Navies

[Ahriman]

I understand what you're saying, but I think you're missing some of the bigger picture.

I think aim of the design is to have multiple pathways that are at least roughly equally viable, such as a "Land-based strategy" or a "coastal strategy" in terms of settlement patterns, for example.

There is a useful device in economics (and other disciplines) called a value function; V(somestrategy) gives us a numerical value equal to the payoff from following a particular strategy, and so we can compare this value across strategies (higher payoff means better strategy). I will try to use this to illustrate my point.

Ideally what we want is
1. V(coastal strategy) ~= V(land strategy).
I think at the moment that the right side is actually slightly larger, but only marginally so.

And I think we want
2. V(coastal strategy, no trireme) < V(coastal strategy, trireme).
which I don't think holds at the moment, I think the left side is larger. There isn't enough incentive to build a trireme or two.

I agree with you that whether you use a carrot or stick is irrelevant for achieving the second (in)equation; decreasing the left side widens the gap in the same way that increasing the right side does. For eqn 2 alone, either method is numerically the same.

But for the first equation, it matters very much which if these you select.
If you decrease the value of the left side in eqn 2, you might satisfy what we want for 2, but you do not satisfy what we want for eqn 1.
Whereas if you increase the right side of 2, you get what we want for 2 but also come closer to what we want for eqn 1.

Its fine to use the stick approach (decreasing the left side of eqn 2) *only* if you also apply some other change that increases the left side of eqn 1.

So, yes, we could require you to use navies to protect coastal resources, but we should only do that if coastal resources are really valuable and if naval units have a good general purpose/value beyond protecting coastal resources.
For example, if they are an effective means of harassing the enemy, and are vulnerable only to other naval units and to land-based siege units (but not land-based archer units).

Hope this was clear enough.

 

[rhammer640]

@thal
You are way better at explaining things, lol. I agree and wish we could do more now to balance out some of these issues. And if it does ever get to a point where we can fix some of these things i think its worthwhile pointing out that if making sea resouces pillageable would unbalance sea starts then we could change other things to rebalance them if the end result is a more balanced overall experience.

 

[Thalassicus]

I understand that completely, the way I think of it is combinations of the two. Let's say...

• ¬c is a coastal strategy with active barbarian defense.
• ¬c is coastal with no defense.
• ¬r is a river strategy with active barbarian defense.
• ¬r is a river strategy with no active barbarian defense (just sitting any military defenders in cities).
  (I think we can agree a non-coastal, non-river region will probably not be as good as these two options, due to less gold)

This is the goal:

¬c = ¬r
¬c < ¬r
¬c > ¬r
¬c = ¬r

Right now I feel it's:

¬c << ¬r
¬c << ¬r
¬c << ¬r
¬c =< ¬r

In other words, at the present time a coastal strategy with a significant navy is much worse than a river strategy with barbarian defense... building a navy actually hurts us since it doesn't have much value and drains maintenance. Any changes that might decrease coastal strategies would be offset by larger buffs to coasts, to bring things up to the goal. This is something that affects the whole topic of navies beyond just triremes.

 

[Ahriman]

In other words, at the present time a coastal strategy with a significant navy is much worse than a river strategy with barbarian defense. Any changes that might decrease t would be offset by larger buffs to t, to bring things up to the goal.

Great, we're in agreement.

I'm not sure how superior river starts will be once you move the gold bonus up to sailing.

I'm also a bit lost as to the latest version for yields from coast tiles, fish, lighthouse etc.
In the last version I played, fish + work boat was only 3f2g, which was less than vanilla. This makes a difference.

Most of the potential buffs for naval units are risky without AI improvements.
But a few possibilities are:
a) Make archer/crossbow units less effective vs naval units. So for example trireme > archer, but catapult > trireme.
b) Increase the movement rate of embarked units (or increase their movement rate just on coast terrain).
c) Increase the blockade/area denial of naval units, so a unit 3 tiles away from a city will still block all that cities water tile use.
d) Add a medieval era naval unit, so there is something for triremes to upgrade to that keeps them on par with medieval era units. So for example trebuchet > galleass > crossbow in a straight shooting match.
This is part of why building a trireme is so weak; even if its useful early on in shooting at spearmen and warriors, its totally outclassed by knights and longswords.

 

[Thalassicus]

I sure have been changing yields around a lot!

Right now fish are set up like this:

+12 Coast
+1___ Fish
+1___ Smokehouse
+1___ Lighthouse
+11 Fishing Boats
+12 Seaport
+2___ Research Lab

+53 Total for first 5 items of fish
+51 Total for riverside grasslands wheat with Civil Service

I've been considering removing the +1 from fishing boats on fish to make these two nearly equivalent.

I believe all four of your suggestions are feasible.

