What's missing, unit-wise?

[kristopherb]

I like your list but i do have suggestions

Give Bombards the promo collateral 1, with the momentum of the game i always find myself moving straight though muskets/curassiars straight for riflemen/cavalry. Unless you can adjust the pace of the game give us a reason to build the unit.

I'd personally add a cruiserclass, consider it as a seaborne cavalry/ scout and maybe allow to carry one unit so its possible to quickly to send reinforcements to other continents

 

[nfw]

Some kind of naval bomber that can sink ships, and a 2 move artillery unit at the same time as tanks.

 

[Dr.Null]

Give Bombards the promo collateral 1

Nah, the niche for the Bombard is war without Engineering. I could see giving the Culverin a free promo, though.

I'd personally add a cruiserclass, consider it as a seaborne cavalry/ scout and maybe allow to carry one unit so its possible to quickly to send reinforcements to other continents

What would the stats for the Cruiser be?

Some kind of naval bomber that can sink ships, and a 2 move artillery unit at the same time as tanks.

Hmm, this seems more like the role of the Fighter, specifically of the Fighters based on Carriers.

Maybe a new mission type for Fighters, which allows them to engage in regular combat with a ship? If the Fighter is at risk of its own destruction, then the scales are balanced, IMHO. What do you think?

 

[Drakarska]

Nah, the niche for the Bombard is war without Engineering. I could see giving the Culverin a free promo, though.

What would the stats for the Cruiser be?

Hmm, this seems more like the role of the Fighter, specifically of the Fighters based on Carriers.

Maybe a new mission type for Fighters, which allows them to engage in regular combat with a ship? If the Fighter is at risk of its own destruction, then the scales are balanced, IMHO. What do you think?

Split the differance between a DD and a BB on power, and I believe civ 3 had a cruiser class as well as an Ageis class, which had +1 move and sight. CA's role in the navy is primarily an AAW/ASUW platform, with some ASW mixed in for good measure. They're specifically designed to make sure nothing gets through to the carrier.
As for the fighters, CA's carry various types of planes onboard. If your talking about specifically making a fighter that does anti-ship ops, then I suggest you check out the Battle of Miday, as there are quite a few fighters that were used for AS ops.
Hmnnn. Maybe give them a bombard promo vs ships, and a penalty vs fighters/intercepters. Keep in mind that carriers will keep a CAP out just to make sure they don't get totally surprised.

 

[Dr.Null]

Split the differance between a DD and a BB on power

So it's just a 35 ship?

As for the fighters, CA's carry various types of planes onboard. If your talking about specifically making a fighter that does anti-ship ops

Nah, I'm saying that we don't need a whole new type of plane. Lugging torpedoes is just a matter of loadout.

 

[Drakarska]

So it's just a 35 ship?

Nah, I'm saying that we don't need a whole new type of plane. Lugging torpedoes is just a matter of loadout.

Depends on if your talking IE or ME. In the IE, CA's were just beginning to come into production around the middle of WWII and were being fitted with radar. so definitely sight 2, mv 6 ( they were fairly quick), and some kind of bombard vs air units to represent flak. CA's were specifically designed as an AAW platform. I'd have to break out my Janes Fighting Ships for specifics on weps, but it was usually batteries of 5"/54's and then 12" mains for ASUW ops.

If were talking ME, then it's pure gold for creating a specific ship type. Most of the essentials you can wiki Aegis class cruiser for creating your ship. From personal experiance as ex-navy and being very familar with these ships ( and without violating my NDA), these ships are awesome. Janes does a really good job of giving you the "accepted" stats, while Wiki does an "ok" job.

As for loadouts being torps only, then no. You have to remeber that USA torps sucked bigger than a Sponge Bob rerun. Nimitz started outfitting Wildcats with 500lb HE's, not to mention what he did with the dive bombers.

 

[kristopherb]

What would the stats for the Cruiser be?

Something like, 4 more movement then destroyers, cargo cap of 2, 20 strength, 10% to intercept aircraft along with one more line of sight.

 

[Dr.Null]

CA's were specifically designed as an AAW platform. I'd have to break out my Janes Fighting Ships for specifics on weps, but it was usually batteries of 5"/54's and then 12" mains for ASUW ops.

Most of the essentials you can wiki Aegis class cruiser for creating your ship.

Destroyers do all this stuff already. What does this ship add to the game?

As for loadouts being torps only, then no. You have to remeber that USA torps sucked bigger than a Sponge Bob rerun. Nimitz started outfitting Wildcats with 500lb HE's, not to mention what he did with the dive bombers.

