Discussion in 'Community Patch Project' started by Gazebo, Mar 15, 2020.
If navies aren’t a dire coastal threat, what’s the point?
There's a point where ironclad have 60 strength, 33% bonus vs cities, and the strongest land unit in a city with an arsenal gives the city a cs of... 40-45ish.
The threat is worse than dire. Cities fall in 3 turns.
If the lesson is... have a navy, then so be it. But it's frustrating.
Well having a Navy is mandatory but I would prefer my coastal cities give me at least 6/7 turns to bring in the Fleet and the Army defense units before crumbling down. Especially if I spent hundreds of hammers to build all Walls, Seaport, Arsenals and whatnot.
Just my 2 cents.
It's not so much about them being a threat or not, but about naval units being a disproportionately bigger threat than their land unit contemporaries. At Renaissance and above, naval units have a CS comparable to a land unit of the next era.
It is also that navies require the player to maintain a critical mass, or their ships end being surrounded and quickly dispatched. Human players don't have the same amount of supply to spend on naval units as an individual AI do and the AI has been more keen on joint wars lately. If a player gets targeted by a joint war and both AIs send their navies on the same city, that player is forced to keep that city on Defense process for pretty much the whole duration of the war to stand a chance of keeping the city by the end of it.
So what was the end result?
I held off Persia, with my city down to 100 health. We went through the peace treaty duration and Persia declared again, this time with corsairs and frigates. I was able to heal my city to 400 health. It didn't stand a chance....
Important note I forgot to mention earlier, I have fealty, so I actually have an extra 5 CS over a normal person.
The other thing to remember is...I am not facing 1 navy....I am commonly facing 5.
Last note is....I did not put this city in a super vulnerable water spot. It can only be hit from 3 water squares with ranged, and only 1 square with melee ships. I have lots of area for my ranged units to fire. God help me if I tried to hold a city with 3 coastal tiles and fewer land spaces that can hold ranged units.
So what is going to happen is, next game I am not going to settle any coasts....I simply cannot defend them, so I'm not going to try. The enemy navy will then have no point.
I'm at the same point. I've actually started playing a highlands map to avoid navy. The only game where I've had a somewhat decent navy was a Sweden warmonger game.
Why are all the AIs declaring on you?
I am in the same boat as you @Stalker0 (maybe too confident with that city, look @HeathcliffWarriors how everyone loves me because I built wonders, 8 currently)
I barely manage that city with England to not be taken, almost in every war with her is almost gone
Just noticed, weren't harbors and seaport suppose to increase city health, when it was changed?
Hmm, it does seem overtuned. Good thing we have beta testing!
EDIT: Adjustments have been made for the next version.
The worst thing about @Stalker0 's situation is how all his musketmen are completely unscathed while the city crumples.
I agree that a city with 0 garrison should be easily brought down, even if it has castles, arsenal, etc. but if there are land units fighting back then the navy should be forced to reckon with them somewhat.
Maybe it's time to remove the naval target penalty? That way, naval units can remain scary but they have to focus on killing land units first.
Is there a reason why melee naval unit CS starts increasing faster than their melee land counterparts starting in Renaissance Era? The city CS is relevant for land combats but, due to that increasing difference, they pale against naval units. Unless we address this, we will have situations where either the navy is too powerful or land units are too weak when it comes to taking out cities. Both of those cases are pretty bad.
The simple answer was that previously city defense was a lot higher. Ships had to be tough enough to take ranged bombardment and still do respectable damage vs cities, as compared to siege engines on land. The city defense was changed recently, and the numbers are lower, which is we are seeing this surge in naval strength.
Part of it is also a few versions ago, the AI was tweaked to build significantly more naval ships than they did previously, so they always have a navy ready to throw at your cities.
1) I was at the top score.
2) I was converting certain civs (they really really hate that).
3) I was building wonders (they really really really hate that!).
Well, to be fair it looks like you settled Douglas in England's private pool.
I advocated for siege units to fill this role. So if you want to fortify against navies, build cannons. Spread damage was ideal for these situations.
So we are headed in a direction where:
Ranged/Mounted Ranged units deal with land units
Siege units deal with cities and naval units
Siege promotions should be naval focused instead of just wounded units focused?
I’m actually okay with siege units not having a great anti-naval capacity out of the box, as they do now. I think there’s a great opportunity for a field/siege 1 leaf promotion which does give siege units that anti-naval role though:
Siege units retain their -25% anti-naval penalty
Requires siege 1 or field 1
+33% vs naval units
I would say, the fact, that you still field Trebuchets and Caravels in 1862, while your enemy attacks with ironclads and field guns...... MIGHT.... have something to do with AI seeing you weak.....
Iconic Civilization moment
Not sure what you mean. In that game both the AI and I had corsairs and cannons....maybe there is an obsolete unit sprinkled in their but my forces are pretty modern.
Separate names with a comma.