1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

I'm still not convinced about Cruisers

Discussion in 'General Balance' started by Gidoza, Mar 25, 2019.

  1. Bhawb

    Bhawb Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2018
    Messages:
    383
    Pretty late in a game right now, and I support putting Cruisers to 1 range. But, I do think Coal needs to be visited as a Strategic Resource. A major issue is how hard it is to build melee naval units compared to ranged, which completely throws off naval balance. Cruisers (and later ranged units) are allowed to dominate because they only take Iron, which is a useless resource at that stage anyway, while Coal is extremely limited and necessary for three extremely strong buildings. I almost never have Coal for units unless I'm playing a warmongering game, and even that can be hard.
     
    vyyt likes this.
  2. doublex55

    doublex55 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2016
    Messages:
    475
    Honestly I feel like coal should only be used for buildings.
     
  3. tu_79

    tu_79 Warlord

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2016
    Messages:
    6,223
    Location:
    Malaga (Spain)
    I feel like basic melee units should not cost resources. The same as a spearman. A basic unit you can produce in mass for self defense. We are allowed to defend inland, why not in the coast too?

    If ironclads were resource free, then coal could be used only for buildings or be the requirement for cruisers. But in the latter case (cruisers on coal), iron would only be used by siege units. In this case, I suppose railroad stations and shipyards could require iron instead, so there's some competition. (or do they require iron already? Memory fails...)
     
  4. Gidoza

    Gidoza Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2013
    Messages:
    944
    I was wondering Destroyers and how I don't like how they are set up - Submarines are good when Destroyers aren't around, and then suddenly Destroyers show up and Submarines get revealed everywhere very easily.

    Based on your model of the "basic melee unit," I was thinking that maybe we should have a late-game model of the Spearman/Swordsman and the Pikeman/Longswordsman for ships. I'm not sure where to take Ironclads just yet, but in order to preserve the uniqueness of Submarines - Destroyers could be a specialty unit that's &$#@!?* expensive but essentially has particular employment - spotting subs, and anti-air. Meanwhile, another ship entirely could be the "standard" melee vessel.

    Anyways - so long as Ironclads cost Coal, I definitely think they ought to be more powerful than they are. If we removed the Coal, then Cover I could be added and then be done with it.
     
  5. Txurce

    Txurce Warlord

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    8,182
    Location:
    Venice, California
    Maybe you should open separate threads for the ironclad, destroyer, and the new "standard" melee vessel.
     
  6. crdvis16

    crdvis16 Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 2, 2013
    Messages:
    756
    I like the fact that strategic resources are a problem you need to solve. If you start stripping away resource requirements for military units you make the game less dynamic IMO. There are already ways to get coal if you need it (CSs, trade, coal refinery, warfare or citadels) so it's just a matter of how badly you need it.

    I'd much prefer buffs to iron clads or nerfs to cruisers directly (movement, attack/defense, etc) rather than messing with resources. If you take away the strategic resource requirement for a unit then you're also nerfing the importance of strategics and I think that's bad for game play.

    Edit: I'd also push back against the idea that you need basic naval units. You can typically defend most coastal cities that were settled with defense in mind with just your land units if needed. I don't think having a navy needs to be a default. If you do want a navy then having to secure the strategic resources to do so seems reasonable to me.
     
    civplayer33, Rekk and Txurce like this.
  7. tu_79

    tu_79 Warlord

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2016
    Messages:
    6,223
    Location:
    Malaga (Spain)
    That's fair. If I'm not the aggressor, there are ways to get some coal. Although I never traded for it.
     
  8. Rekk

    Rekk Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2017
    Messages:
    865
    In my most recent 6 city tradition game, I had a single coal deposit with 6 coal. I still fielded a navy with something like 15 ironclads even with all my cities containing factories and seaports.

    City State alliances and friends willing to sell you their coal is key if you're not going to take it by force.

    I didn't have any iron at all. That also had to come from city states.
     
  9. Bhawb

    Bhawb Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2018
    Messages:
    383
    I have a literal monopoly on Coal so the issue isn't getting more. I have well over 20+ of every strategic resource despite having two to three times more of those units than I do Destroyers. You will never be able to build as many Ironclads as you can Cruisers; even with EE's Iron-needing building in every city, I still have more than 3x the number of Battleships than I do Destroyers with Iron to spare.

    The problem is naval combat is extremely basic until the last couple of unit types are unlocked. The balance of the melee line has a significant affect on the balance of the ranged line, especially before subs/planes. This balance is mostly fine (with ranged units being a bit weak if anything) right until you unlock Ironclads and can no longer field something resembling a balanced navy.

    But we're getting off topic a bit, we might want to move this to its own thread to talk about naval balance in more general terms.
     
  10. Rekk

    Rekk Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2017
    Messages:
    865
    Is this because you're building Factories and Seaports/Train Stations in every city, or is there just not nearly as much coal on the map as iron?

    From what I understand, there is supposed to be much more coal on the map than iron on the basic maps. @Gazebo, is this understanding correct?
     
  11. Gazebo

    Gazebo Lord of the Community Patch

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    17,164
    Location:
    Aquidneck Island
    Dunno I don't do maps.

    G
     
  12. Rekk

    Rekk Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2017
    Messages:
    865
    What about the average ratio of ironclads to cruisers, and ironclads to coal-consuming buildings in your AI games?
     
  13. Bhawb

    Bhawb Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2018
    Messages:
    383
    I checked the resources in my game to confirm. I have 48 Iron and 57 Coal (global monopoly on both, Slater Mill and all Coal Refineries built). So there is a lot of Coal, but you also use a lot more Coal than Iron, even with EE's Gunsmith. Its going to be hard to balance the relative strength of Ironclads vs Cruisers when I can build 3x as many Cruisers as I can Ironclads.
     
  14. Rekk

    Rekk Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2017
    Messages:
    865
    Only because you decided you need factories and seaports/train stations in every city.
     
    Txurce likes this.
  15. Gazebo

    Gazebo Lord of the Community Patch

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    17,164
    Location:
    Aquidneck Island
    Lord, I have no idea man.

    G
     

Share This Page