Feedback: Units

[Howard Mahler]

In the new version, there is too small of a jump in combat strength between the ironclad and the frigate / ship of the line. (The ironclad can now go into the ocean.)

Historically, the introduction of the ironclad was a rare major immediate jump in combat strength; a factor of 3 between a frigate and ironclad would be justified.

Ship of the Line is strength 15.
(Frigate is strength 12 and one move faster.)
I would make Ironclad at least 23.

If you change the Ironclad, then later steel ships would need their strengths increased in proportion.

 

[Howard Mahler]

While it is an interesting idea, I have grave doubts about giving certain types of ships large bonuses on coasts, either attack or defense.

If Galleass have a +50% attack bonus in coastal spaces, then whoever attacks first has a big advantage. This could be a sneak attack starting a war.
In a Galleass on Galleass battle it is very hard to defend.
Of course, if I am being invaded, I can keep my Galleass in a coastal city.
Then I can spring out and attack the enemy Galleass.

If instead Galleass have a +50% defense bonus in coastal spaces, then it is very hard to attack. Basically one can block off a naval choke point (we are in the era when ships can not enter the ocean.)
In addition, a naval invasion force (with ships carrying invasion troops) is much easier to defend with Galleass from Galleass.

I suspect there are other not so obvious effects, at least to me.

I would suggest that any such bonuses be eliminated or at most made a modest 10%.

P.S. As I have mentioned, a 10% defensive bonus for all ships while in coastal homeland spaces would make some sense.

 

[Robuzon]

Just to start off: thanks Xyth for such a great mod, I just finished my first full game!

I really only have positive feedback at the moment, cultural unit variation is one of my favorite parts about this mod. My first game was leading the Iroquois and their Paratroopers and Marines look completely badass.

I also very much enjoy the Reinforced Hull promotion tree, I managed to get a fleet of Cruisers carrying Marines into some lighting amphibious assaults. Has adding 1 cargo capacity at Rank 2 and (maybe) another at Rank 3 been tried? I think that the ability to add an extra cargo capacity to more sea units could really make naval strategy more complex.

 

[Simon_Jester]

I support the attack bonus for Torpedo Boats, since it lets us model their historical usage well (good ambush and shallow-water combatants that were, realistically, very vulnerable if caught under unfavorable conditions). I am not nearly so sure Galleasses should enjoy the same bonus. In effect their attack rating is permanently increased to twelve, which makes them utterly dominant over their predecessor unit, the Dromon. I'm not sure I'm comfortable with that.

The defense bonus is arguably preferable- especially when you consider that some of the more dramatic and high-profile actions involving gunpowder-armed galleys were fought on the strategic defensive.

In the new version, there is too small of a jump in combat strength between the ironclad and the frigate / ship of the line. (The ironclad can now go into the ocean.)

Historically, the introduction of the ironclad was a rare major immediate jump in combat strength; a factor of 3 between a frigate and ironclad would be justified.

Aren't you the same man who was just saying about a month ago:

The strength jump of 15 to 30 from Cruisers to Ironclads remains a problem.

As has been discussed, historically there was a gradual steady improvement.

Based on land units an increase of 40% to 50% in strength is about right for the game. However, the first sea going modern ship has other advantages over the ironclad, speed and the ability to go in the ocean.

Look, we can't have it both ways- we can't have huge jumps in strength from one unit to the next and relatively incremental jumps in strength.

Ship of the Line is strength 15.
(Frigate is strength 12 and one move faster.)
I would make Ironclad at least 23.

If you change the Ironclad, then later steel ships would need their strengths increased in proportion.

Oh lord...

Personally, I'm dreading trying to rebalance the naval tree; it was a miracle that we had enough wiggle room in the gap between 8 and 30 to do it the first time.

The best I can come up with is:

Ship of the Line: 15 strength
Ironclad: 22 strength
Cruiser: 30 strength (yes, 30, not 28)
Torpedo Boat: 20 strength, +50% coast attack

Everything else is unchanged, including all terrain bonuses, though I think we might want to upgrade torpedo boats to speed 5.

