Navies

[Ahriman]

I completely agree with you that we're basically screwed as long as the naval AI is as bad as it is.

But making naval units really powerful seems potentially much more damaging in this respect (AI can't counter them) than would increasing naval movement rates.

One of the biggest problems with AI embarked land units is that they will *never* attack land units from the sea, no matter how good the odds are.
I should not be able to sit on the shore blasting away with cannon and archers at your embarked knights and longswords, when even with a 50% penalty they could amphibious assault and crush my units. This AI inability just drives me nuts, and it feels like its something that Firaxis could fix without too much bother.

 

[rhammer640]

one thing that i wouldn't be against is having the scout naturaly have the ability to embark and have him move three squares on water. That would make it so that exploring by water would be faster as it was in real life. Also if they ran into barb ships they wouldn't be screwed as they coudl just pop back up onto land. Maybe they could defend a little while embarked so survive one attack by ship or something. This could be fun and easy to do and would increase naval exploration which really should be how you end up exploring once your initial exploration by land is done.
Ether that or maybe scouts could embark at sailing but they should have at least 3 movement to make it worth while.

 

[Ahriman]

one thing that i wouldn't be against is having the scout naturaly have the ability to embark and have him move three squares on water. That would make it so that exploring by water would be faster as it was in real life.

I'd be against this, because it would be yet another reason not to bother building a trireme. One of the few things an early trireme is good for is exploration, particularly of any nearby islands, to see if they might make good city sites.

You can't make navies more appealing by letting land units take on the role of naval units.

 

[Dunkah]

Is it possible to make subs have the "guided missle" ability but call it torpedoes. So that they can fire at and destroy ships and embarked units at a distance but then have to return to port to re-supply?

Also concerning not upgrading units above their land counterparts, can't you use the "weak against" mechanic to make Subs vulnerable to Destoyers etc?

 

[Ahriman]

Is it possible to make subs have the "guided missle" ability but call it torpedoes. So that they can fire at and destroy ships and embarked units at a distance but then have to return to port to re-supply?

A guided missile firing at an embarked land unit will still deal only 4 damage, no?
And a guided missile would be kindof a waste to use against an embarked unit.
And no other unit has to resupply its ammo; torpedoes are just the normal sub ranged attack.

can't you use the "weak against" mechanic to make Subs vulnerable to Destoyers etc?

Yes, possibly; this is basically what I'm proposing above (though there is a problem in that most of these use unit classes rather than particular units, and there is only a single naval unit class).
A lot of things could be solved if submersibles were a separate unit class from surface vessels.

 

[Dunkah]

I'm saying. Take away the normal attack of a sub and make it a ranged torpedoe attack similiar to GM's. Make that the only way that it can kill anything.

Guided Missle destoryers have to resuplly Guided Missles.

 

[Ahriman]

I'm saying. Take away the normal attack of a sub and make it a ranged torpedoe attack similiar to GM's. Make that the only way that it can kill anything.

Why? We don't have supply mechanics for any other unit, because its not fun. I don't want to have to restock ammo for my artillery or worry about having enough fodder for my knight's horses. Why should subs only be able to fire a couple of times before returning to base?

The AI would never understand this (having to go back to port to resupply), and I'm not sure what the advantage is for the human player; it seems like annoying MM.

I don't think I understand what you're trying to achieve here, sorry.

Guided Missle destoryers have to resuplly Guided Missles.

Again I'm confused.
Civ5 Missile cruisers have a regular bombardment attack.

 

[Thalassicus]

Wouldn't an easy way to fix this be to add the new promotionline you want for subs (I guess survival) to all naval units and then simply add two dummypromotions, one as prereq for the bombardment-promotions (this would be given to all naval units except subs) and the other one as prereq for the new sub-promotion-line (only subs would start with this one).

This is a very good idea and wouldn't take much effort, thank you for the suggestion. I'll add it to my todo list.

I can't think of a time I've seen enemy ships (barbarian or otherwise) pillage sea resources. I think that's the main reason navies are so unnecessary. Galleys just move around helplessly slowing down inter-turn times.

I don't see anything in the files that might block this behavior... so it must be a bug in the AI.

I don't believe it's an intentional design decision because defending against galleys is super-easy. They only can spawn at camps and cannot enter ocean tiles, so one trireme dropped at each end of our coastline protects the empire.

