AU mod: The Privateer

[alexman]

The Privateer, whose sole purpose is to attack undefended transport ships, costs as much as a Galleon, but has less than a 50-50 chance of victory against either a Caravel or a Galleon. During war time, the Frigate is a superior ship because of its bombardment ability. During peace, the shields lost by unsuccessful Privateer attacks make it better to invest in infrastructure than in Privateers.

As a result, players usually build Privateers for the fun factor, and not because it makes economic sense.

On the other hand, C3C has strengthened Privateers, so a drastic solution is not necessary. Large stacks of Privateers still have good odds against 2-defense ships, and the enslave ability helps replenish losses of those stacks.

Possible Solutions

1. Remove the support requirement from the Privateer. Privateers generated from enslavement do not require support anyway. This would be a small change that would encourage peaceful Republics to sometimes build Privateers instead of Frigates, and it even makes sense in terms of realism.
2. Reduce defense of Caravels and Galleons to 1. These transport ships would then be more vulnerable to Privateers (and all other ships for that matter), so there would be an even greater need to escort them with Frigates, as does the AI anyway.

Are Privateers sometimes part of your strategy? Are they balanced? Should the AU mod make any of the above suggested changes?

Edit: Related thread by Risa

[Dominae]

Remove the support requirement from the Privateer. Privateers generated from enslavement do not require support anyway. This would be a small change that would encourage peaceful Republics to sometimes build Privateers instead of Frigates, and it even makes sense in terms of realism.

I think I would always prefer Privateers to Frigates in this case.

Reduce defense of Caravels and Galleons to 1. These transport ships would then be more vulnerable to Privateers (and all other ships for that matter), so there would be an even greater need to escort them with Frigates, as does the AI anyway.

I like this better. I just hope it's not too easy to sink the AI's already poor attempts at intercontinental invasion.


Dominae

[alexman]

Originally posted by Dominae

I think I would always prefer Privateers to Frigates in this case.

Even if you're under the free unit support limit?

[Risa]

I'm glad it is finally taken into consideration.

I prefer solution 1.

[ducki]

I prefer solution 1.
Solution 2 means a curragh would have an almost even chance to sink the middle age transports - that ain't right.

I don't think the Privateer needs help, especially with the Enslave ability. I built them in AU 501 specifically to mess with AIs that I didn't want a war with but wanted to harrass, and the AI built them and used them as well.

I think it's easy to overlook the ability to attack an AI without sparking a war. If it absolutely needs a boost, what about a low-level bombard ability, allowing it to not only play Pirate on the high-seas but also to harry coastal towns, particularly remote ones, with little to no consequences.

I really dislike idea 2. Middle Age transports need to be stronger against Ancient Age transports.

[Dominae]

Originally posted by alexman
Even if you're under the free unit support limit?

Yup. I prefer Hidden Nationality, Enslave and high movement to Bombard.

Edit: Furthermore, by the time I'm thinking about building ships, I'm typically quite close to the support limit.


Dominae

[nbarclay]

The "less than a 50-50 chance of victory" assumes the player does not set up to take advantage of the stack effect. With a bigger stack of privateers attacking a lone ship or a smaller enemy stack, the odds shift in the privateers' favor because later attackers will tend to be going up against injured ships. I'm not convinced that there is a problem here, and I strongly oppose making privateers more powerful in the absence of clear evidence that players who want to use them and use them well are finding them not worthwhile.

[Risa]

But privateers don't have offensive bombardment.

Privateers have defense value of only 1, they're quite vulnerable to counter attack. Moreover, since they hide their nationality, any AI ship will go to hunt them.

Edit: to Nathan:
I'd done a small analyse at this thread, if you interested.

[ducki]

Privateers have defense value of only 1, they're quite vulnerable to counter attack.

This is as it should be, IMO. Pirates were little use against an actual navy, their niche in overpowering ill-prepared non-military(transports) ships. Sure, we'd all like to be Drake, but that was a very special case.

[Risa]

I'm not saying it should have higher defense. That's merely a reply to Dom's.

[alexman]

Originally posted by Dominae

Yup. I prefer Hidden Nationality, Enslave and high movement to Bombard.