Torpedo boats are a credible threat to cruisers and a devastating one to ironclads (which is a feature, not a bug). Ironclads are much stronger than any wooden ship (not all wooden ships are ships of the line); cruisers will consistently beat ironclads but not easily.

And we do it without turning the later part of the tree inside out.

 

[Xyth]

I wonder, then, if there shouldn't be some sort of "Modern Marine" unit to represent the continuing distinction between standard infantry and units with amphibious assault capabilities. It's not like the world's militaries have simply given up on the concept of invasion by sea, and I'm not sure how well these units would be represented by Mechanized Infantry with the Amphibious promotion. Perhaps give it less power than a Mech Inf but compensate with free Amphibious promotion and maybe a bonus on attack, Blitz, or something like that.

So I'd skip the "Modern Marine" unit, myself. With enough air support, Marines should usually be able to force a landing in their own right anyway.

I think it's probably wiser to look, instead, at what militaries actually ARE doing. All the best ones, the ones with a desire to project their power at a distance and the kind of navy and air force to allow it, continue to train Marines. These marines are equipped with weapons and, perhaps most importantly, specialized landing vehicles far, far superior to anything that was available in the era of the Korean and Vietnam Wars. IMO, these units had ought to be represented, and I don't think an Amphibious-promoted Mechanized Infantry is the way to do it. A Modern Marine, with Amphibious, perhaps 30 strength, a bonus on attack, and only 1 move would, I think, be a nice addition.

I agree. Maybe there is something in the BTS stone-paper-scissors arsenal, that could be well applied on modern Marines and make their role distinct from other infantry?

The biggest restriction, as always, is available art. I'm not sure if there is enough cultural variation available to support two different versions of the marine. Also, I'm not convinced there needs to be an 'old' marine; rather, the current Marine could be instead be modified to better represent a modern marine. This would would be the best match with both the art and position on the tech tree (Globalization).

In the new version, there is too small of a jump in combat strength between the ironclad and the frigate / ship of the line. (The ironclad can now go into the ocean.)

Historically, the introduction of the ironclad was a rare major immediate jump in combat strength; a factor of 3 between a frigate and ironclad would be justified.

Ship of the Line is strength 15.
(Frigate is strength 12 and one move faster.)
I would make Ironclad at least 23.

Ship of the Line: 15 strength
Ironclad: 22 strength
Cruiser: 30 strength (yes, 30, not 28)
Torpedo Boat: 20 strength, +50% coast attack

I like this but it puts the Ironclad very close in strength to the Destroyer (22 vs. 24) and I'm not sure that's desirable, even with the Destroyer's more defined role.

Here's a potential compromise:

Frigate: 12 strength
SotL: 15 strength
Ironclad: 20 strength
Torpedo Boat: 18 strength, +50% coast attack
Cruiser: 30 strength

The gap between the Ironclad and the wooden ships increases by 2. I think that's enough personally. Given Ironclads are now oceangoing, a higher strength would give too much of an advantage to whoever got them first. Destroyers will still defeat Ironclads in most situations.

Torpedo boats will still decimate Ironclads and the gap between them and Cruisers (which return to 30 strength) narrows a little (27 vs. 30).

Torpedo boats are a credible threat to cruisers and a devastating one to ironclads (which is a feature, not a bug).

Torpedo Boats are also very cheap to build and this is why I set them to be slightly weaker than the Cruiser (24 vs. 28). 1 on 1 the Cruiser is likely to come out ahead but a Cruiser up against a small group of them doesn't stand a chance. Especially given their first strike and withdrawal chance makes it very hard for a Cruiser to actually sink them. From what I read about the history of Torpedo Boats, they were indeed employed in numbers like this.

If you change the Ironclad, then later steel ships would need their strengths increased in proportion.

