What's missing, unit-wise?

[damerell]

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.

Not even in the ME. Civ 4 units are surely bigger than that; an America "SEAL Team" represents marines with SEALs. It won't fit on a cruiser.

 

[Drakarska]

Not even in the ME. Civ 4 units are surely bigger than that; an America "SEAL Team" represents marines with SEALs. It won't fit on a cruiser.

Um, wrong. SEAL teams are Navy, not Marines. And fm personal experiance, a SEAL team will be tasked to a DD, CA, CV, Sub, whatever vessel that they're TAD to. And room will be made upon said vessel, even if some of the standard crew needs to be TAD elsewhere.

EDIT: ok, just reread your post, and mine may have come off wrong, apologies. Aloow me to rephrease. In Civ IV terms, I could see a CA unit with 1 cargo capable of holding a SEAL unit ( or equivilant, depending on Civ) for a Spec Op mission

 

[damerell]

Um, wrong. SEAL teams are Navy, not Marines. And fm personal experiance, a SEAL team will be tasked to a DD, CA, CV, Sub, whatever vessel that they're TAD to.

Then I should say what I considered saying when you were rambling on about your personal favourite destroyer variant. We're talking Civ mechanics, not minituae about the US military.

 

[Drakarska]

Then I should say what I considered saying when you were rambling on about your personal favourite destroyer variant. We're talking Civ mechanics, not minituae about the US military.

Wow. So much for accepting an apology after being extended. I'll attempt to be more concise and articulate so as not to offend your analytical perception of my "
ramblings".

As for minituae, I understand. It would be similar to me comparing your SAS to your coast guard. Just civ mechanics, nothing special.

 

[Culture Bomb]

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.

By that reasoning, we shouldn't have tanks because modern armor exists later in the game, or horse archers because we have knights. Or knights because of cuirassiers.

The real reason I suggested them is that it would be nice to have a defensive unit that could keep up with tanks to defend the territory they have taken, and a collateral damage/bombardment unit that could also keep up with tanks. This would go a fair way to reducing the tedium of 1-tile-per turn movement through enemy territory and make fighting wars less boring in this era.

 

[6K Man]

In terms of navy, you can go two ways, IMO:

Add a single ship type to bridge the huge gap between Frigate/SotL/Ironclad and Destroyer. Perhaps a STR 20, MV 4 unit, available around Steam Power. Call it a pre-dreadnought or call it an ironclad battleship (and get rid of the existing Ironclad). I’d be happy with this.

OR

Add the pre-dreadnought type and some additional later ship types. But if you’re going to have multiple ‘modern’ warship types, they should have specialized roles, in my view – if a new unit becomes available around the same time as Destroyers and Battleships do, nobody will build it if it’s just a slightly weaker (stronger) version of a Battleship (Destroyer).

Destroyers, IMO, shouldn’t be as strong as they now are versus Battleships (2-3 Civ4 Destroyers are almost guaranteed to beat a Civ4 Battleship, and that doesn’t make sense). Destroyers should have a bonus against Submarines and should be weak against other Oil/Uranium powered ships, and I don’t see why they should have an intercept chance.

Missile Cruisers should have a bonus against air units and Guided Missiles, but shouldn’t be as strong vs other ships as they are now (40 STR doesn’t make sense for a ship that gets most of its offensive punch from its missile load). Effectively, a “Missile Cruiser” would be equal to modern destroyers/cruisers (Sovremenny/Type 42/Burke/Ticonderoga type ships).

Carriers should be weak against surface units and submarines, but should be no weaker against Guided Missiles than anything else is (reflecting point-defense systems on modern carriers). They also ought to be faster than MV 5 (Battleships are 6, Destroyers are 8, and Missile Cruisers are 7 – in reality, most carriers were as fast or faster than most battleships and modern carriers are about as fast as modern missile cruisers and destroyers)

If you add a ‘conventional’ Cruiser (a large WWII era Cruiser – any of the County/Town/Brooklyn/New Orleans/Hipper/Zara/Mogami classes would fit), it should be as fast as a Destroyer, much stronger than a Destroyer is, and much weaker than a Battleship. Given the historical use of cruisers for scouting, perhaps give the Cruiser a free Sentry promotion?

Hammer costs ought to be adjusted as well – Destroyers and Submarines should be much cheaper than Battleships and Carriers, Cruisers ought to be somewhere in between. This would reflect the reality that DD’s and submarines were built in large numbers (hundreds were built by the US, UK, and Germany in WWII) and BBs and CVs were much more expensive to build and were produced in relatively small numbers. Expensive BBs and CVs would have to be heavily escorted by DDs and CAs, lest they fall victim to submarine (or for CVs, submarine and surface) attack.

 

[nfw]

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.

If a dinky little sailboat can carry a spy or great person, I'd say a modern warship should too.

 

[Flying Mathias]

Something in-between Archers and Crossbows/Longbows.

(Too much naval discussion)

 

[kristopherb]

By that reasoning, we shouldn't have tanks because modern armor exists later in the game, or horse archers because we have knights. Or knights because of cuirassiers.

