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

[marsodin]

Thank you GamezRule and scratchthepitch!

Well, i was going to make all naval units very expensive. The AI would have no choice if it wants to have naval units.

 

[scratchthepitch]

Thank you GamezRule and scratchthepitch!

Well, i was going to make all naval units very expensive. The AI would have no choice if it wants to have naval units.

They probably wouldn't build naval units then. From what I read from the modders, the AI likes to build units with the lowest cost, but have the highest attack factor most. So if you make a unit a lower attack rating or a higher cost than the rest of the units, the AI will probably not make any, if they make them at all.

What I found in some mods I've made in the past is by making ships cost about the same as the land unit available, the AI did make quite a few, but they still didn't know how to use them coherently. They would build the ship and then right away send it out to war unsupported by other ships.

With land units, I've been able to get the AI making artillery units by giving them a decent attack factor in comparison to other land units. And also checking the attack and defense boxes (in addition to the artillery box) in the land AI role in the editor. They still hardly use their bombardment attack, unfortunately.

 

[Bluemofia]

They probably wouldn't build naval units then. From what I read from the modders, the AI likes to build units with the lowest cost, but have the highest attack factor most. So if you make a unit a lower attack rating or a higher cost than the rest of the units, the AI will probably not make any, if they make them at all.

What I found in some mods I've made in the past is by making ships cost about the same as the land unit available, the AI did make quite a few, but they still didn't know how to use them coherently. They would build the ship and then right away send it out to war unsupported by other ships.

Correct. However, it is only naval units the AI concerns cost about (and only whether to build or not to build). Land units they primarily aim for the highest attack/defense stat unit they can build, regardless of cost.

Naval units, the AI still tends to build units proportional to their attack/defense stats, building more battleships than cruisers, and more cruisers than destroyers due to their attack/defense stats.

With land units, I've been able to get the AI making artillery units by giving them a decent attack factor in comparison to other land units. And also checking the attack and defense boxes (in addition to the artillery box) in the land AI role in the editor. They still hardly use their bombardment attack, unfortunately.

This is due to the AI choosing to use the attack strategy, rather than the bombardment strategy. When a unit is built, the AI decides which AI strategy to use, if it has a choice. Attack is viewed as more valuable than bombardment, so the AI tends to pick it.

Setting artillery to have a range of 4 or more have far better results from other people's tests, as the AI would actually use the artillery unit offensively, until an enemy unit comes within 3 tiles of it. (then they tend to run away)

 

[scratchthepitch]

Correct. However, it is only naval units the AI concerns cost about (and only whether to build or not to build). Land units they primarily aim for the highest attack/defense stat unit they can build, regardless of cost.

Naval units, the AI still tends to build units proportional to their attack/defense stats, building more battleships than cruisers, and more cruisers than destroyers due to their attack/defense stats.

Thanks for that info. I remember in the mod I made, the AI went with the most powerful ship, rather than a faster, but less powerful ship.

This is due to the AI choosing to use the attack strategy, rather than the bombardment strategy. When a unit is built, the AI decides which AI strategy to use, if it has a choice. Attack is viewed as more valuable than bombardment, so the AI tends to pick it.

Setting artillery to have a range of 4 or more have far better results from other people's tests, as the AI would actually use the artillery unit offensively, until an enemy unit comes within 3 tiles of it. (then they tend to run away)

I read about the extended range helping AI use of land bombardment, but it is hard for me to justify such a range in the standard game. In a specific scenario, where area is much smaller, that helps a lot, though.

I was recently messing around trying to get the AI to build artillery units and use bombardment. I was able to get them building the units, but failed to get them to bombard (didn't give them the extended range). But one thing I found interesting was that the AI was prioritizing the artillery over horse units. In the mod I was experimenting with, both horse units and catapults required horses. I set the horse units as offensive units and the artillery as offensive/defensive/artillery for the AI. With the artillery set with a higher offense, the AI produced these mostly. With the artillery set with a lower offense, but equal bombardment to the regular horse units' offense factor (and I think defense) factor, the AI still built this instead of the straight horse unit. What surprised me in the test game was that the AI didn't have horses, so I traded them horses. The first unit they built was the artillery unit, Instead of a regular horse unit, even though the horse unit had a higher attack factor. The available horse units didn't have a bombardment factor, that includes defensive bombardment. Strange how the AI was programed to build the units, but not use them. Don't know if any of that would be useful info to any one else, but I thought I might as well post it, just the same.