Engaging in naval combat without bombardment is risky with the Civ3 combat model. That's why so many players blame Firaxis for losing their battleship to an Ironclad! Your odds improve so much with bombardment, that even though Frigates and Privateers have the same attack factor, Frigates are a much better shield investment.

[Dominae]

I think you can mess with the AI more using Hidden Nationality and Enslavement than by simply destroying its ships. But I guess accentuating the faults of the AI is not the purpose of the AU mod...


Dominae

[Aqualung71]

I'm with Nathan - I think this one could almost go down on the "featuritis" list with the plague, but that may be a little unfair.

Privateers serve a purpose and that is really to protect the oceans against presumptious peacetime players. I was stupid enough in AU501 to send a couple of loaded Galleons unaccompanied and lucky enough to escape back to port to wait for Frigate escorts when a Privateer appeared from nowhere.

It is therefore really an AI tool more so than a human strategic unit. Other than that, as Alexman says, it's the fun factor.

Their attack strength is comparable to anything else at the time, and they are as fast or faster than anything prior to Destroyers. They are not meant to be defenders (though bombard defense is useful in stacks) and I think they serve their purpose well as hit and run mavericks.

In general, I'm against change for change's sake only. And especially when it would probably hurt the AI rather than assist them.

[alexman]

Originally posted by alexman
Privateers generated from enslavement do not require support anyway.

Hey, this is not true after all! Caputred non-Worker units do require support. I just tested it.

I prefer to avoid any incentive to the player to use Privateers instead of Frigates during war time. It just doesn't seem like the the designers' intent. Since Privateers are cheaper than Frigates, and they also can enslave, there is already an incentive to build Frigates for bombardment and use Privateers for the actual combat. I think the no-support idea would strengthen this strange strategy, so I don't like it after all.

Therefore, I support reducing the defensive strength of Caravels and Galleons. This fits nicely with C3C's reduction of the defensive strength of transports from 4 to 2. It would also have the side-effect of making Frigates and Ironclads more important, which is a good thing, IMO.

Now the AI escorts Galleons and Caravels with a Naval Power unit whenever possible. It escorts Transports with even more units, because Transports have the "Requires Escort" property in the editor. The question is, should we add the "requires escort" property to Galleons as well, or will that lead to an over-cautious AI? I don't think we should add that property to Caravels, because there is no contemporary Naval Power unit to protect them anyway.

[ducki]

I hope this isn't taboo, but I'm going to quote myself in response to the lower defense value thing again.

Solution 2(Middle Age transports redueced to defense 1) means a curragh would have an almost even chance to sink the middle age transports - that ain't right.

If this is a desired "side effect", intended to get the player to escort Middle Age transports, I don't like it, but I can see how it might help the AI, who seems to trail in naval capacity early on.

Still, Curraghs and Galleys being on near-equal footing when attacking Transports of the next age just feels wrong to me and I don't even want to think of how badly a dromon would chew up and spit out these weakened ships.

That may just be me, though.

[alexman]

But it's the same currently with Transports. They have the same defense as the attack of Frigates and Privateers, not to mention the same defense as the defense of Caravels.

The unit strengths in Civ3 are not about realism, they are about game play balance. Compare the attack of Longbowmen to that of Riflemen.

[Arrian]

I think privateers are pretty much fine.

If anything must be done, I'd give them a slight reduction in build cost, or perhaps give them offensive bombard.

-Arrian

[ducki]

The unit strengths in Civ3 are not about realism, they are about game play balance.

I understand that. What I don't understand is how a curragh - basically a bunch of reeds tied together with a sheet and a stick in the middle - could be considered balanced if able to fairly reliably - given proper attack order - sink the middle age transports. That does not seem balanced to me. Neither does the transport thing you mentioned.

Compare the attack of Longbowmen to that of Riflemen.

Ever hear of a guy named Custer? Ever had a Brit explain the two-fingered salute? These two stats seem in line with "believability" and balanced with the game.

I am not after realism to the level of simulation, I'm just thinking that big oceangoing vessels ought not to be easily sinkable by coastal rafts for all intents and purposes.

Does that mean the Transport needs a bit of a boost? Probably. But that'll need it's own thread.


On another note, what effects - good and bad - would dropping the Middle Age transport's defense have with regard to other ships of the era? What I'm getting at is, if we pretend like the Privateer is balanced or doesn't exist, how would this change affect the other facets of the naval game in the late Middle Ages - particularly the AI?

