Presently, ranged navy ships can all attack and then move, while melee navy ships end their turn when they attack.
Suggestion: When navy ships begin to cost strategic resources (namely, Ironclad with Coal and Cruiser with Iron), swap the movement behaviour of navy ships.
Explanation
Whereas in previous versions we had melee ships being able to move after attacking and ranged ships stopping after attack - I think with the advent of one-tile attacking for ranged ships like the Dromon, the switch to the current system makes lots of sense. Dromons can jump in and out and be fairly useful while not being overbearing by being able to attack too far in-land. Meanwhile, Triremes are a solid counter to Dromons and can smash them - you'll simply need more than one Dromon to deal with a Trireme. This makes sense: Dromons are support ships for invasion, while Triremes are a navy counter and help to do the final touch on a city.
However, I find that when we move to Range-2 ranged navy ships, the whole dynamic changes far, far too much. The following are the matters I am considering.
1. Cruisers (and other later ships) are faster than ships like the Dromon, and can move on Ocean - this means that they can jump into range of a city, attack, and back off, and never take any damage from a city.
2. Furthermore, the range of Cruisers enables an insane number of them to get in range of a city. The presumably well-defended naval city that only has one coastal square is a city I can still utterly crush in two turns by just rotating Cruisers - the AI doesn't have nearly the same level of intuition about this as I do. All this with 1. - that I'm not even taking damage while doing it, because I can move away.
3. The damage that an Ironclad inflicts on Cruisers and even Frigates isn't anywhere near what a Trireme inflicts on a Dromon - this means that not only does it not kill the things as quickly, but furthermore with the better range, Cruisers can easily go into a back line and keep on firing quite easily while hurt - I don't find that Ironclads do much or are something to fear when I have Cruisers around.
4. Lastly, Ironclads use the rather precious Coal, leaving no actual melee unit even available if you want to invest in city production - I think this is a reason to have Corvettes remain available for production even when Ironclads are around so melee navy ships are still available if one is short on coal.
The result of the current situation - as I observe it - is that it's absurdly easy to take down coastal cities with basically zero consequences (just one melee ship is enough for the final touch), that melee ships aren't really functioning with much effectiveness to bring down ranged ships in the later game (or at least not with that much usefulness), and that there's more Iron than Coal around generally for investment in ranged vessels anyways. These observations apply to later ships as well, like with Battleships and so on.
That said - Dromons/Triremes, Galleass/Caravels, and Frigates/Corvettes all seem quite fine in their movement patterns, because there is always some risk involved with the ranged version of the ship (although the interaction between Frigates/Corvettes favours Frigates more than the former two instances) and that is good and makes the balance.
By swapping the movement patterns in the late game, the following kind of results would occur (reminder: this means that melee ships from Ironclad and later can move after attacking, while Cruisers and later cannot).
1. Several ranged ships can still surround a city, but their damage will be limited: this is OK, because military caps are so much higher at this point in the game, so when you take damage, you're forced to rotate ships and use your back-ups. Also adds potency to Great Admiral's healing ability.
2. You will actually take damage when assaulting a city because you stay in range for a retaliation on a regular basis.
3. Cruisers - being tougher proportionally against Ironclads than Dromons against Triremes - will remain vulnerable after their hit. If you have a wall of ranged units, two Ironclads might still not be able to drop one (or only one) - while you have twice as many retaliations coming (yes, obviously you'd want a mix of melee and ranged ideally). On the other hand, if the Ironclad doesn't have two adjacent ships when attacking - it can back off and avoid some damage. This adds potency to the Coal investment.
4. Attacking a coastal city will involve some more melee investment and rotation of ships, because the melee vessels will be looking after the matter instead; the "hit-and-run" tactic is still present, but you're always paying a little in hit points in order to do damage - nothing is free.
This strikes me as a more well-balanced perception of late-game naval warfare CBP. So while in previous versions we had one mode (melee attacks-and-moves) and now we have another mode (ranged attacks-and-moves), my suggestion is a combination of the two - early game attack-and-move is for ranged ships, while late game attack-and-move is for melee ships.
I know there's a couple details that can be polished; but you get the idea. I'm curious for your feedback. Thanks!
