Opinions on my Naval Unit changes (mostly attack and def) (balance)

[just bob]

If a boat with a cannon shoots a boat made from wood, it should die.

Basic premise. That said, I just tried to scale up the canon/iron boats to fight better against those that aren't. I did't spend much time on it, just tried to keep their relative strengths at what the devs intended them to be. (When comparing similar-type boats that is.)

So, I changed no movement rates. I did slightly improve Portugal's UU versus just trying to scale it. I don't remember if I did the same to England's or not. I also improved The Byzantine's boat.

Curragh - 1/1
Galley - 2/2
Caravel - 4/5
Galleon - 4/5
Frigate - 6/6 - Zone of Control
Privateer - 6/5 - Zone of Control
Iron Clad - 9/10
Transport - 5/8
Destroyer - 16/12 - Zone of Control - 8 Move (Did I change this?)
Cruiser - 19/14
Carrier - 5/12 - 5 Trans. Cap
Submarine - 15/12
Battleship - 22/16 - Zone of Control
Nuclear Sub - 13/12 - 3 Trans. Cap. (for Missiles)
AEGIS Cruiser - 16/14 - Zone of Control

UUs
Dromon - 3/2 - Zone of Control - Trans. Cap. 3
Carrack - 6/5
Man-o-War - 8/6

Should I give either of the 2nd UUs 1 more hp? Just thought of this. Or lower the Dromon Trans. Cap.?
I gave the Dromon ZOC because of it's Greek Fire, which was unique to it.

Should the Nuclear Sub keep its 3 cap? Go to 2? Stay at 1? -- I don't want to make it easier, just more real/fair. IMO If a nation is going to put a nuke on a sub, they're not always only going to only have one per sub.

Should Cruiser get a ZOC? Gave AEGIS a ZOC to make it more desireable.

Other Notes: I may not have adjusted the Privateer properly (in comparison to Frigates and what seemed to be their goal), due to how much I hated how badly Frigates would annihilate my Privateers.

Last thing: Should I change any of the AI flags for the units? I did not modify any of them.

--

The poll is there for those who don't feel like replying. But I would much prefer verbal feedback.

 

[Arcades057]

I usually change the naval values, but I go much higher, also increasing the shield-costs. For transports I go to something like 1/30 with 40-48 unit capacity, with a shield cost of something like 1000-2000. Nuclear subs get 24 unit capacity (like the Ohio-class of nuke-boats) a higher defense, with a slightly higher attack, and a MUCH higher shield cost.

Destroyers, cruisers and battleships get huge bumps in everything, including shield cost. Carriers go up to a 60 unit capacity, higher defense (somewhere in the neighborhood of 40-50) and a VERY high shield cost (5000 or somthing).

I like the idea that building a navy should be a time-intensive task, and those ships shouldn't be dying off to a handful of caravels and ironclads.

As an aside, I also beef up the air units, increasing bombard values of the regular bombers to 60, removing the upgrade ability, increasing shield cost by about 50, and expanding the range to 25-30. Stealth bombers are given an attack value of 100-120, unlimited range, and a shield cost of 2500-3500; stealth fighters are given unlimited range, higher bombard value and shield cost is raised as well.

The changes are partially about balance, but more about realism. I don't like playing games where a spearman has the ability to defeat a tank, or a galley can kill a battleship, but I've had that happen more times than I can count with vanilla CIVIII.

The best place to see these changes, without having to do them all yourself, is in the Test of Time with cities scenario.

 

[ChaosArbiter]

Galley - 2/2
Caravel - 4/5
Galleon - 4/5
Frigate - 6/6 - Zone of Control
Privateer - 6/5 - Zone of Control

The devs do seem to have wanted the Privateer to be a weaker Frigate; I would change the Galley to a 2/1 with +1 HP compared to the Curragh (maybe remove an HP from the Curragh?), then make the Caravel 2/3 and the Galley 3/4. Make the Frigate 6/5 and the Privateer 5/5.

