Discussion in 'General Balance' started by Stalker0, Aug 12, 2019.
I guess I'm at a loss for what to do with frigates, then.
I think you leave them the way they are. They've already been nerfed at least once. They obviously aren't OP enough to make everyone Deity players — in other words, the mod still outclasses the vast majority of players, despite frigates being better in human hands than in those of the AI. You've already strengthened corvettes, and they comprise close to half my fleet by game's end (more, earlier). But you could try having the AI build more frigates as an experiment, and see how it plays out.
There is a big difference between I am able to kill an AI's navy, and I can capture their cities. The current frigate design is extremely good against cities, and I think that is a balance problem. Especially if I have progress or tradition, I get 0 reward for spamming frigates if I can't take cities, it doesn't matter if I can destroy their navies unless I can actually gain something from the conflict.
Here is an idea. You know how an an archer on a flat grassland cannot shoot across a hill? What if a ranged unit in ocean couldn't shoot across land tiles? Would this possible?
Frigates could have two range, but still couldn't fire at targets inland. Remove move after attacking, and AI cities become a lot harder to take. Give them something else instead of logistics (this promotion causes so many balance problems). I tried to find the thread that lead to 1-range frigates, but the search function didn't get me there. I think it was in response to naval units (especially dromon) dealing tons of damage to land units.
First its time to pull out the history books, as we have tried going to 2 range static navy before. Ultimately the trick to navy has always been, if it can't affect the land its pointless. While that is not true IRL, its just a fact of Civ. The various iterations where navy design has failed were periods this was not taken into account.
Currently 1 range shoot and scoot naval ships are ok against land units, and terrific against naval cities...so much so that people often mentioned that many of the cities they take in the mid game are from Naval combat. Two ranged Naval that is static is weaker against cities (less ships can stack, and gives the land counterattack), but is generally stronger against land units that aren't ready to defend themselves. Part of the issue in the past has been that navy can get too good against the land early if you don't have the proper counter. CrazyG's suggestion is very interesting as a counter to this if its possible.
I will also say, that balance aside, navy ships require a lot of clicks to operate right now. I have to click to the position I want, click attack, and click back to the position I want to end. That's at minimum, and of course when you get larger fleets you have to count movements, making sure you aren't moving the same ship again, and the endless space bar clicking to end the turn of your ships, as often you are left with some movement left on some of them. Magnify that by 8 ships turn after turn and it can really add up to the turn time. I personally would like naval ships to be strong without so much clicking.
Right now, ranged units have a penalty against naval units. What if we gave naval units a -25% penalty attacking land units as well?
Perhaps that penalty should be removed, and flipped over to naval units? Or just doubled up? Cross-domain penalties for attacking seem fair.
Might also warrant reducing the efficacy of anti-city shots from ranged ships a bit.
I realize the current 'rotation model' of ships is a bit grindy, but it's just about all we've got in terms of core mechanics.
You'd have to ask @ilteroi, it's kind of a weird request because of how the pathfinder works.
Or hey, brainstorm, what if attacks on cities used all movement but regular unit attacks work as normal?
Could we leave at 2 movement points lost when firing at cities?
I'd hate to have ships blocking the path forever.
You ultimately get the same situation as today you just have to work a little harder at it. Ultimately if we are going this path I say we go for it. Otherwise, we keep things as is.
In terms of unit penalties, I could see dromons getting a larger "against unit" penalty...which then tapers off with later navy. Its those early game navies were often time the opponent just hasn't had the chance to build the appropriate counters. By the time frigates come out, you have had plenty of time to build crossbows or musket men and the like....or of course your own counter navy.
I do think its very important to isolate what the real issue with 2 ranged navies has been in the past. Its worth repeating, we have tried 2 range navies in the past...and it failed. We need to understand why it failed and make adjustments that fix the problem, or simply don't do it. No reason to go through another beta round on a concept that has already failed unless we think we have done sufficient changes to make it work now.
Are we going to open a new conversation thread now?, like, from Oxford University to Skirmisher Units to Frigates-
I made a thread for this
Fail is a strong word. Can you share your thoughts flaws of a 2-range system? I dislike how much navy can affect inland battles, but feel that it is much better for navy vs navy, or navy vs city combat.
Back to our regular scheduled programming.
