Feedback: Units

[Keinpferd]

Given up on ranged combat so soon? That was one of the few things I liked about Civ V. Fireaxis realized, combat was the main weakness in all sequels. They made it top priority when designing Civ V along with "streamlining" and "accessibility". The majority of the community had great expectations, because they felt, too, that an overhaul of the combat system would perfectionize the game. To the credit of Jon Shafer's, the basic approach to the new combat system wasn't so bad, probably well informed by his war gaming expertise. Too bad, that in the published game the AI would sent her armies backwards into battle, siege weapons heading first…

As Civ V was about improving combat, most Civ IV mods were, too, because both Fireaxis and the modders share a similar perspective on what game aspects could be taken further and would qualify as a logical field of improvement. The name of the Civ IV mod "Community Civ V" expresses that. And to a degree, a Mac based mod can be a little revenge for the stubborness of Fireaxis and Aspyr towards Mac modding support, if it achieves, what they failed to do. So, yes, Xyth, I'm trying my best to talk you into revisiting the ranged combat again.

And a withdrawal capability for siege units would really be a terrible substitute for that. Luckily, trebuchets will be exempted from that "withdrawal from combat." You know, the only trebuchet, that can withdraw from battle, is the four-legged trebuchet.

Withdrawal implies a sense of mobility. Mobility of military units is measurable. A towed gun, which has to be limbered up and moved to a safer place is far less mobile than a self-propelled modern gun, that retreats even faster than the Sultan's camel archers. Difference in mobility must be represented in any conceivable combat system of Civ. Why not use the right words and attach the correct meaning to those words, instead of interpreting, bending and shuffling?

Is it at all neccessary to deliver a pleading for ranged combat? Isn't it evident enough, that a unit that "shoots at range" should be modelled exactly that way in a video game, too? The trick of ranged units is, both on battlefield and on a computer screen, they can do damage to non-ranged units two tiles away, being without range, themselves, while at close range, on the directly adjacent tile, are vulnerable to them. That's beneficial for gameplay as for realism.

I haven't really got a chance to catch up with what's been posted here lately, so, as mostly, I picked one thing, that's bugging me, rather than giving some more positive feedback on the many good proposals.

 

[Xyth]

It all comes down to the sadly unavoidable fact that the AI doesn't handle ranged combat well and thus introducing it gives a significant advantage to the player. I did a LOT of testing and it just was far too easy to outwit the AI in many situations. Not such a problem when there is an element of risk but with ranged combat there isn't. In particular, the AI seems to calculate ranged combat odds differently from standard combat odds, certain factors and modifiers aren't taken into consideration. This leads to the AI making some truly dumb decisions.

CCV and all such mods that have ranged combat have the SDK available to fix or compensate for these shortcomings. HR doesn't. I did some tests in PAE and the same problems exist there too.

I agree that withdrawal is an imperfect substitute but it's the best we've got. I like ranged combat but I'm not going to use it if it makes the BTS AI that much weaker than it already is.

 

[Keinpferd]

That's bad news. And you say, in PAE, too? I would know, if anybody had ever noticed that before and posted about it, some of the hardcore MP-addicts on the German forum included. They would have noticed. But I believe you, of course. Maybe I never noticed, because I played the mod – for knowing it so well – far above my actual difficulty level, and, busy to survive at all, perhaps wouldn't realize the possible truth, that the AI could be outwitted easier than it can without ranged combat. But the Civ IV AI is always pretty soon at her wit's end.

What about the lately discovered Mac compatible mod? Doesn't include a changed DLL but has ranged combat.

I'm lost at what the difficulties with the AI could be. I have seen the AI apply ranged attacks in all situations, when a human player would have, except two: the AI never learned to load ranged weapons into boats and fire from boats to reduce the opponent's boats' strength before directly assaulting, and the AI always missed the opportunity to fire at galleys from the shore.

My only concern was, the AI knew ranged combat to well. In PAE, the AI usually brings a lot of siege material. Often, you're better off to keep the AI away from your cities and lead it into the traps, that the BTS designers laid out for her, having her attack across rivers onto forest hills, and such.

Does your fear to further weaken an already weak BTS AI also concern the two highest difficulty levels? In other contexts, I've seen postings of above mentioned MP addicted superfreaks that believably expressed their fear to lose an AI opponent that makes a real match for them, if a mod takes a certain AI weakening direction that they didn't like. I can't really judge about that. All I hope is that the last word about the topic hasn't been spoken yet.

 

[Xyth]

That's bad news.

It is, I was disappointed. But believe me I tried.

But the Civ IV AI is always pretty soon at her wit's end.

Indeed. Civ4 just isn't really designed to be a tactical game with a tactical AI, instead it's a logistical game with an AI to match. They tried tactical with Civ5 with pretty poor results, unforgivably ruining the logistical game in the process.

What about the lately discovered Mac compatible mod? Doesn't include a changed DLL but has ranged combat.

I had a cursory look at that. It seems to just enable ranged combat with few other changes to support it. PAE has a much better implementation.

I'm lost at what the difficulties with the AI could be. I have seen the AI apply ranged attacks in all situations, when a human player would have, except two: the AI never learned to load ranged weapons into boats and fire from boats to reduce the opponent's boats' strength before directly assaulting, and the AI always missed the opportunity to fire at galleys from the shore.

