Seafaring nerfed too far – navel movement

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 Update v1.5 – Open Beta Balance Seafaring nerfed too far – navel movement

This topic contains 18 replies, has 13 voices, and was last updated by  jb 6 years, 8 months ago.

Viewing 19 posts - 1 through 19 (of 19 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #169261

    jb
    Member

    Full disclosure, I preferred the the movement cost of the original game release last april. I felt it created really cool amphibious assaults.

    People screamed and movement was reduced. Then a massive move penalty for embarking was added. Then a disembark penalty was added. Then movement was reduced again.

    It’s gone too far. Amphibious assaults are virtually impossible now.

    As a compromise, can we eliminate the disembark cost? That is, moving FROM a ship TO land. Can we please have units use their default move cost for such actions?

    I’m ok with the embark move cost and the slow movement over water itself, but it shouldn’t cost so much movement to get off the ship.

    cheers

    #169312

    n0rf
    Member

    I like those slow movements on the water. Finally there is a big difference between swimming/flying units and embarked ones. Especially on tactic map.
    Now you have a reason to learn advanced seafaring. At least on island maps or maps with big inner sea.
    But I agree with jb. After sea transports nerf disembark penalty doesn’t make any sence.

    #169326

    Dagoth Ur
    Member

    There’s going to be an ability called Fast Embark that (all?) Frostling units will have, this will reduce (dis?)embarking costs.

    I also like the way water works now, you’ll just need to build ships on Island maps or accept that Kraken as a gift.

    #169363

    jb
    Member

    There’s going to be an ability called Fast Embark that (all?) Frostling units will have, this will reduce (dis?)embarking costs.

    Totally separate issue. That’s like saying dwarfs have cavecrawling so don’t reduce cave movement.

    #169471

    Tombles
    Keymaster

    The rational behind the changes was to make naval units matter more, by forcing transports to stay in the water for longer, and be more vulnerable to attack from warships and krakens and things. Beforehand, transports could move as fast as warships, meaning there was little risk to being on the water, and making navies irrelevent.

    Anyways, what you’re asking for does seem reasonable, but I’d like some more opinions from others on this first though please!

    #169621

    Sunicle
    Member

    jb is asking this, I believe:

    I’m ok with the embark move cost and the slow movement over water itself, but it shouldn’t cost so much movement to get off the ship.

    I think indeed the basic movement of 21 mp is absolutely fine. It’s often still faster than on land, as you can move as the bird flies on water, you don’t have all the obstacles as on land, and the RMG throws up a lot of mountains and wetlands to impede land movement. So 21 mp is faster than the number sounds. Does it go up to some 25 or 27 mp with Advanced Seafaring?
    Having both an embark as disembark penalty can psychologically feel like too many penalties, but I don’t believe it’s unbalanced. I still go to water all the time on continents maps.
    On the other hand, a big part of Advanced Seafaring is better ships, but they won’t happen if you don’t have a coastal town, and you’re guaranteed to start inland on both land and continents maps. The opportunity for building ships is tiny. What could perhaps be done is remove the disembark penalty with Advanced Seafaring, on top of embarked units being a tile faster?
    I don’t know. I don’t really see a need to get rid of the disembark penalty inherently, but on the other hand I doubt the disembark penalty has really encouraged building ships.

    I wouldn’t mind if a few people would weigh in on this.

    #169639

    Tombles
    Keymaster

    This seems relevent:

    http://ageofwonders.com/forums/topic/advanced-seafaring-humans/

    TL;DR – Mariner (e.g. Human) units will get +3 MP on transports

    #169656

    Sunicle
    Member

    Yes, I counted that ability as in the game already. jb would consider that a separate issue perhaps, considering his response to the Frostlings’ fast embark ability.

    #169674

    Motasa
    Member

    This seems relevent:

    http://ageofwonders.com/forums/topic/advanced-seafaring-humans/

    TL;DR – Mariner (e.g. Human) units will get +3 MP on transports

    Really happy with this. Although I generally don’t play humans (for my taste they are too bland), I like their synergy with water. With the removal of Water as favoured terrain, I think humans needed something to compensate for that. Maybe this will do.