[alexman]

Sorry, I don't see how the Curragh and Galleon have a different relationship than a Sipahi attacking a Tank in the open. Also, Custer's defeat is mentioned in history books as something spectacular, but Riflemen actually do have the same attack factor as Med. Infantry, which means that they always have the same chance to defeat another unit on attack.

Of course, for those still concerned about realism, it's always possible to remove the attack factor from Curraghs completely.

By the way, lowering the defense of transports is a good thing for naval power. It was done on purpose by the designers to encourage building other types of ships, and the AI handles it very well. As mentioned above, the question is whether to add the "requires escort" flag to Galleons.

Just to be clear, I agree that Privateers are fairly well balanced as they are now. We will, however, have a vote, so am proposing to put the change to Caravels and Galleons under consideration instead of a change to Privateers themselves. Any objections (besides ducki, of course)?

[ducki]

I don't count.


Just to address a couple of things, I think bringing the Sipahi into this is a bit offbase. It's a UU and an extra strong one at that, however, there's probably some supporting historical information that would allow favorable comparison of mounted Ottomans vs. Tanks. I'll have to check on that just for fun.

I kinda like the idea of removing attack from the curragh, though, and not just based on the proposed change to other units. Change the stats to reflect the primarily scouting purpose it actually serves in the game anyways.

Not that any of that will count for anything.


Just pokin' back, alexman.
(just to be sure - )

[Dominae]

I know this is not the thread to propose this, but: how about setting both the Attack and Defense values of Curraghs to 0? Makes things a bit more interesting for the human player, and it's not like it hurts the AI.


Dominae

[Krill]

how about setting both the Attack and Defense values of Curraghs to 0?

But if it encounters a barb galley, then byebye curragh. Better to make it 0.1.2, so it can't attack, (albeit this, therefore, is change for changes sake).

[Dominae]

Originally posted by Krill
But if it encounters a barb galley, then byebye curragh.

That's kind of the point...

[Arrian]

Hmm...

On the one hand, I like the idea, since it makes sense to me that the curragh is effectively a waterborne scout, and should be easy prey for barbarian pirates.

On the other, I worry that the arrival of barb galleys might render curraghs largely useless too soon.

What is the trigger for barb galley spawning? It is something like "2 civs have map making?"

-Arrian

[alexman]

It's an interesting suggestion, but I think that it it would be very frustrating, especially for non-seafaring civs. Avoiding barbarians would become a matter of luck: If you move one tile and see a barb galley two tiles away (you can't see farther than that), you will be within striking distance of that galley even if you retreat to where you came from.

[Krill]

That's kind of the point...

On lower difficulty levels, fine, but I don't want to be spending 15 shields on ships that can be sunk 4 turns after being built.
With the present rules for slowing/stopping inter continental contacts, why does this need to be altered?

It can destroy the chance of getting contacts on your own continent, and since the stock version created the curragh for early contacts, you are breaching one of the AU rules for no (worthwhile) reason.

You, Dominae, are the panel member who advocates sticking to the stock rules, so why does this change interest you?
(Could you please answer that, because I can't)

(And all of this is, of course, IMO, so please don't shout at me)

[Krill]

Damn, beaten to it by alexman

[Dominae]

The AI below Sid never builds Curraghs. I would still build Curraghs despite Barb pirates, and most of the time I would get my 15-Shields worth.

Curraghs should be like Scouts, not Warriors. Scouts die to Barb Horsemen just like Curraghs would die to Barb Galleys (as alexman describes).

I think this is a worthy change (not just for the sake change) because it improves gameplay in precisely the ways the AU mod is supposed to.


Dominae

[alexman]

Ah, but the AU mod AI is not your silly stock AI. They build plenty of Curraghs.

Still, I'm not decided on whether the harder decision on whether to build Curraghs is worth the change. It might.

[Krill]

If you are going to compare it to the scout, remember that
1) the scout can only be built by expansionist civs
2) It costs 50% more than a scout, and is no where near as useful, because any contacts you can get with a curragh you can get with a galley (IE no trade agreements)
3) No/very little land is discovered

Hence they a purely for contacts. Via land you can use warriors, but there is no option for defensive sea vessels until MM.