More significantly, the AI won't load siege on ships and use it to attack cities. The player can have a few ships adjacent to a coastal city and start destroying/weakening the defenders at no cost. The AI won't use it's own ranged units against these siege ships. If the AI manages to build or bring in ships to try and take out such an attack then you can just weaken the AI ships with siege and sink them easily. And since naval units have several movement points its very easy to use hit and run tactics as well.

If the AI is besieging your city it's often all too effective to send several small stacks of ranged units around the sides or rear of the invading stacks and whittle them down. The AI isn't very good at countering so many attacks at once and thus you can inflict a considerable amount of damage on the invading stack with little to no harm to your units. This would be fine if the AI was smart enough to do this to you as well, but it's not.

Another problem is with maximum damage limits: the AI doesn't seem to understand that after a while its attacks are doing no damage. I've seen it merrily firing away at the same unit for centuries doing no harm but taking no damage either. Because of this you can draw the fire of a large stack and effectively keep them out of the main battle for a long time.

There were other aspects too but those were the major ones.

My only concern was, the AI knew ranged combat to well. In PAE, the AI usually brings a lot of siege material. Often, you're better off to keep the AI away from your cities and lead it into the traps, that the BTS designers laid out for her, having her attack across rivers onto forest hills, and such.

They do bring a lot of siege, and it can be pretty nasty if they get to your city. But as you describe, and as I detail above, there are all sorts of tricks that the player can use that the AI cannot. And therein lies the problem. It's always existed but the risk-free element of ranged combat just amplifies it too much.

Does your fear to further weaken an already weak BTS AI also concern the two highest difficulty levels?

I haven't really given much consideration to the two highest difficulty levels. The AI in BTS is the same at all difficulty levels, it doesn't get any smarter. It just gets given successively more bonuses than the player. A change like ranged combat may make the higher difficulty levels a bit easier but it starts making the lower ones trivial. It's not enough to just expect people to play at higher difficulty levels in this situation because the military aspect becomes disproportionate and disconnected in challenge to the economic/building aspect.

Personally I prefer a design where we work with the AI's capabilities rather than compensate for it's weaknesses in one area with bonuses in another.

All I hope is that the last word about the topic hasn't been spoken yet.

I'll never say never but I don't wish to spend any more time on it right now. I've got a lot to do still on 0.9.5 and even after that there are other higher priority aspects of the mod to look at.

 

[Simon_Jester]

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.

Good idea.

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.

Yes, but that's exactly the jump you'd have already had anyway from frigates to destroyers in vanilla Civ IV. We haven't fixed that problem, but we didn't create it either.

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.

During the early period, "cruisers" represent a typical late 19th century armored cruiser. A ship like that could blow 1860s-era ironclads out of the water without much trouble. There was a large advance in naval design from 1860 to 1900.

During the modern-ish era, the 'cruiser' is demoted to a mid-ranking naval combatant, one which lacks the exceptional firepower of the battleship, the air and missile capability of various other units, and the specialist role of destroyers.

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.

I called for "cruisers" for a number of reasons.

One is that I feel destroyers are relatively overpowered compared to what are supposed to be capital ships, partly because the game designers gave the destroyer the stat line it would need to carry out the cruiser's mission.

Another is that vanilla Civ IV completely ignores the transition from the earliest steam-powered ironclads (clunky monstrosities, mostly) to WWII warships. There is a lot of room for intermediate designs in there, and the cruiser is meant to do that.

But at the same time, units have to be around long enough to matter; there's no point building something that becomes obsolete two techs later. So the "cruiser," as a late-industrial unit, has to remain useful in the modern era, which means scaling its capabilities to those of modern warships, not renaissance ones.

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...

This is not, strictly speaking, true.

For example, battleships became roughly twice as dangerous, if not more so, within a five or ten year period during the Dreadnought Revolution. Warship tonnage and quality improved rapidly in the late 19th century. One aircraft carrier of 1940 was a match for multiple battleships, under the right conditions, and yet this change had occured only within the last ten years or so.

Growth in military power through the history of the modern era has been exponential, on land and on sea. One battery of WWI artillery is worth a lot more than one battery of Napoleonic cannon, just as one WWI armored cruiser is worth a lot more than one Napoleonic ship of the line.

Civ IV tends to compress this into a relatively small performance gap between units, which I don't complain about. But what needs to be changed in that case is that the performance of the frigate and ship of the line should be slightly boosted (maybe the ship of the line should get an honest strength increase, not just a bonus against frigates). The ironclad should be slightly boosted. And the cruiser, the first of the modern naval units, should stay right where it is unless we want to have to renormalize the entire modern naval strength listings- which I'd prefer not to do.

We can make the jump in performance with each new generation of ship fairly limited, I think, if it's done carefully.

 

[Xyth]

But what needs to be changed in that case is that the performance of the frigate and ship of the line should be slightly boosted (maybe the ship of the line should get an honest strength increase, not just a bonus against frigates). The ironclad should be slightly boosted. And the cruiser, the first of the modern naval units, should stay right where it is unless we want to have to renormalize the entire modern naval strength listings- which I'd prefer not to do.

We can make the jump in performance with each new generation of ship fairly limited, I think, if it's done carefully.

