Naval City Capture Oddity?

[floppymoose]

If Frigates are ranged, but Triremes are melee, won't that lead to a situation where to do naval conquest of coastal cities, you will need to keep some triremes around to do that actual taking of the city?

 

[Stefanskantine]

probably privateers or some other later naval unit will be melee.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Privateers will be melee.

We don't technically know Triremes are melee. We only know that they really should be historically.

 

[Stefanskantine]

This may open up some interesting terrain for modders. Sea mines and minesweepers could make a net addition. Would be cool to mine the harbor of your key cities to protect them from sea attack.

 

[Camikaze]

Yeah, there should there'll be units to fill the gaps where this might occur. Namely the privateer in the situation you mention. If naval units can capture cities, I think the real 'oddity' would be that you wouldn't have to bring any melee units along. I wonder how that'll go.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Well, you might want to for the non-coastal cities. I wonder if melee cities have an amphibious penalty. My guess is no.

 

[CYZ]

Well, you might want to for the non-coastal cities. I wonder if melee cities have an amphibious penalty. My guess is no.

You mean when a ship attacks a city in melee?
My guess is no as well, and then they'll patch it in later for game balance just horrible speculation ofcourse.

But yes, you can only bring ranged units and keep a melee ship ready to take the city. It makes sense in my opinion. Well except for the fact the AI didn't have any melee/cavalry units to counter your ranged-only army...

But what's odd about a city being sieged, and when it's defenses are completely down, ships with armed forces on board roll into the harbor and declares the city conquered?

 

[nokmirt]

What I am curious about is how well the AI will protect its coastal cities. As well as how determined it will be to attack the human players coastal cities.

I know in CiV now it seems ships are more vulnerable from ranged fire from land, than ships versus land targets. I wonder if that is the same in Gods and Kings?

The other thing I am wondering is how destroyers will do against subs now? I wonder what the animation will look like when a destroyer melee attacks a sub? Seems a bit odd to me. A destroyer can bombard a sub in the game now from a two hex range correct? Its been awhile since I have played to the Industrial Era. I have been playing games to the Medieval, and Renaissance Eras lately.

 

[CYZ]

What I am curious about is how well the AI will protect its coastal cities. As well as how determined it will be to attack the human players coastal cities.

I know in CiV now it seems ships are more vulnerable from ranged fire from land, than ships versus land targets. I wonder if that is the same in Gods and Kings?

The other thing I am wondering is how destroyers will do against subs now? I wonder what the animation will look like when a destroyer melee attacks a sub? Seems a bit odd to me. A destroyer can bombard a sub in the game now from a two hex range correct? Its been awhile since I have played to the Industrial Era. I have been playing games to the Medieval, and Renaissance Eras lately.

A melee attack makes more sense. A destroyer doesn't use ranged guns against subs, it drops deep sea bombs while sailing right over the sub.

 

[KevinLancaster]

Wonder if Privateers are going to be ranged or melee? I assume that they're going to be Hidden Nationality, so they wouldn't be able to take cities, but it would be interesting to have them get the gold (or maybe a fraction of it) that you normally get from capturing a city.

 

[Louis XXIV]

I suspect it's the exact opposite. They won't be hidden nationality, but they can take cities.

 

[nokmirt]

A melee attack makes more sense. A destroyer doesn't use ranged guns against subs, it drops deep sea bombs while sailing right over the sub.

Yes of course, that is how it should be. Depth charges is what they are called. In modern times they use what is called an ASROC, Anti-Submarine Rocket. The range of this missile is 12 nautical miles. The system deploys a parachute so the missile enters the water at low speed to avoid noise detection. On deployment into the water the missile then uses its onboard sonar to home in on the target. This is one reason I would love to see a WWI or II destroyer and the modern design with separate animations for anti sub operations.

 

[GeoModder]

The system deploys a parachute so the missile enters the water at low speed to avoid noise detection.

That's funny. Why should it matter for the missile to drop underneath the sea surface undetected if it will be detected anyway when its active sonar starts searching for its target?
The only reason I can think of for a 'chute dive of such a missile would be not to damage the device upon impact with the water.

 

[AriochIV]

Wonder if Privateers are going to be ranged or melee? I assume that they're going to be Hidden Nationality, so they wouldn't be able to take cities, but it would be interesting to have them get the gold (or maybe a fraction of it) that you normally get from capturing a city.

In the early round of previews, Privateers are mentioned in the same breath as the new melee naval units, like so: "...a new class of ships--melee ships--to complement the preexisting ranged ships. A new privateer unit can capture enemy ships and launch raids on costal cities." It does seem a pretty good bet that the Privateer is melee.

As for the oddity of being able to capture coast cities without any land units, I think it's a direct result of the difficulties of trying to teach the AI how to protect embarked units.

 

[nokmirt]

That's funny. Why should it matter for the missile to drop underneath the sea surface undetected if it will be detected anyway when its active sonar starts searching for its target?
The only reason I can think of for a 'chute dive of such a missile would be not to damage the device upon impact with the water.

The missile seperates and the payload deploys with a parachute, it does drop from its trajectory quite a distance. The parachute obviously slows it down to safely bring the payload easily into the water to prevent damage. The main reason is for the device to enter the water at low speed, to hinder detection. It is better to try to gain surprise on the target before it can react fast enough to deploy chaff or other such counter measures. The submarine may detect it, but can it react fast enough and defend itself. Like the old depth charges undersea warfare is still hit or miss. The warfare is just more technical. However, having the payload splash down like like a fat guy jumping into a pool, is probably going to limit surprise somewhat.

 

[AriochIV]

Except that torpedoes search for targets with active sonar, which is instantly detectable by any passive sonar in the area. So I can't see that it makes any difference how loud the splash is.

The parachute is almost certainly to prevent damage to torpedo when it hits the water.

 

[nokmirt]

Except that torpedoes search for targets with active sonar, which is instantly detectable by any passive sonar in the area. So I can't see that it makes any difference how loud the splash is.

The parachute is almost certainly to prevent damage to torpedo when it hits the water.

You misunderstand it uses its onboard sonar to home in on the target which is either using passive or active sonar. In short it detects sonar. That is why it needs to be silent. It does not ping sonar off the target itself, obviously that would give it away, this is a very stealthy weapon. Quite deadly to a sub that is not prepared. That is probably one reason I never asked for submarine service.

I have a cousin who was on a sub. He teases me when I show him pictures of the ship I was on. He calls me a target. I am not sure that he understands how vulnerable he was as well.

 

[Atwork]

When I first heard of a melee naval line, I assumed that the marine unit would operate as a melee amphibious unit -- on the sea it would be vulnerable, but it would be very strong attacking units or cities from the sea. Once landed, the marine would act as any other land unit.

The idea of melee navil units that are purely sea-based except when attacking cities seems strange to me. But, I'll hold judgment until I've played GnK.

 

[nokmirt]

When I first heard of a melee naval line, I assumed that the marine unit would operate as a melee amphibious unit -- on the sea it would be vulnerable, but it would be very strong attacking units or cities from the sea. Once landed, the marine would act as any other land unit.

The idea of melee navil units that are purely sea-based except when attacking cities seems strange to me. But, I'll hold judgment until I've played GnK.

The marine should have the ampibious promotion, and should give you an alternative option for taking coastal cities. Or landing to attack forces defending a coastal city's perimeter. The marine unit should be quite useful. I just hope they make the paratrooper and ironclad as useful in the expansion.

 

[floppymoose]

A new privateer unit can capture enemy ships

Nice. I had missed that before. I wonder if I can weaken a battleship with ranged attacks and then capture it with a privateer.