And we do it without turning the later part of the tree inside out.

Pre-Industrial units were rebalanced to fit better with the later ones, rebalancing the later units because of earlier changes would completely defeat the purpose of that.

While it is an interesting idea, I have grave doubts about giving certain types of ships large bonuses on coasts, either attack or defense.

If Galleass have a +50% attack bonus in coastal spaces, then whoever attacks first has a big advantage. This could be a sneak attack starting a war.
In a Galleass on Galleass battle it is very hard to defend.
Of course, if I am being invaded, I can keep my Galleass in a coastal city.
Then I can spring out and attack the enemy Galleass.

If instead Galleass have a +50% defense bonus in coastal spaces, then it is very hard to attack. Basically one can block off a naval choke point (we are in the era when ships can not enter the ocean.)
In addition, a naval invasion force (with ships carrying invasion troops) is much easier to defend with Galleass from Galleass.

I currently have the Galleass at +25% coastal defense for the next version. I'm still evaluating it.

P.S. As I have mentioned, a 10% defensive bonus for all ships while in coastal homeland spaces would make some sense.

I can't code this in a way that won't cause unnecessary game slowdown.

Just to start off: thanks Xyth for such a great mod, I just finished my first full game!

I really only have positive feedback at the moment, cultural unit variation is one of my favorite parts about this mod. My first game was leading the Iroquois and their Paratroopers and Marines look completely badass.

Thanks! I'm glad you're enjoying the mod!

I also very much enjoy the Reinforced Hull promotion tree, I managed to get a fleet of Cruisers carrying Marines into some lighting amphibious assaults. Has adding 1 cargo capacity at Rank 2 and (maybe) another at Rank 3 been tried? I think that the ability to add an extra cargo capacity to more sea units could really make naval strategy more complex.

My concern is that the more extra cargo slots made available, the less valuable transport units become and the harder it becomes to defeat a naval invasion with one's own navy. So I started off cautious. I think though that if I was to add a second cargo slot promotion it would need to be quite deep in the tree and only obtainable by very experienced units.

 

[Howard Mahler]

You have a ratio of 1.5 between Cruiser and Ironclad, but a 1.33 ratio between Ironclad and SotL.
(It is the ratio in combat strength rather than difference that is important.)

Thus according to you, you have given too much of an advantage to whoever gets Cruisers first.

Historically, there was a huge jump with the introduction of the Ironclad; the exception to the usual relatively smooth progression. Thus I would at a minimum make the ratio of Ironclad to SotL bigger than the ratio of Cruiser to Ironclad.

As mentioned before +50% coastal attack bonus is subject to all sorts of rules crocks.
For example, sit in my city and come out to attack then retreat back in, and I am sure others.
The AI is unlikely to use such tactics.
I strongly suggest you come up with some other way to have the Torpedo Boats do whatever it is you intend.
(A 10% coastal attack bonus would probably be OK. First strike is probably also OK.
While it is nice, the Torpedo boat is not a necessary addition. Unless it is changed, it will cause more problems than it is worth.)

By the way, one "Torpedo Boat Unit" would presumably contain more ships than would "one Cruiser Unit." I assume that it is already subsumed that the "Torpedo Boat Unit" has more smaller and faster ships. I also assume that a "Cruiser Unit" would include some smaller escort ships.

Sorry to say, but there is more work needed here.

"Here's a potential compromise:

Frigate: 12 strength
SotL: 15 strength
Ironclad: 20 strength
Torpedo Boat: 18 strength, +50% coast attack
Cruiser: 30 strength

The gap between the Ironclad and the wooden ships increases by 2. I think that's enough personally. Given Ironclads are now oceangoing, a higher strength would give too much of an advantage to whoever got them first. Destroyers will still defeat Ironclads in most situations.

