Ranged Naval Units

[CrazyG]

I'll ignore your first two questions, since they're basically just attitude.

Frigates take cities, and help melee ships pick off other melee ships. If they can't move out of city range, they'll get destroyed. Which is why I don't like taking away their movement. Which I said many posts ago.

If you don't have anything new and substantive to say to me, then I think we're done.

I strongly disagreed because your post was absurd. "Tediousness isn't a reason to remove a feature." You can literally put "tedious" in the site's search and find features that were changed for this reason, it is clearly a reasonable suggestion. My "attitude" was asking for clarification, because I thought you probably meant something else.

@G
@ilteroi
There hasn't been a response to this indirect fire idea, (a unit in ocean cannot shoot across land tiles, the same way an archer cannot shoot across a hill), which I believe couldl be added to G's suggestion. would address @Legen's concern. Does silence mean impossibility? If it can't be done I'll drop it.

 

[Txurce]

I strongly disagreed because your post was absurd.

Things being slow in Beijing is no excuse for insults. Keep on kidding your supremely reasonable self. But no longer for my eyes.

 

[Gazebo]

I strongly disagreed because your post was absurd. "Tediousness isn't a reason to remove a feature." You can literally put "tedious" in the site's search and find features that were changed for this reason, it is clearly a reasonable suggestion. My "attitude" was asking for clarification, because I thought you probably meant something else.

@G
@ilteroi
There hasn't been a response to this indirect fire idea, (a unit in ocean cannot shoot across land tiles, the same way an archer cannot shoot across a hill), which I believe couldl be added to G's suggestion. would address @Legen's concern. Does silence mean impossibility? If it can't be done I'll drop it.

No, I'm not sure @ilteroi has seen the message. I can't say what's feasible because I fear the pathfinder and don't want to touch it for performance reasons. But @ilteroi might have a better idea.

G

 

[Rekk]

Tediousness is not a reason to change movement. The solution for that is ilteroi coding meta-moves.

Strongly disagree. Tedious is inherently not fun. I don't play games not to have fun.

What do you mean by meta-moves?

 

[Stalker0]

So what if we do this-

- cut vision by 1 for ranged naval ships.
- increase naval ranged ships back to two range
- remove move and shoot for naval ranged units

G

I think we will probably need a land unit penalty as well, or this will go back to a few years ago, where we will want to drop the range again. I also would leave the dromon at 1 range if we go this route.

 

[Gazebo]

I think we will probably need a land unit penalty as well, or this will go back to a few years ago, where we will want to drop the range again. I also would leave the dromon at 1 range if we go this route.

I think range 2 can start at frigates, and frigates can lose move on shoot. So Dromon/Galleass can remain as-is, but range 2 ships exchange mobility for range, and are -1 sight. Make sense?

Edit: subs would remain as-is as well.

Re: land unit penalty, perhaps. I'd be curious if people would support a unit attribute that disallows them from firing on 'non-coast' tiles, so even range 2 ships can only hit coastal land.

G

 

[CrazyG]

Re: land unit penalty, perhaps. I'd be curious if people would support a unit attribute that disallows them from firing on 'non-coast' tiles, so even range 2 ships can only hit coastal land.

G

I sure would support this, it is close to what I wanted from my indirect fire idea. Give to the 2-range ships but not battleships

 

[Legen]

There hasn't been a response to this indirect fire idea, (a unit in ocean cannot shoot across land tiles, the same way an archer cannot shoot across a hill), which I believe couldl be added to G's suggestion. would address @Legen's concern. Does silence mean impossibility? If it can't be done I'll drop it.

Wait, that doesn't adress at all. There are multiple concerns at once when it comes to adjusting naval units:

• 2-range ships being dominant vs melee ships due to how easily they punish overextension
• naval supremacy not being relevant if overnerfed, a.k.a. not leading to a meaningful threat
• melee naval units being outclassed hard by their ranged counterparts in nearly all roles
  
• AI still neglecting their navy

A lot of this desire to make ranged ships as 2-range with no ability to hit beyond the coastline seems just a big nerf to make up for the AI neglecting the navy. The problem is this leading to human players also neglecting their own navies due to how irrelevant naval units end becoming. I want naval supremacy to be a relevant aspect of the game, and it's already rather irrelevant before frigates. I'm not looking forward to potentially waiting until aircraft carriers next patch.

