Discussion in 'General Balance' started by Gidoza, Mar 25, 2019.
I like how the current powerspike works for navy
I dont think any changes are needed
There is one thing you didn't bring up but I'm curious. Is there a reason why Galleass cannot end turn in Ocean tiles while Caravel can? That's what I see as the biggest discrepancy as the ranged naval unit is at a clear disadvantage versus the melee naval units that's unlocked roughly the same time. This might further emphasize the strength of the Caravel.
Regarding range naval units hitting land units, this can be minimal or extremely impactful. When I play higher levels and the AIs have lots of land units and cities with high CS, the only way to speed up the siege is by blockading the city. To blockade the city, I have to rid those land units which isn't always possible with that extra range on Cruisers. Once you include Logistics, I can clear a beachhead very quickly and that city might as well be mine. Without the extra range as with the Frigate, there are some land units that are further inland so, if you disembark units, they have to engage in a bloody fight to push forward even slightly. You might say that, with a dominating navy, the cities will fall eventually. That's true but sometimes you need to achieve victory sooner so you can deal with a snowballing civ. The AI cannot do this as effectively as humans but, if their naval units get enough promotions, I find that I can't even challenge for the seas at all.
Regarding a boost to Ironclads, anything that helps boost their survivability against Cruiser is definitely appreciated. I do believe that, before we do that, we have to clarify what Cruisers are designed for. At this point, Cruisers seems well rounded and can do a bunch of things. If we can determine what their specialty is and weaknesses are (weaknesses not being just being weak against weak melee ships that struggle to reach them). I feel that they are no different from the old Fighters where they can do everything quite well.
I wonder if it's viable to lower the RCS of Cruisers and let their promotions determine what they are good at. Currently, a Bombardment Cruiser can still do pretty well against other naval unit.
The trick with Melee Naval is to abuse flanking bonuses. That is why melee ships tend to increase in power exponentially with the number of ships....at least to a point. Once you get 3 or 4 melee ships on a target, you can get a 1 hit 1 kill scenario. Then your ships reposition, and do it again....and again. And suddenly most of your melee naval ships are killing an opponent ship, and you crush an enemy navy.
Melee ships are powerful when used correctly. In small numbers they are good screens. In large numbers they are dominant fleet killers. The problem is in the middle were people don't get enough of them to show off their true power, and they seem weaker than what they are truly capable of.
Actually I did, albeit briefly: The deep water advantage combines with the huge CS uptick to make galleys an endangered species...
This is all true and a good point... just not the way I play. Against snowballing civs my style forces me to cut them down in 2 or more wars. I don't use land units at all 90% of the time. Instead I lower the city down to zero, then take it with a blitz melee ship. This allows me to withdraw and save the ship. Rinse and repeat, and the AI almost always gives up on the city (meaning I can keep it, or lose it and easily retake it for good several turns later). In the meantime, I'm taking a second city. That takes long enough for me to time it with the securing of the first city, and then then accept peace. (Sometimes it's three cities, of course. And in games where I have serious fleets in two oceans, it's often four.)
Stalker0 does a great job of explaining why melee ships (including ironclads, on the lower end of the scale) are effective, especially when built en masse, and used that way:
The last major adjustments of naval units made melee much more relevant. Since then, I abandoned the familiar "many range+ a couple of melee" ratio in favor of roughly 1:1, and I veer from that with caravels one way, and cruisers/battleships the other way. But neither imbalance is worth addressing, in my opinion.
When you say Galleys, I think of Barbarian Galleys so I assumed you meant Trireme. That's where my confusion comes from.
That's the issue we're facing. Ironclad is very hard to build en masse unless we have lots of Coal. Unless you are extremely lucky or already on your way to winning, you won't have the amount of Coal needed to crush an enemy navy that way. In addition, his approach is assuming that the AI will always have ships you can pick off easily. With 5 Movements, there's a limit to how much you can position. If you got Great Lighthouse and went Imperialism, you will have 7 Movements. Even if you can reposition the units that are just there for flanking bonuses, how about the one that attacked? We all know that we shouldn't trade units 1 for 1 with the AI on higher difficulties so this isn't ideal.
Let's look at Cruisers then. If you get 3 or 4 of them targeting a enemy ship, then that ship is either a goner or would be badly damaged forcing it to withdraw. With the ability to move after attacking, the Cruisers' odds of survival are much higher. You aren't left with one ship that's stuck where the enemy ship was last at. At the moment, I'm afraid I don't see the point with Ironclad being on even grounds with Cruisers since massing Ironclad is easier said than done and Cruisers with a few screens can accomplish similar feats with less risk overall.
