![[to_xp]Gekko](https://civfanatics-data.community.forum/avatars/m/74/74677.jpg?1475248346){kind=avatar}
[to_xp]Gekko
QCT junkie
that's exactly what I was trying to say, thanx for wording it better. it sure looks a lot more agreeable now 
GEM: Sea Armies
- Thread starter Thalassicus
- Start date
Lissindiel
Chieftain
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2012
- Messages
- 48
What about transporting planes from one continent to another then? I don't think it's a good idea. And it will make anti-air defences useless against carrier.
Ahriman
Tyrant
We discussed changing the carrier into a regular ranged attack ship in one of the earlier threads, and I think it's interesting, but in the end probably isn't the right way to go. Lissindiel outlines some of the reasons; another is that it limits the scope of actual aircraft, and it makes the carrier feel less different/special.
One thing that might be worth doing though is to put in a built-in interception chance on the carrier, so that it can still provide some defensive air cover while allowing the aircraft based on it to run missions.
One thing that might be worth doing though is to put in a built-in interception chance on the carrier, so that it can still provide some defensive air cover while allowing the aircraft based on it to run missions.
[to_xp]Gekko
QCT junkie
something like that would be good, anything that can make the AI benefit from having them around really.
I'm currently testing the following and will post an update to the units/text files when I think it's working as intended (I would still need artwork as I'm just using destroyer and battleship art).
1) Adding a Modern Frigate at Nuclear Fission (same as Missile Destroyer. Might move the ModDD up one to radar as it replaces ironclads now),
75, 
8, extra sight, ASW bonus, melee class upgrades from DD. (Notes: I left a sight bonus on both destroyers, missile capacity on Mis.DD, and any ASW bonuses, for now).
2) Adding a Dreadnought at Dynamite (same as Artillery, I may move this back a line), 38, 
50, 4, capital class upgrades from SoL (requires coal). I also reduced the iron requirement on SoL to 1. I'm not sure it's necessary to trade that off as you can still use land units with iron usefully for a while (until rifling) when they appear and they're not extra ranged like later capital ships to where frigates (and galleons) aren't also a viable option.
3) Moved Ironclad to a ranged resourceless from capital class with a slight reduction in strength values. Moved DD to melee
c5strength: 60, moves 8).
4) Moved submarines to ranged. No upgrade path. Increased in cost from GEM, left the defence/attack promotions, removed sight penalty, adjusted strength/ranged to compensate for free promos (raised melee value, lowered ranged. May just remove the promos, and adjust strength to compensate for ranged defence modifier on most ships).
5) Slight adjustments in combat values.
a) Rounding for simplicity
b) slight adjustments downward in melee ships. (17, 30, 40, 60, 75, down from 19, 35, 44, 60+, 91+). Combination of move after attack, siege/anti-ship promotions, and higher speed should be enough with moderate increases in strength rather than significant increases. This can be rebalanced as needed. Thal also has a change where they are cheaper to maintain, and where ranged ships have a ranged defence modifier, making melee naval units more powerful still.
c) -1 adjustments downward for vanguard units and a slight reduction to the camaraderie promotion, but that's another thread.
I will also probably add an intercept chance/AA bonus to carriers (and check to be sure subs can't attack cities directly).
1) Adding a Modern Frigate at Nuclear Fission (same as Missile Destroyer. Might move the ModDD up one to radar as it replaces ironclads now),
75, 8, extra sight, ASW bonus, melee class upgrades from DD. (Notes: I left a sight bonus on both destroyers, missile capacity on Mis.DD, and any ASW bonuses, for now). 2) Adding a Dreadnought at Dynamite (same as Artillery, I may move this back a line),
38, 50, 4, capital class upgrades from SoL (requires coal). I also reduced the iron requirement on SoL to 1. I'm not sure it's necessary to trade that off as you can still use land units with iron usefully for a while (until rifling) when they appear and they're not extra ranged like later capital ships to where frigates (and galleons) aren't also a viable option. 3) Moved Ironclad to a ranged resourceless from capital class with a slight reduction in strength values. Moved DD to melee
c5strength: 60, moves 8). 4) Moved submarines to ranged. No upgrade path. Increased in cost from GEM, left the defence/attack promotions, removed sight penalty, adjusted strength/ranged to compensate for free promos (raised melee value, lowered ranged. May just remove the promos, and adjust strength to compensate for ranged defence modifier on most ships).
