat II or Drill I
Sentry: requires Combat III or Flanking I or Drill II
Blitz: requires Combat III or Drill II
March: requires Combat III or Medic I or Drill III
Commando: requires Combat IV or Drill III
Combat VI: renamed Veteran, requires Warlord and either Combat V or Drill IV
Medic I is supposed to be a shortcut to March: Combat I-Medic I-March or Drill I-Medic I-March. Therefore, March must be unlocked by Drill III not Drill II.
KaneofEgypt
Chieftain
I extremely like the suggestion for Airships. Being scouting ships would vastly improve the way I play with them. Also a suggestion is some early naval academy or building that gives early X.P. to ships, because drydocks come so late in the game.
Simon_Jester
Prince
- Joined
- May 13, 2011
- Messages
- 495
- No, that's too many ships. To make them distinct we'd have to overpower the later units, and it wouldn't change gameplay materially.
I think it's just fine- naval warfare didn't really change that much from the classical period to the medieval era, because until gunpowder and Renaissance-era sailing techniques emerged there was 'nothing new under the sun.'
...Why? This just serves to make submarines the all-dominant fighting arm, which they aren't or no one would build carriers and AEGIS ships.
We might end up with two carrier types, but only for a very good reason. I get your observation about stealth destroyers...
[pedantry on!]
Stealth in warships is vastly overrated and kind of impractical. The only navies that have turned out stealth ships were badly disappointed in them. This, to my way of thinking, undermines the logic behind the Civ 4 stealth destroyer... but there's not a lot I can do about it.
The real question is who gets the role of sub-hunting and air defense if we have a 'modern destroyer.' What role would a 'modern destroyer' serve, exactly, except to be "like the old destroyer only more so?" because now it's MODERN!
This would vastly overcomplicate the end game. It's unclear if the artwork exists, the increased number of unit types makes for a messy situation. Why should fighters and attack aircraft not be merged into one unit, anyway, when historically so many of the best light bombers were fighter-bombers?
This really is needlessly complicated, guys... the attack aircraft should merge with the fighter, since on the grand-strategic level they occupy the same roles and would logically have the same prerequisite text. Big heavy strategic bombers are different from either- but light bombers aren't functionally different enough from fighters to deserve their own unit type, any more than the game distinguishes between "mounted riflemen" and "lancers" when talking about 19th century cavalry, even though the tactical doctrine for using them is totally different.
I like it.
Hmmm. Yes, this makes sense. But making submarines powerful enough to win offensive battles against all surface ships reliably is a bad idea- they aren't, really, though they're certainly a threat.
A lot of good discussion going on here. I can't respond to everything at the moment or I'll start spreading my focus too thin and never get anything finished. A few quick comments though:
Airships: I agree, they should be scouting units. Making this change could possibly open up space for Biplanes, depending on how the modern era techtree changes.
Medieval Ships: The major hindrance here is that there's only so many coast-only ships you can implement effectively and ocean-faring does not occur until the Renaissance. This might change if I add deep ocean, I need to get back to testing the plausibility of that. However, the Trireme gets an upgrade (the Galleass) so there might be room for a Galley upgrade before Galleons arrive. I do have a bit of spare art that could work too.
Unit Names: I flat out refuse to add any "Early XXX" or "Modern XXX" units or such. It just feels ridiculous. 'Light' and 'Heavy' versions of units can work but only if they have distinct and meaningful roles to play.
Airships: I agree, they should be scouting units. Making this change could possibly open up space for Biplanes, depending on how the modern era techtree changes.
Medieval Ships: The major hindrance here is that there's only so many coast-only ships you can implement effectively and ocean-faring does not occur until the Renaissance. This might change if I add deep ocean, I need to get back to testing the plausibility of that. However, the Trireme gets an upgrade (the Galleass) so there might be room for a Galley upgrade before Galleons arrive. I do have a bit of spare art that could work too.
Unit Names: I flat out refuse to add any "Early XXX" or "Modern XXX" units or such. It just feels ridiculous. 'Light' and 'Heavy' versions of units can work but only if they have distinct and meaningful roles to play.
Highwayhoss
Red Lantern of Civ4 Earth
The Medieval Cog could be used as a Galley upgrade....then between Galleasses and Cogs a player should have sufficient naval units for that era.
As I said before, I would only see units added to fill in gaps in particular eras for particular types of units.
Howard Mahler
Since Civ 1
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2003
- Messages
- 619
As I believe I mentioned before, it would be better if the Cruiser was not made available by the same tech as the Destroyer. I do not have a suggested later tech or additional tech for Cruisers.
In my current game, when I discovered Combustion (or whatever the Tech is) I did not have oil but had coal. (I was still building my first oil well, having discovered Refining as the previous tech. Oil will be available in a few turns.)
Thus I could build Cruisers and upgrade Ironclads and Ships of the Line to Cruisers.
However, I could not (yet) build Destroyers.
While I am sure one could come up with some explanation in terms of history, it just does not seem like a good thing for the game.
P.S. I have not been following the discussion on units.
In my current game, when I discovered Combustion (or whatever the Tech is) I did not have oil but had coal. (I was still building my first oil well, having discovered Refining as the previous tech. Oil will be available in a few turns.)
