[Following] Naval Balance Discussion

We’ve moved over to the paradox forums. Please come visit us there to discuss:
You can still read the collective wisdom - and lolz - of the community here, but posting is no longer possible.

Home Forums Age of Wonders 3 Discussions Balance Suggestions [Following] Naval Balance Discussion

This topic contains 73 replies, has 17 voices, and was last updated by  Shaithias 7 years, 1 month ago.

Viewing 14 posts - 61 through 74 (of 74 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #124174

    Bouh
    Member

    I had an idea : in bridge map, there is the river crossing the map. Why not placing water in battlefield where water have its place, and include warships in the battle, and any unit that would be on an adjacent water tile for that mater. With the same embark/disembark rule in the tactical map.

    This way, warships could participate to battles, and more importantly to city battles where they would be able to use their long range weapon to shoot from sea to land. And the defender could move his units closer to the boats to force the battle to take place close from them.

    I don’t think we should need to destroy the ships though to win the battle, because they would probably be OP this way.

    Problem of this solution is lot of dev work to add all the new maps.

    #124175

    Inherent floating on a ship would be bad.

    You did give me an idea for a new structure, called Shrine of the ether or whatever, which would give floating for 8 turns (like the Shrine of the FrostQueen does with arctic walking) which would be available on water, so you could use a bunch of ships on it and have them float temporarily, a.k.a. be able to raid.

    That brings me to my next bit, introducing a seaborne raiding mechanic of some sort, i.e. park ship within x hexes of an enemy city (ships would enter into a raiding stance – see the discussion in heal/sustain thread about possible new stances in general – that would fix them in place but start the raiding) and it siphons off gold, basically a mobile, unit linked form of guild of shadow thieves.

    Parking next to bridges to halt movement over bridges would also be a cool thing, as would the ability to bombard land targets.

    #124180

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    Inherent floating on a ship would be bad.

    You have to do a bit more than making a statement – giving reasons would be a start. 🙂

    I think, you underestimate the problem. Freeze Water, for example, can simply cut boats off.
    Every ability that allows ships balanced for water to battle on land makes them op.
    I mean, basic Seafaring is a fairly cheap, but very decisive Tech.
    “Floating Ships” might be a Tech as well, although quite obviously a higher-tier tech; probably 5 or 6.

    #124181

    Draxynnic
    Member

    Yes, they would lose the Ram attack (which could be just the thing giving them the edge on the water), but on land they were indeed slow artillery.

    Ram isn’t what makes ships strong on water – it’s the combination of a powerful long-ranged attack, a good short-ranged area attack, and the mobility to be able to make full use of both. Ram is nice to have as a backup, but it’s the proverbial icing on the cake really. Typical warship tactics generally involve spreading out across the map (so in the case of ships being pinned down, it’s only one at a time) and firing from outside of the enemy’s threat zone – occasionally concentrating again to finish off a wounded target.

    (Incidentally, for our hypothetical ships undergoing portage: I’d probably be inclined to take away Volley of Flaming Arrows as well. I’d imagine using that tactic on a ship undergoing portage across land would be too risky for too little benefit.)

    Anyway. It’s not that I’m keen on advocvating a specific solution, that’s what the devs are for; I’m just complaining about the fact that traditional ships are not making much sense and that ships are the part of the game that are no fun – you could just as well scrap them, and the game wouldn’t suffer.

    Yeah, I think everyone recognises that there are issues with the naval side of things in general. The disagreements seem to be on the cause (to go back to my analogy, are people eschewing scissors because scissors are weak or because paper is?) and thus on the likely means of fixing it, and in a couple of cases, whether it’s actually worth the effort of fixing at all or whether we should just accept that the naval side of things is usually a weakness of TBS games using a tactical battle map and allow ships to remain a niche unit that usually isn’t worth building, but gives the opportunity to counter certain tactics if you know the opponent is going for them.

    (Mind you, one thing that’s been touched on but hasn’t really had a lot of attention paid to it that ships are good for: scouting. Yes, they’re restricted to scouting coasts, but on the flip side, if the enemy tries to attack them they’re then choosing to fight the ship(s) on their own ground, requiring a disproportionate amount of force to deal with.)

    #124186

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    Another disadvantage of ships is that they, afaik, can’t switch layers. There are no water underground/surface gates, or are there?