1) Not all Fighters in this game are American.
2) Switch mission loadout from torpedoes to 500 lb HE bombs, there's no functional difference. My point is that the mission requires a different weapon, not a different aircraft.

Something like, 4 more movement then destroyers, cargo cap of 2, 20 strength, 10% to intercept aircraft along with one more line of sight.

Faster and weaker than Destroyers? Interesting, that's not the image I had in my mind at all.

Also: if they have any cargo, they will not act as screeners. The algorithm for defender selection prefers to allow ships with cargo to defend last. For example, if you have a two-ship stack with a Transport (full of troops) and a Galleon (empty), and your stack is attacked by a Frigate, the Galleon will defend -- and probably go down in flames. So, think carefully about adding cargo space to a warship, particularly one which you intend to act as a defender of other ships.

 

[lindsay40k]

To give my answer to the OP: Great War Landships, Nukes that are dropped by Bomber units, Flamethrowers, and Air Bomb strikes being able to destroy forests and jungle. I also like Inquisitors.

 

[Drakarska]

Destroyers do all this stuff already. What does this ship add to the game?

1) Not all Fighters in this game are American.
2) Switch mission loadout from torpedoes to 500 lb HE bombs, there's no functional difference. My point is that the mission requires a different weapon, not a different aircraft.

Faster and weaker than Destroyers? Interesting, that's not the image I had in my mind at all.

Also: if they have any cargo, they will not act as screeners. The algorithm for defender selection prefers to allow ships with cargo to defend last. For example, if you have a two-ship stack with a Transport (full of troops) and a Galleon (empty), and your stack is attacked by a Frigate, the Galleon will defend -- and probably go down in flames. So, think carefully about adding cargo space to a warship, particularly one which you intend to act as a defender of other ships.

Which is extremely wrong. DD's were an ASW platform, so the bonus should be against subs. DDG's are a different story.

Hmnn, it seems like were not understanding one another

ok, let's try this again for the Industrial Era;
STR: 35 in between that of a DD and a BB
SPD: 2 better than a DD (cruisers speed was very fast)
Sight of 2-3 (radar, specifically for AAW. and all major powers had some variant of CA)
Special: Bombard vs air units (flak), no bonus vs ships, can see subs. And I wouldn't give CA's cargo, they were a definite warship.

Agree with you that loadouts are the primary for AC, as there are very few AC dedicated to AS ops (germ, jap, ussr, gb, and usa are the main ones)

As for the ME, Tico class CA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ticonderoga_class_cruiser

You can have all sorts of fun with this.

 

[kristopherb]

Faster and weaker than Destroyers? Interesting, that's not the image I had in my mind at all.

Also: if they have any cargo, they will not act as screeners. The algorithm for defender selection prefers to allow ships with cargo to defend last. For example, if you have a two-ship stack with a Transport (full of troops) and a Galleon (empty), and your stack is attacked by a Frigate, the Galleon will defend -- and probably go down in flames. So, think carefully about adding cargo space to a warship, particularly one which you intend to act as a defender of other ships.

Fiar point, you could give the cruiser first strikes to give the unit a duel role as either quick reinforcement force or screener for carriers, so the player has to choose the role. so maybe 24str(to make the unit more a beast verses destroyers), 2 first strikes( to give the unit more survivability overall), 1 visibility range (for scouting), due to the speed it wouldn't be such a stretch to give it 20% withdrawal chance. So long as promotions can give it an intercept chance. I can't see this ship being broken.

 

[Dr.Null]

Which is extremely wrong. DD's were an ASW platform, so the bonus should be against subs. DDG's are a different story.

Hmnn, it seems like were not understanding one another

ok, let's try this again for the Industrial Era;
STR: 35 in between that of a DD and a BB
SPD: 2 better than a DD (cruisers speed was very fast)
Sight of 2-3 (radar, specifically for AAW. and all major powers had some variant of CA)
Special: Bombard vs air units (flak), no bonus vs ships, can see subs. And I wouldn't give CA's cargo, they were a definite warship.

Agree with you that loadouts are the primary for AC, as there are very few AC dedicated to AS ops (germ, jap, ussr, gb, and usa are the main ones)

As for the ME, Tico class CA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ticonderoga_class_cruiser

You can have all sorts of fun with this.

The Ticonderoga class looks like a modified Destroyer... which brings us back to my point that in Civ 4, the Destroyer unit generally covers the role of the Cruiser.