I think we should consider first the AI's behavior about their navies, they play like a human with an overfixation on land armies and a dread of building ships. We can also consider reviewing the melee ships to be able to affect land combat, hence why I'm thinking about having two ranged classes of ships instead.

 

[Gazebo]

Okay, quick run down of experimental changes I'll play with tomorrow:


Unit changes:
Air Units- no longer consume supply.
City base air unit support now 2 (Was 6), bumped to 6 with airport (was 10)
Frigates, SotL, Cruisers, and Carriers now Range 2, but can no longer move and shoot
Also have a -1 sight penalty (including Battleships)
Frigates, SotL, Cruisers, Carriers can only target land tiles that are coastal, regardless of range
CS/RCS Changes (* = remain same)
SotL: now 28/40
Frigate: now 25/36
Cruiser: now 35/55
Submarine: now 30/*
Battleship: now 55/70
Nuclear Sub: now 50/*

What this does - you'll need melee ships for spotting, recon, screening, soaking damage, and chasing ranged ships. Ranged ships are a little more durable, but once they attack, they're stuck. So melee ships can more easily surround them. Limited sight on ranged ships means you run the risk of being surrounded without melee support. You'll need ranged ships for damage, especially coastal damage. This creates a dynamic not dissimilar from our current setup, with the added bonus of better AI understanding and less tedium.

G

 

[vyyt]

@Gazebo, so 1-ranged move-shoot-lose-all-but-1-movement is not possible?

2-ranged being able to shoot only coastal will create funny situations with 2-tiles wide peninsulas.

I like the reduced sight on ranged, but I'd still add a penalty against land units. I am adding -33% against land in my setup on top of slightly reducing the CS and I still find the ranged ships very dangerous.

 

[azum4roll]

I prefer skirmisher-type ranged ships to archer-type ones. Limiting +movement promotions should work well enough to hinder most Frigate/Cruiser from not taking any damage. If needed, we can also make ranged ships not be able to get +movement promotions. Imperialism opener could be changed to +1 sight from coastal city borders, if that's possible.

The AI does build a reasonably sized navy, but they tend to scatter them everywhere exploring the world. As a result, when they're being attacked and they recall their ships to help out, the ships end up arriving one by one and get wrecked easily. When they're the attacker, they do group their ships together.

How possible is it to implement reduced movement cost on owned water tiles that's not within ZOC of enemy units? That could help reinforcing a city currently being sieged by a navy from your other coastal cities.

 

[CrazyG]

Wait, that doesn't adress at all. There are multiple concerns at once when it comes to adjusting naval units:

• 2-range ships being dominant vs melee ships due to how easily they punish overextension
• naval supremacy not being relevant if overnerfed, a.k.a. not leading to a meaningful threat
• melee naval units being outclassed hard by their ranged counterparts in nearly all roles
  
• AI still neglecting their navy

That brings back the old situation where ranged ships were insane for two reasons: they were very punishing to melee ships (who ended overextended too easily for losing all movement after attacking) and too effective vs land units, denying so much terrain from the enemy army.

I read your post as concerned about 2 range navy being too strong, but I see you are also concerned they are too weak. G's idea to limit frigates to shooting at land that borders a coast will address the problem of denying terrain.

Yes, their potential dominance against melee is a concern, but I really think they are already superior. Move after attacking usually allows me cycle through my units, then move them behind a melee ship. The fact that if my units shoots from a tile it is stuck on that tile makes it a lot harder to avoid damage from melee ships or any other source. Also, with only 1 sight by default, ranged ships will always need support from melee ships.

The AI neglecting navy would be an AI issue, not a unit design one. I think their biggest issue is just scattering their ships, on deity they appear to have like 8 scouting at any given time, which just trickle in towards their city under attack. If they attack they do put together a decent force, the problem is it's usually pure melee ships, so they usually can't take cities. Another AI problem is they can run out of iron and coal from building too many cannons or factories, but IDK if they are even in the wrong here. Usually I would much rather have a factory + corvettes instead of an ironclad, coal is usually one of the most sparse resources.