    #124189

    Draxynnic
    Member

    There are, but they rarely if ever appear in the RMG. There’s at least one campaign map that has them, though.

    #124289

    You misunderstand – when I said each attacking unit inflicts one hit to the target stack, what I had in mind was hitting one random unit in the stack, not every unit in the stack!

    Keeping it to adjacent squares is basically looking to avoid situations where ships have limited ranges on the tactical battle map – an area that is at most three hexes across on the strategic map, and more likely just one – and then be able to fire long distances on the strategic map.

    right, that is more reasonable. Still, if you had multiple bombarding things, you could end up killing half/all a stack before engaging.

    As for the second thing, that is why I wanted to have massing requirements and make the bombardment options do damage more equivalent to the strategic map damage spells.

    The idea would be that all firing in the tactical map is “line of sight” or “direct aimed” fire, whereas on the strategic map you would just point your weapons at a 45 degree angle and shoot in the general area of the enemy (thus explaining hitting everything and doing only a little damage). You’d also need a bunch of them to even muster enough firepower to pound an area.

    Three hexes doesn’t seem like that far: isn’t it about as far as a normal unit can see/spot things? That seems like 500 or 600 yards, and both early canon and other siege engines could shoot that far. Well, Trebuchets probably topped out at 300-400 yards, but Ballistae or siege crossbows (especially Chinese ones) could shoot 500-600 for indirect fire. Early cannon could shoot up to a mile or two.

    you could have fire arrows/trebuchets fire at two hexes and gunpowder/call lightning/throw curse (the Orc priest would also get it, which would be cool) at three, if you were a stickler.

    If you think about it, the tactical battlefield is probably just 200 yards by 200 yards or so, if you assume that the normal infantry’s walking from green to red is about a minute (since good archers get three shots a minute).

    The Long range distance attacks are also roughly at 100 yards away, which is the normal “aim with good accuracy” distance for all those weapons.

    #124349

    Draxynnic
    Member

    Considering that the urban centers of cities are still only three hexes diameter, I doubt that a hex is only a few hundred yards. Comparatively speaking, an infantry force can move fourteen hexes along a road with Improved Logistics in a game turn – while armies typically move slower than larger groups, if you take a game turn as a day than you’re looking at strategic map hexes as being at least half a mile each. Powerful cities also usually dominate at least a few miles around them, so domain sizes also makes more sense if we think of hexes as at least half a mile.

    Spotting distances can be explained by:

    1 Armies are easy-ish to spot at long distances if they aren’t taking special efforts (concealment) not to be.

    2 Units send out scouts to keep an eye on the nearby area.

    #124372

    ExNihil
    Member

    I think a bombardment option should not be introduced. This simply adds another level of complexity to the mechanics which is redundent, all in order to resolve the fundamental issue of ships being restricted to water. Also, if you do this you will have to give Cannons the same ability or dramatically enhance the Cannons on Warships – which unlike Dreadnought units, are available to all classes.

    This is also the main objection to giving these units the floating abilities (aside from being somewhat ahmmmm) – Warships are almost as powerful as some Dreadnought units are, and if they can be on land they will unbalance the game. Also, why would u need to build a harbor on water in that case?

    IMO a good balancing solution first and foremost considers the existing mechanics/content rather than asks for the introduction of new content or radical changes of existing ones. If you guys have ideas in these channels I suggest you promote them here. I disagree regarding the entire rock-paper-scissor analogy – the utility of warships is directly and solely related in my opinion to the ability of other units to traverse and fight on water. The fighting bit for warships is ok, but the traversing part really isn’t IMO, and hence my repeated assertion that an adjustment to the MP of non-swimming units is the key to a successful balance of Warships that will make them much more useful.

    P.S. I have already asked for the introduction of Continent and Island topographies for the UG. I think the above just makes the case for these more powerful.

    #124376

    IMO a good balancing solution first and foremost considers the existing mechanics/content rather than asks for the introduction of new content or radical changes of existing ones. If you guys have ideas in these channels I suggest you promote them here

    One can consider both: sometimes an idea that begins in one will translate into a solution in another, or even an offhand unrelated idea becomes useful. This discussion has also included various boosts to the impact of your ships in an enemies domain, whether negative morale and economic impacts or actual siphoning of resources.

