Thoughts on (mostly) modern warfare

[tlaurila]

Here's some thoughts/feedback after fighting a industrial/modern war. It was an offensive one for the human player (as I think most are). King/Standard Size/Epic Speed.

Gatling/MG/Bazooka line of units seem to make little sense. Swords are offensive melee, but MGs don't seem to be really useful at all in offense, compared to vanguards and cavalry/tanks. Crossbows updating to these make very little sense, also Strategy Resource wise. As a result, I still garrison cities with Xbows in the atomic age. A defensive unit that takes a resource? No thanks.

Bombard ships are way too powerful against ground units and cities, in all ages. Though part of this comes from the AI liking to embark their ground units when my naval force approaches But lots also comes from pure power and mobility. In any case, the power of naval bombardments against land targets should clearly go down. Right now they don't support an army fighting on the coast, they annihilate enemy armies single-handedly. Also all Naval Bombard Units from Ancient on up could use Iron (switching to Oil later), and Bireme and Trireme should switch roles/technologies/names (escort ship come earlier).

Bomber units are weak specifically against artillery (due to ranged strengths). This makes no sense, protecting friendly artillery is prime job for AAs and fighters in reality and prime target for bombers. Also good for combined arms game with tanks/bombers being good against artillery, and artillery being good against infantry. Bombers are also rather weak against cities, when attacking cities is a historic big role for them. (Maybe bombers devastating improvements could be one way for strategic bombardment?)

Blitz promotion on cavalry/tanks is a mess due to movement dropping to 1 after the first attack. This "promotion" greatly reduces the mobility of the unit.

Range promotion on aircraft giving +6 is over-the-top, particularly on the Tri/Biplane. More than double the range? This is a promotion I always took, because it gave my planes a global reach across oceans. I think a carrier for ocean crossings would be nice (before jets), making a carrier actually useful, too.

EDIT/ADD: Air unit attacks animation is yawn-inducingly slow. As I recall VEM fixed this back in the day. All ranged animations might actually do with some speedup.

 

[mystikx21]

1) So far as we can tell from the armies thread, the first problem is being addressed for certain (resources will be removed from GG-MG-Bazooka line). I think these are also being adjusted in role to upgrade properly from crossbows rather than longswords. That point also seems to have been made and come across loudly enough by enough people to be removed back to a default path (longswords would upgrade to muskets, not arques).

2) I think at least the city attack bonus for the non-resource required ships should be axed rather than requiring iron for the early ships.

3) Bombers are supposed to have a 50% bonus against units. I think artillery has a 50% bonus defending against ranged which must be canceling out that bonus and making the impact weaker. We could maybe put in an air penalty for artillery units to encourage combined arms and negate the "ranged" effects that encourage combined arms on the ground to kill them.

They're better against cities with some air siege promotions. We could buff those if they're too weak.

5) It's really weak at +2 for most air units. Aside from a couple of fighters for air cover, I usually don't need it even at +6.

6) Agreed. I thought this was fixed in conjunction with the RED modpack at some point back in GEM too.

 

[Thalassicus]

We want ships to be useful. Navies had a very low effect on gameplay for most of the history of the civ series. They were incredibly important in real life, and we've represented this better in gameplay with changes made over the past several years. Bombard ships should be effectively countered by escort ships, like how horses counter archers. We can buff escort ships if it's a problem.

We only have tactical bombing in Civ right now. Strategic bombing isn't really represented. I'd like bombers to be able to destroy improvements again like they could in Civ 4, but that's beyond the scope of what's feasible with this project. It's difficult to do strategic bombing in another way that's balanced and won't interfere with the role of siege units. Siege units are primarily countered by mobile units (horses and tanks).

Blitz was widely considered overpowered for doubling the damage and experience rate of a unit. We found various ways to balance that for different unit types.

The "Aircraft Move Speed" section of Cat_Options.sql should still fix the animations of aircraft. It sets the MoveRate and TurnRate of all aircraft to 4 times the normal values. This has been present and active in the mod for several years. Did this stop working in BNW? I play with quick combat so I don't see combat animations.

 

[mystikx21]

Thal, couple things on early ships (which is odd since the thread is "modern").

Catapults don't require a resource, but have to set up and don't move as fast as ships. The bonus they get versus cities (without a promotion) is essentially the same. So they're not much stronger and are usually much easier to kill. They're also more one-dimensional "city busters" rather than flexible.

Ranged ships have similar range, are faster than most, and are also stronger than most early game ranged units and don't get an anti-city penalty (and are less likely to encounter LOS restrictions, at least for attacking a city).

Given these, if you wanted to attack cities, why would you build ranged ground units or siege units? Other than the strategic implications of the map, there isn't much of a reason to do so right now.

I think the speed and difficulty of killing early naval units and their relatively high strength is enough without a city killer function on the ranged units that isn't associated with a resource.

