1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

wow Missile Cruisers suck!

Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by King Phaedron, Aug 22, 2020.

  1. King Phaedron

    King Phaedron Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2017
    Messages:
    93
    Gender:
    Male
    If you stick around long enough, the AI will have lots and lots of Nuclear Submarine Armada's. Even one Nuclear Submarine is a serious threat to an Armada of Missile Cruisers.

    I understand that they are upgrades of the Privateer's formally used for pillaging and attacking land units, but how does it make sense for Submarines to attack units on land? Also, they can't go under ice anymore, and Helicopters can't go over mountains. That makes me not want to use them. Esp the Helicopter, as all Aluminum goes to planes leaving Oil for Tanks and Artillery.

    Remember in Civilization 5, how the Battleships and Missile Cruisers were kings of the sea? They barely do any damage to late game cities, They detect Subarmines but can't deal with them at all. Their basically nothing more then an Anti-Air and Submarine Detectors, and I don't see the point of ever having more then one in a Navy. Compared to Planes, Nukes, and Death Robots, they are absolute garbage.

    They aren't even worth using in Water Heavy Games, compared to Aircraft Carriers and a Destroyer to capture. (Although it takes like 20 Jet Bombers to beat down a late game city, the bombers are nothing more then nuclear delivery systems, which the Subs can also do just as well.)

    Even if Submarines weren't all that in Civ5, Subs are invisible and carry nukes. That alone is enough to make them very useful, especially when fighting other players. They are faster and invisible compared to aircraft carriers, and being able to move under ice, had greater access for unleashing nukes. I actually designed a few maps for Civ5, very cold worlds full of ice, where Subs were extremely useful.

    But I guess they have to be this way. All of your good privateers become subs, and the problem in Civ5 was that if you promoted to Subs, you lost their coastal raiding and pillaging abilities. I don't mind their coastal raiding, but at least if they could not attack land units, Missile Cruisers would actually be worth using.

    How am I getting just seeing this now? Because it's my first game playing after the year 2000 in "One More Turn" Sure Missile Crusiers are great if you intend to conquer the world the moment you discover them. But if you give the AI enough time to actually become competent and make good units, you begin to see the truth about how much they really suck.

    TLDR - Nuclear Submarines are ridiculously overpowered, Missile Cruisers totally suck and aren't worth using except to detect subs. Imagine if Anti-Cavalry were twice as strong against Cavalry and also got to be invisible like a fully promoted Special Ops unit, that's about how bad it is when a Missile Cruiser goes up against a Nuclear Submarine. They have the ability to detect them, but not actually contend with them. Just design choice. /sarcasm. (P.S. this not the German Uboat, just Subs from every Civ in my game)

    BTW: Why was I able to build an Aircraft Carrier Fleet, but CANNOT join it together with a regular one to make an Armada? I can build the Armada's directly but can't join them together.

    This game and it's inconsistent rules gets me every time. Civilization 6 is essentially the hot bimbo of gaming. It thinks because it looks pretty and sounds pretty that it can get away with sucking.

    BTW I had a Missle Crusier Armada brush up against a lone Roman Nuclear Sub Armada. But since the AI worships the player, though I was at war With Rome and in their lands, the sub left when it would've brought me down into red with one attack. Me, not willing to accept the babyish patronizing, deleted the Missile Cruiser on the very next turn.
     
    Last edited: Aug 22, 2020
    Piranga likes this.
  2. Pietato

    Pietato Emperor

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2014
    Messages:
    1,727
    Location:
    New Zealand
  3. Archon_Wing

    Archon_Wing Vote for me or die

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2005
    Messages:
    4,916
    Gender:
    Male
    Missile Cruisers are more meant for land bombardment with their 3 (4 with drone/balloon) Subs counter them so obviously they are good against them. Just a destroyer or two is usually enough to screen them.
     
    Last edited: Aug 23, 2020
  4. Sostratus

    Sostratus Deity

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2017
    Messages:
    2,289
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Minnesota, USA
    While Phaedron is certainly producing a high volume of posts lately, of somewhat controversial takes, in this specific instance he is not incorrect.

    Let us quickly observe some data on the pairs of units:
    upload_2020-8-22_16-31-25.png

    Now, notably, BB and Missile Cruiser have the attack type naval bombard, which allows for full damage against fortifications*** and they have anti air ability. Missiles Cruisers 110 base also allows some critical matchups vs jet aircraft that land based defenses don't- namely, missile cruiser armada can one shot a jet bomber on interception. (Which is effectively irrelevant vs AI, but still.)

    However, look at how low the melee strength of Missile cruisers is and how high the melee power of nuke subs is. In naval combat terms, why is the invisible ranged attacker fighting on par with a destroyer (which is also 80 strength) ?
    One can excuse battleship vs submarine since they are almost different eras, despite what the tech tree claims, and BBs use coal while your subs need oil. But Nuke subs don't need any resources. This is the most absurd part of it all. Even destroyers need oil and destroyers only allow you to see nuke subs. And missile cruisers are incredibly fragile.