The real reason I suggested them is that it would be nice to have a defensive unit that could keep up with tanks to defend the territory they have taken, and a collateral damage/bombardment unit that could also keep up with tanks. This would go a fair way to reducing the tedium of 1-tile-per turn movement through enemy territory and make fighting wars less boring in this era.

Not exactly. For clarity I consider tanks to be of WWII era and as far I know there wasn't any artillery that could keep up with the tanks. Also adding this 2 movement artillery earlier will make tank rushing broken because you can upgrade the artillery. ATM you need to build the tank and bomber units nothing can upgrade into them. as for the "we shouldn't have tanks because modern armor exists later in the game" its only a few techs between artilllery and mobile artillery as aposed to the tech difference of horse archers and knights. I like the current land units because they "chase after each other" ie one unit changes therefore another unit changes to support it.

As for the unit between archer and longbowman, I have never noticed the need ,so i don't think a unit would be needed (less is more). Maybe a buff when a curtain tech is obtained.

What do other people think of the idea?, when a tech is obtained unit or units receive a buff ie axemen get a reduction in hammers needed when iron working is obtained.

 

[calibur]

Not exactly. For clarity I consider tanks to be of WWII era and as far I know there wasn't any artillery that could keep up with the tanks. Also adding this 2 movement artillery earlier will make tank rushing broken because you can upgrade the artillery. ATM you need to build the tank and bomber units nothing can upgrade into them. as for the "we shouldn't have tanks because modern armor exists later in the game" its only a few techs between artilllery and mobile artillery as aposed to the tech difference of horse archers and knights. I like the current land units because they "chase after each other" ie one unit changes therefore another unit changes to support it.

As for the unit between archer and longbowman, I have never noticed the need ,so i don't think a unit would be needed (less is more). Maybe a buff when a curtain tech is obtained.

What do other people think of the idea?, when a tech is obtained unit or units receive a buff ie axemen get a reduction in hammers needed when iron working is obtained.

It's a great idea, the buff thing. It would remove the need to add almost all new units people were considering. Plus, improvements get bonuses with techs, why not units?
Although, would it improve old ones or just new?

 

[kristopherb]

It's a great idea, the buff thing. It would remove the need to add almost all new units people were considering. Plus, improvements get bonuses with techs, why not units?
Although, would it improve old ones or just new?

Both... But i have found a problem, lets take a standard archer and say we wish to give it boost of 1STR halfway to longbowmen which tech do we allocate the buff to? there no obvious choice. Though to simplify things you could "screw realisim" and say around the X tech should give the boost, just becuase the unit needs a boost when going forward into a new era. And because the unit would be active for such it would be natural for the units to get better over time.

Just a general idea....
Axemen gain a production drop at iron working
Galleon gain a production drop at replaceable parts and a movement increase at steam power
Paratroopers gain extra range at advanced flight
as an example of my statement above
Archer gains 1STR at monarchy or writing.

 

[calibur]

Both... But i have found a problem, lets take a standard archer and say we wish to give it boost of 1STR halfway to longbowmen which tech do we allocate the buff to? there no obvious choice. Though to simplify things you could "screw realisim" and say around the X tech should give the boost, just becuase the unit needs a boost when going forward into a new era. And because the unit would be active for such it would be natural for the units to get better over time.

Just a general idea....
Axemen gain a production drop at iron working
Galleon gain a production drop at replaceable parts and a movement increase at steam power
Paratroopers gain extra range at advanced flight
as an example of my statement above
Archer gains 1STR at monarchy or writing.

Do all of the regular unit techs make sense? Longbowmen with feudalism?
Plus, mathematics could make sense. They could calculate mathematical angles and stuff to increase accuracy. Bronze and iron of course make sense to increase power.

 

[pigswill]

I've only skimmed the thread so this may have been suggested already.

Bridging the gap between frigates and destroyers:

SotL gets +50% vs all wooden ships (galley, trireme, caravel, galleon frigate, privateer +UUs such as carrack and eastindiaman).

Ironclads require steam+astronomy but are ocean-going rather than coastal.

 

[kristopherb]

I've only skimmed the thread so this may have been suggested already.

Bridging the gap between frigates and destroyers:

SotL gets +50% vs all wooden ships (galley, trireme, caravel, galleon frigate, privateer +UUs such as carrack and eastindiaman).

Ironclads require steam+astronomy but are ocean-going rather than coastal.

- Armored Frigate (available with Astronomy + Military Science + Steel): 120 , 12 , 4 (+2 with Steam Power), replaces Ship of the Line.

- Dreadnought (available with Astronomy + Steel + Steam Power): 180 , 20 , 4 , deals collateral damage, 50% withdrawal chance, upgrades to Battleship.

I think we have that gap sorted, but i have a question for dr null why replace ship of the line why not a later version?

 

[Dr.Null]

I think we have that gap sorted, but i have a question for dr null why replace ship of the line why not a later version?

"Later version" means something like Protected Cruiser, or Armored Cruiser?

No particular reason, except the idea was that this ship encompasses a naval role that spans both sides of Steam Power. We could go with "Armored Cruiser" and that would probably be equally (in)correct.

Is that what you mean?