 

[EricB]

I always build Biremes over catapults for attacking a coastal city. I think catapults should be able to take down a city much faster than a bireme. Naval bombarding units shouldn't receive city attack bonuses. They should be a useful unit that is good for bombarding enemy units and secondarily enemy cities. They should be pretty vulnerable to attack and need escort by escort ships. I'd also prefer it if ships in general were cheaper and weaker so that you'd really need a big number of them instead of a single ship (or two).

 

[mystikx21]

Eric, I'd rather avoid the ship discounts to be like the vanguard units were on land. The "discount" ought to be something like the seaport construction bonus (an active effect). They're cheap enough.

I'd also be fine with ranged ships with a resource having siege properties. The cost is both production/gold and a finite resource. It would seem reasonable to make them effective. We'd also have larger navies by that point to counter or defend against that it should be harder to attack by parking offshore.

 

[Thalassicus]

Ranged ships must have a city bonus to ensure mixed navies are better than all-escort navies. Without a city bonus for ranged ships, an all-escort navy would be better at both killing ships and taking cities, creating a risk that escort spam might become a viable strategy. It's something I'm concerned about.

The opposite situation, an all-ranged fleet, isn't possible because ranged ships can't capture cities, so we must have something else in our military.

 

[Dunkah]

Late War Naval Strategy: (for those not wanting to have a Realistic Victory that actually involves feet on the ground. )
Once you have decided to move off your continent, build 6 Subs 6 Battleships, (Kill other units that are chewing up resources if they are needed). Put Carriers with interceptors on the build menu as well as a few destroyers and Battleships as replacements/ reinforcements for later.

Use the Subs as a sheild for the battleships as you approach the enemies continent, keep in a tight formation so they can't gang up on straglers. Try and move slowly, bite the enemy Navy off in small chewable bites, 1 or 2 at a time until they are all gone or the AI refuses to send them out of port. With a force of that size the enemy Navy will be at the bottom in no time

Next start at one end of the empire so it less likely that enemy Naval assets will approach from both sides, (close to a freindly CS is good), set up most of your subs on the hostile side, move your Battleships to within shooting range of the first enemy city and Bombard. (Make sure all of your BB's arrive at the same time and can shoot in the same turn so casualties from counter attacks will be minimum.

You can either drag along a melee unit or two or a Destroyer or two to take the city.

Once the city has been conquered, remove your unit from it (in case they take it back), and try to heal it somewhere. Use your long ranged Battleships to wipe out as many of the enemies force in the vacinity of the city as possible. The AI will try and take it back since you are nowhere else on the continent and send almost ever single unit they have to do it.

If they manage to take the city back Rinse and Repeat until it is firmly in your hands and most of the enemy units have been destroyed. No matter what the size it started as it will be a fragment of its former self. (plan to keep at least one of the first cities you take to use as a healing area).

By now your Battleships will have Range Promotions and possibly even be able to shoot twice. Nothing can stop you now.

Move to city number two...

Using this tactic it is possible to wipe out almost any Civilization, even those with a fairly good tech lead on you. If they do have a lead it won't last long.

If the AI manages to get Airplanes, Artillery or something else into a spot where they can actually destroy one of your assets... back off and build/ rush buy either destroyers or carriers with interceptors, or try to attack from the other end on the empire.

 

[Tomice]

But don't forget you're talking about 12-15 units in a well-balanced composition in the hands of a skilled player!
I strongly doubt any AI will ever beat the human under such circumstances, simply because it can't focus-fire as well, and it can't concentrate it's forces as well.
The only chance for the AI is to never let you become so strong. Our to flank your unprotected capital. Or to gang-bang you with 2-3 allies.

In vanilla, the situation is ever worse. Thal added free promotions and AFAIK lower upgrade costs for the AI, improving the Quality
of their troops.

 

[Ahriman]

I would take the anti-city bonus off all ships, but leave it as an available tier3 promotion.

I think potentially part of the problem as well is that the Communitas mapscript has gone a bit too far on making lots of fractalish peninsulas and relatively few large blocks of land on Standard map size, so nearly every city on the map ends up being coastal. Naval power is quite different on a Continents map.

 

[EricB]

I agree with Ahriman that coastal cities are too numerous. A lot of times I'll change the settings to have lower sea levels so that there is less water and larger continents because of this.

 

[Tomice]

I personally like the shape of continents very much and I am often surprised how well the script mimics real-world settings like the Mediterranean, southeast Asia or the Caribbean. But I prefer larger maps (10 players).

Does changing the sea level fix your issues? Or is it just a band-aid?



@Thal: I think escorts are crucial even now, all-ranged navies can't defend cost - effectively against them.



Another topic: it seems everyone is concerned about the offensive power of ships. What about defense? IMO ranged ships are essential as city garrison, and unrealistically powerful in this role. Thoughs?