But the two situations are not the same.
Land barbarian units are slower, can be blocked by zone of control, and can be interdicted some distance out, and no matter what, a land army that you build to defend against them is going to be useful and can be upgraded. Whereas building a couple of triremes is often very low value unless you're on an archipelago map.
A pillaged land improvement can be rapidly repaired by a worker, whereas a pillaged fishing boat is gone forever and has to be replaced.

Just to clarify a few things... galleys don't ignore zone of control, and can be blocked anywhere along a coastline (there's nothing preventing a player from stopping them at cultural borders). They're easier to stop than land barbarians because most coastlines have lots of one-tile-wide spots... basically the whole coast is one long chokepoint. In most of my gimes 2 triremes can defend the entire empire.

In addition, they're only 3, which is not significantly faster than brutes at 2, and expend all movement points when moving through ZoC. The only time a galley can use its superior movement to evade a blocking trireme is if the coastline is 3 tiles wide, which is rare on most map scripts. Even then, galleys always stop to attack the defender.

Killing galleys does have some marginal long-term value because experience gained goes to the global great general pool. This is often a great source of GG points for me.


@Dunkah, Ahriman
What Dunkah is referring to is how missile cruisers must resupply their ammo.

Ideally it'd be nice for missile cruiser ammo to work like Carriers in starcraft... as they expend ammo, they can be refilled by paying money. It's annoying micro to have to manually move more ammo onto the cruiser. At the very least, one idea I had in the past is to start newly-built missile cruisers at full ammo instead of empty.

 

[Ahriman]

Just to clarify a few things... galleys don't ignore zone of control, and can be blocked anywhere along a coastline

Not quite the case. There are very often large bays of 3+ distance of coast tiles, or offshore islands which add coast. Coasts are not just straight lines of 1-distance coast tiles.
So its not always possible to block movement with a single unit.

In addition, they're only 3, which is not significantly faster than brutes at 2

Its 50% faster. Thats a big deal, particularly when coming in from outside LoS.

But I agree in general that if you have 2 triremes, you can nearly always stop your stuff getting pillaged. The main problem is not about whether or not you could stop the pillage *if* you had a navy.
The main problem is that building 2 triremes and paying for workboats is not really very valuable because of the limited utility of triremes, and you'd nearly always be better off building workers and working land tiles instead.
Preventing pillage is not a big enough reason to build triremes, and they get slaughtered by archers.

So if you just made the AI more likely to pillage fishing boats without making any other changes, then that would be a big nerf to coastal start positions and coastal strategies in general.

What Dunkah is referring to is how missile cruisers must resupply their ammo.

Maybe I'm just exposing my ignorance here because its been months since I've got to the point where I've built a missile cruiser, but I thought they still also had a basic bombardment attack, in addition to being able to hold guided missiles.

If they don't, they should. The Missile Cruiser should IMO be a superior battleship, with 3 base range, slightly higher movement, strength, ranged attack, and ability to carry missiles.

Ideally it'd be nice for missile cruiser ammo to work like Carriers in starcraft... as they expend ammo, they can be refilled by paying money. It's annoying micro to have to manually move more ammo onto the cruiser. At the very least, one idea I had in the past is to start newly-built missile cruisers at full ammo instead of empty.

I'd go in the opposite direction, and make missile cruisers much less about guided missiles, and mostly function just like a battleship. Their ability to hold cruise missiles should be a mild extra that extends the range of what you can hit with your missiles, rather than the main reason for having them.

 

[rhammer640]

I'd be against this, because it would be yet another reason not to bother building a trireme

Not quite the case. There are very often large bays of 3+ distance of coast tiles, or offshore islands which add coast. Coasts are not just straight lines of 1-distance coast tiles.
So its not always possible to block movement with a single unit.

Its 50% faster. Thats a big deal, particularly when coming in from outside LoS.

But I agree in general that if you have 2 triremes, you can nearly always stop your stuff getting pillaged. The main problem is not about whether or not you could stop the pillage *if* you had a navy.
The main problem is that building 2 triremes and paying for workboats is not really very valuable because of the limited utility of triremes, and you'd nearly always be better off building workers and working land tiles instead.
Preventing pillage is not a big enough reason to build triremes, and they get slaughtered by archers.

.

So for one idea you dont like it because it takes away a use of the triremes and the other idea you dont like because it would give another reason to build them? I agree they weren't the best ideas but im having trouble following the argument.