    I wrote about this in my simple balance mod, but i think for naval units to work submarines should probably be balanced like skimishers (good attack, very low defense) while naval melee ought to be on par with land melee, and naval ranged is more like heavy cavalry. The resource usage kills most players actually using a navy, but if you do use naval units and consider a competent enemy admiral, its horribly balanced. Spamming nuke subs is absolutely the best play in a pitched naval fight due to that melee factor + resourceless.

    **perhaps a coding oversight, but naval bombard is affected by hidden wall resistance of 50% like any ranged unit, which land siege units are not. They just don't suffer the displayed -17.
     
    Last edited: Aug 22, 2020
    Atlas627, Myomoto, Pietato and 2 others like this.
  5. DogeEnricoDandolo

    DogeEnricoDandolo Prince

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2017
    Messages:
    394
    Gender:
    Male
    Wow I never know drones and balloons work with naval ranged units, I thought they only worked with siege units.
     
    SirWill90 likes this.
  6. Haig

    Haig Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2010
    Messages:
    2,537
    Location:
    Finland
    Real world submarines can launch missiles to strike units on land so that is not unrealistic. Also during WW1 German uboats bombarded coastal towns.
     
    nzcamel likes this.
  7. Laurana Kanan

    Laurana Kanan Don’t underestimate who I am.

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2014
    Messages:
    2,846
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Near the Greatest Snow on Earth
    I don't see how they can. Missile Cruisers don't have the proper TypeTag assigned to them for drones/balloons to attach the range bonus.
     
    Sostratus likes this.
  8. Archon_Wing

    Archon_Wing Vote for me or die

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2005
    Messages:
    4,916
    Gender:
    Male
    They don't, must have confused the things giving sight allowing them to fire at things they can't see normally.
     
  9. DogeEnricoDandolo

    DogeEnricoDandolo Prince

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2017
    Messages:
    394
    Gender:
    Male
    Yup, just tested. Ships dont benefit from drones and balloons. Maybe also that is why naval units still receive 50% resistance from walls and urban defenses.
     
  10. Sostratus

    Sostratus Deity

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2017
    Messages:
    2,289
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Minnesota, USA
    I haven’t looked in a while, but Does anyone know if the classes affected by wall resistance can be adjusted using the xml/how that is defined? (And if the % resistance can be changed.)
    I think the “Akkad effect” modifier can be repurposed to globally apply to all naval ranged if we want to make them act like siege units, though.
     
  11. Pietato

    Pietato Emperor

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2014
    Messages:
    1,727
    Location:
    New Zealand
    Valid point. But Missile Cruisers are used for their range and AA, which is why he was wrong.

    Of course the AI only uses like 2 planes a game, and another player would flood you with subs sooo...I guess it just comes down to whether you want to bombard a city with Missile Cruisers or use Aircraft Carriers (which are made of paper).
     
  12. Sostratus

    Sostratus Deity

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2017
    Messages:
    2,289
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Minnesota, USA
    Oh of course, their shore bombardment role is certainly why anyone would choose to build them right now. And they definitely dominate subs in that role.
    In the currently nonexistent scope that is real naval combat, what I said would apply. It’s very sad that a lot of changes in Civ6 have made the navy pretty worthless, and thus it’s gotten no real attention since launch.
     
  13. Bibor

    Bibor Doomsday Machine

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2004
    Messages:
    2,946
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Zagreb, Croatia
    Wait, there are naval units past Frigates in civ6? :lol:
    Oh yeah, I seem to remember accidentaly upgrading some.

    I don’t understand why firaxis is delegating “looking at numbers” to mods and community.
     
    acluewithout likes this.
  14. oSiyeza

    oSiyeza Prince

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2013
    Messages:
    544
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Spain
    I think is good that different modern naval classes have very different distint roles. At less this is what the game tries to do.

    Again, I think the proble is that the AI has not been programmed to use them accordingly. So late naval game can be very frustrating, as the AI ignores carriers and basically spams late navy units as if they are the far less specialysed ancient counterparts.

    As a result, the player is often an absolute king of the sea in late game, without ever needing a balanced navy. Or without ever needing to use the roles the different navy classes have.

    Also as late navy confrontations never happen, Fxs has not balanced these classes as much as other units that you actually use in the game. So even there are some strange overlapps and weird things.

    Regarding helicopters, is not an terely bad decission to make them ignore terrain types, but not cross high mountains, as this is not totally untrue, but more importantly reduces the overlapp between them and planes. Here the problem is again, that the AI has no idea of how to use them, or how to use planes.

    To me, this is the reason why using late game units and late game war always feels bad in this game. I understand the OP frustration, but I think is directed towards the wrong direction here.

    The problems is that Fxs never cared for making late war a thing, despite implementing more modern military units and tactics than in any other stage of the game, the decided to implement the late game making the AI behave like social justice hippies (pun intended).
     