 

[Ahriman]

I personally like the shape of continents very much and I am often surprised how well the script mimics real-world settings like the Mediterranean, southeast Asia or the Caribbean.

But it doesn't do a great job of areas like the principle landmasses of Africa or Asia - which are rather larger. We seem to have lost big Egypt or India or China or Russia type areas.

I think escorts are crucial even now, all-ranged navies can't defend cost - effectively against them.

An exception is the trireme and bireme: the first ranged naval unit can cost-effectively fight the (higher tech) first melee unit. Probably the issue is too high a ranged attack on the ranged unit.

 

[Tomice]

But it doesn't do a great job of areas like the principle landmasses of Africa or Asia - which are rather larger. We seem to have lost big Egypt or India or China or Russia type areas.

While I'm very happy with the map as it is (and especially it's influence on naval gameplay), I can see your point. It's logical that it bothers me less since my favourite civ is Carthage, I really love naval exploration and I prefer large terra-style maps.

The big question is: thinking primarily about standard-sized maps, can we even expect to ever achieve both? Or will it always be one at the cost of the other?

And if interesting naval gameplay while still maintaining a sufficient number of landlocked cities is impossible, are the existing sliders enough to sufficiently express our preferences?

I think we should generate a few dozen maps to find out and open a new thread for the topic (but not today, it's late here).



Meanwhile, we could already start thinking about the ideal relation between coastal and inland cities. I'd say 60 percent should be coastal.

 

[mystikx21]

I'd say 60 percent should be coastal.

About 40-45% of the world's population lives in coastal areas (within 150km, 40% within 100km). That percentage is still rising. But 60% is probably too high.

This is also from a "map" that includes Africa, Eurasia, and North America as very large continents versus snakier bits of land like a South American landmass or the various archipelagos of the Pacific, so it's not as heavy on large landmass with inland rivers and lakes for Chicago or St Louis or Berlin or Moscow to grow around.

Aside from a couple of civs with very strong coastal benefits (Carthage, Indonesia, Polynesia, maybe England/Denmark), most civs don't "need" more than a couple of ports in game play terms. If there's that strong of a coastal bias for settlement versus rivers/lakes inland that most civs should build most of their cities near the oceans, then some combination of the following is going wrong: the map is too coastal, naval units are too strong relative to land units, too many benefits have been amassed on coasts, or harbors are too cheap versus roads.

 

[Tomice]

Interesting numbers, thanks!

But before we take this any further: The communitas map has not been a hot topic for some time now. I interpret this as sign that many people are happy with it as is! I'd really like to keep the current setting available, even if it ends up being the option for "high sea level".

 

[Fezvez]

I just wanted to chime in to say that Bombard ships are really incredibly strong for their cost. Among my last three games, two were "won" when I had my first frigates, in the sense that I managed to defend quite a lot of aggression from the AI with nearly no loss.

I kept on until bombard ships and went to to win the game.

What I don't understand is : why do I feel like I always need to do only the bare minimum of "melee" ships (privateer, destroyer) to have the optimal army?

Note : I tend to play on maps with lots of water. I can usually conquer cities with just ships, which may explain also some things (the AI builds both ground and sea units, thus, loses horrifyingly in battle against me)

 

[mystikx21]

@Tomice, I'd agree the map is pretty solid. If we can experiment some to see what kind of results the map settings give us to make for better "continental" experiences versus snake/archipelago style maps on the other end, I think it could be tweaked later.

It's a lower priority than leaders, units, economic, or policies balance changes to fix the map because people could just use a regular map if the map seems broken. What it does do is contribute to the feeling that navies are too strong. But if that feeling exists, it should be the case even on regular continents maps if it is accurate.

@Fez I would suggest that if the "optimal" naval mix includes only a few melee ships then some small adjustments to ranged (or to melee) ships should help redress this imbalance to be a "better" force mixture. The free promotion for city attacks is one of the main benefits, on top of ranged defence benefits (that protect against cities further) and focus firing advantages and a reduced need to heal after battle. The last three we can't do much about (taking away the ranged defence just makes ranged ships even deadlier against other ships) but we can adjust strength ratios or free promotions for either.

Making melee ships stronger is an option here, but navies seem already quite a bit more powerful than land armies for conquest purposes or even for raiding gold from cities and pillaging resources (keep in mind naval units can shut down a lot of valuable ocean production and growth too). It would have to be either a naval only benefit or a reduction in strength and ranged strength for ranged ships.

 

[jwerano]

too many benefits have been amassed on coasts, or harbors are too cheap versus roads.

This would be it exactly. Naval internal trade routes are 80% better than land internal trade routes and thus for me a coastal empire is mandatory. I know Thal's strengthening of land trade routes was not popular in the Caravan's thread but I believe this is the specific issue he was trying to combat. I'd like to see a minor buff to internal land trade routes in the next version.