Torpedo boats will still decimate Ironclads and the gap between them and Cruisers (which return to 30 strength) narrows a little (27 vs. 30)"

 

[Xyth]

You have a ratio of 1.5 between Cruiser and Ironclad, but a 1.33 ratio between Ironclad and SotL.
(It is the ratio in combat strength rather than difference that is important.)

I don't disagree with you here, it would make historical sense to adjust the ratios in the other direction. It's just a matter of making it balance in game. Cruisers need to be 28-30 strength and Destroyers need to be 24 strength (I've already boosted them from 22) for the late game naval units to balance.

If we increase Ironclad strength too far then we start making it competitive with the Destroyer. Given Ironclads are available in the Industrial era (Steam Power) and Destroyers in the Modern era (Electronics) that just doesn't feel right. We've only got so much space to work with.

Thus according to you, you have given too much of an advantage to whoever gets Cruisers first.

The Torpedo Boat is the counter to the Cruiser, and is available a little earlier. Whoever unlocks Cruisers first is going to dominate the oceans but, crucially, everyone else can players still defend their coastlines. The Ironclad has no such contemporary counter, nor is there any historical ship we could introduce as such.

Historically, there was a huge jump with the introduction of the Ironclad; the exception to the usual relatively smooth progression. Thus I would at a minimum make the ratio of Ironclad to SotL bigger than the ratio of Cruiser to Ironclad.

Well I'd argue that Galleass and such with gunpowder armaments was as big a leap. Cannons completely revolutionized naval warfare.

As mentioned before +50% coastal attack bonus is subject to all sorts of rules crocks.
For example, sit in my city and come out to attack then retreat back in, and I am sure others.
The AI is unlikely to use such tactics.

The AI can and does do this, and such a tactic is possible with any naval unit that has enough movement points. The coast attack bonus doesn't change this at all. However, this is why I don't want to increase the Torpedo Boat's movement any further, if anything I'd be more inclined to lower it to 3. They are short range ships and already able to escape easily with their withdrawal chance.

I strongly suggest you come up with some other way to have the Torpedo Boats do whatever it is you intend.
(A 10% coastal attack bonus would probably be OK. First strike is probably also OK.
While it is nice, the Torpedo boat is not a necessary addition. Unless it is changed, it will cause more problems than it is worth.)

As mentioned earlier, it is a necessary addition as the historical and game counter to the power of Ironclads and Cruisers. They're the reason Destroyers were invented. The coast attack bonus encapsulates them perfectly in my opinion.

 

[Howard Mahler]

I think I am missing something.
Is there some maximum strength for naval units based on the coding?

If you tell me the overall constraints if any, I will try a redo of the whole naval strength tree.

By the way, the Torpedo boat does not allow the AI to defend its coastline versus a smart player, when there is ocean nearby.
The player needs to be careful to end his turn in an ocean space, so the enemy Torpedo boats will not get a coastal attack bonus. (This may slow down an invasion, and is a pain in the neck, but will not stop it.)

I don't disagree with you here, it would make historical sense to adjust the ratios in the other direction. It's just a matter of making it balance in game. Cruisers need to be 28-30 strength and Destroyers need to be 24 strength (I've already boosted them from 22) for the late game naval units to balance.

If we increase Ironclad strength too far then we start making it competitive with the Destroyer. Given Ironclads are available in the Industrial era (Steam Power) and Destroyers in the Modern era (Electronics) that just doesn't feel right. We've only got so much space to work with.



The Torpedo Boat is the counter to the Cruiser, and is available a little earlier. Whoever unlocks Cruisers first is going to dominate the oceans but, crucially, everyone else can players still defend their coastlines. The Ironclad has no such contemporary counter, nor is there any historical ship we could introduce as such.



Well I'd argue that Galleass and such with gunpowder armaments was as big a leap. Cannons completely revolutionized naval warfare.



The AI can and does do this, and such a tactic is possible with any naval unit that has enough movement points. The coast attack bonus doesn't change this at all. However, this is why I don't want to increase the Torpedo Boat's movement any further, if anything I'd be more inclined to lower it to 3. They are short range ships and already able to escape easily with their withdrawal chance.



