Swap Navy Movement Patters @ Resource Assignment

[MorphBer]

I don't like units loosing abilitys on upgrade. Upgrades are allready expansive enough and should do what the word !up!-grade implies. If Melee ships are too weak buff them instead of introducing some weird change to ranged ships.

The vast majority of your ships will always be ranged because its impossible to take decent cities with melee because of the amount of HP a city has and the lack of healing

 

[Gidoza]

This goes back to an issue myself and Txurce pointed out. If frigates upgraded to cruisers lose move after attacking, its a big deal. I forget what a cruisers power is, but you need a ton of extra power to make up for losing that ability. I would probably intentionally not upgrade a lot of them, and I don't see a way to be punished for doing so

I do get what you're saying - but as for me, I'd rather have a range-2 Cruiser than a hit-and-run Frigate; at the very least, you then have an arguable reason why you might want to keep your Frigates around longer (besides, they cost no Iron - upgrading to a Cruiser is costing you multiple things, not just one), and I don't see that as a problem.

Now, if you wanted, we could have an entirely different alternative like the following: Frigates that upgrade into Cruisers will keep their hit-and-run ability, BUT! the upgrade is damn &%$#$%$ expensive. I mean think about it - you're taking a wood ship and turning it into a metal ship. It's basically re-building the ship from scratch. You could make an argument that such an upgrade isn't even viable in a way, but let's say that it is - the NEW Cruisers would not have the hit-and-run ability, but the UPGRADED ones would - you're just paying 3500 gold a pop in order to keep the ability. It would be a hard choice to make, but I can certainly see why I would opt for upgrading, because the potential offered by a 2-range hit-and-run cruiser is utterly insane.

Every ship converts into a submarine if you hit enough times...briefly...

G

lol

 

[Infixo]

Or... just like in RL Frigates should just fade away with time, right? E.g. they will get negative promotions with some techs being disovered / eras entered. Like -15% CS/RCS when you enter Modern Era, and then another -15% with Atomic. They would show their diminishing effectiveness against new, better armored ships. So, you can keep them, but not for long. And once they upgrade, those promos ofc are gone.

Also, AIs are not doing good with upgrading units. So, keeping Frigates longer is ok. But then, once they start being weaker, you kill them faster allowing AI to build new units (free Supply Cap) thus modernizing their Navy.

 

[Owlbebach]

Actually i disagree with @CrazyG that this change will lead to not-upgrading ships, cause Cruisers are so much stronger. But i think a perfect way to solve it is to increase melee strength of them so that it will be almost impossible to fight them with Frigates, which makes sense. Another idea is to increase their movement, so that you can have more options to position them correctly. Overall i like the idea

 

[ElliotS]

I do get what you're saying - but as for me, I'd rather have a range-2 Cruiser than a hit-and-run Frigate; at the very least, you then have an arguable reason why you might want to keep your Frigates around longer (besides, they cost no Iron - upgrading to a Cruiser is costing you multiple things, not just one), and I don't see that as a problem.

Now, if you wanted, we could have an entirely different alternative like the following: Frigates that upgrade into Cruisers will keep their hit-and-run ability, BUT! the upgrade is damn &%$#$%$ expensive. I mean think about it - you're taking a wood ship and turning it into a metal ship. It's basically re-building the ship from scratch. You could make an argument that such an upgrade isn't even viable in a way, but let's say that it is - the NEW Cruisers would not have the hit-and-run ability, but the UPGRADED ones would - you're just paying 3500 gold a pop in order to keep the ability. It would be a hard choice to make, but I can certainly see why I would opt for upgrading, because the potential offered by a 2-range hit-and-run cruiser is utterly insane.



lol

This mechanic is so player-advantaged it hurts lol.

 

[Gidoza]

This mechanic is so player-advantaged it hurts lol.

I stand corrected and I accept your statement as is.

 

[Txurce]

Well, then, the problem is with range 2 on cruisers. Why don't keep it at range 1 for the whole game, like skirmishers do. Eventually, they'll get range promotion, and they get extra movement by several ways.

Because cities become stronger and can hit back harder. So can siege units. There's no problem with 2-range ships -- they just don't have a perfect counter.

 

[Gidoza]

I think we're forgetting that all ranged ships *used* to be fire-and-stop vessels. The fire-and-move ability was introduced as a method of balancing the Dromon because it was too effective when shooting two tiles in; Archers couldn't deal with it meaningfully and it could surround cities quite well. With shoot-and-move, the Dromon retains its effectiveness without being overkill, and it is able to still retain its distance so as not to get hurt too much. In other words, it's like the Dromon was attacking coastal tiles from two tiles away if it backed up a tile after its attack. This makes perfect sense for the Dromon. It doesn't really make much sense for Cruisers and on - the ability isn't there as an intended actual ability - from looking back at version history discussions - it's there as a Band-Aid to balance early ranged ships. Two-range ships are powerful and don't need any such Band-Aid - in fact, when shooting and stopping, they're doing exactly what they're supposed to do properly; meanwhile, the later melee ships do need a buff - hit-and-move is an appropriate way to go, especially when dealing with 2-range ships!