I think what you're trying to say is the following:

• Destroyers should lose their Interception bonus;
• Destroyers should lose a point or two of ;
• We should add a new unit, Cruiser, which has Interception, free Sentry promotion, and +1 or +2 over the Battleship and Destroyer;
• Cruisers should be better at ship-to-ship combat than Destroyers; and
• Cruisers should screen Battleships and Carriers.

This can be done, but I'm not convinced that it's useful. It seems to me that the abstraction in Civ 4 is such that all "screening" ships have been folded into the Destroyer unit. So this is not really the case of a "missing unit" -- it's the case of one existing unit doing two jobs, which in your mind should require two separate units.

It's possible that having two separate units would add to the game, particularly since I plan on delaying the Destroyer unit. But "possible" isn't "certain". Can you make a case for what it would add to the game?

Fiar point, you could give the cruiser first strikes to give the unit a duel role as either quick reinforcement force or screener for carriers, so the player has to choose the role. so maybe 24str(to make the unit more a beast verses destroyers), 2 first strikes( to give the unit more survivability overall), 1 visibility range (for scouting), due to the speed it wouldn't be such a stretch to give it 20% withdrawal chance. So long as promotions can give it an intercept chance. I can't see this ship being broken.

I'd prefer to reserve the withdrawal chance for the Dreadnaught / Battleship units, which highlights their role as "sea siege" (collateral damage + withdrawal).


Hmm, just to be sure we're all on the same page, what is the expected outcome of the following battles? Answer choices are:
- Attacker wins (overwhelming)
- Attacker probably wins
- 50/50
- Defender probably wins
- Defender wins (overwhelming)

Sub attacking Battleship
Sub attacking Cruiser
Sub attacking Destroyer

Destroyer attacking Battleship
Destroyer attacking Cruiser
Destroyer attacking Destroyer

Cruiser attacking Battleship
Cruiser attacking Cruiser
Cruiser attacking Destroyer

Battleship attacking Battleship
Battleship attacking Cruiser
Battleship attacking Destroyer

Fighter dive-bombing Battleship
Fighter dive-bombing Cruiser
Fighter dive-bombing Destroyer

 

[Dr.Null]

Hmm, just to be sure we're all on the same page, what is the expected outcome of the following battles? Answer choices are:
- Attacker wins (overwhelming)
- Attacker probably wins
- 50/50
- Defender probably wins
- Defender wins (overwhelming)

My answers follow. Please make your own choices before reading mine, I want honest opinions rather than reactions!

Spoiler answers :

Sub attacking Battleship attack probably
Sub attacking Cruiser attacker (overwhelming)
Sub attacking Destroyer defender probably

Destroyer attacking Battleship defender probably
Destroyer attacking Cruiser defender (overwhelming)
Destroyer attacking Destroyer 50/50

Cruiser attacking Battleship 50/50
Cruiser attacking Cruiser 50/50
Cruiser attacking Destroyer attacker (overwhelming)

Battleship attacking Battleship 50/50
Battleship attacking Cruiser attacker probably
Battleship attacking Destroyer attacker (overwhelming)

Fighter dive-bombing Battleship attacker probably
Fighter dive-bombing Cruiser defender probably
Fighter dive-bombing Destroyer attacker probably

 

[Culture Bomb]

Something I've been thinking about...

How about WWII-era motorized infantry and self-propelled artillery.

Motorized infantry - 20 strength same as inf, move 2, cost 25% more

Self-propelled artillery - 15 strength, same bonuses etc as artillery, move 2.

Both could have the same tech requirements as the existing unit, but require oil, which would mean you would need combustion as well.

 

[Dr.Null]

Motorized infantry - 20 strength same as inf, move 2, cost 25% more

I was thinking of an almost identical unit, but in the Armor category to distinguish it from Infantry.

The pros to Armor would be that it's a good counter to Machine Guns and Infantry, and it's intuitive that it doesn't get any kind of defense bonus.

Self-propelled artillery - 15 strength, same bonuses etc as artillery, move 2.

Both could have the same tech requirements as the existing unit, but require oil, which would mean you would need combustion as well.

That's just enough of a difference in strength to make it interesting... hmm.

Adding that would probably require some AI code changes, though. We wouldn't want AIs to "upgrade" all their Artillery to Motor Artillery as soon as it became available, would we?

 

[Drakarska]

I was thinking of an almost identical unit, but in the Armor category to distinguish it from Infantry.

The pros to Armor would be that it's a good counter to Machine Guns and Infantry, and it's intuitive that it doesn't get any kind of defense bonus.

That's just enough of a difference in strength to make it interesting... hmm.