Yep, I think the industrial/modern era of naval units, Cruiser onwards, is 'normalized' well and that the early ships are what needs adjusting. I haven't tackled this yet but hope to for 0.9.5. Suggested schemes welcome. I'm also thinking of adding the Clipper as an intermediate step or alternative between the Galleon and Transport, unlocked around the same time as the Ironclad.

 

[Azoth]

I think we might want to revisit the issue of excess workers.
About three months ago, we agreed to let workers join cities as citizen specialists.
I thought it was a great idea at the time:

A citizen specialist? I like it! This gives Workers a unique ability that doesn't compete with Great Engineers. At the same time, it eliminates the stockpiling problem; a free citizen specialist just isn't worth the trouble. I have only one concern: after your 15 or so Workers finish building Railroads in the Industrial Era, they could all come together and join a single city. That would give the city an immediate 15 hammer/turn boost; 30 hammers/turn if it had a Forge, Factory, and power plant; and even more with an Ironworks or Heroic Epic. I don't think it matters so late in the game, but I thought I should point it out anyway.

I am not so sure anymore. Consider the following:

1. A worker costs 60 hammers on Normal speed.
2. A citizen specialist produces 1/turn, or 2/turn with a Forge, Factory, and power plant. So a settled worker recoups its hammer cost in 30 turns.
3. That's not all. A citizen specialist also produces bonus commerce with certain civics and wonders: +2/turn under Rationalism, +1/turn each under Codification and Industrialism, +1/turn under Authoritarianism, and +2/turn each with Altruism and the Sistine Chapel.
4. Though some of those civics fall in the same column, a settled worker could recoup its hammer cost in as little as 10 turns under the right conditions!

Now I'm worried that the optimal late game strategy for cities that have finished growing or constructing buildings is to stockpile citizen specialists by training workers.
It might easily be more profitable than building wealth or research directly. We should consider alternate worker abilities:

1. Workers can contribute 30, or half their hammer cost, towards the construction of units only. Allowing workers to hurry units but not buildings or wonders will discourage stockpiling. At the same time, the 30 bonus, unlike the 1/turn bonus from settled citizen specialists, will never exceed the initial 60 cost (40 for Expansive leaders).
2. Workers can upgrade into any Melee, Archery, Mounted, Skirmisher, or Gunpowder unit that a player has the technology and resources to build. It would make for another useful ability, but again, one not worth stockpiling workers for. Upgrade costs would follow the standard formula: 25 base + 3 per difference, -50% for Progressive leaders and the Standing Army civic.

 

[Howard Mahler]

suggestion #1. No. No. No.
suggestion #2. No. No. No. No.

I think of settled workers as settled great persons.
I believe settled great persons do not get extra science, etc., from civics or wonders.
I could be wrong.

If settled workers act as great persons, then in theory they can be given whatever bonus. While +1 hammer makes the most sense, perhaps they can give +1 commerce instead.

I am not familiar with Normal Speed.
How many turns is the whole game at Normal Speed?
What else could one do in 30 turns?

I think we might want to revisit the issue of excess workers.
About three months ago, we agreed to let workers join cities as citizen specialists.
I thought it was a great idea at the time:



I am not so sure anymore. Consider the following:

1. A worker costs 60 hammers on Normal speed.
2. A citizen specialist produces 1/turn, or 2/turn with a Forge, Factory, and power plant. So a settled worker recoups its hammer cost in 30 turns.
3. That's not all. A citizen specialist also produces bonus commerce with certain civics and wonders: +2/turn under Rationalism, +1/turn each under Codification and Industrialism, +1/turn under Authoritarianism, and +2/turn each with Altruism and the Sistine Chapel.
4. Though some of those civics fall in the same column, a settled worker could recoup its hammer cost in as little as 10 turns under the right conditions!

Now I'm worried that the optimal late game strategy for cities that have finished growing or constructing buildings is to stockpile citizen specialists by training workers.
It might easily be more profitable than building wealth or research directly. We should consider alternate worker abilities:

1. Workers can contribute 30, or half their hammer cost, towards the construction of units only. Allowing workers to hurry units but not buildings or wonders will discourage stockpiling. At the same time, the 30 bonus, unlike the 1/turn bonus from settled citizen specialists, will never exceed the initial 60 cost (40 for Expansive leaders).
2. Workers can upgrade into any Melee, Archery, Mounted, Skirmisher, or Gunpowder unit that a player has the technology and resources to build. It would make for another useful ability, but again, one not worth stockpiling workers for. Upgrade costs would follow the standard formula: 25 base + 3 per difference, -50% for Progressive leaders and the Standing Army civic.

 

[Xyth]

Workers can contribute 30, or half their hammer cost, towards the construction of units only. Allowing workers to hurry units but not buildings or wonders will discourage stockpiling. At the same time, the 30 bonus, unlike the 1/turn bonus from settled citizen specialists, will never exceed the initial 60 cost (40 for Expansive leaders).

Regardless of whether this is a good idea or not, this cannot be coded.

Workers can upgrade into any Melee, Archery, Mounted, Skirmisher, or Gunpowder unit that a player has the technology and resources to build. It would make for another useful ability, but again, one not worth stockpiling workers for. Upgrade costs would follow the standard formula: 25 base + 3 per difference, -50% for Progressive leaders and the Standing Army civic.

