Post G&K naval design

[Ahriman]

See previous discussion in this thread:

Here is what I would propose for a naval design:

Trireme (melee, no ocean)
Galleass (range 2, no ocean)
Caravel (melee, extra sight)
Privateer (melee, designed for city attacks)
Frigate (range 1, low strength, high speed)
Ship of the line (range 2, heavy, requires iron)
Galleon (melee, designed for boarding actions)
Ironclad (range 2, heavy, requires coal) [Possibly rename this Battlecruiser or Dreadnought]
U-boat (range 1, low strength, high ranged strength)
Destroyer (range 1, low strength, high speed)
Sub (range 1, low strength, high ranged strength)
Battleship (range 3, heavy, requires oil)
Carrier
Missile cruiser (range 3, heavy, requires oil)
Nuclear sub (range 1, low strength, high ranged strength)

Upgrade paths:
Trireme -> Privateer -> Galleon -> Destroyer (promotions convert somehow?)
Galleass -> Frigate -> Destroyer
Caravel -> Galleon -> Destroyer
U-boat -> Sub -> Nuclear sub
Ship of the line -> Ironclad -> Battleship -> Missile cruiser

Also, potentially there could be a Modern Destroyer that the Destroyer upgrades to.

The marine unit stays as a land unit. The reason why they introduced is that they pushed the Mech-Inf back, which I think is good. Ideally I'd like to see the marine be able to attack a coastal city from being embarked; does anyone know if this is possible? I haven't tested yet.

Ranged attack units would have lower base strength than melee units of their era. So in a 1v1 fight, a melee unit that attacks a same era ranged unit first should end up winning (eg: privateer attacks frigate; frigate bombard privateer, privateer attacks frigate, frigate bombard privateer, privateer attacks and kills frigate).
Otherwise melee units are too weak.
Heavy units could have the same base strength as a melee unit, but with higher build cost and strategic resource requirement.

 

[Tarquelne]

I like it. Some questions:

Why range 2 for Galleass?

(I might prefer calling it a "Galley". While not as appropriate for a ranged unit, I think it fits the tech tree better and IIRC Galley were far more common. Just a quibble.)

Why subs as ranged units rather than melee?

(My thoughts: Melee might encourage a more realistic hit-and-run use, and make elimination of DD escorts not quite so dire a situation for the AI.)

Ship of the line -> U-boat -> Battleship -> Missile cruiser

Should be Ironclad rather than U-boat? Or do you hate Ironclads and wish to bar them from all upgrade paths?

I especially like the heavy vs. ranged unit distinction, and your take on marines and u-boats.

 

[jk_bonn]

A Galeasse is a ship between A Galley and a Galleon and should be a range unit as it had a lot of cannons.
Galeasse was slowand made for range combat, Galley was much faster and mostly used for close combat and had a ram.

Galeasse:




Galley:

 

[Ahriman]

Why range 2 for Galleass?

Mostly because it will be nearly impossible to take a city with only 2 adjacent coastal tiles if you can't shoot over the melee units attacking it.
Also, for the same kinds of reasons that archers have a longer range than machine guns; the scale of the battlefield changes through the eras, and because there is no other heavy capital ship unit in the design that can be used for shore bombardment (a la ship of the line, ironclad, battleship, etc.)

(I might prefer calling it a "Galley". While not as appropriate for a ranged unit, I think it fits the tech tree better and IIRC Galley were far more common. Just a quibble.)

A galley is designed for ramming and boarding, a galleass is designed for shooting people. Also, this is the vanilla G&K name, and less change is better.

Why subs as ranged units rather than melee?
(My thoughts: Melee might encourage a more realistic hit-and-run use, and make elimination of DD escorts not quite so dire a situation for the AI.)

1. A melee unit can only have a single strength value; so to be good at offense, you must also be good at defense. Which means that subs end up getting used as a defensive screen, which feels odd.
To me, a sub should be a glass cannon; a powerful alpha strike if it gets to shoot first, but then very vulnerable to counterattack. So the idea would be that you use your subs to go in and sink the carrier or battleships, and then try to protect the subs from counterattack by protecting them with destroyers.

An alternative model would be a hard-wired bonus vs embarked land units and capital ships of their era and destroyers with a bonus vs subs of their era.

2. Melee units take damage even from shooting at embarked land units. To me, subs should be an excellent weapon for sinking unescorted transports. But they will do this job very poorly as a melee unit, because they are constantly taking damage from attacking them.

3. Melee units can take cities. This is weird for subs, though it can be blocked.

Hit and run would seem to require a high movement speed, which doesn't make sense for subs.