I'm into Renaissance with Sweden on this latest patch and I am finding this mounted ranged change pretty silly. I have plenty of open terrain on my continent, but if it's criss-crossed by a ridge, or 2 forest tiles, or a river then the mounted units are done. Sweden gets 3 moves on siege units, and so they can move/shoot in rough terrain at 2 range while my mounted units are chopped liver. I'm actually using skirmishers more like railway guns right now, because roads is just about the only place I can reliably use their high movement speed and it's great for fortifying the opposite end of the continent.
Would it be possible to try my proposal for changing the rough terrain penalty to -2 movement in rough terrain instead of all movement lost? ie. moving into a hill costs 3 moves (1 standard move+2 for feature), moving onto a forest costs 3 moves, and moving onto forested hills costs 5 movement (1+2+2)?
It would allow 1 move and shoot from a standard 4 move unit when entering rough terrain. They can already shoot/retreat, so it would make the unit less lopsided towards fighting retreats
Iroquois' forest roads/woodsman would be usable by mounted range, with 1.5 moves expended. In the current system, Iroquoian skirmishers can't even use the forest roads; they only move 1 tile at a time.
Just like how Sweden's +1 to siege unlocks move/shoot in enemy territory for siege units, Ghengis Khan's +2 to mounted ranged would unlock move/shoot/retreat for his ranged units, and move/shoot onto forested hills.
I'd like to jump in and mention that these tactical discussions have a tendancy to look at high-level play. I think each unit should still be useful to players with more rudimentary tactics.
I always found the chariot promotion annoying on chariots, but as someone who likes to start in the jungle I never built them anyway - horsemen are a way better use for my horses. Now I'm wondering how useful skirmishers and even heavy skirmishers are going to be - at least until I clear away most of the foliage.
This seems more like a bug than a balance issue, though. Forest roads should be roads in all situations.
true. Doesn’t fix it for Songhai though. Songhai want to use rivers as roads, and can’t do that if there’s a hill/feature between 2 cities either. So, you can either create bespoke code exceptions for both Songhai and Iroquois, or you can change how rough terrain penalties work in all cases. The latter seems like less work.
Or you make Songhai and Iroquois roads function as roads instead of bugging out whenever their terrain is modified. Increasing the movement cost of a hill inside of a forest / next to a river shouldn't matter. They're roads. Roads don't care about the underlying terrain.
There's already an issue where workers need to build roads on a border forest tile / river tile because the game doesn't consider the roads connected if you build it adjacent. Fix this properly and the issue we're talking about (which may not go away even if the "stops all movement" gets changed to "costs extra") can get fixed in the process.
pretty sure you’re talking about fixing hardcoded issues. We probably can’t just wave a wand and rework how the game defines forest/jungle/river features. We’ll wait to hear from G on whether that’s even possible.
Regardless, that really would only solve half the problem. Even if you can completely re-code how the Iroquois forests work, that fix would only work inside Iroquois land, where forest=road, and Iroquois use forests as non-road connections outside their own territory too. Up until now, their units have used their woodsman promotions to travel normally through these unowned forests, but skirmishes can’t do that anymore. So, you would have to fix how rough terrain penalties affect Iroquoian skirmishers in neutral forests — because they currently have a free UA promotion that they can’t use — or you will have to change how the Iroquois UA works so that it can deal with owned/unowned forests more consistently.
Then you will have to decide if Songhai skirmishers simply get to use rivers as roads, even if they aren’t anywhere near a Songhai city. Do Songhai get to ignore rough terrain penalties along rivers, even if they aren’t using that river as a city connection?
It would be far easier, I think, to change what the rough terrain penalty does than to create separate rules for how Iroquois and Songhai units get to ignore them. It would also be far easier to understand for a player if there are fewer small exceptions and fine-print rule changes.
Dan's suggestion is worth a try. We could also try letting skirmishers and heavy skirmishers move through hills (but not forest/jungle), and we need to give cavalry something like +1 movement or no terrain problems.
To be clear, I don't like the chariot penalty on non-chariots, and I think it should be changed.
But since we're talking about fixing a symptom of Iroquois/Songhai movement issues, I figured it would be worth bringing up the cause.
whoops. The primary part of the Songhai ability that concerns us in this thread "ignore terrain costs along rivers", which doesn't have anything to do with roads, really. I would argue that the natural thought would be that this supersedes any movement restrictions like the chariot's, though. Honestly, I would have thought that any actual chariots that the Songhai may have (mistakenly) spent horses on would have no problem traveling along rivers.
At any rate, fixing these edge cases won’t solve my main issue with skirmishers right now: they’re very silly units that rely on your road system a little too much, and have gone from being the most flexible unit to the most frustratingly niche.
Separate names with a comma.