 

[LukaSlovenia29]

I'd be ok with cruiser&co. losing the 2-range. (By that time your ships will already have the range promotion (if they're old) or you'll have enough xp from buildings to quickly get it.) That would address my biggest current concern re: naval warfare.

Alternatively, I'd be in favour of a special promotion available to melee ships granting them extra CS versus range ships, if that's possible to code.

 

[Stalker0]

If cruisers had 5 speed (maybe they already do could't remember it), I'm not opposed to dropping them back to 1 range.

Or I'm also fine beefing up the melee ships to compensate. You could just give them cover promotion and be done with it.

I do think changing the movement system midway creates more clunkiness than is needed. I agree a change is needed, I just think there are more elegant ways to accomplish it.

 

[Gidoza]

Well, my concern isn't merely naval warfare, but also how the two range affects attacking cities. I don't think that this can fail to be broken as long as ships both have 2 range and move-after-attack. Part of the whole point of city naval defence is *so that you can shoot back and cause damage*. Without this element present, I can't consider the current setup reasonable.

 

[tu_79]

If cruisers had 5 speed (maybe they already do could't remember it), I'm not opposed to dropping them back to 1 range.

Or I'm also fine beefing up the melee ships to compensate. You could just give them cover promotion and be done with it.

I do think changing the movement system midway creates more clunkiness than is needed. I agree a change is needed, I just think there are more elegant ways to accomplish it.

This is it. We have already 3 choices for increasing naval speed (Great Lighthouse, Imperialism, Naval Project), 5 movement is more than enough to keep those ships at 3 range, so they can face field guns. The only thing they are losing is the ability to shoot three tiles inland, cause they already can shoot to two tiles inland thanks to the range promotion.

 

[Txurce]

Well, my concern isn't merely naval warfare, but also how the two range affects attacking cities. I don't think that this can fail to be broken as long as ships both have 2 range and move-after-attack. Part of the whole point of city naval defence is *so that you can shoot back and cause damage*. Without this element present, I can't consider the current setup reasonable.

If it's so broken, then why did you start this thread yesterday, instead of months ago? It would be more reasonable to say you think the balance is off. City defense has an effect on 4-range vessels like cruisers, and is at no less of an advantage than against range-promoted field guns.

The whole issue of always being able to hit back is specious, anyway. A city could only hit one ship. What about land range units? Should mounted range units all lose their movement-after-firing? Because those units get away with murder as part of their very reason for being.

If cruisers had 5 speed (maybe they already do could't remember it), I'm not opposed to dropping them back to 1 range.

Or I'm also fine beefing up the melee ships to compensate. You could just give them cover promotion and be done with it.

I do think changing the movement system midway creates more clunkiness than is needed. I agree a change is needed, I just think there are more elegant ways to accomplish it.

Cruisers have a range of 4. (Saying they could have more with Wonders or two specific policies is irrelevant to the general situation, because most players don't have those in a given game... I've never taken Imperialism or the Naval Project in my life.) I agree that beefing up melee ships is all that's needed. I also recall that at the time, we arrived at the same conclusion, and balanced them in a way that led to most players (me included) to build more melee ships than we had before. There's no reason this couldn't be done again, starting with destroyers.

 

[Infixo]

What is the point of cruiser with 1-range that cannot move after attack? It will stay in the same tile as a melee ship currently. Swapping melee and ranged like this causes things to basically stay the same, but with different names.

 

[Gidoza]

If it's so broken, then why did you start this thread yesterday, instead of months ago? It would be more reasonable to say you think the balance is off. City defense has an effect on 4-range vessels like cruisers, and is at no less of an advantage than against range-promoted field guns.

The whole issue of always being able to hit back is specious, anyway. A city could only hit one ship. What about land range units? Should mounted range units all lose their movement-after-firing? Because those units get away with murder as part of their very reason for being.



Cruisers have a range of 4. (Saying they could have more with Wonders or two specific policies is irrelevant to the general situation, because most players don't have those in a given game... I've never taken Imperialism or the Naval Project in my life.) I agree that beefing up melee ships is all that's needed. I also recall that at the time, we arrived at the same conclusion, and balanced them in a way that led to most players (me included) to build more melee ships than we had before. There's no reason this couldn't be done again, starting with destroyers.

Well first off - why start at Destroyers? Ironclads and even Corvettes need help, too. I think that two hits for a melee ship to sink a ranged ship is reasonable (as it is in the early eras). With the Advent of being able to fire with two range (and thus have a wall of protection), my reaction is that melee should be able to one-hit-kill ranged ships in the current setup.

Secondly, I didn't bring it up earlier because I hadn't played in a while; nevertheless, I noticed the matter immediately and tested through it a few times. Trashing coastal cities is easier than it's ever been - and I thought it was easy when ranged ships couldn't hit-and-run. At least previously, it required some effort.