    I think a bombardment option should not be introduced. This simply adds another level of complexity to the mechanics which is redundent, all in order to resolve the fundamental issue of ships being restricted to water. Also, if you do this you will have to give Cannons the same ability or dramatically enhance the Cannons on Warships – which unlike Dreadnought units, are available to all classes.
    This is also the main objection to giving these units the floating abilities (aside from being somewhat ahmmmm) – Warships are almost as powerful as some Dreadnought units are, and if they can be on land they will unbalance the game. Also, why would u need to build a harbor on water in that case?

    I don’t see why, if it is limited to either a few, or just one, hex. The problem with floating ships was that they were fast, tough, and sort of ran onto the dreadnought’s territory. They were better and cheaper that less powerful dreadnought units.

    limiting it to one or a few hexes would allow naval and ground interaction for coastal cities, a feature that I greatly enjoyed in the Total War series. It would also help to give different strategic zones different feels.

    If you did have a bombard system, it would just have to follow the pre existing siege weapon one. Dreadnoughts are better, but everyone can do something decent. There are a fairly stable array of long range attacks that could have bombardment possibilities, in one form or another.

    That would also remedy the severe uselessness of global damage spells.

    traversing part really isn’t IMO, and hence my repeated assertion that an adjustment to the MP of non-swimming units is the key to a successful balance of Warships that will make them much more useful.

    I don’t see it: in island maps, there is usually enough water so that even a slightly slower party could cross before warships got there. It also doesn’t make much sense: they are in boats, after all, and boats have crews that know how to travel just as well as the dedicated warships.

    Actually, at this level of technology, troop transports were usually sort of impressed or requisitioned merchant vessels. The lack of a large crew would make them faster than big tough dedicated warships.

    Also, it doesn’t really make sense for floating/flying units to suffer a movement or other penalty (if anything, the winds would make them somewhat faster).

    I see no reason why a floating unit couldn’t just continue to float above the waves, or for a flier to either stay circling in the clouds, or just land in calm water for rest each turn. You should probably also then say that parties on arctic terrain should suffer damage, but attrition based on terrain is simply not modeled in the game. I don’t think it would be a fun or useful change.

    #124391

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    I think, we should think somewhat differently here. The main difference between a ship and “others” is the fact that it operates on a terrain exclusively, that offers nothing worthy to conquer or defend, but only to plunder or destroy ONCE.

    After playing 1.4, Golden Realms a bit, this is not THAT much different from the underground now; the underground doesn’t has MUCH in terms of settlements/dwellings, still, it has SOMETHING (the changes look pretty drastic).

    So a solution would be to “upgrade” water to kind of an underground, but I’d think this might involve a bit of work:

    1) Possibly difference between coastal (river) and deep (ocean) waters;
    2) Allowing for Water Settlements/Dwellings; these would basically look like Venice, and should be RARE (like the same thing in the UG); Possible Dwellings would be Naga, maybe Dragons and Fairies; possible settlements would be Humans and Elves (don’t know about others)
    3) This would need some new production sites to make water settlements produce something.
    4) Builders (or a specific unit) might be eligible to get Repair Ship; this ability doesn’t necessarily have to be a combat ability, but obviously ships would need another source of active healing.
    5) We might be able to rebalance ships due to that, making them somewhat more in line with prices and stats.

    #127684

    Infiltrator
    Member

    I think something needs to be drastically altered in Naval combat. Having to see giant floating units attack minature walkers standing in the middle of a pint-sized ship is quite immersion-breaking. When the small assassin-ships has an “assassin strike” that just makes it ram against other targets.. eh.. it’s just too ugly to look at.

    Naval combat needs to be based on a ship, between units. Sea units come out of the water and fight on the ship.

    As for the ships themselves, I am not sure, but the current iteration is definitely horrid.

    #127965

    jb
    Member

    I had another thought. I think it may have been mentioned already, but basically it boils down to having things to fight for in the water.

    Water forts. A defensive navel structure that provides domain radius. This might require a few more water resources to make them viable…water nodes, water gold mine, mermaid shrines, etc.

    #131072

    Shaithias
    Member

    +1 for devs to do something to make water combat happen more often.

Viewing 14 posts - 61 through 74 (of 74 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.