 |
| |
|
|
ducki
|
|
For the potshots it'll take at their ships, making it even easier for my stack of artillery/cannon to send them packing or run a privateer/frigate up and only have a damaged ship to have to sink/enslave.
And sending the AI shields to hang out with Davey Jones.
Sometimes when I have a neat harbor-like formation of the sea or an area the AI will obviously be approaching, I build these things solely for the potshots. That's still in, isn't it? Or am I misremembering? I sometimes have places where I really don't need to build improvements/units, don't have wonders to work on or just "feel" like putting one of these in.
It's kinda like Colosseums - I rarely build them, very rarely, but sometimes I'll do it just because.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Theseus
|
 |
The warmonger formerly known as rpodos. Gathering Storm! Apolyton Spirit!!
Apr 2002
time: 00:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by alexman
The problem:
As mentioned in the Naval Bombardment thread, the C3C AI prefers to bombard cities instead of resources, even when it doesn’t follow up with ground or amphibious attacks. The units bombarded by the AI heal in the next turn, often resulting in no damage suffered by the bombarded civilization. On the other hand, if you leave your cities undefended, the AI will not bombard them, which encourages the counter-intuitive strategy of leaving coastal cities undefended until Marines (or Berserks) are available. The AI, of course, does not follow this strategy.
|
First, I am not so sure this is the problem, really. Uh no, re-state: the problem is that AI naval bombardment is messed up, pure and simple, not the impact on player behavior.
I could argue that I'd just as likely leave defenders in my coastal cities, so I know where the AI civs' ships are! 
Second, the proposed solution(s), while very creative, are just waaaay to radical for lil' ol' me.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
nbarclay
|
 |
Huntsville, Alabama
Dec 1999
time: 23:33
|
|
I think this is way too big a change for the AU Mod. This idea isn't just a minor tweak that makes a weak strategy a little stronger or a strong one a little weaker. It's a major paradigm shift.
There is also a serious problem in that the attack bonus for Marines and Beserks in amphibious assaults makes sense only under the assumption that those units are specially trained for that role and are operating outside their training when used for more conventional assaults. (And I find even that much of a rationalization a serious stretch.) The idea of giving conventional forces greater attacking power trying to land from ships than they have attacking overland strikes me as completely absurd. Yet if that bonus is inherent in the ability to engage in amphibious assaults under the Civ 3 rules, any unit that we give the ability to conduct amphibious assaults at all will get it.
There are also serious problems with the entire nature of amphibious warfare in Civ 3. First, Civ 3 has no cheap picket ship or reconnaisance aircraft units to provide warning. Second, transports that can get from a friendly port to their landing zone in a single turn pose no risk of getting sunk with troops abord; there really ought to be a mechanism through which aircraft, ships, and land-based artillery automatically attack approaching ships before they can land. (And aircraft and artillery should target transports specifically and ignore the escorts under such circumstances. Also, damage to loaded transports - including galleys carrying troops - should be reflected in damage to the units being carried.) Third, amphibious assaults against defended targets are pretty much invariably more expensive than an overland assault against the same target would be. Thus, standard procedure in the real world is to find a relatively undefended stretch of coast to land on and have the forces march overland to secure their main objectives. Fourth, lines of supply when attacking by sea are an enormous problem, and are not reflected in Civ at all. And fifth,the sheer number of troops that can participate in a single amphibious assault in Civ is a bit absurd. Landing that many troops in a single turn might be reasonable, but they couldn't all participate in a single invasion wave and the defender would have an opportunity to replace losses and reinforce between waves if he can beat off the initial attack.
There are good reasons why amphibious operations, and especially amphibious operations against well-protected targets, tend to be used only when the attacker has no real alternative. In the absence of Civ rules reflecting those reasons, I don't like the idea of making the ability for units to conduct amphibious assaults widespread.
Nathan
P.S. The title of this thread is a bit misleading, since "Amphibious Units" looks as if it's talking about existing amphibious units, not about giving amphibious ability to conventional units.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Modo44
|
 |
in western Poland
Jul 2004
time: 06:33
|
|
Sorry for bringing out an old thread, but I was thinking about the Berserk unit, so it fits in here.