This could possibly be coded but it's quite complicated and I don't think it's really all that appropriate.

I think of settled workers as settled great persons.
I believe settled great persons do not get extra science, etc., from civics or wonders.
I could be wrong.

They'll settle as regular citizen specialists, no different to the ones currently in game. If those receive the bonuses from civics and such then settled workers will too. Could one of you test it? I'm too busy this weekend to get any modding time in.

 

[Howard Mahler]

If +1 hammer is too strong,
then maybe you can add -1 food, -1 health, or -1 commerce.

 

[Azoth]

If +1 hammer is too strong,
then maybe you can add -1 food, -1 health, or -1 commerce.

That's just it. +1 is not too strong.
It pays for itself in 30 turns on Normal speed or 45 turns on Epic speed.

The problem is the extra +2 +2 from Codification/Industrialism/Rationalism;
or, alternatively, the extra +1 +1 +4 from Authoritarianism/Industrialism/Altruism and the Sistine Chapel.

Take that last example in the context of a Culture Victory:
Any player that adopts Altruism and builds the Sistine Chapel can produce an unlimited number of +4 citizen specialists, each for the cost of a Worker.
Two such settled Workers will match the cultural output of most Wonders. Four such settled Workers will produce more culture than a settled Great Artist!
That's crazy!

And I can't think of any way around the issue.
Ordinary citizen specialists do receive bonuses from civics and wonders.

 

[Howard Mahler]

1. Civics such as Altuism do apply their bonus to settled great persons, something I was not aware of.
2. The Sistine Chapel does not appear to add its culture bonus to settled great persons.
3. I never play with cultural victory, so I am not familiar with any details.

Altruism already gives +2 culture to any specialist.
5 to 10 specialists are not uncommon in big cities late in the game.
With Caste System, all of them can be artists.
At 6 culture per artist, or 8 with the Sistine Chapel, that is 30 to 80 culture from specialists in a big city.
Of course there may be multipliers from buildings and/or civics.

This does not count any settled great persons.

I do not know why this is currently not a problem with respect to Cultural victory.

Being able to settler workers would add to this effect.
However, one would need 15 settled workers with altruism to get 30 culture.
One would need 40 settled workers with altruism to get 80 culture per turn in a city.

It does appear that allowing workers to settle would make it somewhat easier to get a cultural victory. Perhaps, if it possible, the amount of culture needed could be increased somewhat.

In any case,
-1 health, or -1 something per settled worker would make it less powerful.

P.S. In my current game on a Giant Map, I am getting 97 culture per city (prior to any bonuses) from Sid's Sushi.

That's just it. +1 is not too strong.
It pays for itself in 30 turns on Normal speed or 45 turns on Epic speed.

The problem is the extra +2 +2 from Codification/Industrialism/Rationalism;
or, alternatively, the extra +1 +1 +4 from Authoritarianism/Industrialism/Altruism and the Sistine Chapel.

Take that last example in the context of a Culture Victory:
Any player that adopts Altruism and builds the Sistine Chapel can produce an unlimited number of +4 citizen specialists, each for the cost of a Worker.
Two such settled Workers will match the cultural output of most Wonders. Four such settled Workers will produce more culture than a settled Great Artist!
That's crazy!

And I can't think of any way around the issue.
Ordinary citizen specialists do receive bonuses from civics and wonders.

 

[Simon_Jester]

The real problem here is the lack of an upper limit on how many settled workers you can stuff into a city if you don't have to feed them- which lets you devote an empire of a dozen cities to building workers who get stuffed into three of them, so that you can get the three high culture cities you need to get Culture Victory.

If settled workers have to be fed, it doesn't create such a big problem- even if they only eat 1 food each, they're less productive than normal specialists too, so it cancels out. You can't pile 10 of them into a city willy-nilly.

 

[Azoth]

I should point out that Culture Victory was just an example. Settled Workers will affect many other aspects of the game.
For instance, they will each produce +2 under Codification/Industrialism. That's +3 with a Market and Grocer; and +4 with a Bank.
So a civilization will be able to pay all its maintenance costs simply by training and settling a Worker in each city.
Larger cities might require two Workers. I'll say it again: that's crazy!

The real problem here is the lack of an upper limit on how many settled workers you can stuff into a city if you don't have to feed them- which lets you devote an empire of a dozen cities to building workers who get stuffed into three of them, so that you can get the three high culture cities you need to get Culture Victory.

That's certainly part of the problem. Another problem is that, given enough time, settled Workers will always produce more hammers than they cost to build, even without any bonus civics or wonders. But the purpose of Workers is to build improvements. Their bonus ability should be an interesting alternative to disbanding, not an economic strategy in its own right.

If settled workers have to be fed, it doesn't create such a big problem- even if they only eat 1 food each, they're less productive than normal specialists too, so it cancels out. You can't pile 10 of them into a city willy-nilly.

I'm not sure it's possible to code a separate food penalty for settled Workers such that ordinary citizen specialists are unaffected. It might not be a good idea anyway: settled Workers that consume food would be permanent, unlike other specialists you can hire and fire at will. They would hardly be worthwhile without civic bonuses, which will upset the balance of the new civics columns. Worse, the AI might not understand them: it might ignore them altogether or even starve its cities with too many settled Workers.

