AU mod: Amphibious Units

[ducki]

why build a CF?

For the potshots it'll take at their ships, making it even easier for my stack of artillery/cannon to send them packing or run a privateer/frigate up and only have a damaged ship to have to sink/enslave.
And sending the AI shields to hang out with Davey Jones.

Sometimes when I have a neat harbor-like formation of the sea or an area the AI will obviously be approaching, I build these things solely for the potshots. That's still in, isn't it? Or am I misremembering? I sometimes have places where I really don't need to build improvements/units, don't have wonders to work on or just "feel" like putting one of these in.
It's kinda like Colosseums - I rarely build them, very rarely, but sometimes I'll do it just because.

[Kuciwalker]

There goes my lack of Conquests experience again. Got the game finally - just waiting to finish of my current PtW conquest-fest before starting with the new stuff. I don't imagine the Dromon would be a huge problem: due to the lack of ancient era naval warfare in a big way, how useful really is it in practice? Or is it intended to be one of those mediocre UUs that make up for a good set of civ traits? FX: wanders off to do some quick researcj. Byzantines: seafaring, scientific. A reasonable, but not brilliant pairing. Does that mean the dromon could do with the boost of enabling the Byzantines to have effective ancient era amphibious attacks? Or would that make them overpowered?

IMO the Dromon is not a "mediocre" UU - it is the strongest naval unit until Frigates, and the bombard IS useful. The fact that it has a 100% attack bonus over normal Galleys makes it completely rule the seas - nothing can touch it.

[Jaguar]

The Byzantines are up and away the best civ in the game on archipelagos.

[Theseus]

Re: AU mod: Amphibious Units

Originally posted by alexman
The problem:

As mentioned in the Naval Bombardment thread, the C3C AI prefers to bombard cities instead of resources, even when it doesn’t follow up with ground or amphibious attacks. The units bombarded by the AI heal in the next turn, often resulting in no damage suffered by the bombarded civilization. On the other hand, if you leave your cities undefended, the AI will not bombard them, which encourages the counter-intuitive strategy of leaving coastal cities undefended until Marines (or Berserks) are available. The AI, of course, does not follow this strategy.

First, I am not so sure this is the problem, really. Uh no, re-state: the problem is that AI naval bombardment is messed up, pure and simple, not the impact on player behavior.

I could argue that I'd just as likely leave defenders in my coastal cities, so I know where the AI civs' ships are!

Second, the proposed solution(s), while very creative, are just waaaay to radical for lil' ol' me.

[Catt]

Re: Re: AU mod: Amphibious Units

Originally posted by Theseus

I could argue that I'd just as likely leave defenders in my coastal cities, so I know where the AI civs' ships are!

That never even occured to me (or has been voiced, I think, by anyone in this thread) . . . but that is one hell of a potential tactic / exploit (pick your poison) to the present AI naval bombardment algorithm.

(And I agree that AI naval bombardment is broken).

Catt

[nbarclay]

I think this is way too big a change for the AU Mod. This idea isn't just a minor tweak that makes a weak strategy a little stronger or a strong one a little weaker. It's a major paradigm shift.

There is also a serious problem in that the attack bonus for Marines and Beserks in amphibious assaults makes sense only under the assumption that those units are specially trained for that role and are operating outside their training when used for more conventional assaults. (And I find even that much of a rationalization a serious stretch.) The idea of giving conventional forces greater attacking power trying to land from ships than they have attacking overland strikes me as completely absurd. Yet if that bonus is inherent in the ability to engage in amphibious assaults under the Civ 3 rules, any unit that we give the ability to conduct amphibious assaults at all will get it.

