Harbours and naval bombardment

geniemalin · February 4, 2004, 00:13

Just an idle thought that occurred to me - what if Harbours had a Naval Bombardment defence?

Then (1) the AI's strategy of uselessly bombarding coastal cities would actually become a threat, risking the destruction of Harbours (2) Coastal Fortresses, by protecting your Harbours, become more useful (3) overseas trade routes become more vulnerable to disruption.

What do people think?

ducki · February 4, 2004, 01:54

My only objection would be #3, since the AI doesn't distinguish between a broken deal that's my fault and a broken deal that's not my fault.

alexman · February 4, 2004, 09:58

That's a very interesting idea, geniemalin.

The only problem I see is that the human player can avoid having his harbors destroyed by the AI by leaving his cities empty. The AI doesn't bombard empty cities.

Of course, the solution for that would be to have some sort of amphibious unit in the middle ages, but we've been through that, and it didn't fly well in the related thread.

geniemalin · February 4, 2004, 10:50

Quote:

Originally posted by ducki
My only objection would be #3, since the AI doesn't distinguish between a broken deal that's my fault and a broken deal that's not my fault.

Giving you some incentive to protect your naval trade routes .... as things stand it's very difficult to block harbour routes. Your land routes can be cut off if you're at war, why should your water routes be virtually immune even if the AI has overarching naval superiority?

Quote:

Originally posted by Alexman
The only problem I see is that the human player can avoid having his harbors destroyed by the AI by leaving his cities empty. The AI doesn't bombard empty cities.

Of course, the solution for that would be to have some sort of amphibious unit in the middle ages, but we've been through that, and it didn't fly well in the related thread.

Hmm ..... I didn't realise that the AI didn't bombard empty cities. Where is the other thread you refer to - early amphi sounds very interesting (and would certainly place a premium both on city defence and naval superiority...)

alexman · February 4, 2004, 10:59

AU mod: Amphibious Units

geniemalin · February 4, 2004, 11:10

Interesting. Having read it, I think the proposed change would combine well with the early-amphi idea to give the AI naval stacks some real punch.

If an AI has naval superiority and a stack of frigates with a galleon and a possible amphi assaulter inside, the player has a Hobson's choice.

Defend the city - harbour may well be lost to bombardment.

Don't defend it - the entire city may be lost.

Only ways out are to build a CF - or get naval superiority yourself!

alexman · February 4, 2004, 11:22

Do you know for a fact that the city improvement with the highest bombard defense is the first one to get destroyed? I would imagine so, but you never know...

ducki · February 4, 2004, 11:31

Quote:

Giving you some incentive to protect your naval trade routes

I'm not that worried about protecting my harbours - that's easy.
I'm worried about having to protect the harbours of every overseas nation I trade with - that's hard.

I don't want to play Civ3 - The United Nations mod.

Occasionally it's fun to play peacekeeper, policeman of the world, but I don't want every single island/continents/archipelago game to turn into me being the Coast Guard for all my non-continental trading partners. With the way reputation works, you wouldn't be able to avoid it, I don't think.
If the reputation system got fixed to take into account whether I "should" be "faulted" for breaking a deal, I'd be all for this, but not the way it currently works.

That's just my opinion, though.

alexman · February 5, 2004, 20:09

I like the idea a lot. By the time naval bombardmant is available, in the late Middle Ages (OK, except for the Byzantines), the AI has plenty of harbors, so I think it would be rare to lose all of them.

Harbors are too powerful, and Coastal Fortresses are too weak. By adding a single naval defense point to harbors, harbors are weakened and CFs are strengthened.

By the way, I just verified that the city improvement with the strongest naval defense strength defends (and gets destroyed) first.

ZargonX · February 5, 2004, 21:02

I like it. Naval blockades have always been pretty cumbersome, but being able to take out a harbor is a great strategic option. Having a defensive navy will be just as important as an offensive one.

ducki · February 6, 2004, 11:06

Quote:

eing able to take out a harbor is a great strategic option. Having a defensive navy will be just as important as an offensive one

Will the AI cope with this, from a defensive standpoint?

If alexman is right, then taking out a single harbour won't stop trade on an empire-wide basis(if I understand correctly), though it would work for breaking the link on an island resource/lux or for reducing food production.

If alexman is wrong, and one harbour carries the weight of the empires entire international trade, then the AI must be able to recognize the harbour's importance and protect it from the player that knows he can destroy the empire with a single shot - extreme case, but I think the extremes are important. Especially if the AI doesn't have enough naval defense.