• Archer/crossbow could have a promotion attribute with naval combat penalty (I think bombers have one).
• Embarkation variable: "EMBARKED_UNIT_MOVEMENT"
• Blockading variable: "NAVAL_PLOT_BLOCKADE_RANGE"
• The only downside of a new medieval unit is a lack of new art to go with the unit.

On that note, one I have the major bugs worked out of the current testing cycle and do a general release, naval stuff is on my todo list for the next cycle. I'll be experimenting with adding a counterpart to the Frigate during this period, and could add a medieval-era ship too.

 

[Dunkah]

Is it possible to make Seabased resources only damaged when pillaged like land resources. Move a workboat over it and repair?

 

[Ahriman]

Hmm.

I don't really like a synergy with smokehouse. There are too many synergy buildings here, and the lighthouse already has basically the same effect.
I would move that somewhere else. Harbor would be good, or it could be dropped.
The smokehouse is important for things like sheep and cows because it adjusts for the fact that pastures and camps aren't boosted by technologies.
Fish *are* through all these other buildings, so doesn't need to also be included here.

I'd tone the research lab bonus down to 1, so its the same as the trading post social policy in Rationalism. A bonus of 2 seems too high, in particular its not like there's any logical reason why coastal cities should be research centers. Trade centers, yes.

I'd also change the seaport so that its +2 hammers for fishing boats and +1 gold on all water tiles.
So a regular coast tile goes to 2food3 gold with a lighthouse + seaport.
A regular coast tile should be at least as good as a non-river grassland trading post, which is 2f3g with economics.

I'll be experimenting with adding a counterpart to the Frigate during this period, and could add a medieval-era ship too.

Awesome. Compass would work well.
I know the 4 things are feasible, I'm just unsure as to whether a-c would be good for gameplay without AI improvements.

 

[Joneill]

Hmm.

I don't really like a synergy with smokehouse. There are too many synergy buildings here, and the lighthouse already has basically the same effect.
I would move that somewhere else. Harbor would be good, or it could be dropped.
The smokehouse is important for things like sheep and cows because it adjusts for the fact that pastures and camps aren't boosted by technologies.
Fish *are* through all these other buildings, so doesn't need to also be included here.

Agreed. And I'm against toning down the bonus from the fishing boats itself (for fish), because it's a rather large investment compared to hooking up land-based bonus-resources, so it should give a meaningful return.

I'd tone the research lab bonus down to 1, so its the same as the trading post social policy in Rationalism. A bonus of 2 seems too high, in particular its not like there's any logical reason why coastal cities should be research centers. Trade centers, yes.

I always found that bonus a bit odd, but it comes so late and helps to make science labs have a bit more impact, so I don't mind.

I'd also change the seaport so that its +2 hammers for fishing boats and +1 gold on all water tiles.
So a regular coast tile goes to 2food3 gold with a lighthouse + seaport.
A regular coast tile should be at least as good as a non-river grassland trading post, which is 2f3g with economics.

That is how it is setup right now, iirc.

 

[Ahriman]

And I'm against toning down the bonus from the fishing boats itself (for fish), because it's a rather large investment compared to hooking up land-based bonus-resources, so it should give a meaningful return.

Agreed.

That is how it is setup right now, iirc.

Ah, excellent.

 

[Sneaks]

The BIGGEST issue with coastal tiles as I see them is this:

There is no need to improve 90% of any and all coastal tiles in the empire. The reason I hate land barbarians so much is because they always try to steal my workers. Pillaging, I can handle. Losing a worker is much more of a task.

The ideal, longer term solution I believe would be this:

Work boats are not consumed upon improvement (probably doable)
Adding a fishing boat improvement takes the same length as farm (probably doable, just without a mid construction graphic)
Work boats can create fishing boats in every sea tile. Fish resources equate to wheat on land better this way. (Doable, but possibly with graphic issues)

In this instance, work boats are of equal value to their worker counterparts. Because the work boat is not consumed, we require a navy to protect it. Thus, navies become by default more important.

 

[Joneill]

The ideal, longer term solution I believe would be this:

Work boats are not consumed upon improvement (probably doable)
Adding a fishing boat improvement takes the same length as farm (probably doable, just without a mid construction graphic)
Work boats can create fishing boats in every sea tile. Fish resources equate to wheat on land better this way. (Doable, but possibly with graphic issues)

In this instance, work boats are of equal value to their worker counterparts. Because the work boat is not consumed, we require a navy to protect it. Thus, navies become by default more important.

While I always liked that idea, it required dll access in Civ4 (iirc) to get the ai to understand this mechanic and use the fishing boats as workers. The same may be true for CiV.

 

[rhammer640]

The BIGGEST issue with coastal tiles as I see them is this:

There is no need to improve 90% of any and all coastal tiles in the empire. The reason I hate land barbarians so much is because they always try to steal my workers. Pillaging, I can handle. Losing a worker is much more of a task.