As mentioned earlier, it is a necessary addition as the historical and game counter to the power of Ironclads and Cruisers. They're the reason Destroyers were invented. The coast attack bonus encapsulates them perfectly in my opinion.

 

[Simon_Jester]

I don't disagree with you here, it would make historical sense to adjust the ratios in the other direction. It's just a matter of making it balance in game. Cruisers need to be 28-30 strength and Destroyers need to be 24 strength (I've already boosted them from 22) for the late game naval units to balance.

If we increase Ironclad strength too far then we start making it competitive with the Destroyer. Given Ironclads are available in the Industrial era (Steam Power) and Destroyers in the Modern era (Electronics) that just doesn't feel right. We've only got so much space to work with.

That's a fair point. I think we could boost Ironclad strength as far as 20 without making things unreasonable; they'd still be weaker than Cruisers or Destroyers, but would enjoy a more significant advantage over Ships of the Line, which is a legitimate criticism.

Well I'd argue that Galleass and such with gunpowder armaments was as big a leap. Cannons completely revolutionized naval warfare.

Yes, but only gradually- the first gun-armed warships weren't quite so decisively more powerful, not on the level implied by giving the unit an in-game strength advantage by a factor of three.

The AI can and does do this, and such a tactic is possible with any naval unit that has enough movement points. The coast attack bonus doesn't change this at all. However, this is why I don't want to increase the Torpedo Boat's movement any further, if anything I'd be more inclined to lower it to 3. They are short range ships and already able to escape easily with their withdrawal chance.

Ah-HA. Yes, you're right, I hadn't thought about that.

 

[Xyth]

I think I am missing something.
Is there some maximum strength for naval units based on the coding?

It's because the late naval game is well balanced within itself and with other aspects it interacts with such as air units. Increasing strength of these ships would require massive rebalancing elsewhere and its just not worth it. Any changes we do needs to be constrained to the earlier units.

 

[Simon_Jester]

Well.

Mahler's complaint seems to be that Ironclads specifically are a problem. Everyone agrees ironclads should be significantly stronger than sailing ships, but significantly weaker than any modern warship. The only question is how strong, exactly, and the answer to that question might be Strength 18, or 20, or 22, without it drastically altering the game balance.

Remember too that while destroyers may not be much stronger than ironclads, their intended role is not to fight ironclads; they're escort units for the cruisers and battleships and submarines that will hand an ironclad its head. By the time destroyers become available, the stronger Cruiser unit (which is the direct upgrade path for the Ironclad, let us not forget) is also available.

 

[ripple01]

Just to chime in on this issue, I have in my mod split naval units into two different unitclasses, Wooden Ships and Metal Ships. All Metal Ships have a (+50%, I believe) combat bonus vs. Wooden Ships, so you could leave the Ironclad at 12 and it will still dominate any wooden ship. For example, SotL is 8, and an Ironclad would be 18 against it with the 50% combat bonus.

Let me know what you think about this idea or if you have any suggestions to tweak it.

 

[Xyth]

Just to chime in on this issue, I have in my mod split naval units into two different unitclasses, Wooden Ships and Metal Ships. All Metal Ships have a (+50%, I believe) combat bonus vs. Wooden Ships, so you could leave the Ironclad at 12 and it will still dominate any wooden ship. For example, SotL is 8, and an Ironclad would be 18 against it with the 50% combat bonus.

Let me know what you think about this idea or if you have any suggestions to tweak it.

Hmm, that certainly opens up a lot of possibilities. Good idea. I don't think I'll try anything like this for the next version but I'm definitely going to keep that in mind for afterwards.

 

[Simon_Jester]

The biggest restriction, as always, is available art. I'm not sure if there is enough cultural variation available to support two different versions of the marine. Also, I'm not convinced there needs to be an 'old' marine; rather, the current Marine could be instead be modified to better represent a modern marine. This would would be the best match with both the art and position on the tech tree (Globalization).