No, I'm convinced we need to look elsewhere for a bonus Worker ability. There are still a number of available options:

1. A Mini Great Engineer: A one time hammer boost equal to half the Worker build cost.
   I thought you could limit this to units only, since Great Engineers are limited to buildings and Wonders only. If not, then it had better be buildings only.
2. Upgrade Chain: I think it makes perfect sense to upgrade Workers into military units. When a civilization is under attack, ordinary citizens take up arms to defend their cities and their fields.
   I can see a case for limiting the upgrade options. Worker --> Warrior --> Axeman --> Maceman and Worker --> Musketman --> Rifleman ---> Infantry might be best.
3. A Mini Great Scientist: Instead of founding an Academy, a Worker could build a limited number of basic buildings:
   Monuments, Cemeteries, Kilns, Tanneries, Granaries, Smokehouses, etc. We can decide which options would work best.
4. A Mini Great Merchant: Perhaps the simplest option. When Workers have finished their work, their hammer cost can be refunded, using the Conduct Trade mechanic.
   (It would have to modified to work in your own cities.) 60 would translate to 60, on the same ratio as the Build Wealth option.

 

[Xyth]

Pre-Industrial Naval Units

I'm quite happy with the changes made to the Industrial/Modern naval units, and the Cruiser was a great addition. However, there's quite the jump between 15 strength Ironclads and 30 strength Cruisers and there are also several new ships added or being added to pre-Industrial navies. I'd like people's thoughts and schemes on how we rebalance the strength of these ships so that they progress more smoothly into the later eras. Here's a quick synopsis of what we'll have:

• First transport ship is the Galley, first war ship is the Trireme. Both available in the Ancient era, both restricted to coastal waters.

• By the early Medieval era the Galley can upgrade to the Cog, and the Trireme can upgrade to the Dromon (which has snazzy Greek fire animations!). Both restricted to coastal waters.

• The Caravel becomes available in the mid-Medieval era and in this new position it can revert to an exploratory vessel that can enter ocean tiles from the outset.

• In the early Renaissance the Dromon can upgrade to the gunpowder based Galleass. This would be coastal waters only. I'd like to retain this unit but I'm not sure yet what role it could serve.

• In the mid-Renaissance the Cog can upgrade to the Galleon and the Caravel can upgrade to the Frigate. The Privateer also becomes available. All are ocean going vessels.

• In the late Renaissance the Ship of the Line becomes available.

• In the early Industrial era the Galleass can upgrade to the Ironclad, which is the last ship restricted to coastal waters. The Galleon can upgrade to the Clipper.

• Finally in the late Industrial era both the Ship of the Line and the Ironclad can upgrade to the Cruiser, and the Clipper can upgrade to the Transport.

• I'm not quite sure what should happen to the Frigate and Privateer at this point, currently they upgrade to the Destroyer but that's in the early Modern era. Is there another Industrial era ship that would make historic sense as an intermediate? The Corvette?​

 

[Simon_Jester]

• First transport ship is the Galley, first war ship is the Trireme. Both available in the Ancient era, both restricted to coastal waters.

• By the early Medieval era the Galley can upgrade to the Cog, and the Trireme can upgrade to the Dromon (which has snazzy Greek fire animations!). Both restricted to coastal waters.

• The Caravel becomes available in the mid-Medieval era and in this new position it can revert to an exploratory vessel that can enter ocean tiles from the outset.

• In the early Renaissance the Dromon can upgrade to the gunpowder based Galleass. This would be coastal waters only. I'd like to retain this unit but I'm not sure yet what role it could serve.​

Good, good... I suggest that the Galleass be stronger than any naval unit before the frigate, and even able to combat frigates meaningfully- Strength 6 or so, and it may also be cheaper than the frigate. Taken together, that combination would make it a pretty effective naval defender. Frigates would have to approach with caution (as historical; the bigger Mediterranean galley-style ships were credible opponents for Northern European frigates when said ships ventured into the Med). Ships of the Line, with their higher strength*, could beat them reliably.

If you ever do the coast/ocean/sea thing, you could make galleasses coast-and-ocean ships, which would give them a mobility advantage over earlier ships without the total flexibility of later ones.

*(10 sounds about right, so that they're still much weaker than industrial ironclad steamships, but more powerful than any other sailing ship)

• In the mid-Renaissance the Cog can upgrade to the Galleon and the Caravel can upgrade to the Frigate. The Privateer also becomes available. All are ocean going vessels.

• In the late Renaissance the Ship of the Line becomes available.

• In the early Industrial era the Galleass can upgrade to the Ironclad, which is the last ship restricted to coastal waters. The Galleon can upgrade to the Clipper.

Hmmm....

• Finally in the late Industrial era both the Ship of the Line and the Ironclad can upgrade to the Cruiser, and the Clipper can upgrade to the Transport.

• I'm not quite sure what should happen to the Frigate and Privateer at this point, currently they upgrade to the Destroyer but that's in the early Modern era. Is there another Industrial era ship that would make historic sense as an intermediate? The Corvette?

I think the Ironclad should not be a coastal ship, or if it is, you need another early industrial naval unit with strength 15-20 to do the oceangoing role. What really kills the naval game is the sudden jump from the most powerful oceangoing ship being Strength 8 to being Strength 30, after all- suddenly, every ship in the world becomes obsolete and useless all at once.