Currently in the AU Mod, Berserks are "upgraded" to Guerilla. In my opinion, this makes them actually lose value. While it gives them better defense, it completely changes their role, so the upgrade is kind of bugged. While amphibious, they can execute fast, surprising attacks even well into the Industrial Age. "Upgrading" Berserks to Guerillas turns them into mere support troops in offensive operations, and of course, kills the awesome amphibious capabilities. although the upgrade is consistent with the Longbowman's path, it is much more awkward.
What I was thinking would be to simply change the upgrade for Berserks from Guerilla to the Marine. An unit with equal capabilities (amphibious, strong attack, weak defense), only more advanced.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
nbarclay
|
|
Huntsville, Alabama
Dec 1999
time: 23:33
|
|
I think the current upgrade path is better. Depending on the research path followed, TOW infantry are available about the same time as marines. TOW infantry are 12.14.1 with a zero-range bombard capability, compared with 12.6.1 for marines. If AIs were good at using marines' amphibious assault capability, I would still view marines as offering a significant potential advantage in AI hands. But with how rarely AIs seem to use an amphibious assault capability (at least if my experience is any indication), I'm inclined to view TOW infantry's vastly higher defense value and zero-range bombardment as offering a greater advantage than marines' capabilities do in AI hands.
Add to that the fact that the guerilla upgrade offers an intermediate boost in power in between Beserks and TOW infantry. The guerilla upgrade is available long before a marine upgrade would be and, in the AU Mod, offers a small offensive advantage in addition to its vastly larger defensive advantage.
From a human perspective, which path is more advantageous depends on when a player does his fighting and what kind of fighting he does. Marines could be useful in certain playing styles (albeit far more so on some map types than on others), but the lack of a guerilla upgrade would undercut the ability to use infantry/artillery tactics with guerillas upgraded from Beserks to provide the main offensive punch.
At best, I view changing the Beserk upgrade path as a mixed bag without sufficient advantages to justify the departure from the standard rules. In my view, whatever advantages the change would offer would be offset, if not more than offset, by disadvantages.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Modo44
|
|
in western Poland
Jul 2004
time: 06:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by pvzh
Logically, it would be better to Make berserk as Med Inf UU instead of Longbowman UU, but I will be too drastic.
If I could change stock rules (be in charge of re-balancing patch). I would made Berserks 4/2/1 +HP (amphibious), cost 40, require Iron, as a Med. Inf. replacement.
Right now, they are "fun", but too expensive for the Era and you cannot build them through upgrades, i.e. disconnect resource -- build cheap unit, connect resource -- upgrade. |
The very point would be taken, if the UU was not expensive, for the Berserk is extremely powerful in the hand of a human player. Even making it weaker wouldn't really help, because you can get it before an opponent has Gunpowder, and often even before he finishes upgrading his Spearmen. Also, if they were cheaper, you could get tons of...
quote:
Originally posted by nbarclay
I think the current upgrade path is better. Depending on the research path followed, TOW infantry are available about the same time as marines. TOW infantry are 12.14.1 with a zero-range bombard capability, compared with 12.6.1 for marines. If AIs were good at using marines' amphibious assault capability, I would still view marines as offering a significant potential advantage in AI hands. But with how rarely AIs seem to use an amphibious assault capability (at least if my experience is any indication), I'm inclined to view TOW infantry's vastly higher defense value and zero-range bombardment as offering a greater advantage than marines' capabilities do in AI hands.
Add to that the fact that the guerilla upgrade offers an intermediate boost in power in between Beserks and TOW infantry. The guerilla upgrade is available long before a marine upgrade would be and, in the AU Mod, offers a small offensive advantage in addition to its vastly larger defensive advantage.
|
If you consider that 3 or 4 Berserks can take a city from a human player in a turn, conducting a surprise attack, often even against Riflemen, you'll get the idea. Weakly defended coastal cities? Well, tough luck. The point (as stated in my first post) is, "upgrading" to Guerilla takes away this ability forever. I know they are not so useful, when attacking on land, but that's the thing about the UU in the first place - a "normal" invasion with Berserks is not something you want to do. Personally, I don't see why and upgrade should be changing that, while taking away the UUs amphibious capabilities.