Third, Mounted ranged units have a one-time attack range. I'm not concerned with that for land or water units.

Lastly, I don't see why shifting from attack-and-move to attack-stop is a big deal. Yes, it'll be a shock and a shift. No, it won't be unreasonable - it'll be quite healthy and balanced. Yes, you and I will both get used to it. Crazy long-range ships with hit-abd-move aren't worth keeping despite their coolness with the related consequences against the AI, who doesn't use them nearly as effectively.

 

[Stalker0]

Lastly, I don't see why shifting from attack-and-move to attack-stop is a big deal.

Its a bigger deal than not shifting it. There are other less dramatic solutions.

 

[Txurce]

Well first off - why start at Destroyers? Ironclads and even Corvettes need help, too. I think that two hits for a melee ship to sink a ranged ship is reasonable (as it is in the early eras). With the Advent of being able to fire with two range (and thus have a wall of protection), my reaction is that melee should be able to one-hit-kill ranged ships in the current setup.

Secondly, I didn't bring it up earlier because I hadn't played in a while; nevertheless, I noticed the matter immediately and tested through it a few times. Trashing coastal cities is easier than it's ever been - and I thought it was easy when ranged ships couldn't hit-and-run. At least previously, it required some effort.

Third, Mounted ranged units have a one-time attack range. I'm not concerned with that for land or water units.

Lastly, I don't see why shifting from attack-and-move to attack-stop is a big deal. Yes, it'll be a shock and a shift. No, it won't be unreasonable - it'll be quite healthy and balanced. Yes, you and I will both get used to it. Crazy long-range ships with hit-abd-move aren't worth keeping despite their coolness with the related consequences against the AI, who doesn't use them nearly as effectively.

1. Ironclads and corvettes don't need help in my games. But I wouldn't care if they got a buff -- although nothing like what you're proposing. With the AI's frequently overwhelming numerical superiority, one-shotting late-game ranged vessels would be a gameplay disaster.

2. ...

3. I don't know what you mean by "one-time attack range," as opposed to what range ships can do. Put a promoted cavalryman on a road or railroad, and it's a shooting gallery much worse than what ships can do.

4. The AI doesn't do anything related to combat as effectively as humans. You want to make things fair across the board? Institute trench-warfare rules.

 

[Gidoza]

1. Ironclads and corvettes don't need help in my games. But I wouldn't care if they got a buff -- although nothing like what you're proposing. With the AI's frequently overwhelming numerical superiority, one-shotting late-game ranged vessels would be a gameplay disaster.

2. ...

3. I don't know what you mean by "one-time attack range," as opposed to what range ships can do. Put a promoted cavalryman on a road or railroad, and it's a shooting gallery much worse than what ships can do.

4. The AI doesn't do anything related to combat as effectively as humans. You want to make things fair across the board? Institute trench-warfare rules.

1. Okay - while I don't play on Deity, I do play on Emperor/Immortal. Numerical superiority from the enemy hasn't stopped me from losing basically nothing, and they afterwards do not recover from it. And being able to hit a city 8+ times from two tiles just makes my life wonderfully easy.

4. The issue isn't that humans play better than the AI, but the extent to which game conditions favour the human player. This is an easy one; stationary-shooting ranged ships and mobile melee ships are much more favourable to the AI; there will never be any kind of micromanagement I can conduct in that situation that protects me other than a wall of melee in front of my ships.

Its a bigger deal than not shifting it. There are other less dramatic solutions.

That's fine - but we need actual proposals. We've heard several times that "melee needs a buff" or "naval warfare needs something," but these generic statements don't really help much. However dramatic it may be, my suggestion is very concrete, and I am confident that it will be effective.

 

[Txurce]

Okay - while I don't play on Deity, I do play on Emperor/Immortal. Numerical superiority from the enemy hasn't stopped me from losing basically nothing, and they afterwards do not recover from it. And being able to hit a city 8+ times from two tiles just makes my life wonderfully easy.

The issue isn't that humans play better than the AI, but the extent to which game conditions favour the human player. This is an easy one; stationary-shooting ranged ships and mobile melee ships are much more favourable to the AI; there will never be any kind of micromanagement I can conduct in that situation that protects me other than a wall of melee in front of my ships.

That's fine - but we need actual proposals. We've heard several times that "melee needs a buff" or "naval warfare needs something," but these generic statements don't really help much. However dramatic it may be, my suggestion is very concrete, and I am confident that it will be effective.

You're basically saying that mobile units -- especially those that can move after firing -- favor human play. And you're right. In this thread you're focusing on late-game ranged vessels, but it's true for the entire game. You can make the game really boring, or you balance it a different way. I'm convinced that your suggestion will make the game less fun. And I'm confident that if Gazebo decides that melee units need a buff, he can figure out how much.

 

[tu_79]

I actually think that cruisers will still be good units with 1 extra movement and only range 1. They can still wipe the coast and let your units land without opposition. They can still fire at cities and keep out of range from inland siege units. Cause when I get to cruisers I notice that my game gets easier.