Adding that would probably require some AI code changes, though. We wouldn't want AIs to "upgrade" all their Artillery to Motor Artillery as soon as it became available, would we?

Rooskies used SPR extensivily in their ops vs the germans, and usually towed them behind trucks, so oil works. As for the rest, I'll have to get back to you later tonight Null, as I'm off to work.

 

[Rusty Edge]

Hmm, just to be sure we're all on the same page, what is the expected outcome of the following battles? Answer choices are:
- Attacker wins (overwhelming)
- Attacker probably wins
- 50/50
- Defender probably wins
- Defender wins (overwhelming)

Sub attacking Battleship 50/50
Sub attacking Cruiser Attacker probably wins
Sub attacking Destroyer Defender probably wins

Destroyer attacking Battleship Defender wins
Destroyer attacking Cruiser Defender probably wins
Destroyer attacking Destroyer 50/50

Cruiser attacking Battleship Defender wins
Cruiser attacking Cruiser 50/50
Cruiser attacking Destroyer Attacker wins

Battleship attacking Battleship 50/50
Battleship attacking Cruiser Attacker wins
Battleship attacking Destroyer Attacker wins

Fighter dive-bombing Battleship Defender probably wins
Fighter dive-bombing Cruiser Defender wins
Fighter dive-bombing Destroyer 50/50

To me part of the problem is whether damage is done, or a ship is sunk when we say win. It seems straightforward enough surface ship vs. surface ship. But when we think about subs and fighter-bombers, it may take multiple attacks to sink a battleship or an aircraft carrier.

If for example, we give the planes an armor-piercing bomb or torpedo promotion, allowing them to sink ships, or a chance to, then maybe the game plays more realistically.

EDIT- I guess we're not so far apart. I just see battleships as being easy to hit because they're big and slow , and hard to sink because they're designed to shoot it out with ships their own size and survive..

The battlecruiser HMS Hood was no match for the Bismark. I don't think an ordinary cruiser has a very good chance against an ordinary battleship, simply because the battleship is damage resistant, and the ship that accumulates damage the fastest is the one that sinks first.

 

[kristopherb]

Something I've been thinking about...

How about WWII-era motorized infantry and self-propelled artillery.

Motorized infantry - 20 strength same as inf, move 2, cost 25% more

Isn't that mechanized infantry? I don't see a point of making a new unit for it maybe a promotion (that can be grabbed at level 1) after combustion. Another method would each gunpowder unit would get +1 movement but I think that might screw the balance over a little.

Self-propelled artillery - 15 strength, same bonuses etc as artillery, move 2.

Both could have the same tech requirements as the existing unit, but require oil, which would mean you would need combustion as well.

Same as above... the unit exists later in the game.

The only land unit i can see an argument for the Dragoon as a mounted counter to riflemen the same way chariots counter axemen. For the later eras warfare has extended mainly into the air so I think the current land units will suffice. Also it helps with the small unit impact you wish to keep

On the counter list i agree with you everything other then cruiser attacking battleship and destroyer, Verses battle ship it should sink or retreat and for destroyer 50/50. Sorry I've not been to clear on the subject of the cruiser unit. The cruiser should be the cavalry of the sea and should fill the roles of scout,screener and hit and quick reinforcements.After finaly geting my head together I propose this

- Cruiser (available with Combustion + Radio): 220 , 22 , 10
+1 to line of sight, +50% when attacking destroyers , 1 or 2 Cargo space and 2 free strikes
So long as the battleships get a buff in terms of hammer needed to build it i think this would be a nice addition. The cargo space is probably the negotiable aspect but it allows more support of the land units

 

[Drakarska]

The Ticonderoga class looks like a modified Destroyer... which brings us back to my point that in Civ 4, the Destroyer unit generally covers the role of the Cruiser.

I think what you're trying to say is the following:

• Destroyers should lose their Interception bonus;
• Destroyers should lose a point or two of ;
• We should add a new unit, Cruiser, which has Interception, free Sentry promotion, and +1 or +2 over the Battleship and Destroyer;
• Cruisers should be better at ship-to-ship combat than Destroyers; and
• Cruisers should screen Battleships and Carriers.

This can be done, but I'm not convinced that it's useful. It seems to me that the abstraction in Civ 4 is such that all "screening" ships have been folded into the Destroyer unit. So this is not really the case of a "missing unit" -- it's the case of one existing unit doing two jobs, which in your mind should require two separate units.

It's possible that having two separate units would add to the game, particularly since I plan on delaying the Destroyer unit. But "possible" isn't "certain". Can you make a case for what it would add to the game?