Thus I could build Cruisers and upgrade Ironclads and Ships of the Line to Cruisers.
However, I could not (yet) build Destroyers.
While I am sure one could come up with some explanation in terms of history, it just does not seem like a good thing for the game.
P.S. I have not been following the discussion on units.
I'm experimenting with a Cog unit as part of some Medieval tech changes I'm working on at the moment.
This is exactly what's meant to happen. Cruisers are meant to be available a little before Destroyers as they're an earlier type of ship. Cruisers are meant to be your main combat ship at this point of the game, Destroyers are now a special purpose ship (faster, submarine hunters, air intercept).
If I make changes to that part of the tree, Cruisers would be available slightly earlier than Destroyers, not later.
Howard Mahler
Since Civ 1
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2003
- Messages
- 619
I should have been clearer.
Cruisers are strength 30, Frigates and Ships of the Line are strength 8,
Ironclads are strength 15 with other limitations.
The jump in strength of 3.75 times (or 2 times from ironclads) is too big for a game.
I believe there is nothing else comparable in this game.
The first Civ to Cruisers (which was me in my current game) has way too big of an advantage.
Prior to the recent introduction of Cruisers, the jump was to Destroyers, which now have strength 22. This is still a very big jump, but much more reasonable.
I know you do not like the idea of advanced and beginning units, but I believe you are thinking of beginning cruisers in terms of when they were available, but the jump in strength is more like to somewhat more advanced cruisers.
With a few exceptions, there was a slow evolution in warfare, where a new ship design was introduced and then if it seemed promising was improved upon.
In most cases, the Civ game turns a continuous process into a discrete approximation.
In most cases, it is desirable to avoid large jumps in combat strength.
Notes: BTS had a similar problem in this area.
Historical discussions are interesting, but that is not my focus.
What was meant by the term cruiser changed over time as ship construction evolved. There were iron and wood cruisers, although eventually steel took over.
Eventually advanced navies switched their ships from coal to oil.
If you are in a game where naval warfare is unimportant, this whole discussion is moot.
Cruisers are strength 30, Frigates and Ships of the Line are strength 8,
Ironclads are strength 15 with other limitations.
The jump in strength of 3.75 times (or 2 times from ironclads) is too big for a game.
I believe there is nothing else comparable in this game.
The first Civ to Cruisers (which was me in my current game) has way too big of an advantage.
Prior to the recent introduction of Cruisers, the jump was to Destroyers, which now have strength 22. This is still a very big jump, but much more reasonable.
I know you do not like the idea of advanced and beginning units, but I believe you are thinking of beginning cruisers in terms of when they were available, but the jump in strength is more like to somewhat more advanced cruisers.
With a few exceptions, there was a slow evolution in warfare, where a new ship design was introduced and then if it seemed promising was improved upon.
In most cases, the Civ game turns a continuous process into a discrete approximation.
In most cases, it is desirable to avoid large jumps in combat strength.
Notes: BTS had a similar problem in this area.
Historical discussions are interesting, but that is not my focus.
What was meant by the term cruiser changed over time as ship construction evolved. There were iron and wood cruisers, although eventually steel took over.
Eventually advanced navies switched their ships from coal to oil.
If you are in a game where naval warfare is unimportant, this whole discussion is moot.
Yeah the Cruiser was balanced to fit with the later naval game and not the earlier. I'm not quite sure why Firaxis went with the stats they did for naval strength, I guess they're trying to keep them roughly in line with land units. But then I would have thought that the Age of Sail ships would be stronger than they are by default.
Given I've added the Galleass (and will maybe add the Cog) it might be worth trying to 'smooth' progression of Naval strength out a bit by increasing the strength of the Medieval ships, Age of Sail ships and Ironclad.
Given I've added the Galleass (and will maybe add the Cog) it might be worth trying to 'smooth' progression of Naval strength out a bit by increasing the strength of the Medieval ships, Age of Sail ships and Ironclad.
Howard Mahler
Since Civ 1
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2003
- Messages
- 619
The jump from wooden ships to Ironclad was a sudden vast improvement.
The very first ironclad, the Merimac, was able to outfight several state of the art wooden warships. (An ironclad unit is not just one ship.)
So a jump in strength from wooden ship to ironclad of 3 would be justified historically; what you have works fine for the game.
However, there was no such sudden large jump as far as know once they had metal warships. Thus the game could use a metal ship that is perhaps a little stronger than the ironclad, but can travel the ocean. Not sure what you would call it, nor do I much care. Then later warships can have small jumps between, for example 1/3 stronger.
(For example, the ratio between Infantry and Rifleman is 20/14 = 1.43.)
The very first ironclad, the Merimac, was able to outfight several state of the art wooden warships. (An ironclad unit is not just one ship.)
So a jump in strength from wooden ship to ironclad of 3 would be justified historically; what you have works fine for the game.
However, there was no such sudden large jump as far as know once they had metal warships. Thus the game could use a metal ship that is perhaps a little stronger than the ironclad, but can travel the ocean. Not sure what you would call it, nor do I much care. Then later warships can have small jumps between, for example 1/3 stronger.
(For example, the ratio between Infantry and Rifleman is 20/14 = 1.43.)
Similar threads
