Discussion in 'General Balance' started by Stalker0, Jun 18, 2018.
That feels about right to me. How much of a normal navy is made up of submarines?
Actually most modern navies are made up of support vessels for the carriers and sub hunting destroyers.
Even in WWII, the US Navy had more than double the number of subs than battleships and cruiser together.
As well as lots of other types of ships not represented in civ.
Again it comes down to the simplicity of the model. Irl, not all ports can make all ships. Irl, some ships are too big to enter certain waters,etc. irl supply lines are actually a thing.
Real life warefare is much more complex, it can’t always be used as the model.
Yes, I just added the info for @Gothic_Empire as it seemed he was surprised that subs were used in large numbers.
Anyway, the subs can have a very nice niche/role in Civ5. I hope the proposed improved wolfpack promotion line will make it to the next release.
I view the Great Admirals as support ships and the fact that ships normally can't heal outside friendly territory as a representation of supply line in general, but of course IRL lack of either would be far more crippling.
I'm very curious to see what Gazebo chose to do with Subs in the end. If he implements my suggestions I'd bet people will start building lots more subs very soon, especially when using the various sub-enhancing mod mods.
While we're discussing navies, have we talked about dramatically increasing naval maintenance costs?
From a 'realism' perspective, navies are tremendously expensive to maintain. There is a reason that only the most wealthy countries have any navies to speak of.
I'm not sure exactly how it works now, but perhaps 1:2:3::Land:Air:Naval units maintenance cost (or potentially 1:2.5:5). Harbors, seaports, airports can potentially bring those costs down?
Is there any technical reason why you want to do this? What gain does this bring to the game?
The game currently doesn't bother differentiating between land/naval/air at the empire level.
That would require extensive rebalancing of a huge number of things...not sure Gazebo wants to do that at this stage.
I also oppose this, tbh, since it would be really hard to get it just right WRT balance.
Would it? Simply increasing maintenance costs per naval unit might affect your per turn gold earn a bit (something you usually have plenty of in the latter part of the game anyways).
Just seems ranged naval units wreak havoc on land-based ones of comparative cost. Sail into range -> shoot -> sail out of range. Being more expensive might balance it a bit.
I am also against increasing the cost for naval units. But I agree that naval ranged are too strong against land. Instead of making them cost more I would rather make them weaker against land. I tried giving them the 33% malus and it seemed it did the trick for me, but starting from roughly industrial era, they seem too strong to me again. Is everyone happy with the current naval vs land OPness?
This rather a unit balance than promotion, so maybe I should ask in the units thread...
This is literally all navies do though in Civ 5. Ultimately the game is about taking cities. Ships have limited ability to do that, land units have infinite ability (aka no water cities ala Alpha Centauri).
So all other things being equal, I only want to build land units. So we stack the deck for naval, we make them stronger than land units. Now navy is a counter for land, giving them a niche. But make no mistake, its a limited niche....land units are still extremely desirable, because navy just can't get everywhere you want them to be.
I see no reason to make navies more expensive.
Yup. Think about civs with land or naval uniques, for example, or ideologies, who have different domain uniques, or tech paths that now gain or lose usefulness.
And as Stalker has pointed out the main job of navies is to be a land unit counter, since land units can do everything the navy can save for quick exploration, so nerfing them in this manner is just a bad idea generally without overturning major aspects of the game.
Yeah I think all things considered it's fine as is, personally.
I have a thought about the movement/sight promotions.
The movement promotion can be helpful, but is often sub-par in comparison to a straight-forwardly stronger unit. On the other hand, Sight is often useless for anything but Scouts. I'm wondering if...
-For Non-Scouts, whether a viable option is to make the +1 Move/Sight benefits a single promotion? That way the buff is a tad stronger with more utility for assessing one's movement
-That said promotion would be available from either initial line
-That any promotions giving the perk to avoid ZoC would depend on the Move/Sight promotion
The Result: effectively a third promotion tree; one option is to focus strength in one area, a second tree in a second area, whereas the third is "mobility specialist/ambush" - it gives us a little more options while not forcing the player to go down one side of the tree to make things workable.
If not this, then some of the discussion about bonus HP would be meaningful for the Movement/Sight promotions that otherwise don't quite give enough of a bonus to match up to other options.
+1 sight on scouts is amazing. +1 sight on other land units is a complete waste of time to me. So if you wanted to roll that in to another existing promotion I'm all for it. We did with melee ships and to me it was a great change. We have a great explore promotion for a ship, one that I use on occasion, but certainly not an OP promotion I use all the time.
That said, I don't think we need a whole 3rd scouting tree here...we don't need to reinvent the wheel. Roll the +1 sight into something to make it useful...and done.
If you think extra movement for your swordsmen is a waste, try it again in harsh terrain.
Never said it was a waste, I just think its perfectly positioned where it is. And if you all want to add the sight promotion to it, I think that's fine.
What I was arguing is I don't see the need to rearrange a number of promotions into a new "tree". Just roll up sight, quick and easy.
I just think it doesn't make sense from a utility standpoint. Why would I waste extremely valuable promotions on my units to pick up utilities that already exist in other unit lines. I don't want my Swordsman to become slow, blind Scouts, or slow Horseman, I already have Scouts/Horseman. +1 movement itself isn't bad, but I want my units to be able to do their job once they get there, not arrive at a city faster just to die because I got +1 movement instead of Cover. I really don't have an issue with my melee units being slow, I have issues with them not being strong enough to push further, resulting in my melee units not using all their movement more often than not having enough.
I actually think the promotions for land units are fine.
That's reasonable enough. I would think that the Movement (or Movement/Sight) perk should be available from both sides of the tree, though. (Or is it and my brain is farting right now?) It's generic enough in use for this to make sense.
Separate names with a comma.