I'm still not convinced about Cruisers

[tothePAIN]

I vote for 3 as well. Removing the range would make them less satisfying. Reducing the RCS by 5 might do it.

Reducing Naval ranged ships vs land units would also be a decent idea.

I like the idea of giving Ironclads Cover 1. They're requiring a strategic resource. If we want them to be able to kill cruisers, Cover 1 would help greatly.

 

[Gidoza]

Agreed. I mean if I rush knights at a time when my opponent has horseman, knights, spearmen, and c bowman....I'm going to curb stomp too.

So lets break down what could potentially make the cruiser overpowered. These are the areas we need to debate to justify the unit's OP status.

1) Its power in a tech rush. As stated above, if you rush cruisers and your opponents doesn't yet have the counters, they are in big trouble. The question is, how big? Is it "game over", "you will automatically lose a city" or "you are in a complete defensive war until you get a counter". A key question of that is also around the Corsair. If I don't have Ironclads, then I have Corsairs. Now clearly corsairs aren't meant to counter Cruisers...but can they delay or hold their own long enough to let you catch up in tech?

For example when Frigates first come out, I have used Caravels in the past to hold them off. Its certainly not as efficient as Corsairs by any stretch, but delays and sometimes even kills are possible. Can we say the something about Corsair vs Cruiser?

2) Does it have a counter? Ironclads are designed to be its direct counter in the water, and artillery serve later on as its counter on land. Do these units "do the job", or are cruisers too strong against them?

3) How strong is its land projection? Obviously with range 2 the cruiser has a dramatic gain over the Frigate in projecting force onto the land. But the second question here is, how does its CS measure up to land contemporaries? Does the cruiser kill land units and cities as efficiently as frigates did against units of its time, or more/less efficiently?

I'm enjoying this debate because its trying to define the edge of "defining unit of the era" vs "overpowered unit", and I think its a worthwhile debate to continue. So...continue!

I don't think #1 on your list is a problem - I agree that if you intentionally focus on military tech, your payoff should obviously be getting an advantage in battle.

However, I think #1 becomes a problem in virtue of #2 and #3.

For #2 - I just don't see any evidence that Ironclad functions as a counter at all. They're too weak on their own, and Coal is limited. From my PoV, Ironclads are just there to provide meat to soak up front-line damage and nothing more.

For #3 - My issue here is not so much that it can shoot deep into land, but rather the side-effect *of* that. Whereas Frigates are *helpful* at beating on the coast, you can't rely on them alone and will need land troops to deal with the inner troops. But with a Cruiser, ground support is just plain unnecessary - both because you can clear much opposition initially, but also because you can shoot in-land against ground units that are attacking the city which are not adjacent to shore. If you have a single ground unit to occupy the city and provide it with defence points - you're set. If using Frigates, you just *can't* do this. A translation of the matter is that attacking with Cruisers saves you thousands in production because you can focus ALL your energy on an excessive navy and basically ignore ground in its entirety. The idea of using Artillery as a defensive move is a losing move because it roots you defensively only - the more Cruisers, the better!


My suggestion for balance would be one of these.

#1 - -1 Range.
#2 - Swap Strategic Resource requirement with Ironclad; -1 movement.

EDIT: PineappleDan suggested resource swap first; I'm with him there. Cover on Ironclads also makes sense.

In the end though, I see the non-essentialness of ground units for invasions as the biggest issue, though.

 

[Gidoza]

I know I'm double-posting, but I want to comment on the other issue raised here that can affect balance as well.

The Logistics perk - as pointed out - definitely makes one side of the tree more favourable than the other, if for no other reason than that most of the bonus damage actually supplied by Bombardment is provided by two shots and extra experience. Here's an alternative solution:

Make Logistics as a pick unrelated to anything but unit level. The player can go down either side of the tree, but say at Level 6 or 7, Logistics becomes available. This will allow the player to focus a particular intent of the ship and make *that* the goal, rather than making the goal one of reaching a particular promotion.

 

[doublex55]

My vote is to do 3 things..

1. Lower cruiser RCS by 3-5
2. Ironclad gets cover 1 instead of city attack bonus.
3. Swap strategic resources. Ironclad uses iron, cruiser uses coal.

Edit: Not sure if this is possible, but could there be a penalty when attacking land units (or all units) that are 2 tiles away? So cruiser would do it’s full damage if adjacent, but less damage if using the extra range. I think this would solve most of the issues regarding land support.

If we have it affect naval as well, it would let cruisers do more damage by using movement to get closer. Probably would be hard for the AI to understand though?

This option would allow us to nerf cruisers range without taking it away completely.

 

[Gidoza]

My vote is to do 3 things..

1. Lower cruiser RCS by 3-5
2. Ironclad gets cover 1 instead of city attack bonus.
3. Swap strategic resources. Ironclad uses iron, cruiser uses coal.

Edit: Not sure if this is possible, but could there be a penalty when attacking land units (or all units) that are 2 tiles away? So cruiser would do it’s full damage if adjacent, but less damage if using the extra range. I think this would solve most of the issues regarding land support.

If we have it affect naval as well, it would let cruisers do more damage by using movement to get closer. Probably would be hard for the AI to understand though?

This option would allow us to nerf cruisers range without taking it away completely.

I had thought of the latter also, but I can imagine its being difficult.