The ideal, longer term solution I believe would be this:

Work boats are not consumed upon improvement (probably doable)
Adding a fishing boat improvement takes the same length as farm (probably doable, just without a mid construction graphic)
Work boats can create fishing boats in every sea tile. Fish resources equate to wheat on land better this way. (Doable, but possibly with graphic issues)

In this instance, work boats are of equal value to their worker counterparts. Because the work boat is not consumed, we require a navy to protect it. Thus, navies become by default more important.

I really like this idea as well but i agree that i doubt the AI could handle it. I think the problem with coasts is that you have to build buildings currently to make them comparable to land tiles which the above method could help solve if it would work.

 

[Dunkah]

So I was playing a game last night. Was in the process of hopping between continents late game to attack the last of the leftover civs. There were about 25 water hexes that I could move my army into plus I had about 7 Naval Ships and the AI had a couple of workboats in the area.

I was trying to move about 20+ land units, mostly Modern Armor and Mech Infantry and it got really crowded really quickly.

At the end of my second turn trying to cross the water, I realized that I had a Battleship, With about 5 promotions on it, that hadn't done anything that turn. I figured rather than move it into an area controled by AI guided missles I would shoot at one of the AI Workboats to get it out of the way, so I could manouver my army a bit easier.

My heavily upgraded Battleship did 2 Points of damage to the Workboat... I nearly shat right there.

Just for kicks I tried it again later to see if it was just s fluke and did 4 to another workboat.

Is this right? Seems to me a Battleship of any kind should just be able to run right over a workboat. And if that is impossible to do and I have to waste shots on it, it should at least be a one hit kill.

 

[Thalassicus]

Ranged attacks against non-combat units always deal the same amount of damage, no matter the strength of the unit. It's not something we can change.

 

[Lorteungen]

I just killed 3 full-health destroyers with 3 artillery shots. The destroyers got a -50% "vs domain" (or something like that) penalty while my artillery got a +50% domain bonus. Is this intended or is it a known bug? It was in v6.9. On your site it says "Land units deal half damage to ships", so something seems off.

 

[Thalassicus]

That was a bug.

It's fixed in 7.0, where the effects are:

• Land siege
  +50% vs cities
  -50% vs land units
• Sea siege
  +50% vs cities

 

[SgtCiv]

One of the biggest problems I have with naval units is their movement and combat disadvantages.

Using a Trieme with 4 movement points as an example :
1. I can move 3 hexes and fire at an enemy.
2. I can move no hexes and fire at an enemy and all movement points are gone.

This doesn't seem very balanced to me. Not really sure what the fix is to this problem, but here is some ideas.
1. The simplest solution is just making firing at an enemy cost only one movement point. Anything left over can get used for moving. With them only being to fire once per turn, without the proper upgrades.
2. Making the naval have a set-up time costing 1 movement point, firing a movement point and what ever is left over they move or stay set-up for next turn (same as a catapult).

 

[Stalker0]

One of the biggest problems I have with naval units is their movement and combat disadvantages.

Using a Trieme with 4 movement points as an example :
1. I can move 3 hexes and fire at an enemy.
2. I can move no hexes and fire at an enemy and all movement points are gone.

You could always give naval units the ability to move after attacking, but I don't really feel its necessary. Naval units are quite strong in newer versions of TBC

 

[Thalassicus]

Other than the fact they can only move on water tiles, naval units are stronger than their ranged land counterparts. They aren't weak to counterattack like Archers or Catapults are. Because of this, I think they're strong enough for now.

If we get our naval units experienced enough they can move after attacking with the Logistics promotion, though that's very deep in the tree (100xp).

 

[pirsq]

I see the useless of navies as an inherent flaw of the game mechanics that cannot be fixed by tweaking. Historically, up until the modern era, ships mainly existed to either transport a ground army for an invasion, to protect against such an invasion, or to control the seas for commercial benefits. They were mostly useless at attacking land units or cities, as they should be, otherwise history would have taken a completely different course.

However, Civ 5 is set up so that on a non-island map, you never need to launch a naval invasion! First you conquer your continent, then if there's another continent, you make your units swim across the ocean to a city-state on the next continent, and launch your next land campaign from there. All you need is a caravel or two to find the best point to attack. The same caravel or two is sufficient to defend against any AI naval attack, because of how easy it is to snipe embarked units. And there is basically no commercial benefit to controlling the seas.

The result is that until battleships (the first unit that is reasonably effective against land units, both historically and in-game), ships are pretty worthless beyond the first two caravels. The problem is not that they are underpowered, but that they do not have a role to fill. Now, you could just make them unhistorically effective against land units (which seems to be what the mod does), but this completely changes the game. In my game today, my starting warrior was scouting the map along a narrow hilly peninsula when he encountered a pirate. Instead of the 1 damage per shot he would take from a galley, he was taking 2-3, and ended up dying before he could run away. This doesn't seem right.

Overall, what's wrong with navies being underpowered on a continents map? Isn't that precisely what one would expect in a large-continents-with-no-maritime-trade situation?