 

[kristopherb]

"Later version" means something like Protected Cruiser, or Armored Cruiser?

No particular reason, except the idea was that this ship encompasses a naval role that spans both sides of Steam Power. We could go with "Armored Cruiser" and that would probably be equally (in)correct.

Is that what you mean?

Yeah...At the time of typing i was horizontal and half a asleep. Keep the ship of the line and add an armoured frigate or boost its strength when a tech is researched?

 

[Dr.Null]

Yeah...At the time of typing i was horizontal and half a asleep. Keep the ship of the line and add an armoured frigate or boost its strength when a tech is researched?

I'd prefer to ditch the SotL. I just don't see what it offers over a Frigate. If there's a need to show that Military Science won naval battles, I'd rather just give an attack bonus to the Frigate at that tech.

So, with the addition of a Cruiser unit, the naval upgrade paths would look like this:

Galley --> Galleon+ 4, 3 --> Transport 16, 5

Trireme --> Caravel 3, 3 --> Frigate++ 8, 3 --> Armored Frigate+ 12, 3 --> Cruiser 16, 6 --> Missile Cruiser 24, 7
Cruisers and Missile Cruisers gain access to Interception promotions.
Missile Cruisers have a 30% base interception chance.
Cruisers gain +50% to attack and defense vs. all surface ships.
Cruisers and Missile Cruisers gain the Sentry promotion for free.

Destroyer 20, 5 --> Stealth Destroyer 24, 5
Destroyer units are immune to First Strikes.
Destroyer units gain +100% to attack vs. Submarine units.

Dreadnought 20, 4 --> Battleship 40, 5
These units inflict Collateral damage, and have a base 50% withdrawal chance.

Submarine 24, 4
Attack Submarine 30, 5
Both submarine units gain some First Strikes, and have access to the Drill promotions.

Carrier 16, 5

+ gains a +1 speed bonus at Steam Power.
+ gains a +50% bonus when attacking at Military Science.

- - -

Differences from previous:
- Roles defined for Battleship, Cruiser, and Destroyer.
- Battleship is anti-ship and anti-stack.
- Cruiser is scout, air defense, anti-ship (mop-up).
- Destroyer is anti-sub (and perhaps mop-up).
- Carrier is air attack.
- Subs are anti-ship, with Drill they will tend to avoid collateral if in a stack.
- No more torpedo boat: that role goes to the Cruiser, which is a better upgrade unit anyway.

Design Goals:
- Now that everything upgrades to a Cruiser, there's an opportunity for anti-Cruiser units to shine (Subs, Fighters, and Battleships).
- Privateer also upgrades to Cruiser (via Armored Frigate). This means there's no more point in stock-piling Privateers just for the free promotion, which was icky metagame thinking.
- Role matters: what proportion of your ship production goes to Dreadnoughts rather than Frigates?

Thoughts?

 

[kristopherb]

I'm still iffy with your choice to remove a well balanced unit, the trees above seem sound I have arguments but with lack of mentioning iron clads. May i suggest keeping the ship of the line and push armoured frigates back, making a SoTl a cheaper alternative to armoured frigates and a slightly earlier tech. Regarding Iron clads increase the strength to make these units a hard to crack so you can sure up your coastline till cruisers. If you plan to mod this, have you considered a stack limitations say 15units per tile.

 

[damerell]

If you plan to mod this, have you considered a stack limitations say 15units per tile.

I don't know about Dr Null, but for my part, I don't see how one gets from "let's add a few missing units" to "and let's fiddle around with something as fundamental as unit stacking". It's a bit like going to make a sandwich, and incidentally replacing the oven while you're in the kitchen.

 

[Dr.Null]

I'm still iffy with your choice to remove a well balanced unit, the trees above seem sound I have arguments but with lack of mentioning iron clads.

I have no problem leaving Ironclads, but I don't feel they particularly add to the game.

May i suggest keeping the ship of the line and push armoured frigates back, making a SoTl a cheaper alternative to armoured frigates and a slightly earlier tech. Regarding Iron clads increase the strength to make these units a hard to crack so you can sure up your coastline till cruisers.

The problem I have with this is:
- Ironclads were not slow.
- Ironclads were intended to fill the role of high-seas battleship.

Basically, my Armored Frigate is an Ironclad.

If you want to propose some sort of "floating battery" unit which is Coastal and slow and fills the role of the current Civ4 Ironclad, I'm open to suggestion, but keeping an inaccurate Ironclad unit seems like a bad trade-off.

---

Regarding unit stacking limits: this mod is not the place for that.

However, note that the Dreadnaught and Battleship are explicitly designed to punish stacks, since they now inflict Collateral. This means there ought to be some upside to spreading your units into multiple stacks rather than the current default ("one stack to rule them all").

---

Regarding coastal defense, I wonder if the Naval game would benefit from something like "+10% defense within your borders" instead of "+10% defense in coastal waters". Knowing the reefs, rocks, tides & currents in your local waters really should have counted for something; and in the modern era, this bonus would represent better supply and communication from land-based forces.

(It would also make early Barbarian Galleys less annoying.)

This mod is probably not the place for that idea, either.