Should be Ironclad rather than U-boat?

Sorry, brain freeze typo. Thanks.

 

[mitsho]

I do like the general thinking of having 1-tile ranged, 2(or more)-tile ranged and melee naval units. Thal has described in his table 3 roles (Light Spotting, Melee anti-ship and Capital Anti-City) and I do think the table fits nicely in this thread




If I see that correctly, Thal has units that have both melee and ranged attack. I like that, but let's go Era by Era

Ancient Age
Problem: Most of the times only one coastal tile, not much free space to attack. (with exceptions for Archipelago maps!)
Goal: mostly scouting, if there's enough room or you have a naval ancient uu, city conquest (mostly city states)
Unit needed: can take city, but can also support land units near the coast (1 tile range); 3-5 triremes can thus bombard the city, maybe exchange* units and take the city, losing 0-1 if lightly defended.

*"Move after attacking" and "ignore zone of control" as promotion reachable after a few fights?
For Scouting: Land attack is needed, otherwise triremes are impotent against coastal barbarian camps. They should be able to take them out, yes I know, not possible.

Alternatively, change mapscripts so that coasts are two tiles wide in some places, also solving the problem of being stuck because that dimwit of Bismarck won't exchange open borders.

Melee Ships show up
As a counter against the ranged/melee triremes.

Ocean Going
Problem: More room, but vast oceans need to be explored.
Caravels are comparatively worse at taking cities.

Full Battlegroups possible
see above table. Full Sea Battles now possible, cities are helpless without a navy against attacks. A Coastal Fortress acting like a Great Wall on sea would work wonders helping against a naval surprise attack. Possible? (I'm talking of a building that reduces movement points, possibly a national wonder since it may be more intuitive for the player, or a local building that gives a zone of control)

Submarines as stealth ship killers
bigger range, should be "glass cannons". Range however may relate to their movement points. They would work very well as a one-rile ranged unit, needing to get close to fire, but then deadly and toast if detected... That of course implies move after attack, not? Also there's the problem of sea-to-land attacks. Only if rockets are installed?

Airpower
Airplanes make the range of the Capital Ships huge which now also work against land units. They need to be protected however, except against rockets...


Thinking of this, what about moving the Privateer where on the table above the Frigate is. The Frigate would take the place of the Marines. That would be only a name change of course

On that topic, how do we use the Prize Ship Promotion? Only available for Light Ships? Or do we allow a Red October? Possibly realistic, but it gives those ships a much higher worth, having one going in for the last hit points... Thus, there'd probably be more than 1 per battlegroup...

 

[Txurce]

Here is what I would propose for a naval design:

Galleass (range 2, no ocean)

The marine unit stays as a land unit. The reason why they introduced is that they pushed the Mech-Inf back, which I think is good. Ideally I'd like to see the marine be able to attack a coastal city from being embarked; does anyone know if this is possible? I haven't tested yet.

I would leave the Galleass at range 1, mainly because I don't think it should help taking cities in the first place. Otherwise this is pretty much how I think the naval design should work. I assume Marines have no embarked-attack penalty; if they do, it should be removed in this model.

 

[Tarquelne]

Mostly because it will be nearly impossible to take a city with only 2 adjacent coastal tiles if you can't shoot over the melee units attacking it....and because there is no other heavy capital ship unit in the design that can be used for shore bombardment (a la ship of the line, ironclad, battleship, etc.)

Makes sense. Assuming you want the unit to fill that role. I guess I question the idea that such a unit is desirable (or needed) so early.

Also, for the same kinds of reasons that archers have a longer range than machine guns; the scale of the battlefield changes through the eras,

Ok. Though I think that has more to do with unit role than an attempt to depict accurate ranges on some sort of scale.

A galley is designed for ramming and boarding, a galleass is designed for shooting people. Also, this is the vanilla G&K name, and less change is better.

Taking another look at the tech requirements I can see why they made the name change. (Been awhile since I did much with a navy before Frigates.) I like the change.

1. A melee unit can only have a single strength value; so to be good at offense, you must also be good at defense. Which means that subs end up getting used as a defensive screen, which feels odd... glass cannon...

Couldn't a promotion that gives a large attack bonus create that effect in a melee unit?

Except for:

To me, subs should be an excellent weapon for sinking unescorted transports. But they will do this job very poorly as a melee unit, because they are constantly taking damage from attacking them.

That's a point. OTOH, it could make the AI's vulnerability even worse. But if that really becomes a problem we could address then. (And not necessarily by making subs melee.)

3. Melee units can take cities. This is weird for subs, though it can be blocked.

A melee unit that can't take cities might also be a problem for the AI. (I've no idea how the AI is told what the unit roles are.)