    #169820

    jb
    Member

    @tombles thanks for the consideration.

    #169825

    greyclouds
    Member

    The rational behind the changes was to make naval units matter more, by forcing transports to stay in the water for longer, and be more vulnerable to attack from warships and krakens and things. Beforehand, transports could move as fast as warships, meaning there was little risk to being on the water, and making navies irrelevent.

    Anyways, what you’re asking for does seem reasonable, but I’d like some more opinions from others on this first though please!

    I think that the move cost reduction for embarked units hit one of the big problems with naval combat in the core game: you could outrun any dedicated warships with your embarked units! Now, embarked units move slower and can be run down in the water. Perhaps increasing the sight range of dedicated ship units could be a useful tweak (for recon and “transport-hunting”), but now I see a purpose to creating ships on continental/island maps.

    I also think that jb has a good point. It doesn’t make sense to deplete an embarked unit’s movement for embarking and then ALSO depleting it’s movement for landing! I mean, imagine if your units embark (lost all movement that turn) and then an enemy’s dedicated fleet shows up the next turn just within your sight range. Your only option (apart from a suicide attack, of course!) is to land, which also costs a heavy movement penalty (lost all movement that turn). Two turns, only two tiles moved (once to the sea, and once back on land).

    That seems a bit excessive to me, and I think that a reduction (or elimination?) of the landing penalty is in order.

    We could treat it as: embarking requires your units to store their supplies efficiently on the transport (necessitating the movement penalty) so that they can remove them rapidly upon landing.

    #170030

    alf978
    Member

    That seems a bit excessive to me, and I think that a reduction (or elimination?) of the landing penalty is in order.

    Maybe 8mp or 6mp rather than 12 for disembarking?

    #170370

    llfoso
    Member

    I agree that Frostling’s Fast Embark and Human’s Mariner are separate issues. The baseline needs to be balanced first, and special cases considered after.

    I also agree that with the seafaring nerf we don’t need the disembark penalty anymore.

    #171302

    kugi
    Member

    ttp://ageofwonders.com/forums/topic/advanced-seafaring-humans/

    TL;DR – Mariner (e.g. Human) units will get +3 MP on transports

    Yesss!

    The 1,5 humans got a “buff” in the form of +5 more production
    and a nerf as had their water likeability dropped.

    Indeed of the +5 production, this “mariner get +3 Mp on transport”
    and
    something like “human cities with a Harbor will gain +5 gold and +5 production and grants +50 point Happiness”
    we’d appreciate.

    #171402

    Fenraellis
    Member

    something like “human cities with a Harbor will gain +5 gold and +5 production and grants +50 point Happiness”

    Or something similar… >_>

    #173056

    Please do not eliminate the disembark cost entirely! I think it is fine as it is now. Amphibious assaults were too easy before the changes. And now they are still possible, but difficult, as it should be imo. Also, having an embark cost but no disembark cost makes no sense in my opinion.

    #173099

    Gloweye
    Member

    Also, having an embark cost but no disembark cost makes no sense in my opinion.

    It does to me – to embark, you must build a ship, which takes time. When disembarking, you just make landfall and start marching.

    #173102

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>nvc_for_the_soul wrote:</div>
    Also, having an embark cost but no disembark cost makes no sense in my opinion.

    It does to me – to embark, you must build a ship, which takes time. When disembarking, you just make landfall and start marching.

    But ‘just make landfall’ is not as easy as it sounds; it costs more time than a normal move. Then it makes sense that disembarking has cost. That is not to say that the cost should be as high as the cost for embarking; that is how it is implemented right now. And I am happy about that.

    #173319

    jb
    Member

    Amphibious assaults were too easy before the changes. And now they are still possible, but difficult, as it should be imo

    Currently you need to be (2) hexes away IF it’s a coastal city (21 -6 -14). If you want to use a second stack, it’s then impossible.

    If the city is a hex away from sea then you literally need to be adjacent the land. I think that is a very technical definition of possible.

Viewing 19 posts - 1 through 19 (of 19 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.