    Last edited: Aug 24, 2020
  15. Linklite

    Linklite Prince

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2019
    Messages:
    327
    Gender:
    Male
    The thing is, I don't think it's a "late game" thing so much as a "complex decision" thing. Before you get to the late game, all decisions can more or less be made in the sense of "Can I hit it? Yes, hit. No, move closer. Rinse, lather, repeat." As you get closer to the end, to use units effectively the decision tree is far more complex. Bombers are particularly hard to program for, since they are generally capable of hitting almost anything of relevance. Helping the AI prioritise targets etc must be a complete headache. Tie that with the fact that generally if you've survived till that point, you are now snowballing and the AI is programmed to be intimidated by that.

    I'm hesitant to rip into Firaxis about it though; programming AI is hard, and that level of intelligence is hard.
     
    CoconutTank, Atlas627 and Deadly Dog like this.
  16. Sostratus

    Sostratus Deity

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2017
    Messages:
    2,289
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Minnesota, USA
    Some firm or enterprise really needs to figure out a solid AI that can handle hex grid 1UPT type combat assuming:
    • Melee and ranged attacks exist
    • Conditional combat bonuses come into play
    • Terrain costs are not uniform
    • Objectives exist on the map
    And then license that AI to all the studios that use that sort of thing. Really point 2 and 3 are going to be inherent to a good system anyways. But if Intelligent Systems could do it for Advance Wars series on a square grid 20 years ago- and very well, I recently dusted an entry off to observe its AI- then someone can do it now. A lot of games have combat that is easily mapped to what I just described.

    (Intelligent also makes fire emblem and paper Mario. I mention Advance Wars as it includes naval combat which is relevant here.)
     
    CoconutTank likes this.
  17. oSiyeza

    oSiyeza Prince

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2013
    Messages:
    544
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Spain
    This problem has been (sufficiently) solved. Yes programming AI is hard, but lets be honest. Every aspect in video game design is hard.

    Civ 6 seems too had at least 50-100 people working in it, with maybe around 20 people in modeling and animation, and other 10-20 in codding... and as far as we know 1-2 guys in AI with the help of some people with testing. What outcome did you expect?

    The ugly truth of AI that in videogames that I learnt after some years of teaching in videogame design and researching in AI in college, is that while perfect AI is impossible, a good AI is not as hard to get nowadays, it just needs time, care and resources. Time, care and resources companies do not give to the AI design.

    To put in on a simile, you all know 200 million dollar movies that are a mess in story. The reason is that scriptwriting needs time, care, and talent. And having a good script is not that complicated to do. Just give it time, and put care in it, and hire some talented writers (there are tons of unemployed and underpaid incredibly talented writers out there) and you maybe will not have an awesome piece of art, but you will have a competent writing. Why then in multimillion-dollar movies writing is as bad so often? Simply cause script is not a priority in those movies. The same happens in AI.
     
  18. Linklite

    Linklite Prince

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2019
    Messages:
    327
    Gender:
    Male
    You can't compare really Advance Wars with Civ VI, AW was far more focused. And weren't the maps all pre made? If I remember rightly, the nature of the units was fairly standardised too. Been a long time since I played it, though.

    With Civ VI, the AI has to do a lot of work, of which combat is but a small part, all using generic rule sets because the maps are for the most part procedurally generated. It's not that the AI is impossible to create, it's just not as simple as it sounds and an AI that was actually good at Civ VI is something that would be highly praiseworthy.

    I don't think it helped that, from what I can gather (I've only played Civ VI), they fundamentally changed how the game works, ap rather than incrementally improving old AI, they had to start again.
     
    Atlas627 likes this.
  19. bitula

    bitula Prince

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Messages:
    416
    I don't think more than 1 or 2 guys is possible, since AI programming requires all algorythm information to be centered in one "head". Otherwise it would result in a more inconsistent and inferior outcome. Typical case of more is less scenario.
     
    Atlas627 likes this.
  20. Sostratus

    Sostratus Deity

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2017
    Messages:
    2,289
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Minnesota, USA
    Combat is pretty independent of other AI functions. For example, it only interacts with the rest of the AI insofar as the Ai decides it's time for war, what they want to take out, and how many resources to devote to making new units.
    The actual fighting though, is it's own thing. And in that regard you are just looking to say "how should I, in general, have the Ai approach using an arbitrary set of units on arbitrary terrain to take an arbitrary objective" which sounds very verbose, but mirrors what i mentioned earlier.
    For clarification, AW campaigns seem to have some "special adjustments" but the other modes, including player made maps, seem to all be the same general purpose AI. If there's a problem with how many units the AI can muster, that can be tweaked easily. The issue most people complain about is that they don't use their units very effectively. Which many games struggle with, and the vast majority of recent turn based 4X games have combat that all maps onto the same thing.

    That would not make the navy matter more though. There are other design designs that have sidelined the Big Blue from relevance.
     

Share This Page