Hit and run would seem to require a high movement speed, which doesn't make sense for subs.

(High movement speed would help, but it's certainly not necessary. Call it hit and mosey-back-to-base if you wish. )

 

[Thalassicus]

Ahriman has some good ideas here. The tables mitsho copied above are not final, and will revise based on feedback, like always with this project.

 

[Ahriman]

Problem: Most of the times only one coastal tile, not much free space to attack. (with exceptions for Archipelago maps!)
Goal: mostly scouting, if there's enough room or you have a naval ancient uu, city conquest (mostly city states)
Unit needed: can take city, but can also support land units near the coast (1 tile range); 3-5 triremes can thus bombard the city, maybe exchange* units and take the city, losing 0-1 if lightly defended.

I think making triremes ranged attackers and galleys melee is an interesting idea; I agree with the general point that there isn't enough to do with a melee naval unit in the very early game.

*"Move after attacking" and "ignore zone of control" as promotion reachable after a few fights?

Is ignore zone of control even possible?
Move after attacking shouldn't be easily accessible, it should require at least 2 prior promotions.

That of course implies move after attack, not?

No, it implies that they can kill stuff with a couple of shots if they get to shoot first.

Thinking of this, what about moving the Privateer where on the table above the Frigate is. The Frigate would take the place of the Marines

I think frigate makes sense as a light unit, privateer as a melee unit, switching those doesn't make too much sense to me.

how do we use the Prize Ship Promotion? Only available for Light Ships?

Only for melee ships.

I would leave the Galleass at range 1, mainly because I don't think it should help taking cities in the first place.

I disagree; with 1 range only, you are going to be totally unable to take out a city with a wall and archers even with a large fleet, unless it happens to be isolated on a promontory. I think it is very important that you be able to attack with melee units *and* shoot over the top of them.

Also remember that you already have big bunching problems early game because of the coast-tile only restriction and the relatively low move rate.

. Assuming you want the unit to fill that role. I guess I question the idea that such a unit is desirable (or needed) so early

I guess I worry that without that, a naval strategy is infeasible except on an all-water map.

Couldn't a promotion that gives a large attack bonus create that effect in a melee unit?

Yes, that's another interesting possibility for subs.

 

[Txurce]

I'd also add that while having no melee units in the modern era makes some historical sense - it's all about whether you visualize a Marines detachment taking control of the devastated city - it effectively leaves Privateers still capable of working in tandem with battleships. Given this, I would either consider a fix to eliminate their city-capture in the Modern era (unlikely), or else give the city-capture promotion to another ship.

 

[mitsho]

Ahriman has some good ideas here. The tables mitsho copied above are not final, and will revise based on feedback, like always with this project.

I just thought they might fit into this thread, as a visualization

 

[Ahriman]

it effectively leaves Privateers still capable of working in tandem with battleships

Hence I think Privateers should upgrade to galleons and then destroyers. They're too low strength to be at all effective against high strength modern cities on their own.

or else give the city-capture promotion to another ship

But to what? Ranged ships can't capture cities in the engine, and there isn't really anything that makes sense as a melee ship.

I just thought they might fit into this thread, as a visualization

Note that the vanilla stats are quite different given all the changes; triremes are strength 10 for example, galleass is 15 strength/17 ranged, etc.

 

[Txurce]

Hence I think Privateers should upgrade to galleons and then destroyers. They're too low strength to be at all effective against high strength modern cities on their own.

I wouldn't promote them in that case - they're more valuable as the straw that breaks the camel's back after battleships wear a city down. I already did it in a recent Dutch game, when I had enough destroyers and didn't bother upgrading all my privateers. Which takes us back to my original point: is it better to have a contemporary melee ship, safeguarded privateers... or is there a way to disable the trait in a later era?

 

[Ahriman]

I wouldn't promote them in that case - they're more valuable as the straw that breaks the camel's back after battleships wear a city down.

Why, if you have marines that can do this?

or is there a way to disable the trait in a later era?

This seems unlikely.

I'm sympathetic to the idea that there should still be a modern melee vessel for city capture for the AI if nothing else, but I just can't really think of what that should be. Destroyers as melee just feels weird. I can't think of anything modern that makes sense as both melee anti-city and melee anti-ship, and something that is purely anti-city is too narrow. Hence the idea of having marines that are anti-city from the sea but in a pinch can also function as land units.
Would it be possible to rig marines so that they only take a single movement point to move onto land? Isn't that how the Norse work? (I don't have that DLC).
But then there is still the AI issue; we really want something that the AI can use effectively to capture cities, and it can do this with melee ships better than it can with land units.