There are also serious problems with the entire nature of amphibious warfare in Civ 3. First, Civ 3 has no cheap picket ship or reconnaisance aircraft units to provide warning. Second, transports that can get from a friendly port to their landing zone in a single turn pose no risk of getting sunk with troops abord; there really ought to be a mechanism through which aircraft, ships, and land-based artillery automatically attack approaching ships before they can land. (And aircraft and artillery should target transports specifically and ignore the escorts under such circumstances. Also, damage to loaded transports - including galleys carrying troops - should be reflected in damage to the units being carried.) Third, amphibious assaults against defended targets are pretty much invariably more expensive than an overland assault against the same target would be. Thus, standard procedure in the real world is to find a relatively undefended stretch of coast to land on and have the forces march overland to secure their main objectives. Fourth, lines of supply when attacking by sea are an enormous problem, and are not reflected in Civ at all. And fifth,the sheer number of troops that can participate in a single amphibious assault in Civ is a bit absurd. Landing that many troops in a single turn might be reasonable, but they couldn't all participate in a single invasion wave and the defender would have an opportunity to replace losses and reinforce between waves if he can beat off the initial attack.

There are good reasons why amphibious operations, and especially amphibious operations against well-protected targets, tend to be used only when the attacker has no real alternative. In the absence of Civ rules reflecting those reasons, I don't like the idea of making the ability for units to conduct amphibious assaults widespread.

Nathan

P.S. The title of this thread is a bit misleading, since "Amphibious Units" looks as if it's talking about existing amphibious units, not about giving amphibious ability to conventional units.

[Myrddin]

How about adding amphibious attack to the Modern Paratroop to make it more useful?

[Modo44]

Sorry for bringing out an old thread, but I was thinking about the Berserk unit, so it fits in here.

Currently in the AU Mod, Berserks are "upgraded" to Guerilla. In my opinion, this makes them actually lose value. While it gives them better defense, it completely changes their role, so the upgrade is kind of bugged. While amphibious, they can execute fast, surprising attacks even well into the Industrial Age. "Upgrading" Berserks to Guerillas turns them into mere support troops in offensive operations, and of course, kills the awesome amphibious capabilities. although the upgrade is consistent with the Longbowman's path, it is much more awkward.

What I was thinking would be to simply change the upgrade for Berserks from Guerilla to the Marine. An unit with equal capabilities (amphibious, strong attack, weak defense), only more advanced.

[punkbass2000]

Not a bad idea 'logically', though I fear it would make the Berserker even more powerful. Maybe if we took away the archer > Berserker upgrade path...

[Modo44]

If you consider the need for an optional technology, the need for transport ships, the need to play an archipelago (or get lucky on other worlds), the expensive upgrade, you get quite a few "ifs" that can jeopardize a possible pre-build strategy. And a normal upgrade would be just that - a normal expensive upgrade.

[ Edit: Don't forget Guerillas don't require Rubber, Marines do. ]

[alexman]

A Berzerk-to-Marine upgrade would break the Archer upgrade path: Archers would then upgrade to Marines instead of to Longbowmen.

[Modo44]

And I take it that making a special Archer unit only for the Vikings (exact same stats as normal Archer) can't be the solution? Or can it?

Viking Archer -> Berserk -> Marine
Archer -> Longbowman -> Guerilla

I that doable? And, is the Berserk -> Marine upgrade ok, or does it need further argument?

[alexman]

That would certainly work, yes.

Of course, an Archer upgrading to a Berzerk seems more strange to me than a Berzerk upgrading to a Guerilla, so I don't think the change is necessary.

[Modo44]

Ok, so another try (I'm persistant )

Viking Warrior -> Viking Swordsman -> Berserk -> Marine
Warrior -> Swordsman -> (All the UUs) -> Med Inf -> Guerilla
Archer -> Longbowman -> Guerilla

Longbowmen available to Vikings, Med Inf unavailable to Vikings. In terms of gameplay it remains simple. The upgrades have already been added in the AU Mod, so tweaking them to make more sense won't change the mod all that much. And the Archer -> Berserk upgrade is really weird too.

[pvzh]

Logically, it would be better to Make berserk as Med Inf UU instead of Longbowman UU, but I will be too drastic.

If I could change stock rules (be in charge of re-balancing patch). I would made Berserks 4/2/1 +HP (amphibious), cost 40, require Iron, as a Med. Inf. replacement.

Right now, they are "fun", but too expensive for the Era and you cannot build them through upgrades, i.e. disconnect resource -- build cheap unit, connect resource -- upgrade.