I get that it would slightly reduce ocean starts but not a ton, and i think the increased fun factor (at least i find it fun when i actually have to worry about protecting my stuff from attack) would more than make up for the change. As thal said ive never had a barb ship rush past any of my ships, it almost always attacks. If triremes are getting dominated by archers i think we both agreed before that archers should do a lot less damage to ships which would solve that issue.

Anyway, its not a huge deal either way, i just think it would give more of a reason to build some ships early on and add to the difficulty.

 

[Ahriman]

So for one idea you dont like it because it takes away a use of the triremes and the other idea you dont like because it would give another reason to build them? I agree they weren't the best ideas but im having trouble following the argument.

Sorry for being unclear, let me explain.

There is a difference between a carrot and a stick.

I'm in favor of changes that provide a carrot for building triremes.
I'm opposed to changes that provide a stick for *not* building triremes.
And I'm opposed to changes that provide a stick for building triremes.

The scout boost is basically a stick for building triremes; it makes the trireme less valuable, because one of its main roles can be fulfilled by a scout.
The more barbarian pillage of water resources is a stick for not building triremes, if and only if you have a coastal start position. It unambiguously weakens the coastal player relative to the land player.

I get that it would slightly reduce ocean starts but not a ton

I think it would be a significant penalty to an ocean start. Ocean starts are weak unless you have work boats for water resources; that's how you get decent resource income. So the change would force you to divert resources to building a trireme, instead of a military unit that could effectively defend you from invasion or attack your foes, or instead of a settler or worker or smokehouse or library.

 

[Thalassicus]

I'm in favor of changes that provide a carrot for building triremes.
I'm opposed to changes that provide a stick for *not* building triremes.

I understand what you're getting at, but keep in mind the difference between the two is a half full / half empty matter of perspective since they're numerically identical.

You've recommended before to shift the balance from resource reliance to general terrain, and doing so inherently enhances the 'stick' situation you describe since the galleys passively block usage of sea tiles.

I don't think it's really a big deal either way, and it's worth pointing out the pillaging topic is moot since I've investigated the files and see nothing indicating why some units might pillage while others don't. It's gotta be in the c++ part.

 

[rhammer640]

lol, of course its in the c++ section of the code, they really need to release that....

oh well like i said its not a huge deal for me either way

 

[Ahriman]

I understand what you're getting at, but keep in mind the difference between the two is a half full / half empty matter of perspective since they're numerically identical.

No they're *not* numerically identical, because the changes that provide a stick for not building players do not apply to non-coastal players.

This is crucial.
You can't make seapower more important by punishing players who build a coastal empire.

doing so inherently enhances the 'stick' situation you describe since the galleys passively block usage of sea tiles.

It does, but this is a very minor effect, because it goes away as soon as you destroy the galley, so you only lose a couple of turns of income.

The pillage effect is more significant, because you lose the entire cost of the fishing boat, as well as all the income you'd get in between the time of building a new one and then sending it to the appropriate place (and the maintenance cost on the fishing boat in the meantime).

and it's worth pointing out the pillaging topic is moot

Understood, but I think its worth having the general discussion about how to go about encouraging naval units.

 

[rhammer640]

well seeing as this conversation is just for 'fun' anyway....

If your saying you dont like it because if forces you to build ships which is bad, then for the same token building units to defend against barbarian land units should be taken away too because that is a 'stick' way of forcing you to build units to defend or they will pillage your stuff. There are lots of fun things in the game that use the stick method so we cant say that all such methods are inherently bad. At the same time i find when i have costal cities i get attacked by fewer land barbs due to there being less sides that camps can spawn on then river starts so building a trireme would equal one less land unit needed to defend against land barbarians.

Basically all im saying is that the stick method isn't always bad and is way more realistic. You use the carrot method to encourage ppl to attack other civs because they get more land etc when doing so, but the other half of that is that the civ getting attacked is forced to defend against that attack for no gain other then 'not' losing the city which is the stick method. It would be boring to not ever have to worry about anything and have the entire game be just about gaining more things with every move you make, sometimes the decisions have to be between keeping what you have or losing it.

And thats my mini rant for the day

 

[Ahriman]

If your saying you dont like it because if forces you to build ships which is bad, then for the same token building units to defend against barbarian land units should be taken away too because that is a 'stick' way of forcing you to build units to defend or they will pillage your stuff.