 

[Txurce]

I'm with you conceptually regarding destroyers - just noting a loophole I would certainly exploit. I wouldn't build marines if an existing, probably faster unit can do the same job. Trying to plug a hole, how about a cruiser as the melee unit?

 

[Stalker0]

they're more valuable as the straw that breaks the camel's back after battleships wear a city down.

The real problem is that once you wear a city completely down you can take them with any unit regardless of strength. You shouldn't be able to take a modern city with a 25 strength unit...period.

But I'm guessing there is no fix to that.

 

[Tarquelne]

I guess I worry that without that, a naval strategy is infeasible except on an all-water map.

I'm not sure if you mean an overall naval strategy or capturing a city with an sea-borne force.

If the former:

I very much doubt taking the G. to range 1 will make that big a difference.

If the latter:
While it's much more difficult to take a coastal city without off-shore bombardment, I think that's only appropriate while a game is in a period before ships have sufficient "off-shore bombardment" capability to help. And I wouldn't put that earlier than Ship of the Line.

Until then I'd say land your troops elsewhere and besiege the objective with land units, using your ships to keep enemy ships and embarked units away. And leave 1 hex island fortresses alone.

(IIRC coastal cities were sometimes extremely difficult to take. The attackers could engage less of the city's circumference, and the city could be relieved by sea.)

I'm sympathetic to the idea that there should still be a modern melee vessel for city capture for the AI if nothing else, but I just can't really think of what that should be. Destroyers as melee just feels weird.

(I think DDs as range 0 units would be fine. But, yeah, DDs as city-capturing units doesn't work.)

I've raised this point before so I'll just mention it: Re-vamping naval units as groups of vessels rather than single ships would give a lot more breadth to what we can sensibly rationalize.

 

[Ahriman]

I'm not sure if you mean an overall naval strategy or capturing a city with an sea-borne force.

I mean: getting naval techs and building some ships in the early game. It would be sad if we were still in a situation like vanilla where building a navy was still pretty useless except on pure island maps. I'd like it that if you are on the coast and I am on the coast, a naval is still a highly efficient option for a war between us.

I think there is a big difference between range 1 and range 2 in terms of how much of a threat a navy can pose to a land-based force.

I think DDs as range 0 units would be fine

I don't think I understand the distinction between range 0 and melee.

Re-vamping naval units as groups of vessels rather than single ships

I think the idea has always been that they represent a group, but I think it is important for distinctiveness and flavor to keep the units as actual units (ie destroyer, battleship rather than recon flotilla, capital ship flotilla). This is the way Civ has always worked.

 

[Ahriman]

Another thought: what if all the melee naval units had a bonus when attacking? This might help encourage use of the melee ships as more than meat-shields, and could increase the value of faster/light recon ships too. [So you know where to position your ships to be able to avoid the enemy's first strike and get to strike first yourself, and so that high speed ships would be able to attack first with bombardment.]
Think of galleys attacking each other; the rammer has an advantage over the rammed.

 

[Tarquelne]

I think there is a big difference between range 1 and range 2 in terms of how much of a threat a navy can pose to a land-based force.

Ok. I'm now confident I understand what you mean... and I disagree. I'd be fine with the power of navies with a range 1 Galleass - I think sufficient for the appropriate level of naval power. (OTOH, if the AI performs significantly better with range 2, I think that a very good reason to use the longer range.)

I'm defending this point a lot - I'll just mention that on the whole I think it a relatively minor issue. If VEM ends up with a range 2 Galleass I'm not going to complain. If I really want to I can always lower the range myself.

I don't think I understand the distinction between range 0 and melee.

Sorry, there isn't really one - I was just trying to highlight the DD's role as anti-ship vs anti-city.

I think the idea has always been that they represent a group, but I think it is important for distinctiveness and flavor to keep the units as actual units (ie destroyer, battleship rather than recon flotilla, capital ship flotilla). This is the way Civ has always worked.

I'm not so sure about the other points, but I definetly agree that distinctiveness and flavor are helped by depicting the units as particular ships.

what if all the melee naval units had a bonus when attacking?

My only concern is that it might be too easy to sucker the AI into too-often being the one attacked.

OTOH, in Civ4, with the small coastal defensive bonus, the AI was suckered into attacking. It might do fine with attacking as the advantageous action.

And the bonus may well be worth it anyway: Good point about light/recon ships. I think an attack bonus less and less historically appropriate as you get up the tech tree, but it sounds like it make using the units quite a bit more interesting and I don't see any balance problem. (Unless, obviously, the bonus is set too high.)