Ranged Combat: Return Fire

[timtofly]

Like I said, I don't think this will be critical for ground units, but it looks to be very critical for naval units.

I agree, there should be some offensive/defense for a ranged unit when attacked by another ranged unit. What good is gaining experience points if you are dead? While it is unsafe to send out just one at a time, I still think that the first attacking ship should receive some damage. Having two undamaged Frigates in tandam picking off single ships could be an exploit. It seems the AI did not have two ships doing guard duty. It seems for the AI, it would be better having none than one.

 

[CivFanaticMan]

i was upset that ships could no longer attack and instead range bombarded. I think the gameplay would be better if ships had a bombard range of 1 and could attack other ships too the same way infantry units would attack on land. This way ships could still bombard the coast while still being able to engage other ships in the same tile.

 

[Celevin]

Where's the evidence that ships can only do ranged attacks? I'm reading that they have a ranged attack, and a strength number. Doesn't that mean they can choose between either:

- Doing a ranged attack that might take 4-6 shots to sink an enemy ship, or
- Choosing to direct attack for a more decisive battle, but also take damage because of it?

 

[Celevin]

But where is the proof? Is there a video, or a link, or anything? I'm looking at a destroyer's stats, and it has both a strength, and a ranged strength.

 

[Thormodr]

Advantage Japan.

 

[AriochIV]

I don't think there is any evidence that says naval units can't attack each other normally. But I think even if you could, you'd be silly to do so in most circumstances, when you could bombard instead and be able to damage the opponent while not receiving any damage in return.

 

[12agnar0k]

I don't think there is any evidence that says naval units can't attack each other normally. But I think even if you could, you'd be silly to do so in most circumstances, when you could bombard instead and be able to damage the opponent while not receiving any damage in return.

Yeah, they have both normal Strength and ranged strengths, you can attack in melee, or I suppose it should be called "close range - ranged combat" , unless your ship is full of rope swinging pirates.

I think Japan vessels may be more likely to charge in for a "melee", but other than that you will only possibly want to do a "melee" to kill off an enemy boat. Say if you have already shot a battle ship with two destroyers and it was nearly dead but another ranged attack from your last destroyer wouldnt kill it, then it would be an acceptable idea to "melee" it to finish it off. Other than that ranged fire will always.... always be superior. Unless your ship is better suited for "melee" than it is for ranged. Say 60 strength and 10 ranged. But what kind of ship would this be.... an age of empires "ram boat" perhaps.

 

[Ahriman]

I would hope that submarines would have no bombardment attack.

And I'd also really hope (vainly I suspect) that ancient galleys/triremes etc. had very weak or no bombardment. Ancient naval combat was ram + board.

 

[The_J]

I would hope that submarines would have no bombardment attack.

Hey, you could install a catapult on them, that makes perfectly sense!!!

 

[PieceOfMind]

According to recent build:
Submarine
Cost: 380
Combat: 15
Ranged Combat: 60
Range: 3
Movement: 5

Invisible to units except destroyers and submarines, until it attacks. "Can cause major damage to other ships if they get into range without being seen." (not sure if that actually means anything) Can enter ice hexes.

 

[Ahriman]

Subs can shoot from 3 tiles away? Seriously?
Ugh.....

I am not excited about the long bombardment ranges on naval units. I think they're going to make the naval combat stay very boring, when it *could* have been made more interesting.
With big bombardment ranges, I sail my fleet up to yours, and open up focus-fire bombardment on your units, getting complete kills one by one, and then you do the same to me.

Positioning, screening: unimportant.

A long time there was some talk about an overwatch type defensive fire mechanic. Do we know anymore about that now?

 

[12agnar0k]

Yes, its still not been put in, .

