Discussion in 'General Balance' started by Gidoza, Mar 25, 2019.
I'm on board with 1 range reduction as well.
I'm on board with 1 range reduction... but only if cruisers no longer cost iron.
Field guns already compete with cruisers for iron. Cruisers will end up being stronger than frigates but having a higher opportunity cost, such that the real window for naval warfare will be frigates, not cruisers.
Naval warfare experiences a boom with corvettes and frigates but then the upgraded units require strategic resources, heavily limiting the number of naval units. It's worth I when cruisers are very strong and can take cities without land support. It's less so when they can't. Then I'd rather have another field gun.
I'd always assumed frigates costed iron until I noticed otherwise in February. Maybe they should again, so cannons compete with them.
I disagree. I'm open to swapping resources with Ironclads, but I'm definitely not OK with removing any resource from Cruisers. I'd be happy to keep Iron. Navy is so darned important at this point that the resource limitation is something I consider a good thing. I want to be strained for resources and forced to make decisions on how many Field Guns/Cruisers I can have at a given time - removing these limitations kills game strategy.
I'm open to this. Seeing as the change from Galleon to Frigate is a pretty major one - ocean tiles and all; and I generally have far too much success even with Frigates with their 1 Range, nevermind Cruisers. I agree that the competition for resources would be good and appropriate here.
I would argue a few points:
1) With 1 range, the amount of frigates that you can force project onto a given land unit/city is more limited than the 2 range cruiser.
2) Corvettes are a very effective counter to frigates. I commonly create a frigate hunting fleet at this point in the game and will crush any fleet that doesn't provide a good screen of its own corvettes.
3) No one is arguing frigates are OP in this thread. Lets not nerf just to nerf.
When I think about it, your points are fair enough because Corvettes cost no resources and therefore have no limit - so yeah, nevermind. Thanks for the reflection.
I am on board with the range nerf as well. I suggested -RCS because I thought the range nerf was off the table.
I'd prefer not to take away the 2 range, but if it has to be done, then can we move Battleships to be 1 tech tier earlier?
They already feel really late, and if the range nerf goes through, I think navy would feel lackluster against the coast.
And at that point, Artillery and aircraft are already available, so there are answers to them.
It does feel pretty weird that battleships and carriers are the same tech.
Seems good, but which tech?
Its an interesting idea...
I'm against going for the big nerf first; I would try one of the lighter ones.
It's a fine line between Cruisers are overpowered and Cruisers are not relevant enough. Defensively, if my cities have only 1-tile access to the sea, I'm not going to need much to defend against an enemy navy if it has only 1 range.
Offensively, if we say we should wait until there's an air counter for ranged ships to get range 2, then when is their time to shine?
But I keep an open mind; it can be worth testing.
Refrigeration maybe? That tech seems quite empty. Doesn't make that much sense lore-wise, but oh well.
I agree, I also prefer if we don't nerf the range, if possible.
What if we had a specific plan for the next 3 versions/betas of the game to specifically test and assess certain things and then come up with a verdict after the fact? As an example.
1. Next version: -1 Range
2. Version after: Lower RCS and swap resources
3. -1 Movement
The point being that we don't presume conclusions before the fact, but test out specific theories and assess the impact of each. The eventual goal I "Gold" of course, but I think that until we're there we ought to enjoy the luxury of being as thorough as possible and acquiring as much data as we can.
Removing 1 range is the only viable solution. Nerfing CS or RCS simply increases the number of cruisers you need to achieve the same result. If you reduce it enough to negate the bonus of range, then you magnify the difference between small and large navies, making it easier for big navies to wipe smaller ones. And so on.
Range limits threat range without limiting actual potential.
Now I said before that I am on board with the notion of reducing range, but I don't agree with this logic. Cruisers have decent movement but they can't teleport all over the map. There is a limit to how many cruisers can hit a specific target. So if right now I can kill 2 units a round with my fleet, and after a RCS nerf, I can only kill 1....that is a significant difference. There is a nerf to RCS that can certainly make cruisers less of a threat, and it maybe less than you think.
It comes down to what our fundamental argument is:
1) Cruisers are "unfair": The two range allows cruisers to get away with things they shouldn't, and attack units with no counter. No matter how strong or weak they are, its gameplay we don't want.
If that is your argument, then range or movement nerfing is the only way to address that.
2) Cruisers are "overpowered". They counter all other units that threatened them, and can decimate cities and land armies.
In that argument, nerfs to RCS and CS are viable options.
I appreciate your distinction, Stalker - I think this is a very good illustration. Thank you.
I'd put myself in the first camp.
I didn’t mention movement. Reducing movement simply slows down the game. Not a fan. Not considered.
#1 is the reality. With Battleships, navies have to contend with longer range land units and air units. A fair balance.
I don't see how lowering CS/RCS makes it easier for bigger navies to wipe out smaller ones. And limiting threat range does limit actual potential (which logically includes range).
Agree to disagree about what the reality is, but am comfortable with the logic of waiting roughly until artillery and aircraft to have 2-range vessels.
Removing 1 movement should be viable too. Same movement as frigates, but one more range is still a big improvement, and it will make less likely to end the turn out of land range after hitting a city. Think about it. 4 movement is two forward, one hit, one backwards. One ship can do it, but when you bring three of them, one cannot retreat enough because there are other ships at the retreating tiles. There you are at siege's range. They might outmaneuver any melee fleet in open seas, but not near the shores.
Separate names with a comma.