quote:
Originally posted by nbarclay
From a human perspective, which path is more advantageous depends on when a player does his fighting and what kind of fighting he does. Marines could be useful in certain playing styles (albeit far more so on some map types than on others), but the lack of a guerilla upgrade would undercut the ability to use infantry/artillery tactics with guerillas upgraded from Beserks to provide the main offensive punch. |
From a human perspective, who would bother playing the Vikings on a pangea anyway? The use of Berserks' amphibious capabilities is one of the reasons to play that civ. The problem is, currently they don't get to be upgraded to a useful unit of the same role, which takes the fun out of the game. Ask yourself this: If you had a horde of Berserks, with boats, going on a rampage every other day (4 tiles movement on a Galley, 5 on a Caravel, 6 on Galleon, that's without any wonders...), without much losses (once they get Riflemen, you get Frigates to bomb the defenders...), would you even consider upgrading them to a unit that must land and survive a counter-attack, before doing anything? Such an "upgrade" is simply useless, IMO.
quote:
Originally posted by nbarclay
At best, I view changing the Beserk upgrade path as a mixed bag without sufficient advantages to justify the departure from the standard rules. In my view, whatever advantages the change would offer would be offset, if not more than offset, by disadvantages. |
The departure was already made, when the unit was given an upgrade.  I'm trying to turn it into a useful upgrade.
Theseus, where are you? 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
nbarclay
|
|
Huntsville, Alabama
Dec 1999
time: 23:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Modo44
The departure was already made, when the unit was given an upgrade. I'm trying to turn it into a useful upgrade. |
On the contrary, the upgrade to guerillas is part of the stock rules in C3C.
quote:
If you consider that 3 or 4 Berserks can take a city from a human player in a turn, conducting a surprise attack, often even against Riflemen, you'll get the idea. Weakly defended coastal cities? Well, tough luck. The point (as stated in my first post) is, "upgrading" to Guerilla takes away this ability forever. I know they are not so useful, when attacking on land, but that's the thing about the UU in the first place - a "normal" invasion with Berserks is not something you want to do. Personally, I don't see why and upgrade should be changing that, while taking away the UUs amphibious capabilities. |
How often have you actually had a Viking AI launch such an attack against you? I've always worried about the possibility when I faced the Vikings as an opponent, especially when they are nearby. But I don't recall ever actually having an AI Beserk launch an amphibious assault against one of my cities.
Further, even if AIs might use Beserks for amphibious assaults on rare occasion, most of their use of Beserks is as conventional overland attackers where guerillas would offer significant advantages over Beserks. The loss of that upgrade path would stick AIs with a bunch of obsolete Beserks as offensive units for a very long time.
quote:
From a human perspective, who would bother playing the Vikings on a pangea anyway? The use of Berserks' amphibious capabilities is one of the reasons to play that civ. The problem is, currently they don't get to be upgraded to a useful unit of the same role, which takes the fun out of the game. Ask yourself this: If you had a horde of Berserks, with boats, going on a rampage every other day (4 tiles movement on a Galley, 5 on a Caravel, 6 on Galleon, that's without any wonders...), without much losses (once they get Riflemen, you get Frigates to bomb the defenders...), would you even consider upgrading them to a unit that must land and survive a counter-attack, before doing anything? Such an "upgrade" is simply useless, IMO. |
I'm not sure I've ever played the Vikings in C3C, and certainly not for long enough into a game to get Beserks, so my analysis here is essentially purely theoretical (with just a tiny bit of PtW Viking experience thrown in). But yes, it is likely taht I would upgrade at least some of my Beserks to guerillas under the conditions you describe. Keep in mind that frigate bombardment can't reach inland cities, so if I want artillery support to attack inland cities, I'd need a conventional infantry/artillery stack anyhow. And if I'm going to build a large conventional artillery stack anyhow, why spend the shields to also build a large frigate stack, especially when my coastal cities are almost always lagging behind in building city improvements at that stage of the game?