I can say a submarine shouldnt have a ranged attack, definitely not 3 range either, unless its like a nucelar submarine that pops up and fires nukes, and could have its own artillery to hit ships, the submarines conventinal "torpedo" while perhaps not "melee" per-say, could be a "2 range, water only attack" It would be a bit odd seeing submarines shooting torpedos at units 3 hex's inland lol. Maybe their is more than 1 type of submarine and this is supposed to be the missile carrying one. Not sure on that, but that would explain it. This particular sub likes to surface and use I dunno, missile turrets and can carry cruise missiles / nuclear missiles too. And we will have an earlier Submarine unit that plays the slightly less modern aspect of its sole purpose being a torpedo firing ship hunter.

 

[gumiga]

It is amazing how something can affect people so differently. I, for one, loved the new naval combat style (if you imagine it happens only as ranged attacks). First, it will make the attack range of naval units much more important. I like the idea that a big gun battleship can kill smaller range vessels before they can even fire. Also, considering naval units also have zones of control, that would make for much better screening. 3 destroyers could screen a battleship perfectly. If they would add some upgrade to planes that allowed them to completely kill other ships, that would be even better. It seems to me it makes for a more strategic naval warfare than what the past four civs had. Now to dispute the criticism to this new naval battle mechanics:

1: The first to attack has the advantage:

Well, yes. It should be like that. The whole concept of preemptive and surprise attacks was developed because, in most cases, he who acts first has the advantage. Only when defensive weapons were significantly stronger that this was not true. Yet, and even as I can perceive from the videos I've seen, that advantage may only be temporary. Consider two civs that have equal navies. Now, civ A attacks civ B first and wipes half of civ B's fleet. If civ B has a bigger production capacity, it may be able to produce more units and, despite the initial disadvantage, be able to turn the tide later on. Even in nuclear warfare that is true. Most of the initial treaties on nuclear weapons were designed to prevent defensive capabilities in order to render first strikes useless: that is, if any of the two great powers had the idea that it could launch a nuclear attack and destroy the other capacity to respond, it would.

2: It will render screening and positioning useless:

Not really. Consider the previously given scenario. First, Civ A wouldn't want to send your blue water navy in first, because the half of the fleet it destroyed might be composed mostly of screens that were set out to draw any attackers closer to the range of it's own bigger guns. A's initial advantage might be lost due to good positioning on the part of B or because it had a faulty plan. Also, so far as screening goes, it will now be more important than ever. Screens are not supposed to serve as a curtain between your capital ships and the enemy navy. It actually consisted of a mix of scouting and protection. They are lighter and faster boats that were designed exactly to scout the seas ahead of the main fleet as well as to protect it from other light, but heavily armed boats. The destroyer, for instance (perhaps the most famous screen) gets it's name from being a Torpedo Boat Destroyer. Not because it could destroy battleships or cruisers, nor because they could prevent other battleships from attacking the main fleet.

3: No return fire is bad because the attacker won’t be damaged:

Well, if they are destroyed by the attack, why should they damage the attacker? For land battles, I would suppose that if the attacker completely wiped out an enemy’s unit with the first attack; in my opinion it means that the defenders were unable to even prepare to retaliate. On naval battles it would mean that the defender got sunk before being able to return fire. Also, on a practical level and thinking of the videos I saw, why would your archers be attacking other archers and not the melée unit in front of them? Archers and other non-industrial units seem to have a fairly limited range. As for bigger range, there is a reason why most armies use self-propelled artillery: an artillery barrage can destroy most of the pieces in a battery before it can even think of returning fire. A couple of hundreds of arrows probably had the same effect on unprotected archers. As for the videos, I didn’t see any evidence of units of the same era actually wiping each other out on first shots, only older units being smashed by newer ones.

 

[AriochIV]

First, it will make the attack range of naval units much more important. I like the idea that a big gun battleship can kill smaller range vessels before they can even fire. Also, considering naval units also have zones of control, that would make for much better screening. 3 destroyers could screen a battleship perfectly.

A battleship has a range of 3, but a move of only 4. A destroyer has a range of 2, but a move of 8. In a ship to ship fight, the range is almost irrelevant, since whichever side moves first can easily move from outside weapons range to point-blank in one turn.