Iron Clad - 9/10
Transport - 5/8
Destroyer - 16/12 - Zone of Control - 8 Move (Did I change this?)
Cruiser - 19/14

I would lower the Attack value for the Ironclads - they weren't particularly heavy-gunned compared to contemporary frigates, but were harder to destroy. Transports seem rather weak, although I think that's more because of how powerful you've made the other modern vessels.
RE: Cruisers vs Destroyers - in terms of firepower, they were pretty close: Heavy Cruisers post-WWI had guns of 6.1"-8", while 5"-6" was normal for Destroyers. The major differences was in size, as Cruisers could weigh in at up to 10K tons displacement from that period, while Destroyers rarely weighed in at more than 2000 tons displacement. In light of that, I would decrease the Attack of the Cruiser to 17 or 18, increase its Defense to 16, and decrease the Destroyer's Defense to 11 or 10.

Carrier - 5/12 - 5 Trans. Cap
Submarine - 15/12
Battleship - 22/16 - Zone of Control
Nuclear Sub - 13/12 - 3 Trans. Cap. (for Missiles)
AEGIS Cruiser - 16/14 - Zone of Control

The Submarine's defense shouldn't be better than the Transport's - they were terribly fragile, and it didn't take much structural damage to severely inhibit their operational ability. Likewise I think their Attack is too high, but unless you want to give them Bomardment, it'll work. For the Battleship, I would increase its Defense to 20 *or* give it an extra HP; Carriers I think should also get an extra HP, as well-built ones were difficult to sink. I'm not sure why you lowered the Attack for Nuclear Subs and AEGIS Cruisers, but the only change I would make would be to increase the AEGIS Cruiser's Defense to 18.

UUs
Dromon - 3/2 - Zone of Control - Trans. Cap. 3
Carrack - 6/5
Man-o-War - 8/6

I would lower the Dromon's Transportation capability to the same as the Galley *or* remove the ZoC. Give the Carrack +1 Defense compared to the Caravel and the Man-o-War +1 Attack compared to the Frigate (IIRC, it can Enslave, right?)

Should the Nuclear Sub keep its 3 cap? Go to 2? Stay at 1? -- I don't want to make it easier, just more real/fair. IMO If a nation is going to put a nuke on a sub, they're not always only going to only have one per sub.

Not that I've ever put a Nuke on a Sub, but I would put the limit at 2.

Should Cruiser get a ZOC? Gave AEGIS a ZOC to make it more desireable.

Considering the AEGIS Cruiser includes missiles, it makes sense for it to have a ZoC. Cruiser doesn't need one.

Other Notes: I may not have adjusted the Privateer properly (in comparison to Frigates and what seemed to be their goal), due to how much I hated how badly Frigates would annihilate my Privateers.

Well, the Privateers are supposed to be weaker Frigates ... and having Frigates maul Privateers makes some sense. Realistically, there would be two kinds of Privateers - the first is essentially upgunned merchant vessels, perhaps with some kind of structural bracing; the second would essentially *be* a Frigate, but that make their job difficult. Privateers were never meant to stand up to ships of the line - they were commerce raiders, much like later Q-Ships.

Of course, I have no idea how *any* of this will affect balance.

 

[Elephantium]

The Nuclear sub's combat stats should be better than those of the regular sub.

One thing that always annoys me is that the battleship is at the top of the stack, over the Destroyers. It should be the other way around as historically, the destroyers were there to cover the battleships against torpedo boat attacks.

 

[Moosezilla]

I think a king flag will put a unit as last defender. Good for Carriers.

 

[Bluemofia]

I think a king flag will put a unit as last defender. Good for Carriers.

Unfortunately, you can't physically build them yourself. Only upgrade things spawned by improvements, or preplace them.

 

[just bob]

Thanks for all the input. I'll post back when I update them. Just started a seasonal job that will prolly require me to work every day til Christmas.

--

What Naval tweaks have you guys made to your games?

 

[timerover51]

Thanks for all the input. I'll post back when I update them. Just started a seasonal job that will prolly require me to work every day til Christmas.

--

What Naval tweaks have you guys made to your games?

I am amoung other things, a naval historian, and have spent a fair amount of time working on the naval aspect of the game. This is a link to the naval mod that I have done.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=322522

 

[GamezRule]

This would be good if tweaked a bit more.

 

[Sparthage]

Many of the changes that I've made to the naval aspect are increased shield prices and HP counts for units such as Battleships. Otherwise, I am interested in your changes and will continue to follow this thread.

 

[just bob]

Unfortunately, you can't physically build them yourself. Only upgrade things spawned by improvements, or preplace them.