I must respectfully disagree, Xyth.

I like this but it puts the Ironclad very close in strength to the Destroyer (22 vs. 24) and I'm not sure that's desirable, even with the Destroyer's more defined role.

Here's a potential compromise:

Frigate: 12 strength
SotL: 15 strength
Ironclad: 20 strength
Torpedo Boat: 18 strength, +50% coast attack
Cruiser: 30 strength

I'm perfectly fine with that.

Mahler, look at the rest of the tree- look at the gap between the Galleass and the Frigate, or the Dromon and the Galleass, or the Cruiser and the Missile Cruiser. Strength ratios of 4/3 between the new and old units are routine. Ratios of 3/2 are common; even ratios of 2/1 are not unheard of (i.e. Crossbowmen upgrading directly to Riflemen).

Torpedo Boats are also very cheap to build and this is why I set them to be slightly weaker than the Cruiser (24 vs. 28). 1 on 1 the Cruiser is likely to come out ahead but a Cruiser up against a small group of them doesn't stand a chance. Especially given their first strike and withdrawal chance makes it very hard for a Cruiser to actually sink them. From what I read about the history of Torpedo Boats, they were indeed employed in numbers like this.

Yes, although so were destroyers, aircraft, and for that matter infantrymen. The game is often deliberately vague about exactly how many planes, ships, or men go into a single in-game "unit." While we can reasonably assume that one Nuke is a (MIRV-capable) nuclear missile, and that one Battleship unit is indeed probably one or at most two Battleships, I don't think we can assume that one Destroyer unit (which is surprisingly close to being able to kill a battleship, in vanilla) is just one destroyer.

That said, yes torpedo boats were used in packs, and indeed that was basically the only way to use them effectively. They weren't really a very effective weapon, to be honest, being at a gross disadvantage in combat except under ideal conditions. Their influence was more felt in the way the implicit threat they posed had a huge effect on naval design and tactics. People started designing big-gun warships to give them longer gun ranges, mounting secondary batteries of light quick-firing guns to defend agains the torpedo boat, and abandoning the Age of Sail tactic of the close blockade (which became very unsafe if there were torpedo boats in the harbor).

I still support keeping Torpedo Boats in the game in some capacity because it gives you more flexibility and enriches the naval tech tree, though.

I currently have the Galleass at +25% coastal defense for the next version. I'm still evaluating it.

That sounds good- strong enough that they at least come within shouting distance of the strength of the frigate, but not strong enough to win reliably, or to make it totally impossible to defeat a Galleass before the frigate shows up.

Historically the Galleass was transitional between the oared war galleys of pre-gunpowder times and the 'broadside gunfire' design scheme of the Age of Sail. Large galley fleets sometimes used the physically larger and better-armed galleasses as strongpoints anchoring the galley formation. Attacking them with galleys could be extremely dangerous, because the galley was designed to row straight for the side of an enemy vessel and smash it up with a ram... whereas that was where all the big guns were on a galleass, so you were literally right in their line of fire. This was a major factor at Lepanto, for example.

 

[Mr. Sulu]

Before I start recommending stuff to be changed I want you to be aware that your mod is great and I love it. As I am a Mac user, I cannot play Rise of Mankind or Call to Power 2, and it really fills the gap between the consoles. That being said, here is my suggestion.

In the Modern Era Marines become your primary Infantry unit, while in reality their use is mostly for amphibious assault. The troops in an sustained land campaign would be infantry. There is also a gap with the ethnically diverse unit types, think about it.