There are two main exceptions, however. First, if I have enough production to build the offensive units I want from scratch by the time I'll want to attack someone, that eliminates the need to upgrade Beserks. And second, if I don't have rubber, overland attacks would not be nearly as attractive, at least until I can get rubber. But even then, the only real drawback to the Guerilla upgrade path is that it would prevent building additional Beserks.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Modo44
|
|
in western Poland
Jul 2004
time: 06:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by nbarclay
On the contrary, the upgrade to guerillas is part of the stock rules in C3C.
|
Ooops, my bad. 
quote:
Originally posted by nbarclay
How often have you actually had a Viking AI launch such an attack against you? I've always worried about the possibility when I faced the Vikings as an opponent, especially when they are nearby. But I don't recall ever actually having an AI Beserk launch an amphibious assault against one of my cities. |
Not often, true. But the problem is, I'm usually in the position of power by that time, often with Muskets and stuff, so AI won't be able to just come visit when it pleases, and it will be reluctant to come visit at all. And I think neither would it come to you, most of the games. But the basic AI tactics would indicate just what I said - an attack force of 1-2 transport ships (I'm talking Emperor difficulty), filled with those berserks. I remember someone mentioning getting smashed by AI Vikings, though it might take me some time to find it. Was about 2-3 weeks ago, probably in the Strategy forum. I'll give yoo an update on that, or I'll do a test game, forcing the AI to use Berserks (just to see if they can attack from the ships, or if they'll unload Berserks near a city).
quote:
Originally posted by nbarclay
Further, even if AIs might use Beserks for amphibious assaults on rare occasion, most of their use of Beserks is as conventional overland attackers where guerillas would offer significant advantages over Beserks. The loss of that upgrade path would stick AIs with a bunch of obsolete Beserks as offensive units for a very long time. |
So what? That's the bad part of an UU - it has disadvantages as well. I understand you want to help the AI though, so point taken.
quote:
Originally posted by nbarclay
I'm not sure I've ever played the Vikings in C3C, and certainly not for long enough into a game to get Beserks, so my analysis here is essentially purely theoretical (with just a tiny bit of PtW Viking experience thrown in). But yes, it is likely taht I would upgrade at least some of my Beserks to guerillas under the conditions you describe. Keep in mind that frigate bombardment can't reach inland cities, so if I want artillery support to attack inland cities, I'd need a conventional infantry/artillery stack anyhow. And if I'm going to build a large conventional artillery stack anyhow, why spend the shields to also build a large frigate stack, especially when my coastal cities are almost always lagging behind in building city improvements at that stage of the game? |
I made a 3-turn war agains an opponent on an archipelago map. Berserks on Galleys (5-move, with Lighthouse), taking 9 cities, 1 inland. Later did the same to an opponent with more inland cities. Believe me, defended by some Muskets (which were brought for defense of captured cities anyway), the Berserks do very well inland, even thought the speed is lost. You are right, that inland invasions don't go as fast, but the more expensive unit has also a bigger attack value than any other unit at that time, winning most fights even without bombard support. Also, if there was little coast to invade, you'd need less Berserks and Frigates (only for coastal cities), so you'd have more "traditional" forces ready (by not building many expensive Berserks). Point noted, but still, the first few cities should fall fast and easy, which is usually crucial for breaking the AI. So I'd rather not lose this ability by upgrading to units without amphibious attack. Note that getting open ports on the very first turn of the invasion gives you a huge advantage over the usual "land, survive onslaught, (optional build city), go attacking" way of invading.
quote:
Originally posted by nbarclay
There are two main exceptions, however. First, if I have enough production to build the offensive units I want from scratch by the time I'll want to attack someone, that eliminates the need to upgrade Beserks. And second, if I don't have rubber, overland attacks would not be nearly as attractive, at least until I can get rubber. But even then, the only real drawback to the Guerilla upgrade path is that it would prevent building additional Beserks. |
Yes, but it's only true for continents and pangeas. Like I said, the most use (and fun) you get out of the Berserks is on archipelagos. Then your points about the unit are invalid, because most civs can be nearly wiped out by a single attack from the sea. There was an AU course with a huge map (spoilers here and here), where Theseus and BigDork used the Berserks to invade opponents this way, and had quite some success IIRC. It was, naturally, an archipelago map. And, what should be noted, they suffered little Berserk losses, so adding units later for more inland invading shouldn't be a big deal.