To get around this you could make a copy of the carrier with the King flag, make it cost 0 shields, and so people can't build it (though redudant w/king flag apparently), and then finally mark it as an upgrade to current carriers. Then the 0 shield cost would make it a free upgrade.
I assume.
If not, give it a 1 shield cost.
?

On another note, I forgot tomorrow is my last day of school for the session, so I'll prolly be able to use that time to finish tweaking those numbers. So I'll prolly have this done sooner than I said.

edit:

thanks for the interest sparthage.

perciate the response game.

I'll take a good look at it when i get the chance time. if i don't say anything about it within the next.. time frame.. feel free to remind me (if you desire)

-

a note:
I didn't want to touch HP of units because then that'd require rebalancing naval bombardment numbers.

 

[Bluemofia]

That implies you need to pre-place them, or spawn them. Either way, you still can't physically build them yourself.

 

[Elephantium]

Hmm...can you do Stealth bombardment on fighters and bombers? That would neatly represent the way DDs and CAs would screen for BBs and CVs -- but then air strikes would still be able to hit the carriers first.

 

[just bob]

That implies you need to pre-place them, or spawn them. Either way, you still can't physically build them yourself.

Howso? Edit in a carrier with the king flag. Make it an upgrade to the normal carrier. Build a normal carrier. Upgrade the normal carrier to the carrier with the king flag. You didn't literally "build" it. It would not use the same programming functions as building it. The question is, did the devs code it so this is not possible?

I was screwing around with a tiny world I made, and found out that, as the Vikings, if I made a unit that enslaved a defeated unit into Joan d'Arc, it would say that's what happened. But then it would actually be Ragnar. I actually have time to go test this now, so I will.


Edit:
[Scratch this line. See below.] You can to build king units..

Results of my test:
At first I wasn't able to upgrade the carrier, which I made available at the start of the game, and gave 1 shield cost to. Did the same for harbors and the "king carrier". [If you are an intelligent lad, you would have caught a mistake right here. I didn't.] So, I built a barracks, as I didn't know why I couldn't upgrade, so I decided to try that. Still not able to. Ended my turn a bunch until I got map making. once I got that, for some odd reason, things changed. I didn't try to to upgrade to the "king carrier" as instead my city just built it. The mistake! Basically the "king carrier" was allowed from the get-go. But it wasn't so (in practice). Apparently I had to research map making first. When the carrier was created, it was a carrier, but it's name was King Ragnar Lodbrok.

You can probably build any unit you want (flag wise), just as long as you have it allowed to specified civs.

[Below starts below this.]
Edit2: I marked the warrior with the King flag, and added Tokugawa and someone else as buildable by scandinavia. Could not build them. Don't have time to figure out what happened before. But yeah.

 

[Bluemofia]

Hmm...can you do Stealth bombardment on fighters and bombers? That would neatly represent the way DDs and CAs would screen for BBs and CVs -- but then air strikes would still be able to hit the carriers first.

No... Stealth bombardment doesn't work. Only stealth attack.

Howso? Edit in a carrier with the king flag. Make it an upgrade to the normal carrier. Build a normal carrier. Upgrade the normal carrier to the carrier with the king flag. You didn't literally "build" it. It would not use the same programming functions as building it. The question is, did the devs code it so this is not possible?

Oh, you mean carriers buildable, but they upgrade to a king unit carrier (which isn't because of the king status). You confused me slightly with your word choice.

This in itself has problems, because you have to pre-build however many carriers you want in the future, as you can't build any more after you research the tech that enables the king carriers.

I was screwing around with a tiny world I made, and found out that, as the Vikings, if I made a unit that enslaved a defeated unit into Joan d'Arc, it would say that's what happened. But then it would actually be Ragnar. I actually have time to go test this now, so I will.


Edit:
[Scratch this line. See below.] You can to build king units..

Results of my test:
At first I wasn't able to upgrade the carrier, which I made available at the start of the game, and gave 1 shield cost to. Did the same for harbors and the "king carrier". [If you are an intelligent lad, you would have caught a mistake right here. I didn't.] So, I built a barracks, as I didn't know why I couldn't upgrade, so I decided to try that. Still not able to. Ended my turn a bunch until I got map making. once I got that, for some odd reason, things changed. I didn't try to to upgrade to the "king carrier" as instead my city just built it. The mistake! Basically the "king carrier" was allowed from the get-go. But it wasn't so (in practice). Apparently I had to research map making first. When the carrier was created, it was a carrier, but it's name was King Ragnar Lodbrok.