 

[Tregon]

3: No return fire is bad because the attacker won’t be damaged:

Well, if they are destroyed by the attack, why should they damage the attacker? For land battles, I would suppose that if the attacker completely wiped out an enemy’s unit with the first attack; in my opinion it means that the defenders were unable to even prepare to retaliate. On naval battles it would mean that the defender got sunk before being able to return fire. Also, on a practical level and thinking of the videos I saw, why would your archers be attacking other archers and not the melée unit in front of them? Archers and other non-industrial units seem to have a fairly limited range. As for bigger range, there is a reason why most armies use self-propelled artillery: an artillery barrage can destroy most of the pieces in a battery before it can even think of returning fire. A couple of hundreds of arrows probably had the same effect on unprotected archers. As for the videos, I didn’t see any evidence of units of the same era actually wiping each other out on first shots, only older units being smashed by newer ones.

They should damage attacker because through human history, even where attacker gets so total surprise that defender can't put few shots back are extremely rare.

Having ranged units retaliate when under ranged attack would be sensible. You still save units through overwhelming the enemy, but cannot do it without weakening your forces to some level.

 

[Grunthex]

I think (as it seems a number of folks do) that the main concern is the naval. Yes, archers and low end siege are a bit disconcerting, but they don't seem to threaten the one-sided wipeout that naval does at this point.

As long as even-tech bombarding takes (my opinion) 3-4 bombards to sink a ship/unit, I think it will be okay. 2 shots is tough, and really leans toward the attacker (it's hard to find defensive terrain at sea too). I'd still like to know for sure if it is an option for a ship to use it's straight combat strength. It might be viable to bombard with your first ship, and attack direct with your 2nd. You'll take some minor damage, but sink the enemy faster.

I don't see that being as unbalancing as 2-bombard ship sinking with no retaliation.

 

[Ahriman]

The whole concept of preemptive and surprise attacks was developed because, in most cases, he who acts first has the advantage.

In naval warfare? Not really. The strategic attacker doesn't necessarily get into gun range first, or have the wind gauge, or a superior offensive position.

In post-sail naval warfare, ships that are in bombardment range of each other are simultaneously trading blows. The idea that I could charge in and focus fire to death one of your ships before it could get a shot off is absurd.

Consider two civs that have equal navies. Now, civ A attacks civ B first and wipes half of civ B's fleet.

There is no way that this should be possible. If two civs have equal navies, they should have roughly equal combat outcomes. The situation you describe is precisely what is wrong with a system where there is no counter-battery fire. Its purely an artifact of a turn-based system, and its an undesirable one.

If civ B has a bigger production capacity, it may be able to produce more units and, despite the initial disadvantage, be able to turn the tide later on.

Irrelevant. Production capacity has nothing to do with tactical combat mechanics.
In your world, if A and B have equal navies and production capacities, then the unambiguous winner should be whoever attacks first. I think this is bizarre.

Even in nuclear warfare that is true.

a) We're talking about naval bombardment, not nuclear warfare
b) Nuclear warfare is exactly the opposite of what we're getting with bombardment. A first strike attack was not possible because you couldn't remove the defender's ability to counterattack with sufficient force to deter the attack.
Which, in your Civ A/B example where A wipes out half of B's navy in a pre-emptive strike, is not happening.
Real world powers didn't want to suffer the consequences of even a handful of nukes because they are so destructive. But you're fine with letting half their fleet attack you, after you kill half of theirs.

First, Civ A wouldn't want to send your blue water navy in first, because the half of the fleet it destroyed might be composed mostly of screens

THis makes no sense. What makes you think that you can somehow afford half your navy to be disposable screens, and that you have a difference between "big guns" and small guns?
Naval units have movement of ~5+ and bombardment ranges of 3+. How are you going to stop me from, in a single turn, moving my fleet in and focus firing on whatever I want?
If your screens are a long way out, then how will you stop me from coming in, killing your screens, and then moving away again out of range?
[This depends on whether using a bombardment attack consumes all remaining movement points or not; I don't think we know this yet.]