German Infantry are German Empire-Era unit designs with Pickelhaube hats
German Marines are Federal Republic of Germany designs

My recommendation is to discard the German Empire design, as you already have it with Riflemen and replace it with Nazi-era infantry with Stalhelm. German Marines could look more like this:
http://www.google.com/imgres?q=Germ...4&tbnw=152&start=0&ndsp=67&ved=1t:429,r:7,s:0
You could then transfer the Marine art to Modern Infantry

Another Example,
American Infantry are World War II Era Infantry
American Marines are Navy Seals

What troops did we send to Afghanistan and Iraq?
We sent troops in desert fatigues with M16's
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USArmySoldiers.jpg


Russian Infantry are Soviet Era troops
Russian Marines are Spetsnaz

This skips what Russian troops mainly look like in the Modern world
http://www.google.com/imgres?q=Russ...rt=0&ndsp=69&ved=1t:429,r:15,s:0&tx=105&ty=73
Like that

Much of this art for Modern Infantry already exists (I point to Earth 2010 mod)
However, the main problem is the art difference between the new idea unit and the existing Marines. Speaking of which, Korean Marines right now are quite white-skinned, I mean like they were bleached, so
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ROK_marines_with_K2_rifles_DM-SD-03-14422.jpg
They would probably look better like this. In fact, you could also just recycle the Chinese Marine art as well.

Speaking of which........
http://www.google.com/imgres?q=Chin...&tbnw=138&start=0&ndsp=66&ved=1t:429,r:15,s:0

This is what Chinese Modern Infantry could look like, or you could switch the Marine art for a Modern Infantry and make Chinese Marines look like this

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...l37TuidJaTc0QG6_fDUDQ&ved=0CCoQ9QEwAA&dur=195

You could make Modern Infantry Strength 24, like Marines but give them 2 movement, to represent the use of Humvee's and Armored troop transport Carriers. This would also make them your go-to units on land.

Anyway, only my humble opinion.

 

[Howard Mahler]

Here are my proposed set of changes to the 0.9.5 Naval Units.
Unless stated otherwise, things stay the same:

Galleas: Get rid of the plus for coastal attack. Strength 7 rather then 8.

Privateer: Strength 8 rather than 10.
Frigate: Strength 10 rather than 12.
Ship of the Line: Strength 14 instead of 15.

Ironclad: Strength 17 instead of 18. +50% versus Ship of the Line, Frigate, Privateer.
(if it can be handled, +50% against all wooden ships.)

Torpedo Boat: Get rid of the plus for coastal attack. Strength 20 rather then 16.

Destroyer: Make +50% versus Torpedo Boat, Sub, Attack Sub, rather than just +50% on attack.

 

[Simon_Jester]

Sulu, "modern infantry" already exists: mechanized infantry. That represents the combination of combined arms, advanced command and control, and widely distributed use of AA and antitank weapons found in modern infantry units. It has the increased speed you mention, and the strength to be competitive against end-game military units... which a Strength 24 "modern infantry" unit would not.

Sticking in a "modern infantry" unit between the WWI/WWII "infantry" and mechanized infantry would just be adding another unit for the sake of adding another unit. It does have the advantage of letting us use more of the cool art out there for post-World War infantry, but I don't think that's enough to justify adding another layer of upgrades.

...

Here are my proposed set of changes to the 0.9.5 Naval Units.
Unless stated otherwise, things stay the same:

Galleas: Get rid of the plus for coastal attack. Strength 7 rather then 8.

Privateer: Strength 8 rather than 10.
Frigate: Strength 10 rather than 12.
Ship of the Line: Strength 14 instead of 15.

Ironclad: Strength 17 instead of 18. +50% versus Ship of the Line, Frigate, Privateer.
(if it can be handled, +50% against all wooden ships.)

Torpedo Boat: Get rid of the plus for coastal attack. Strength 20 rather then 16.

Destroyer: Make +50% versus Torpedo Boat, Sub, Attack Sub, rather than just +50% on attack.

Galleass is, I think, going to get coastal defense instead of attack. This makes more sense in my opinion. It matches the historical role of the galleass ('castle'-type ships that could resist attacks by many smaller ramming galleys). It makes the galleass arguably more suited to the necessary role of letting slightly less advanced civilizations defend themselves usefully against privateers and frigates.