Also, the bonus to Ironclads against cities would make more sense if it could move after attacking; not being able to do so is also why they're so vulnerable to Cruisers and not a meaningful counter: to actually hit a Cruiser you always have to sacrifice the rest of your movement, and with 2 range, lots of Cruisers can capitalize on this.

 

[Stalker0]

My vote is to do 3 things..

1. Lower cruiser RCS by 3-5
2. Ironclad gets cover 1 instead of city attack bonus.
3. Swap strategic resources. Ironclad uses iron, cruiser uses coal

I think that’s an over correction. 1 or 2, but together that is a tremendous nerf. Cruisers are good but ironclads have a strong melee attack and +20 hp with dreadnought II. We need a tweak not a major change.

3 is honestly weird. So when battleships come back we are using iron again? I get the purpose of this idea but I think there are smoother ways to fix the problem.

 

[doublex55]

Because cruisers don’t just need a nerf. Ironclads also feel useless.

If we just buff ironclad there is still the problem of cruisers dominating land.
If we just nerf cruiser ironclad is still just a meatsheild. Honestly if there is no ironclad buff instead of swapping the resources just make it cost no resource.

 

[doublex55]

I had thought of the latter also, but I can imagine its being difficult.

Is this possible to code G? If it works against all units it could be a bonus against adjacent units instead of a malus against units unnadjacent, if that at all helps.

 

[Gazebo]

Is this possible to code G? If it works against all units it could be a bonus against adjacent units instead of a malus against units unnadjacent, if that at all helps.

No. Too expensive.

G

 

[Rekk]

3 is honestly weird. So when battleships come back we are using iron again? I get the purpose of this idea but I think there are smoother ways to fix the problem.

... Obviously not? This is a call to swap the entire promotion upgrade lines.

I'm not sure if it's needed, though. From what I understand, coal is supposed to be much more plentiful than iron, but maybe that's not the case until Coal Refineries due to the competition between buildings and units.

 

[Gidoza]

... Obviously not? This is a call to swap the entire promotion lines.

I'm not sure if it's needed, though. From what I understand, coal is supposed to be much more plentiful than iron, but maybe that's not the case until Coal Refineries due to the competition between buildings and units.

I can't say I've experienced this! Coal is always at a premium, though the refineries do help...

 

[Txurce]

.From what I understand, coal is supposed to be much more plentiful than iron, but maybe that's not the case until Coal Refineries due to the competition between buildings and units.

I almost always have more coal than iron. In fact, I've never built a refinery. But then I don't play for Domination.

 

[Omen of Peace]

I've had either situation in my games.
But when sea mattered, lack from iron was more painful because of the lack of cruisers.
When I don't have enough coal, I focus on Seaport / Train stations and skip Ironclads / Factories.

Since the movement nerf doesn't seem popular, though it does make it harder to bombard inland and retreat to full safety, my 2nd choice would be RCS nerf by 3 + resource swap. It's a slow-down rather than a fix, but it may be enough.

 

[vyyt]

I almost always have more coal than iron. In fact, I've never built a refinery. But then I don't play for Domination.

That's interesting. What map/settings do you play? I am not sure about the total count, but I always definitely have more unused iron than coal and often even use all coal available. I am always (very) wide by the time coal comes online.

 

[Stalker0]

I’ve had games where coal is scarce, but also plenty of games where I had more than I ever needed.

 

[crdvis16]

I think flipping the coal/iron dependence of clads/cruisers is probably muddying the issue and brings in all sorts of other balance concerns. I think it would be smarter to just use smallish nerfs/buffs to achieve balance.

I think reducing cruiser range to 1 makes sense because it's too difficult to defend coasts with land units of that era. Battleships can keep 2 range because land/air units of that era can actually fight back somewhat so it's not as problematic then.

That might be all that's needed. Cruisers with 1 range won't dominate coasts as badly and should have a tougher time focus firing other navies down which indirectly buffs ironclads by helping them survive and giving them more opportunity to catch cruisers.

I'd vote to start there and then play for a bit with that change before deciding if there is still a problem.

 

[pineappledan]

Messing with CS/RCS has various knock-on effects for the power ratios between cruisers and all sorts of other units, so I would rather not go that route. It’s a pandora’s box of balance adjustments.

 

[Txurce]

That's interesting. What map/settings do you play? I am not sure about the total count, but I always definitely have more unused iron than coal and often even use all coal available. I am always (very) wide by the time coal comes online.

Communitas (standard and scarce), Continents, Continents + Custom (standard).

 

[Rekk]

Reduce cruiser range.

Give ironclads Cover 1 or a unique promotion that stacks with cover and is lost on upgrade ( I can't remember, can melee naval units get the cover promotion?).

I prefer the unique promotion because it doesn't result in a large proportion of human player destroyers with a free promotion.

Compared to a straight combat strength boost, a defensive bonus against range doesn't boost its city damage, defense against planes, or increase the likelihood of flanked cruiser one-shots.

 

[Stalker0]

After thinking for a while, I’m leaning towards the 1 range removal on cruisers.

My biggest reason stems from land counters. As has been pointed out, battleships have counters with certain land units...but cruisers don’t have the same.

But if we went that route, I would support no other changes. Thst is a big nerf, and further nerfs (or buffs to the ironclad) would be overreactions to me.