I think it’s fine for cruisers to be better than ironclads, though ironclads should be a bit more durable. The problem is really the resources they use. If cruisers used coal and ironclads used (gasp) iron, I don’t think we would be having this discussion at all.
If Cruiser was just better than Ironclads, I have no problem. The issue is Cruisers are just so well rounded that they can do a bunch of things. Ironclads at the moment have a few limited functions unless you mass them and that can be very difficult.
As for if Cruisers use Coal and Ironclads uses Iron, I actually have no complaint. Cruisers will still be considered for given their versatility and naval warfare will require more flanking and strategy as to how to tip the balance in your favor. I guess I liked the 1 range warfare that required much more thought than a 2 range ship that wrecked anything and everything before getting behind a screen to repeat the very next turn. This is harder to do if you have to take an extra movement as movements are what keep ranged naval units alive.
I was wondering when someone would draw this up. Ranged ships are for the offense, while melee are for defense. Utterly destroying an enemy fleet is more of a defensive action, even if it leads to an open gate for your invading army.
Coal can be produced later, but right at that moment, coal is very scarce and competes for the economy, while iron, being still scarce only competes with siege weapons.
Iron has always been the resource for the aggression. But in this era, having coal (or fighting for its control) is more important.
I appreciate the point that has been brought up a couple times that the Ironclad has only 1 movement on the Cruiser - whereas previous era ships also have only 1 movement on their counterparts, but the Cruiser has one extra range. That's another way of looking at the problem I hadn't thought of that would be worth addressing - I'm personally one to think that Cruiser speed should be decreased rather than Ironclad movement increased.
The other thing to remember about Ironclads is that they are the only melee naval ship (I believe) that gets an innate +33% bonus to attack cities. Its one area to consider when we think of melee naval balance. Of course whether that's "enough" to maintain balance is a debate, but its worth remembering.
If we look at naval melee over the eras, each one does bring a bit of a slightly different niche to the area, in addition to its own strengths.
1) Trireme: The +1 speed is actually very significant at this point, and it boost naval strength that allows for the taking of cities by itself early enough in the game.
2) Caravel: The first ship to explore the oceans, it is your greatest naval scout. And it dominates older navies.
3) Corvette: Imo, the greatest counter to its very strong ranged cousin, the Frigate. Corvettes are frigate murderers. This is the best naval gameplay imo, because you have frigates that are amazing, but corvettes are also amazing.
4) Ironclads: The only naval melee with a city attack bonus
5) Destroyers: Very fast, detect subs, provide some interception. The most "utilitarian" of naval melee.
6) Missile Cruisers: No one really cares, you have won the game by this point
Agree with your overall post, and forgot about the ironclad's 33% city boost (probably why I don't see them as weak), but wanted to highlight this.
Navigation inaugurates the Golden Age of Naval Warfare. It's one of my favorite moments.
I rather agree with the statement. Doesn't it seem sad that late-game building and units are barely used?
Yep. I'm still waiting for a game when the giant robot is relevant.
But such case requires to delay warmongers to turn 400+, and most players are against.
Fair enough comment. I can't help but think that there are other avenues that might be taken though, e.g. reducing late-game military count (last game I had a count max of 200, which I never used and never wanted to - the 90 I was using was still overwhelmingly high) and perhaps other things that would at least make turns go faster so that one could *reach* turn 400 if the game otherwise didn't end.
I find it interesting that the +33% that Ironclads have stays on Upgrade.
On Cruisers vs Ironclads: we could give Ironclads +1 Movement (6 total) to close the gap in between the 2 Range Cruisers. That seems like a good suggestion and could help vs having or not having the Imperialism Opener.
Or, given that the extra range for a ranged unit is better than 1 extra movement, maybe cruisers could lost 1 movement point.
If you go for a science vic you'll necessarily have the tech for late game units, and nearing a science vic tends to make the AI hate you enough to DoW, so you'll likely have opportunity to use them.
So far, I've managed to launch before it is noticed.
I think we are shifting to fixes when the main debate is unresolved. Are cruisers actually overpowered? Personally I'm still not convinced.
For me, cruisers is when my conquering in another continent begins. I see this unit as shifting games. However, nerfing it may delay overseas adventures.
I would agree with that point. But what I argue is whether that makes the unit "overpowered". There are units that define certain eras. The Knight is pretty dominant for its time. Artillery is extremely strong for its time. And of course, Nukes are the ultimate weapon late game.
So having a unit that redefines warfare isn't necessarily a bad thing, but are we beyond that to truly overwhelmingly powerful?
Separate names with a comma.