You could, say... have two ships:

Monitor (coastal, speed 3-4 or so, strength ~15-20, upgrades from Galleass, optional upgrade from frigate, upgrades to Cruiser)
You should be able to find "cheesebox on a raft" art from USS Monitor or a similar ship from somewhere.

Ironclad (oceangoing, speed 4-5, strength ~15-20, upgrades from Frigate, Ship of the Line, Privateer, upgrades to Cruiser OR Destroyer)
This will use the art you now use for the ironclad- a ship like HMS Warrior, which was long-ranged and had sails, because you needed sails to get intercontinental range on a reasonable sized ship in the 1860s.

The two ships are functionally similar in strength, but dissimilar in prerequisites and tactical roles.


If you don't want "Monitor," make your coastal industrial warship:

Torpedo Boat (coastal, move 5-6, strength 15, +50 to 75% against cruisers, upgrades directly to the destroyer with its strength 22 and attached bonuses against air and submarine units).

That's a nice change from the 'slow and feeble' model of coastal craft. And historically, the advent of self-propelled torpedoes in the 1870s was a huge game-changer in naval warfare; it was what the destroyer was originally invented to counter. "Torpedo boat destroyers" were supposed to be light, fast, gun-armed warships that could chase down fast-moving torpedo boats and kill them before they got into torpedo range of the big bruisers.

Your "torpedo boat" graphic would have to be something small and zippy-looking; I don't know where you'd find what you need.



I'll write all this up more formally, with a full naval tree that describes what I have in mind in detail, in the next day or two.

 

[Howard Mahler]

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.

I am not sure of names, but something like:

Ironclad
Modern Ship #1: ocean going, requires coal, move 5, strength 20 (or maybe 21).
Modern Ship #2 (current cruiser): ocean going, requires oil, move 6, strength 30.

Modern ship #2 is available at a later tech than modern ship #1.

Perhaps can just call them Light Cruiser and Heavy Cruiser, if nobody can come up with better names.

If one wanted to one could have two ships between ironclad and cruiser rather than just one. I think the above would do for a quick fix.
By World War I they had battleships called dreadnaughts and then
super-dreadnaughts.
So for future versions there is room to make the set of modern ships more historical, if more detail is thought desirable.
(I am not an expert.)

From Wikipedia:
"A battleship is a large armored warship with a main battery consisting of heavy caliber guns. Battleships were larger, better armed and armored than cruisers and destroyers. As the largest armed ships in a fleet, battleships were used to attain command of the sea and represented the apex of a nation's naval power from about 1875 up until World War II. With the rise of air power, guided missiles, and guided bombs, large guns were no longer deemed necessary to establish naval superiority.

Battleship design evolved to incorporate and adapt technological advances to maintain an edge. The word battleship was coined around 1794 and is a contraction of the phrase line-of-battle ship, the dominant wooden warship during the Age of Sail.[1] The term came into formal use in the late 1880s to describe a type of ironclad warship,[2] now referred to as pre-dreadnought battleships. In 1906, the commissioning of HMS Dreadnought heralded a revolution in battleship design. Following battleship designs that were influenced by HMS Dreadnought were referred to as "dreadnoughts"."

Pre-Industrial Naval Units

I'm quite happy with the changes made to the Industrial/Modern naval units, and the Cruiser was a great addition. However, there's quite the jump between 15 strength Ironclads and 30 strength Cruisers and there are also several new ships added or being added to pre-Industrial navies. I'd like people's thoughts and schemes on how we rebalance the strength of these ships so that they progress more smoothly into the later eras. Here's a quick synopsis of what we'll have:

• First transport ship is the Galley, first war ship is the Trireme. Both available in the Ancient era, both restricted to coastal waters.

• By the early Medieval era the Galley can upgrade to the Cog, and the Trireme can upgrade to the Dromon (which has snazzy Greek fire animations!). Both restricted to coastal waters.

• The Caravel becomes available in the mid-Medieval era and in this new position it can revert to an exploratory vessel that can enter ocean tiles from the outset.

• In the early Renaissance the Dromon can upgrade to the gunpowder based Galleass. This would be coastal waters only. I'd like to retain this unit but I'm not sure yet what role it could serve.

• In the mid-Renaissance the Cog can upgrade to the Galleon and the Caravel can upgrade to the Frigate. The Privateer also becomes available. All are ocean going vessels.

• In the late Renaissance the Ship of the Line becomes available.

• In the early Industrial era the Galleass can upgrade to the Ironclad, which is the last ship restricted to coastal waters. The Galleon can upgrade to the Clipper.

• Finally in the late Industrial era both the Ship of the Line and the Ironclad can upgrade to the Cruiser, and the Clipper can upgrade to the Transport.

• I'm not quite sure what should happen to the Frigate and Privateer at this point, currently they upgrade to the Destroyer but that's in the early Modern era. Is there another Industrial era ship that would make historic sense as an intermediate? The Corvette?​

 

[Simon_Jester]

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...

The problem I see is that each ship has to be available for a useful amount of time, without excessive inflation of the number of ship types.

We have two ancient/classical ships, each with distinct roles: galley/trireme.

We have three medieval ships, each with distinct roles: cog/dromon/caravel.

