Unit Strengths by Era

[King of Rasslin]

So, you can have a frigate bombard the ironclad and rush back into the safe ocean squares? I don't think so!

The ironclad should be able to travel in every ocean square, except is too fast as it is. Just a speed reduction would be appropriate. Maybe -1 defence would give the frigates more of a chance, but that might be too much.

[kring]

Ironclads were not designed for sea travel; it would sink in Sea or Ocean IRL. They were designed for relatively calm waters operations.
This would be more accurate reflection of their abilities than having them sail safely into Sea and Ocean squares. With the right ordnance, a Frigate could sink an Ironclad.

[King of Rasslin]

But the game has to be balanced. Frigates shouldn't be really weak, but they shouldn't be stronger than ironclads. By the industrial era, you shouldn't have to worry about sinking. Navy units become obsolete quickly, so they should be more useful, not weakened. Frigates are too weak, but ironclads are fine as it is, except a little fast. They should be able to travel in ocean squares just fine by the time they are available.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

The Age of Sails in the Game is too short. By restricting Ironclads to Coast, you will extend the time when you can have frigates and Man o Wars.

[Theseus]

King, a melded response:

I respect your opinions, but don't always agree.

I do think that you could be a little more openminded about other people's approaches.

And, most importantly, I throw a Persian gauntlet down... pick it up, Hiawatha!

[Arrian]

Personally, I have yet to play a game in which I felt a need to build a warship prior to destroyers. I've built frigates and ironclads, but haven't really needed to. I am not including galleys/caravels/galleons are warships because I only build them for troop transport.

So... yeah, the age of sail is too short. Ironclads should probably be restricted to coast and sea squares - no ocean.

I think the naval a/d/m needs some work. Frigates need to take out caravels and galleons pretty easily. Privateers should be able to kill galleys with ease, caravels fairly often, and galleons should be how they are: tough but doable. Frigates should be really tough on privateers. Somehow, subs ought to sink any pre-destroyer vessel w/o damage. A battleship should have its attack strength quartered if it "bumps into" and attacks a sub. They are not designed for that. Destroyers are.

Whatever, though, naval combat in all three Civ games has been screwed up, one way or the other.

-Arrian

[King of Rasslin]

Arrian, guess which ship is going to be annihilated if a battlecruiser rams into a submarine?

Ahem. Yes, destroyers should be more useful, I agree.

[King of Rasslin]

Theseus, never, ever underestimate the spirit of the mighty mounted warrior. They fight as one with the earth, sky, and water. I love my Iroquios too much to play as the Persians. Retreat is too powerful to be ignored. And here is another advantage of mounted warriors: They upgrade all the way to cavalry. Immortals are a dead end on the tech tree.

[Theseus]

King, that's kinda hard to argue with. All true.

I maintain, though, the Immortal has the longest and most advantageous period of relative strength of any unit.

And the little guys jump up and down. Very cool.

[Gen.Dragolen]

Ironclads other than Monitor and Merrimac

Arrian,

Two things to remember: all units are an abstract construct and you kinda missed a significant part of naval history. The British and French navies had a fleet of Ironclads that were steam powered and crossed all oceans of the world. Most of them looked more like the Maine (now sitting at the bottom of Havanna's harbour) than the Monitor. They were still wooden ships, but the wood was protected by iron plating. Add some masts to the Maine, and paddle wheels and that should have been the grahic they used.

As for combat strength, because of the effect hit points have on combat, Ironclads and the other modern units are woefully understrength. An Ironclad was impervious to the smoothbore cannons used on the Frigates and Man'o Wars. And the guns equipping the British Navy were bigger than the largest land artillery. High Explosive (HE) shells were introduced during that period and all this is equivalent to a 4 for attack strength against a wooden frigate with a defense of 4 ?!?!

I've been tinkering with the unit strengths and naval units got some major attention: unit strenths increased exponentially for each age and movement reduced for galleys and doubling for each age. It will take a few games to see how that affects things, but it looks promissing: no way a battleship is going to die to a single ironclad. 5 or 6, maybe, but not to one...

[kring]

Re: Ironclads other than Monitor and Merrimac

Originally posted by Gen.Dragolen

Most of them looked more like the Maine (now sitting at the bottom of Havanna's harbour) than the Monitor.