This comparison doesn't work IMO because:
a) All players are vulnerable to land barbarians
b) Only coastal players are vulnerable to sea barbarians.
c) Work boats are destroyed totally when pillaged, land improvements are only damaged.

So, buffing or nerfing land barbarians pretty much hurts everyone equally.
Buffing of nerfnig sea barabarians does not, it makes coastal strategies and start positions less viable relative to land strategies.

At the same time i find when i have costal cities i get attacked by fewer land barbs

I do not find this to be the case, because on land there are other players or city states around in other directions and barbs go for them too.

Basically all im saying is that the stick method isn't always bad and is way more realistic

How is it more realistic for coastal empires to be weaker than land-based empires? We utterly fail at realism here because the main historic value of coast access was for water-based trade (and the value of a navy was largely to protect those trade routes), but we don't have mechanics for that in Civ5.

I'm ok with coastal civs needing to build navies *if and only if* navies are worth building in general, and if they're as valuable an option as land units or buildings.

I'm not ok with requiring coastal civs to build navies when navies aren't otherwise useful.

So, by all means eventually allow sea-pillaging if we can make triremes valuable. But I don't think it would be a good design move by itself given the current game state.

 

[rhammer640]

Im not talking about the stick method in this situation, i was commenting on your saying that the stick method is never the way to go when balancing. I still think having to protect fishermen and whalers etc would be more realistic but thats not the main point of the post above. I said the stick method was realistic because a lot of times it is, i didn't mean in that situation specifically. There is nothing we can do about the sea barbarians now anyway so thats a moot point. If we had trade routes and they didn't need to be protected and we decided to make them vulnerable to attack (thus requiring defense) that would be the stick method which in that case i think would bring value.

You said yourself that you wanted to discuss how we should move forward in balancing the game so thats what i was discussing. I just dont think that in the future if an idea is proposed it should be discounted on the basis that it uses the stick method because a lot of what i think makes the game fun is when you are forced to balance between doing things for reward (carrot) and doing things to defend what you have been rewarded (stick). This is the reason i brought it up to begin with because for sea resources you build the unit and get the reward (carrot) of the resource without ever having to defend it (stick).

The game may be preventing a proper balance right now and that's fine but going forward i think both methods are equally viable for balance purposes.

PS sorry if i tend to ramble a lot in my posts also i just reread your posts and if you only meant that in this particular situation the stick was a bad method then i apologize, i took it that was your general view on balance

 

[Ahriman]

Im not talking about the stick method in this situation, i was commenting on your saying that the stick method is never the way to go when balancing.

I never said never.
I was talking about this particular case, and this particular scenario where coasts are already slightly weaker and navies are usually a weak option.

I said the stick method was realistic because a lot of times it is, i didn't mean in that situation specifically.

Ok, I had the impression you were talking about this particular case. Its hard to talk about whether something is realistic or not in the abstract.

I just dont think that in the future if an idea is proposed it should be discounted on the basis that it uses the stick method

I agree. I just think that we should not use sticks to try to force use of options that are already weaker strategies.

I don't think we're really in strong disagreement over anything here.

 

[rhammer640]

lol, nope.
I definitely misunderstood and thought you were talking about in general not specifically. Anyway the reason i had even brought it up in the first place was because it bothers me that there is nothing to worry about once you build on sea resources, but its not a huge deal.

I think there is just nothing better to argue about now concerning navies without access to source code

 

[Thalassicus]

I understand what you're getting at, but keep in mind the difference between the two is a half full / half empty matter of perspective since they're numerically identical.

No they're *not* numerically identical

Carrot v stick can be thought of in a number of ways, and they all point to the two having the same end result: they get the oxen moving. Even if we can't do anything about the particular issue of pillaging this does apply to gameplay in general.

• X + 5 = Y
  Y - 5 = X
• ¬¬a = a
• A negative to not building ships is equivalent balance to a positive to building ships.
  
  

• Carrot: having a navy allows us to develop sea resources to boost our empire. (perspective before resources are developed)
• Stick: not having a navy means developed resources get pillaged. (perspective after resources are developed)

• Carrot: assumes resources are a bonus.
• Stick: assumes resources are a given.

Carrot or stick depends on perspective like half-full / half-empty. Neither one is right or wrong, the two are equivalent because they both end up with the same result: it's better to build a navy than not build one. Does this make sense?