We have five renaissance ships: galleon/galleass/privateer/frigate/ship of the line.
At this point, it's hard to preserve a distinct role for each ship, and adding further classes arguably becomes superfluous unless we know what to do with them.

We have, if we combine your idea with Xyth's, five industrial ships: clipper/ironclad/"light cruiser"/transport/"heavy cruiser"
This is the first era in which you can have ships upgrading twice in a single era, and I don't think I care for it.

The modern era, of course, has six ships:
submarine/attack sub/carrier/battleship/missile cruiser/destroyer...

But at least two or three of them have new specific roles that are made possible by the technology, and thus they don't infringe on each others' missions so much.

Let me lay out what I think we should have, from the beginning to the end. Only primary prerequisites are listed. If there's any disagreement over specific stats, feel free to bring it up; I'm giving the stats of existing ships from memory which may be wrong.
____________________________

ANCIENT/CLASSICAL
Galley (Seafaring, Str 2, move 2, carry 2, coastal)
Trireme (Shipbuilding, Str 3, move 2, carry 0, coastal)

MEDIEVAL
Cog (Guilds, Str 3, move 3, carry 2 or 3, coastal)
Dromon (???*, Str 4, move 3, carry 0, coastal)
Caravel (Compass, Str ?, move 3, carry special, oceangoing)

*Unknown, suggest Machinery to reflect the kind of torsion artillery and such that would go on a more sophisticated ship like this.

RENAISSANCE
Galleon (Optics, Str 4, move 3 or 4, carry 3, oceangoing)
Galleass (Gunpowder, Str 6, move 3 or 4, carry 0, coastal)
Privateer (Charter, Str 6, move 4 or 5, carry 0, oceangoing, flies jolly roger)
Frigate (Meteorology, Str 8, move 4, carry 0, oceangoing)*
Ship of the Line (Physics, Str 10, move 3, carry 0, oceangoing, can bombard cities*)

*I suggest restricting bombardment to ships of the line, as historically these ships carried much heavier guns than a typical frigate, were better suited for fighting it out with shore batteries, and above all because in game it creates an incentive to build them, which would otherwise be lacking since frigates are faster and the speed is normally more of an advantage than the firepower. You might, if you wish, allow frigates to bombard.

INDUSTRIAL
Clipper (Refrigeration, Str 6, move 4 or 5, carry 3, oceangoing)
Ironclad (Steam Power, Str 15, move 4, carry 0, oceangoing, can bombard cities)*
Torpedo Boat (Refining, Str 15, move 6, carry 0, coastal, +50% or higher% attack versus cruiser)**
Cruiser (Combustion, Str 30, move 5, carry 0, oceangoing, can bombard cities)
Transport (Combustion, Str 15, move 5, carry 4, oceangoing)
Submarine (Pneumatics, Str 24, move 4, carry missiles, underwater, 50% chance of withdrawal)

[Clippers require no resources. Ironclads, cruisers, transports, and torpedo boats can be built with coal. Cruisers, transports, torpedo boats, and submarines can be built with oil]

*Use existing artwork for this- the one you use in 0.9.4, which has sails. This is an oceangoing ironclad, and yes it is far stronger than a frigate, but not so much stronger than a ship of the line.
**This will remain reasonably effective after much-stronger cruisers appear, as the ironclad will not. Its main selling points will be speed and low cost, though.

MODERN
Destroyer (Electronics, Str 22, move 6 or 7, carry 0, oceangoing, can see subs, +50% versus submarine and attack submarine, chance to intercept aircraft)
Battleship (Automobile, Str 40, move 4, carry 0, oceangoing, can bombard cities very well)
Carrier (Radar, Str 20, move 5, carry planes)
Attack Submarine (Fission, Str 30, move 6, underwater, 50% chance of withdrawal)
Missile Cruiser (Robotics, Str 40, move 5, carry missiles, can bombard cities very well)*
Stealth Destroyer (I hate the concept of this ship because it turns out not to work in real life, but I'm not asking people to remove it; as normal)

[All ships except Attack Submarine can be built with oil. All ships except Destroyer and Stealth Destroyer can be built with uranium. Therefore, battleships, carriers, submarines, and missile cruisers can be built with either oil or uranium]

*I think it might be nice to give the missile cruiser the air-interception and anti-submarine capabilities of the destroyer, so that the destroyer can upgrade into the missile cruiser.

UPGRADE PATHS (paths stop at a branch point):
Galley -> Cog -> Galleon -> Clipper -> Transport
Trireme -> Dromon -> Galleass -> Torpedo Boat -> Destroyer -> ???
Caravel -> ???
Frigate -> Ironclad
Ship of the Line -> Ironclad
Ironclad -> Cruiser -> Missile Cruiser
Battleship -> Missile Cruiser

(Nothing upgrades to Ship of the Line or Battleship; each must be built specially during its era, with the incentive to do so coming from their power to hammer other people's navies to scrap and lay waste to coastal cities more effectively than anything else in their eras)

(Don't know what to do with Caravel upgrades- frigate maybe?)

I am not sure of names, but something like:

Ironclad
Modern Ship #1: ocean going, requires coal, move 5, strength 20 (or maybe 21).
Modern Ship #2 (current cruiser): ocean going, requires oil, move 6, strength 30.