5) Slight adjustments in combat values.
a) Rounding for simplicity
b) slight adjustments downward in melee ships
. (17, 30, 40, 60, 75, down from 19, 35, 44, 60+, 91+). Combination of move after attack, siege/anti-ship promotions, and higher speed should be enough with moderate increases in strength rather than significant increases. This can be rebalanced as needed. Thal also has a change where they are cheaper to maintain, and where ranged ships have a ranged defence modifier, making melee naval units more powerful still. c) -1
adjustments downward for vanguard units and a slight reduction to the camaraderie promotion, but that's another thread. I will also probably add an intercept chance/AA bonus to carriers (and check to be sure subs can't attack cities directly).
[to_xp]Gekko
QCT junkie
sounds good! love to see Dreadnoughts in
I'll probably upload tomorrow. Finding art will be a longer term effect since its a placeholder as long as it seems balanced.
So, with that in mind. Could you be more specific? Some of those changes are larger than the others. What is it that you'd want in the immediate term? (Vanguards? Melee naval tweak?, ranged subs? AA on carrier?). I can put up a separate version with just adjustment changes alongside the more significant package.
So, with that in mind. Could you be more specific? Some of those changes are larger than the others. What is it that you'd want in the immediate term? (Vanguards? Melee naval tweak?, ranged subs? AA on carrier?). I can put up a separate version with just adjustment changes alongside the more significant package.
Ahriman
Tyrant
mystikx's design at #205 seems good to me.
Options I am considering further
1) making ironclads melee with modern frigates after. Leaving DDs as ranged.
The current proposal leaves a bit of a big gap tech wise between ironclads and missile destroyers.
2) alternative could be to move ironclads back a line or missile DD up a line or both.
Skobrin. I can do those as proposed, sure.
1) making ironclads melee with modern frigates after. Leaving DDs as ranged.
The current proposal leaves a bit of a big gap tech wise between ironclads and missile destroyers.
2) alternative could be to move ironclads back a line or missile DD up a line or both.
Skobrin. I can do those as proposed, sure.
Here an idea, what is the submarine was melee but had the blitz promotion by default?
Basically the idea being that if a sub is able to slip in on a naval line, it will do absolutely horrendous damage, but otherwise it still has to rely on its stealth instead of its range for killing.
Basically the idea being that if a sub is able to slip in on a naval line, it will do absolutely horrendous damage, but otherwise it still has to rely on its stealth instead of its range for killing.
How well does blitz work with AI? They already don't do well with logistics and ranged units. The major problems with subs as melee isn't that they're too weak and need more power but that we are using subs to capture and raid cities. Blitz seems like they'd be even larger as a one sided specialist unit for attacking.
MGs seem okay to me. Gatling is the weaker one.
MGs seem okay to me. Gatling is the weaker one.
Is it possible to give melee a units a attribute that would prevent city capture?
For me its one of those things I can live with, just like I live with rifleman with less range than crossbowmen, or mech infantry with the same speed as lancers.
Sea Beggars are seriously OP, especially with the barb instant upgrades. 55 strength is so far above everything else (cities, ranged units, other ships) that the unit is basically immortal, and every turn it can add barb Frigates to your army which it can kill and capture in one attack. I used a free tech right after jumping up to Observation to grab Navigation and in two turns I went from the weakest army to second strongest just by buying two Beggars and capping one Frigate, 3 turns later I had one more purchased Beggar and 4 more capped Frigates and had the strongest army on the map by a landslide. Meanwhile every other civ on the map started losing cities to barb ship attacks because their 10-20 strength units and sub 20 strength cities could do nothing against the sudden appearance of 30-40 strength barb ships. I didn't know where to put this since it's a combination of like 3 different issues. I think ships are too strong in relation to land units and cities, the instant barb unit upgrade can cripple the map if somebody blitzes to a specific tech in combination with that last issue, and the OP Netherlands UU can capitalize on both of those issues to snowball the map in a dozen turns. I imagine the Ottomans can do something similar but not nearly as easily. This specific string of events may not be common enough to matter, but I figured I'd post it anyway since I probably wont be playing Civ5 (and as such, GEM) again for a while.