 

[azum4roll]

Strategic resource abundance depends on mapscript. In fact I rarely lack coal when playing Communitas. It's mostly iron and oil (and sometimes aluminium) that I need to settle/conquer for.

 

[pineappledan]

I think range 2 can start at frigates, and frigates can lose move on shoot. So Dromon/Galleass can remain as-is, but range 2 ships exchange mobility for range, and are -1 sight. Make sense?

This hitting 1 tile range for naval ships as if it's all hill was an idea I tabled months ago. Funny that it's getting serious discussion now. I find it strange that the cutoff for move+shoot would be frigates, considering ships of the line moved and shot; that was precisely how battle lines, and the name of the actual ship, came to be. People are complaining about having to rotate their ships hitting a single target, but that's precisely what IRL frigates did.

I'm assuming carriers getting range 2 is meant to be battleships? Then give battleships indirect fire or 3 range if there’s no way to make them hit inland. This will completely wreck battleships as a viable unit pick because they have to compete with carriers/bombers, and invisible, move/shoot submarines. They are going to be completely skippable, unless the plane capacity nerf hits carriers too.

Edit: on further review, that nerf to city plane capacity really should hit carriers too. They already only carry 2 planes, but I think Cargo capacity promotions should be moved further up the promotion tree

 

[Stalker0]

People are complaining about having to rotate their ships hitting a single target, but that's precisely what IRL frigates did.

Like many things in civ, it’s an abstraction. Plus there’s a big difference between rotating a few nautical miles (which is basically your own hex), and the big distances that many hexes together represent. Ultimately I don’t think this argument should be used for or against any naval changes.

On the concern that 2 range navy will be stronger against melee ships. In the AI hands maybe, since the ships are simplier to use, but not in human hands. I have no issue rotating my ranged ships to hit melee again and again, just like I do against cities. The melee ships take just as many shots in either model, except with 2 range i at least have to hold my ground and possibly take a counterattack.

Ultimately the million dollar question is whether we are falling into our historic trap. 2 range ships have gone through the extremes of being dominantly strong against land to the point of invincible, and so weak to be pointless. The middle ground was a scoot and shoot ship that was dominant...but had to do it slowly and only against the immediate coast. We will see if this new model has finally found a better a middle ground.

 

[Rekk]

I'm assuming carriers getting range 2 is meant to be battleships? Then give battleships indirect fire or 3 range if there’s no way to make them hit inland. This will completely wreck battleships as a viable unit pick because they have to compete with carriers/bombers, and invisible, move/shoot submarines. They are going to be completely skippable, unless the plane capacity nerf hits carriers too.

From what I understand, he means carriers (they've always had a ranged attack). Battleships are completely unchanged (aside from the sight reduction).

 

[Stalker0]

Battleships are completely unchanged

Aka 2 range and can attack inland

 

[Rekk]

Aka 2 range and can attack inland

And can move after attacking.

 

[pineappledan]

K, as long as battleships retain some measure of utility. It wasnt clear from G's post what would happen with battleships' indirect fire, or if their ability to shell inland targets would be preserved. The usefulness of frigates in their era tends to take cruisers/battleships for a bit of a ride. Its hard enough trying to find a use for battleships in a normal unit mix without frigates constantly sucking all the oxygen out of the room, and getting b-ships nerfed by proxy.

 

[Rekk]

Re: the ironclad debate, it is my opinion that we have been too timid with our buffs to ironclads. I don’t think the issue is that ironclads have a coal requirement, it’s that ironclads are not unstoppable wrecking balls. In the era they arrived in, ironclads were completely untovuchable; the only thing that could beat an ironclad was another ironclad. Make those ships worth their coal and have them just melt a frigate’s face off.

Drop the city bonus
Give them a new ironclad promotion:
+100% vs units from previous eras
-25% from ranged attacks

I would love to try this out. Were Ironclads the only military tech in history that allowed the owners to just completely overrun their opposition, or would this be opening a can of worms on other units that made similar splashes?