 

[Argetnyx]

Sometimes, the AI's have stacks of ships. When that happens, you know you're screwed if you don't have the proper air cover.

 

[bigFRANK]

From my so far limited naval engagements I would say
1) wooden ships are rather too sturdy and too quick
2) the offensive power of all modern shipping is too limited.
3) the ability to bombard in nowhere near lethal enough the range of battleships should perhaps be greater?

Case in point
1) 2 frigates and a galleon in a stack -v- 8 bombers attack this convoy all three ships are damaged but all make it to the harbour town to repair in 1 turn.
2) Had a battleship engage a frigate the frigate was sunk but caused damage to the battle ship, in the real world it wouldn’t have got into range to even fire a broadside.
3) A stack of 4 battleships offshore are used to bombard a hill that has 2 enemy infantry on it, the 4 battleships redline 1 infantry and miss the other completely.

 

[ChaosArbiter]

From my so far limited naval engagements I would say
1) wooden ships are rather too sturdy and too quick
2) the offensive power of all modern shipping is too limited.

This seems to be intended by the developers. They didn't want lack of resources to absolutely spell doom for whomever didn't have them, so units must be able to compete with their advanced counterparts (Spearman vs Tank, anyone?). So while a single Battleship *should* be nigh-invinvible against a fleet of Frigates/Galleons, that would make someone who can't get Oil unable to compete. So it's toned down.

1) 2 frigates and a galleon in a stack -v- 8 bombers attack this convoy all three ships are damaged but all make it to the harbour town to repair in 1 turn.

That's rather irrelevant. In any case, can Vanilla Bombers sink ships? In know they can't kill Land Units.

3) A stack of 4 battleships offshore are used to bombard a hill that has 2 enemy infantry on it, the 4 battleships redline 1 infantry and miss the other completely.

Check out the naval bombardments in WWII of the Japanese defenses on some islands or at Normandy.

 

[scratchthepitch]

From my so far limited naval engagements I would say
1) wooden ships are rather too sturdy and too quick
2) the offensive power of all modern shipping is too limited.
3) the ability to bombard in nowhere near lethal enough the range of battleships should perhaps be greater?

Case in point
1) 2 frigates and a galleon in a stack -v- 8 bombers attack this convoy all three ships are damaged but all make it to the harbour town to repair in 1 turn.
2) Had a battleship engage a frigate the frigate was sunk but caused damage to the battle ship, in the real world it wouldn’t have got into range to even fire a broadside.
3) A stack of 4 battleships offshore are used to bombard a hill that has 2 enemy infantry on it, the 4 battleships redline 1 infantry and miss the other completely.

All that can be fixed by modding the game in the editor. I recommend playing the regular game enough to understand how it works, and then moving on to mods, or modding the game yourself.

 

[BuckyRea]

I usually like to make the ships faster than the game's defaults. But Dromons with Zone of Control just seems too powerful for that early a unit

 

[bigFRANK]

That's rather irrelevant. In any case, can Vanilla Bombers sink ships? In know they can't kill Land Units.

Yep they have lethal bombardment both at land and at sea. (as do regular fighters).

 

[Bluemofia]

Yep they have lethal bombardment both at land and at sea. (as do regular fighters).

"Only in Conquests" is the point being brought up. Vanilla Civ III has no lethal bombard, so you can't bomb it anymore after they are redlined anyhow, even if you try to force it (hold the bombard shortcut down while clicking)



That's just poor luck on your part. According to combat calculators:

1 bomber attacking a Galleon or Frigate has a 0.37% chance of doing no damage, 6.09% chance of doing 1 damage, 33.19% chance of doing 2 damage, and 60.35% chance of doing 3 damage.