I'd prefer to reserve the withdrawal chance for the Dreadnaught / Battleship units, which highlights their role as "sea siege" (collateral damage + withdrawal).


Hmm, just to be sure we're all on the same page, what is the expected outcome of the following battles? Answer choices are:
- Attacker wins (overwhelming)
- Attacker probably wins
- 50/50
- Defender probably wins
- Defender wins (overwhelming)

Sub attacking Battleship
Sub attacking Cruiser
Sub attacking Destroyer

Destroyer attacking Battleship
Destroyer attacking Cruiser
Destroyer attacking Destroyer

Cruiser attacking Battleship
Cruiser attacking Cruiser
Cruiser attacking Destroyer

Battleship attacking Battleship
Battleship attacking Cruiser
Battleship attacking Destroyer

Fighter dive-bombing Battleship
Fighter dive-bombing Cruiser
Fighter dive-bombing Destroyer

lol, Ok. Remind me never to take you to a navy bar with me. You pop off that the Tico is just a modded DD, and you and I will find ourselves right in the middle of a Bobby Flay throwdown with the other patrons, and not in a friendly way. Tell ya what, how about we shelve the Ageis class for right now, and concentrate on the IE CA.

1) DD's lose INT=agreed. DD's were an ASW platform, and had no specialality vs AC
2) DD's lose 1 pt mv= agreed. WWII DD's had the same SPD as FF's.
3) Agree, MV 2 instead of 1. promo's look good, I'd also give it flank 1 ( CA's were the surface hunters of the seas, and were quick), I'd also still try to give it some type of bombard vs AC though, as they carried a drekload of guns.
4) agreed
5) agreed

Hmnn, making a case. Other than the ships having a specific role, accuracy, and having a whole bunch of stuff lumped onto a DD ( which makes the Navy inside me cringe ), not really. DD's should be a cheap unit to build, role is ASW, patrol, picket, and basically the workhorse. CA's are screeners, hunters, protectors. basically, they protect your cap ships ( DD's don't) and should cost inbetween that of a DD and BB. BB's are the bully's ( cap ship), they're supposed to be expensive to build, as the rewards for having one supports it.

Sub ATT BB = DAM to BB, very rare chance to outright sink
Sub ATT CA = DAM to CA, increased % of sinking
Sub ATT DD = 50% chance to sink, should be adjusted for promos, however, DD vs Sub should be in the DD's favor, as that's what the DD's prime role is.

DD vs BB = Hello Mr. DD, did you want my attention? DEF wins overwhelminly
DD vs CA = Def wins, however, CA should get a boo boo or two
DD vs DD = 50/50 Promo's will be the deciding factor here

CA vs BB = Def wins, BB should take some dam though
CA vs CA = as per DD, promo's
CA vs DD = ATT wins

BB vs BB = break out the popcorn for Summer Slam! 50?50
BB vs CA = as above
BB vs DD = Really Sir, I swear he was there just before you said Fire!

FTR vs BB = you'd need quite a few just to make a scratch, minor damage
FTR vs CA = Someone grab my flyswatter
FTR vs DD = i'd go 50/50 on this, as as DD's din't have a lot of air protection

 

[Drakarska]

Isn't that mechanized infantry? I don't see a point of making a new unit for it maybe a promotion (that can be grabbed at level 1) after combustion. Another method would each gunpowder unit would get +1 movement but I think that might screw the balance over a little.


Same as above... the unit exists later in the game.

The only land unit i can see an argument for the Dragoon as a mounted counter to riflemen the same way chariots counter axemen. For the later eras warfare has extended mainly into the air so I think the current land units will suffice. Also it helps with the small unit impact you wish to keep

On the counter list i agree with you everything other then cruiser attacking battleship and destroyer, Verses battle ship it should sink or retreat and for destroyer 50/50. Sorry I've not been to clear on the subject of the cruiser unit. The cruiser should be the cavalry of the sea and should fill the roles of scout,screener and hit and quick reinforcements.After finaly geting my head together I propose this

- Cruiser (available with Combustion + Radio): 220 , 22 , 10
+1 to line of sight, +50% when attacking destroyers , 1 or 2 Cargo space and 2 free strikes
So long as the battleships get a buff in terms of hammer needed to build it i think this would be a nice addition. The cargo space is probably the negotiable aspect but it allows more support of the land units

Ok, merely because i'm curious, why are you wanting to give the cruiser cargo? they wern't transport ships. I could see it in the ME, as they are known to occasionally carry SEAL teams for Spec Ops, but not in the IE, as they were screeners/hunters.