You can probably build any unit you want (flag wise), just as long as you have it allowed to specified civs.

[Below starts below this.]
Edit2: I marked the warrior with the King flag, and added Tokugawa and someone else as buildable by scandinavia. Could not build them. Don't have time to figure out what happened before. But yeah.

That's not supposed to happen... EFZI2, Sengoku, etc. has king units checked, but they are not allowed to build them. It's an important game mechanic for those too.

I'm not sure, but I think other naval units have been placed as kings and use this upgrade system. (spawn "hulls" which upgrade into carriers/battleships/etc. which are flagged as king units which can't be built normally)

The tech for map making simply enables trading of maps, which shouldn't be involved at all with the King units.

 

[scratchthepitch]

just bob

"Opinions on my Naval Unit changes (mostly attack and def) (balance)"

I found that units with A/D stats only of 1 or 2 numbers difference didn't really make much of a difference in battles because of the RNG. Adding extra hit points made a lot of difference, but since only 1 hp is repaired per turn, adding the number necessary results in damaged units taking an absurd amount of time to repair. So what I've done is separate units into different tech levels (Bronze Age, Iron Age, etc.) and try and give about a 50% increase in stats between each of these levels. I found this greatly helped over ride the RNG excesses and made building/upgrading the next level worthwhile. Otherwise, the RNG results tended to negate the worth of building/upgrading to the newer units until you got units several levelss higher up the tree. In your list, there is really no need to build battleships over cruisers going by the A/D specs, since the RNG would make then virtually equal in the odds because the numbers are so close.

I found the units in the standard game to be completely messed up and very unrepresentative of their historical counterparts and changed these drastically in mods.

 

[Bluemofia]

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=75765

This is a pretty good combat calculator for you to fiddle with your own numerical values.

 

[just bob]

Well, I have no clue what happened. That was a fluke game. I just tried to recreate it and could not upgrade the carriers at all. I'm not sure how that king carrier came into existence. I had both carriers available from start and could always build the normal one, so the pre-building you're talking about never reared it's ugly head.

Reguardless, if you use Steph_CivIII_ExpandedEditor_v0-8-2 (that's the folder name) you can make the AI use the unit as if it was a king unit, without actually making it a king unit.

--

To clearify, I was not trying to make the naval units accurate to real life at all. I just wanted to try and defeat the possibility of a galley not being destoyed by a cannon's fire (not the cannon unit), or any other wooden ship for that matter. I wanted to keep the naval units strengths in-check with eachother. I didn't want to change any of their relative strengths. A battleship compared to a cruiser compared to an AEGIS cruiser should be just as worth-while with these numbers as it was before. Where the worthwhileness shouldn't be the same is a battleship compared to a galley compared to a frigate compared to a privateer.

Adding HP means you MUST change the bombard/aa stats of things to keep it balanced. A lot more than I want to do. I don't have enough experiene with such matters to keep it balanced, and even if I do, until I understand the numbers behind it I would never personally be satisfied I think.

 

[ChaosArbiter]

To clearify, I was not trying to make the naval units accurate to real life at all. I just wanted to try and defeat the possibility of a galley not being destoyed by a cannon's fire (not the cannon unit), or any other wooden ship for that matter. I wanted to keep the naval units strengths in-check with eachother. I didn't want to change any of their relative strengths. A battleship compared to a cruiser compared to an AEGIS cruiser should be just as worth-while with these numbers as it was before. Where the worthwhileness shouldn't be the same is a battleship compared to a galley compared to a frigate compared to a privateer.

Oh, that's what you wanted. That's an easy, simple fix.
Ancient Age units: Do nothing.
Medieval Age units (and Ironclads): Multiply A/D 5.
Industrial and Modern Age units: Multiply A/D by 10.

All units are now kept the same relative strength with their contemporaries, and the possibility of a Galley beating a BB is negligible.

 

[GamezRule]

Actually, for the modern age unit's, you should multiply by 12 instead of 10. A real AEGIS Cruiser is pretty powerful.