Given there are 3 ships, most likely veteran, that's 12 health amongst them. 8 attacks, on average 4.8 do 3 damage, 2.6 do 2 damage, 0.48 do 1 damage, and 0.03 do no damage.

However, because of the small number of samples, you're going to deviate from average. It was just bad luck.

But anyhow, I view it more of a single Galleon and Frigate unit is a small fleet of them, rather than a single ship, while the modern equivalent is just one ship. Afterall, navies in the past could be hundreds of ships in size, while modern day naval battles you're lucky to find a battle with more than a dozen on each side.

 

[Argetnyx]

In the modern day, you're lucky to have even a naval battle at all!

 

[Jokeslayer]

1 bomber attacking a Galleon or Frigate has a 0.37% chance of doing no damage, 6.09% chance of doing 1 damage, 33.19% chance of doing 2 damage, and 60.35% chance of doing 3 damage.

Are we sure about these numbers? The most likely outcome is 3 damage?

 

[CKS]

If a bomber bombards at 12 and a frigate defends at 2, the bomber wins 6/7 of the rounds. The chance of three wins in a row is (6/7)^3, which is bigger than 60%. The vanilla unit stats given on this site say bombers bombard at 8, which still gives over 50% for the probability of 3 hits.

I don't know if rate of fire = 3 means 3 attacks regardless of outcome, or if it means you get to attack until you lose or reach 3 wins. The chances for doing less than 3 damage vary depending on which of these it is. Either way, though, bombers red-line medieval ships very easily.

 

[Jokeslayer]

If a bomber bombards at 12 and a frigate defends at 2, the bomber wins 6/7 of the rounds. The chance of three wins in a row is (6/7)^3, which is bigger than 60%. The vanilla unit stats given on this site say bombers bombard at 8, which still gives over 50% for the probability of 3 hits.

I don't know if rate of fire = 3 means 3 attacks regardless of outcome, or if it means you get to attack until you lose or reach 3 wins. The chances for doing less than 3 damage vary depending on which of these it is. Either way, though, bombers red-line medieval ships very easily.

Thanks. Feel silly for not being able to work this out on my own.

 

[GamezRule]

Rate of fire is # of attacks.

Artillery have a rate of fire of 2, therefore if you bombard a unit with 1 artillery it is possible to take away 2 HP.

 

[timerover51]

I go with a very simple rule and that is that technology wins. I therefore massively increase the attack and defense values of modern units, and also boost the hit points. I have no interest in galleys or frigates damaging a battleship. I cannot totally eliminate it, but I at least can render it much the very odd occurrence.

 

[bigFRANK]

Trouble with that there are no ‘modern’ warships represented in the game except for the AGEIS Cruiser. To mod to that level you would need to split your destroyers into 3 or 4 generations, implement cruisers with specific roles, quantify nuclear subs as attack or ballistic boats, mark carriers up for example as fleet/escort/sea control roles and give them different generation defense. It becomes increasingly complex to keep the unit count fairly low whilst striking a balance as to what capability a unit should have.

 

[timerover51]

Trouble with that there are no ‘modern’ warships represented in the game except for the AGEIS Cruiser. To mod to that level you would need to split your destroyers into 3 or 4 generations, implement cruisers with specific roles, quantify nuclear subs as attack or ballistic boats, mark carriers up for example as fleet/escort/sea control roles and give them different generation defense. It becomes increasingly complex to keep the unit count fairly low whilst striking a balance as to what capability a unit should have.

When I want to do that, I forget about the computer and break out the Harpoon miniature game, or for earlier periods, one of my other games. Civ3 is not intended to be a detailed simulation of naval warfare. The miniature games are.

 

[bigFRANK]

Oh indeed I agree you could end up with 60 or 70 different modern era boats if you go to that length which would spoil the fairly simple gameplay.