The Maine was dug out of the harbor to investigate what actually happened (which is still debated to this day), was subsequently towed out of the harbor and sunk off the coast of Cuba. I learned this on the History Channel several months back.

Here is a link:USS Maine

I agree the naval aspect is missing a lot; I myself have played a number of games with 60%+ water where my navy was very limited since the AI didn't build enough of one to make it a worthwhile investment for me to max out my navy.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by pcasey
Until somebody had a bright idea that pretty much fixed the problem.

STACKING

All we need to do to fix this problem is put a stacking limit in place in the game.

That was the solution that CTP2 used to fix this problem and I must say it worked very well.

[Gen.Dragolen]

Re: Re: Ironclads other than Monitor and Merrimac

Originally posted by kring


The Maine was dug out of the harbor to investigate what actually happened (which is still debated to this day), was subsequently towed out of the harbor and sunk off the coast of Cuba. I learned this on the History Channel several months back.

Here is a link:USS Maine

I agree the naval aspect is missing a lot; I myself have played a number of games with 60%+ water where my navy was very limited since the AI didn't build enough of one to make it a worthwhile investment for me to max out my navy.

########################################

Kring,

Here's a link to a picture of the HMS Warrior, the British Navy's first Ironclad:

http://www.hmswarrior.org/images/serv2.jpg

The most interesting part of the whole situation is that the Ironclads were obsolete within a few years in favour of ships that were exactly like the Maine: all steel construction.

Well since it's only a game, no one said their history had to play out exactly like our own...

[kring]

Re: Re: Re: Ironclads other than Monitor and Merrimac

Originally posted by Gen.Dragolen

########################################

Kring,

Here's a link to a picture of the HMS Warrior, the British Navy's first Ironclad:

http://www.hmswarrior.org/images/serv2.jpg

The most interesting part of the whole situation is that the Ironclads were obsolete within a few years in favour of ships that were exactly like the Maine: all steel construction.

Well since it's only a game, no one said their history had to play out exactly like our own...

When I think of Ironclad (based on the icon used in the game and its civpedia entry), an all metal ship comes to my mind, since there were other ships around the world that used iron/steel plating over wood.


And on your last comment, I use it on a regular basis when people are decrying the lack of realism in the game, based on Earth realism. Even if you play an Earth game, with Civ Placement Tool so all civs start where they originally did, the game will not mirror Earth history anywhere near accurately.

Thank you for the picture.

[Gen.Dragolen]

The Monitor

kring,

You're welcome. Nice site for the USS Maine too. Thanks.

I've got a game on the go right now where I am the 2nd largest civ after the outragiously accented French and have been building a navy of ironclads to keep them from invading. I was stuck waiting to discover steel before I could start updating the navy to destroyers and subs. I've been making them for about 150 years in game time, and so far so good. With the changes I made in the editor, they are actually viable. I've seen the French Navy with several Privateers trying to bombard my coast and 3-4 ironclads just out of sight in deep water.

Since the naval units were such a mess, I've overhauled the unit strengths using the editor and the results have been interesting: I can sink a galley with an ironclad and not risk getting sunk. I made the ironclad an 8(8)/8/10 unit and the galley a 2/2/2 unit. Galleons and Privateers are 4(4)/4/6 units and Frigates are 6(6)/6/8 units. This seems to work better as the naval units get to destinations faster, and with the increase bombardment values, they finally match the land based cannons.

It makes navies a little more interesting since they can appear out of no where and have some nasty firepower. Can't wait to see how a full blown naval engagement goes.


If you feel like reading some more, see below:

Minor History Lesson
(skip if you have read more history than a reasonably normal person)

What made the Ironclad warship a 30 year blip in naval history is that a guy named Bessemer in Germany found a way of purifying iron and making it stronger by adding carbon. The furnace was called a Bessemer converter and it was able to heat iron hot enough to make the carbon bond to the iron atoms. High carbon steel had a much higher strength per pound compared to iron and once they got the hang of it, it was much easier to work into parts, rails and sheets. It allowed them to build ships big enough they would float properly and not break apart in rough seas. Cast iron is very brittle compared to steel and hard to keep the consistency uniform in large volumes.

This is what I get for not sleeping in Engineer Metalurgy class...