Suggestion: When navy ships begin to cost strategic resources (namely, Ironclad with Coal and Cruiser with Iron), swap the movement behaviour of navy ships.
Explanation
Whereas in previous versions we had melee ships being able to move after attacking and ranged ships stopping after attack - I think with the advent of one-tile attacking for ranged ships like the Dromon, the switch to the current system makes lots of sense. Dromons can jump in and out and be fairly useful while not being overbearing by being able to attack too far in-land. Meanwhile, Triremes are a solid counter to Dromons and can smash them - you'll simply need more than one Dromon to deal with a Trireme. This makes sense: Dromons are support ships for invasion, while Triremes are a navy counter and help to do the final touch on a city.
However, I find that when we move to Range-2 ranged navy ships, the whole dynamic changes far, far too much. The following are the matters I am considering.
1. Cruisers (and other later ships) are faster than ships like the Dromon, and can move on Ocean - this means that they can jump into range of a city, attack, and back off, and never take any damage from a city.
2. Furthermore, the range of Cruisers enables an insane number of them to get in range of a city. The presumably well-defended naval city that only has one coastal square is a city I can still utterly crush in two turns by just rotating Cruisers - the AI doesn't have nearly the same level of intuition about this as I do. All this with 1. - that I'm not even taking damage while doing it, because I can move away.
3. The damage that an Ironclad inflicts on Cruisers and even Frigates isn't anywhere near what a Trireme inflicts on a Dromon - this means that not only does it not kill the things as quickly, but furthermore with the better range, Cruisers can easily go into a back line and keep on firing quite easily while hurt - I don't find that Ironclads do much or are something to fear when I have Cruisers around.
4. Lastly, Ironclads use the rather precious Coal, leaving no actual melee unit even available if you want to invest in city production - I think this is a reason to have Corvettes remain available for production even when Ironclads are around so melee navy ships are still available if one is short on coal.
The result of the current situation - as I observe it - is that it's absurdly easy to take down coastal cities with basically zero consequences (just one melee ship is enough for the final touch), that melee ships aren't really functioning with much effectiveness to bring down ranged ships in the later game (or at least not with that much usefulness), and that there's more Iron than Coal around generally for investment in ranged vessels anyways. These observations apply to later ships as well, like with Battleships and so on.
That said - Dromons/Triremes, Galleass/Caravels, and Frigates/Corvettes all seem quite fine in their movement patterns, because there is always some risk involved with the ranged version of the ship (although the interaction between Frigates/Corvettes favours Frigates more than the former two instances) and that is good and makes the balance.
By swapping the movement patterns in the late game, the following kind of results would occur (reminder: this means that melee ships from Ironclad and later can move after attacking, while Cruisers and later cannot).
1. Several ranged ships can still surround a city, but their damage will be limited: this is OK, because military caps are so much higher at this point in the game, so when you take damage, you're forced to rotate ships and use your back-ups. Also adds potency to Great Admiral's healing ability.
2. You will actually take damage when assaulting a city because you stay in range for a retaliation on a regular basis.
3. Cruisers - being tougher proportionally against Ironclads than Dromons against Triremes - will remain vulnerable after their hit. If you have a wall of ranged units, two Ironclads might still not be able to drop one (or only one) - while you have twice as many retaliations coming (yes, obviously you'd want a mix of melee and ranged ideally). On the other hand, if the Ironclad doesn't have two adjacent ships when attacking - it can back off and avoid some damage. This adds potency to the Coal investment.
4. Attacking a coastal city will involve some more melee investment and rotation of ships, because the melee vessels will be looking after the matter instead; the "hit-and-run" tactic is still present, but you're always paying a little in hit points in order to do damage - nothing is free.
This strikes me as a more well-balanced perception of late-game naval warfare CBP. So while in previous versions we had one mode (melee attacks-and-moves) and now we have another mode (ranged attacks-and-moves), my suggestion is a combination of the two - early game attack-and-move is for ranged ships, while late game attack-and-move is for melee ships.
I know there's a couple details that can be polished; but you get the idea. I'm curious for your feedback. Thanks!