Your proposed change to the ironclad is probably OK, although it's entirely superfluous to give a Strength 17 ironclad a strength bonus against galleys, triremes, cogs, and dromons; they're not strong enough to matter.

I oppose your proposed change to the torpedo boat. Torpedo boats are supposed to be nasty ambush predators; that's the point of the unit type. It matches historical use- torpedo boats were reasonably effective when they got to pick their battles, but were easily broken up by heavier warships under less favorable conditions. This is best reflected by letting the torpedo boat win more easily when it attacks, giving its user the initiative... unless the enemy has fleets that can simply sink and ignore torpedo boats.

I approve of your proposed change to destroyers; one of their biggest missions is to act as convoy escorts against subs and torpedo boats. To accomplish that mission they have to be effective as defenders against those units, not just to have an attack bonus for active hunting of them.

 

[Mr. Sulu]

Stang, I lost this argument. Agree with your point completely:.

 

[Howard Mahler]

Under my proposal Galleas is 7 versus strength 8 for Privateer.
So Galleas would give some protection against Privateers.
Also in the next version of HR, my understanding is that Privateer will be available later in the tech tree than currently.
One could give Galleas +10% versus Privateers, but this would defeat some of the point of building Privateers, so I would not do so.

Galleas would be 7 versus 10 for a Frigate.
This is the usual ratio for more advanced tech units to earlier tech units.
It is the same problem faced by less advanced tech nations versus more advanced tech throughout the game on both land and sea.
I do not see a need to give the Galleas a bonus defending against Frigates or against all ships.

In any case, coastal defense bonuses or attack bonuses are inherently poor game mechanics. They are subject to various rules crocks. With extended coasts they make virtually no sense. (Remember that we are playing on a strategic level map, with each space about 200 miles across.)

"It matches the historical role of the galleass ('castle'-type ships that could resist attacks by many smaller ramming galleys)." I do not see how this relates to anything that is being discussed.

The current torpedo boat does not have an attack bonus.
Rather it has a coastal attack bonus.
This does not fit with your historical analysis.

Under my proposal, Torpedo Boats are increased from 16 to 20 strength. (25% stronger.)
They would still have the first strike and withdrawal chance.
The withdrawal chance is what gives them the advantage on the attack.

Galleass is, I think, going to get coastal defense instead of attack. This makes more sense in my opinion. It matches the historical role of the galleass ('castle'-type ships that could resist attacks by many smaller ramming galleys). It makes the galleass arguably more suited to the necessary role of letting slightly less advanced civilizations defend themselves usefully against privateers and frigates.

Your proposed change to the ironclad is probably OK, although it's entirely superfluous to give a Strength 17 ironclad a strength bonus against galleys, triremes, cogs, and dromons; they're not strong enough to matter.

I oppose your proposed change to the torpedo boat. Torpedo boats are supposed to be nasty ambush predators; that's the point of the unit type. It matches historical use- torpedo boats were reasonably effective when they got to pick their battles, but were easily broken up by heavier warships under less favorable conditions. This is best reflected by letting the torpedo boat win more easily when it attacks, giving its user the initiative... unless the enemy has fleets that can simply sink and ignore torpedo boats.

I approve of your proposed change to destroyers; one of their biggest missions is to act as convoy escorts against subs and torpedo boats. To accomplish that mission they have to be effective as defenders against those units, not just to have an attack bonus for active hunting of them.

 

[Simon_Jester]

Xyth, can you explain what the current rationales for the existing bonus system are? I've lost track of what changes you've already planned, what changes you haven't planned, and what the status quo is. This makes it difficult for me to find a stable position from which to speak when looking at Howard's proposed revamp.

But I think that the changes do need some more discussion- they should not be implemented blindly or without open conversation, because that can easily lead to trouble like the "flat 5 XP per promotion" we just saw with 0.9.5.