Probably whatever choppers have would work.
I think the problem with it was that destroyers already were melee and made at least some sense in the role (fast, coastal raiding/close support, ASW, etc). And subs were ranged and did not make sense in that role (they are not fast, are not raiders, and don't do close support). I didn't see the necessity of changing both of those from status quo.
@zai, I will take a look at UU balances too. I think they're given large bonuses to strength. Most likely some of them will be gone in the leaders phase, but we are not there yet.
I agree that having both of those units as ranged or melee doesn't make sense.
I would say flavor issues aside, it makes more sense for destroyers to be ranged and subs melee from a gameplay standpoint. Destroyers are meant to be the common ship and subs are the hunters. Right now common ships need to be ranged, there just isn't enough for melee ships to do to warrant mass production of them. Meanwhile, the other hunters have been melee, so it makes sense to keep the sub in that category.
I don't follow the logic that units need to be ranged to be common. It's a very unconvincing argument for me even though it keeps getting made.
I think there's plenty for melee ships to do if they have the following in modern terms
Fast speed and move after attack.
Can capture/raid cities. A role no other ship has, and a role which is at least as important if not more so than killing units with bombardment.
Given an ASW role to function as escorts/scouts for the big ships and other invasion forces.
Reasonably stronger relative to GK to make them viable in combat even against capital ships.
Other points in their favor:
They're cheaper to build and maintain than either ranged common or capital ships
Ranged ships have a ranged defence modifier meaning you may need some melee ships to finish them off.
They only cease being useful when the other guy's navy is destroyed and you've taken over the coastal cities...but that's just as true of your entire navy with the exception of carriers and maybe BBs. 2 range naval units aren't really going to be as useful on the interior of a continent.
You would be limited by oil in the trade-off with BBs and tanks to have a large BB navy and they'd be vulnerable to subs without at least a few DDs. To me that sounds like a good reason to have a common melee unit rather than to follow the previous hunter/melee design slavishly. With BBs or carriers around, you don't need a "common" ranged unit anyway in my view unless it offers some other advantage (AA/sight/something like that).
Combat roles shift on land. It seems reasonable that the same could be accomplished at sea. The proposal I offered above is a compromise attempt to keep the upgrade paths available for common ranged units (without going into capital ships) and to have a common ranged unit in the game for land bombardment.
I think there's plenty for melee ships to do if they have the following in modern terms
Fast speed and move after attack.
Can capture/raid cities. A role no other ship has, and a role which is at least as important if not more so than killing units with bombardment.
Given an ASW role to function as escorts/scouts for the big ships and other invasion forces.
Reasonably stronger relative to GK to make them viable in combat even against capital ships.
Other points in their favor:
They're cheaper to build and maintain than either ranged common or capital ships
Ranged ships have a ranged defence modifier meaning you may need some melee ships to finish them off.
They only cease being useful when the other guy's navy is destroyed and you've taken over the coastal cities...but that's just as true of your entire navy with the exception of carriers and maybe BBs. 2 range naval units aren't really going to be as useful on the interior of a continent.
You would be limited by oil in the trade-off with BBs and tanks to have a large BB navy and they'd be vulnerable to subs without at least a few DDs. To me that sounds like a good reason to have a common melee unit rather than to follow the previous hunter/melee design slavishly. With BBs or carriers around, you don't need a "common" ranged unit anyway in my view unless it offers some other advantage (AA/sight/something like that).
Combat roles shift on land. It seems reasonable that the same could be accomplished at sea. The proposal I offered above is a compromise attempt to keep the upgrade paths available for common ranged units (without going into capital ships) and to have a common ranged unit in the game for land bombardment.
Similar threads
- Locked