Modern ship #2 is available at a later tech than modern ship #1.

Perhaps can just call them Light Cruiser and Heavy Cruiser, if nobody can come up with better names.

Light cruisers didn't exist as a design concept until around 1910, and the artificial distinction between "light" and "heavy" came about as a by-product of the Washington Naval Treaty, which capped all cruisers at ten thousand tons' weight. At that size, you could build either a well-balanced ship design using six-inch guns, or an overgunned design using eight-inch guns and reduced armor protection. The 6" designs got arbitrarily labeled "light" and the 8" designs "heavy," even though a "light" cruiser was often as good or better as a warship than the "heavy."

If one wanted to one could have two ships between ironclad and cruiser rather than just one. I think the above would do for a quick fix.
By World War I they had battleships called dreadnaughts and then
super-dreadnaughts.
So for future versions there is room to make the set of modern ships more historical, if more detail is thought desirable.
(I am not an expert.)

"Dreadnought" was an informal term for ships with an all big-gun armament. The norm for late-1800s designs was to have big gun turrets near the bow and stern, carrying two or four of the ship's heaviest weapons, then a long box of superstructure in between the turrets which would carry a lot of almost-as-big guns. The theory was that you'd blow the crud out of the enemy's superstructure and smaller ships with masses of relatively low-power gunfire, while punching through their heavy armor with the big guns.

In practice, this didn't work so well- the medium guns weren't powerful enough to cause enough superficial damage to matter. So once it became practical to arm ships with several heavy-gun turrets (think 12" guns and up), everyone in the world started work on classes of ships armed with no medium weapons at all, nothing bigger than five-inch guns or so to defend against enemy light warships while the big guns were otherwise occupied.

Everyone started on this around 1904 or so, except the French who got unlucky in their design patterns and just happened to already have started work on a bunch of ships using the old pattern. The British rushed one of these new ships and called it Dreadnought; everyone else's became known as "dreadnoughts" in imitation, and the French got the world's deadliest pre-dreadnought battleships.

If history had gone a little differently and the British hadn't gone far out of their way to rush-build their first all big gun ship, "dreadnoughts" could equally well have been called "southcarolinas" or "satsumas." Although names like that might not have caught on.

"Super-dreadnought" was a term which didn't last; it was a short-lived name for ships built along the same general lines as the first-generation dreadnoughts, but which were further improved in straightforward, linear progression: bigger, faster, heavier-armed, more expensive. Mostly just bigger; greater size in a warship makes nearly everything else, including speed, easier to achieve.

By 1920 or so, people had mostly stopped calling battleships "dreadnoughts" because there was no longer any real distinction to be made- the "pre-dreadnought" ships were mostly retired or scrapped.

 

[Simon_Jester]

Oh, one minor note. Can we somehow preserve airships' ability to detect submarines, even if we don't keep any other capacity for them? I like the idea, because between that and cruisers, you'd be able to mount at least some credible defense against a naval attack on your shores even without oil- you can attack enemy ships and subs, and until the enemy develops carrier air power, you can thus sort of counter what they can throw at you. Once they have planes you're in trouble, of course, but such is life.

I like this for the same reasons I'm glad you can build Longbowmen, Riflemen, Artillery and so on without strategic resources- it gives your forces a fighting chance to defend themselves if by sheer bad luck you don't have the rich strategic resources you need.

It also gives the airship a distinct role, much more so than "primitive bomber unit that exists before anyone has fighters to shoot it down with." And one is actually rather accurate, since in real life airships saw quite a bit of use for anti-submarine warfare and naval reconaissance in general during World War Two.

On the other hand, we obviously don't want to combine "can see submarines" with "huge sight radius," I guess.

 

[Keinpferd]

I'm not quite sure what should happen to the Frigate and Privateer at this point, currently they upgrade to the Destroyer but that's in the early Modern era. Is there another Industrial era ship that would make historic sense as an intermediate? The Corvette?

The strength jump of 15 to 30 from Cruisers to Ironclads remains a problem.
[…]
Ironclad
Modern Ship #1: ocean going, requires coal, move 5, strength 20 (or maybe 21).
Modern Ship #2 (current cruiser): ocean going, requires oil, move 6, strength 30.

Modern ship #2 is available at a later tech than modern ship #1.

Perhaps can just call them Light Cruiser and Heavy Cruiser, if nobody can come up with better names.

If one wanted to one could have two ships between ironclad and cruiser rather than just one. I think the above would do for a quick fix.
By World War I they had battleships called dreadnaughts and then
super-dreadnaughts.
So for future versions there is room to make the set of modern ships more historical, if more detail is thought desirable.[…]

If you look at it from the view, what's available, there are actually pre-dreadnoughts and sailing corvettes in the Realism Invictus folder. I would go with the pre-dreadnoughts, because there are several unique models of them, like the Bronenosec (or Bronenossez), HMS Canopus, SMS Brandenburg or USS Iowa, all equally beautiful. Even the Hungarians get one of their own. These ships comprise ship types that can't be classified and pinpointed really well (monitor, ship of the line, battleship, Panzerschiff…); they do however represent in different ways just the ships of the imperialist age, that were used in colonial wars and that bridge the gap between sailing ironclad and modern ship #1. I think that's what we're looking for.