Bombardment Woes

cutlerd · November 9, 2003, 23:33

Overall I like Conquests a lot. One thing I do not like is naval bombardment. Specifically, the new increased movement rates of bombarding naval units means they can now move in from long range, bombard, and move back out. Done right, you can never hit a frigate with cannons. This makes naval bombarders way too powerful.

What's more, Coastal Fortresses still don't work very well and...even worse...they are now very fragile and are the first thing to be destroyed during naval bombardment (even before units). This means, effectively, there is no way to mitigate naval bombardment outside of sending your own fleet.

Coastal Fortresses need to be made much tougher to destroy and need to do some real bombardment damage. Naval units should not get a free ride against prepared coastal defenses. Further, I think Coastal Defense should get a bonus for each cannon stacked with it (or artillery).

Devin

Kuciwalker · November 10, 2003, 00:11

Quote:

This means, effectively, there is no way to mitigate naval bombardment outside of sending your own fleet.

So you are forced to have a strong navy. This is a bad thing?

PeaSoup · November 10, 2003, 00:30

now that privateer have bombardment strength of 3, I'd imagine we'll be seeing the AI use them all the time to destroy terrain improvements

Wittlich · November 10, 2003, 00:54

Actually, I concider this a good sign!

vmxa1 · November 10, 2003, 03:02

60% water on a pangea map takes care of that issue.

Wittlich · November 10, 2003, 05:44

How would having 60% water coverage on a Pangea map alieviate the problem?

dexters · November 10, 2003, 05:58

You get continents style maps with narrow landbridges and lots of water.

But generally, faster naval movements is good. Because I hate having to wait 15 turns for my navy to get there when I can rebase my airforce and units in one turn.

Also, AI now escorts its transports with multiple ships and it loves to have a modern navy, and any decent sized AI will have a large navy and it matches if not owns completely my PTW era navies in terms of size. This was made painfully clear in my first win on a monarch pangea game on a standard map, with my top AI rival had 30 destroyers to my 8 and 3 carriers to my 2.

Thankfully, I was being the plotting Machiavellian and had picked that particular Civ to be my partner. We never went to war, and I never had to face that navy.

Wittlich · November 10, 2003, 06:55

Ok. I understand where you're coming from Dexers, but my question is that how would setting the map to 60% water coverage alieviate the problem? In my mind, the problem (weak coastal fortesses, et al) are still present, though not as noticeble - enventually it would come into play...

cutlerd · November 10, 2003, 12:58

You already have to have a strong navy to project power overseas. Do you really think coastal fortresses are currently even worth building in Conquests? I invite you to try it and get back to me. If no, then by definition something needs to be done to make them worth building.

Devin

Shogun Gunner · November 10, 2003, 13:07

I agree that these changes are overall great, but I do agree with one thing of cutlerd's points. Bombarding ships should not get a free chance to sail in, bombard, and sail out each turn. It's obvious that you should be able to shoot back if you have cannons, coastal fortress.

As far as the coastal fortress being the first thing blown up, that makes sense. If I was a commanding the ship, that's the first thing I would shoot at.

Sarxis · November 10, 2003, 14:06

I'd love to see that idea implemented, where if you have any cannon type artillery in a city with coastal defense, it adds to the cities anti-naval bombardment defenses.

vmxa1 · November 10, 2003, 14:38

Quote:

Originally posted by Wittlich

How would having 60% water coverage on a Pangea map alieviate the problem?

You will have very little water to deal with as the land will cover so much. You will direct access to all civs over land.
When I use those setting I do not see large navies.
No real need to make coastal fortress, if there ever was any.

cutlerd · November 10, 2003, 14:54

Huh? Bombardment now causes permanent damage to terrain and is now very effective in reducing enemies. Therefore, even in a Pangea setting, these units will be incredibly effective against cities on the coast. And the AI will build plenty of naval units...trust me.

Devin

dexters · November 10, 2003, 15:17

That's one thing I've noticed. AI builds plenty of ships and when that stack of 22 destroyers show up on your coast, better get those workers ready.

MrWhereItsAt · November 10, 2003, 21:53

Quote:

Originally posted by cutlerd
Huh? Bombardment now causes permanent damage to terrain and is now very effective in reducing enemies. Therefore, even in a Pangea setting, these units will be incredibly effective against cities on the coast. And the AI will build plenty of naval units...trust me.

Devin

But you won't have as many, and nor will you need to contend with navies to get at an other civ, if you have a land connection to them somewhere.

MUCH less difficult than trying to defend your invasion fleet on its way over.

Yes they will of course be effective on the coast, but with a Pangaea map there is less coast overall for the same land settings, and at 60% water there is less water overall anyway, so the AIs navies will hardly be as effective as in a map where you ahve to sail to do anything.

dexters · November 10, 2003, 21:58

Navies always had its uses, even in pangea, and even pre C3C. But after C3C, with airforces and lethan sea bombardment, you'd be stupid to have anything that moves on the sea without AA support, and the only way you can get AA support is from ships.

And like I said, the AI civs will build navies. Standard sized pangea games have relatively small maps, and if your neighbour happens to be the owner of a large fleet, all the land in the world won't save you from having your coasts leveled.