With "melee" combat, I could for example screen a fleet of land transports by deploying a line of ships in front, and you'd have to engage those ships first. But with bombardment, you can just shoot over my ships, and so the only way I can protect a fleet is if I have enough naval units to stack one with every single land unit.

Also, so far as screening goes, it will now be more important than ever

Why? I note you assert this, but you don't make an argument.
What mechanics favor screening?

Well, if they are destroyed by the attack, why should they damage the attacker

IRL naval combat, if you fire on an enemy ship, its going to get to fire back. Both ships are going to take hits.
Moving to a turn based system where all my ships get to fire (and sink yours) before you get the chance to do any damage at all is incredibly unrealistic and is bad for gameplay.
A duel between dreadnoughts or battleships takes hours - many, many shots are fired and hits are landed. Its not like you shoot a single round that sinks me, and then I don't get to respond. That's not how real battles worked. Go look at some historic naval battles.

On naval battles it would mean that the defender got sunk before being able to return fire.

This just didn't happen, except in massively lopsided contests. Take a look at real historic naval battles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_Jutland

Also, on a practical level and thinking of the videos I saw, why would your archers be attacking other archers and not the melée unit in front of them?

How is this an argument against counter-battery fire, particularly for naval units?
I'm not too worried about land units, since there are a mix of unit types and ranges, and movement speeds are slower, so its harder to charge up a big fleet and open fire in an alpha strike.

 

[12agnar0k]

[This depends on whether using a bombardment attack consumes all remaining movement points or not; I don't think we know this yet.]

Its confirmed that attacking will use up all your movement points unless you have a "you can move after attacking" ability like the Knight or GDR,
I've seen this in practice on the naval side too.

While I concur the whole "non-retaliation" does have its one problem of whomever attacks first has the advantage, I will still enjoy navy a lot more in this game than in previous civ's, for many reasons.

 

[Ahriman]

will still enjoy navy a lot more in this game than in previous civ's

Yes, but "better than it was" isn't enough if we could still improve it even further by having counter-battery fire.

 

[Seven05]

Yes, but "better than it was" isn't enough if we could still improve it even further by having counter-battery fire.

This is, of course, assuming that these battles everybody envisions occure in wide open ocean with no land in the way to bottleneck the fleets. Also, since the units will most likely heal over time as they have in previous games retalitory strikes are a moot point in almost every case.

With naval fights it'll be pretty simple...

1:1 equal ships the attacker will probably win, if the attacker takes 0-99.9% damage it doesn't really matter unless the defender has units available for a follow-up attack, but then it's not really 1:1 is it?

2+:1 equal ships the attacker will always win. Any damage done by the defender is completely irrelevant.

2:2 equal ships and the attacker will probably win, whether they lose a ship in the process is simething we'll all have to wait and see.

3+:2 equal ships the attacker will always win.

Flip the odds and the attacker loses their advantage in most cases, at best being able to use their advantage to possibly equalize the odds. So in a 2:3 equal match up the attacker might take out one, then the defender takes out one attacker and then the attacker damages one of the remaining defenders (e.g. ineffective). What does this mean? In the end, numerical superiority will still be the deciding factor most of the time, the exceptions will likely be unimportant fights involving few units.

What will break it up most is that they probably won't be fights between equal ships and you may not have room to move around, especially in cases with large fleets of ships. Carriers will be immensly important, as they should be, with their aircraft able to scout large areas and launch initial attacks to soften up the opponent. High strength units, such as a battleship, will take a beating so they will most likely not be vulnerable to a rush except by a large number of lesser units. ZoC + coastlines will affect every era of naval conflicts, later eras will have to deal with land based aircraft. There will be so many variables in play that saying something like "no retalitory strikes will make naval battles suck" is absurd, well unless you plan on playing on maps with no land and only two equal opposing forces composed entirely of naval vessels.