[edit - added links]
Last edited by Modo44 on 30-11-2004 at 02:09
|
|
| |
|
|
|
nbarclay
|
|
Huntsville, Alabama
Dec 1999
time: 23:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Modo44
I made a 3-turn war agains an opponent on an archipelago map. Berserks on Galleys (5-move, with Lighthouse), taking 9 cities, 1 inland. Later did the same to an opponent with more inland cities. Believe me, defended by some Muskets (which were brought for defense of captured cities anyway), the Berserks do very well inland, even thought the speed is lost. You are right, that inland invasions don't go as fast, but the more expensive unit has also a bigger attack value than any other unit at that time, winning most fights even without bombard support. |
It looks to me like you're talking here about battles before AIs start defending with riflemen. An attack inland using Beserks against riflemen without artillery support would be far more costly, especially since most AI cities would be over size six by that point.
quote:
Note that getting open ports on the very first turn of the invasion gives you a huge advantage over the usual "land, survive onslaught, (optional build city), go attacking" way of invading. |
I'm not sure how huge that advantage is. If the AI can't use a rail network, the number of units that can counterattack the first turn is relatively limited no matter what. If a rail network is involved, fast-movers can attack a landing in a city just as easily as they can a landing anywhere else, so only slow-movers are prevented from attacking immediately. And infantry can deal with counterattacks by slow-movers reasonably well as long as you bring enough of them - especially if the AI doesn't have significant numbers of offensive infantry and/or guerillas yet. Certainly, all else being equal, I'd rather use an amphibious assault to capture a city immediately so I can use its radius to enhance my defenses. But how much special effort I'd be willing to put into such an operation is another question.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Modo44
|
|
in western Poland
Jul 2004
time: 06:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by nbarclay
It looks to me like you're talking here about battles before AIs start defending with riflemen. An attack inland using Beserks against riflemen without artillery support would be far more costly, especially since most AI cities would be over size six by that point. |
You're right, I wouldn't go inland with Berserks, when I could do it better with Cavalry. But I'd only need 4-5 dudes with axes to take a coastal city and some Frigates to bomb it, not much more. So I'd be able to put resources into conventional offensive units to follow the first strike. OTOH, if the enemy has a long coastal line, I could get many of his cities in a single turn, without giving him much chance of retaliation. Even Riflemen would be in trouble then. I'm still considering the situation, where an archipelago setup allows me to build the core of Berserks early, and then keep adding units. So in both cases support should be numerous, because of low early casualties. The thing is, upgrading those Berserks to Guerillas makes little sense to me - it loses their main purpose in my forces. I'd really rather wait until Marines are available.
quote:
Originally posted by nbarclay
I'm not sure how huge that advantage is. If the AI can't use a rail network, the number of units that can counterattack the first turn is relatively limited no matter what. If a rail network is involved, fast-movers can attack a landing in a city just as easily as they can a landing anywhere else, so only slow-movers are prevented from attacking immediately. And infantry can deal with counterattacks by slow-movers reasonably well as long as you bring enough of them - especially if the AI doesn't have significant numbers of offensive infantry and/or guerillas yet. Certainly, all else being equal, I'd rather use an amphibious assault to capture a city immediately so I can use its radius to enhance my defenses. But how much special effort I'd be willing to put into such an operation is another question. |
You get a fortified defender in a city which usually gives a defensive bonus because if it's size. You get almost every unit fortified. You get the 1-tile zone that prevents any slow-movers from attacking you on the same turn. You get to attack farther inland, if you have brought additional units. This makes the invasion a lot faster, perhaps even allowing to take some inland cities on the very first turn. Think a Cavalry stack entering ports straight away, instead of having to sit down for a turn. Again, if you are already with an advantage, it's no biggie, but if struggling - this is necessary.
[edit]
Found the post about getting clobbered by AI Vikings.
http://apolyton.net/forums/showthre...722#post3308722
I'll try to get a save from UnOrthOdOx, so we can see how bad the AI is at using Berserks...
[/edit]
Last edited by Modo44 on 30-11-2004 at 03:39
|
|
| |
|
|
|
nbarclay
|
|
Huntsville, Alabama
Dec 1999
time: 23:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Modo44
You're right, I wouldn't go inland with Berserks, when I could do it better with Cavalry. But I'd only need 4-5 dudes with axes to take a coastal city and some Frigates to bomb it, not much more. So I'd be able to put resources into conventional offensive units to follow the first strike. OTOH, if the enemy has a long coastal line, I could get many of his cities in a single turn, without giving him much chance of retaliation. Even Riflemen would be in trouble then. I'm still considering the situation, where an archipelago setup allows me to build the core of Berserks early, and then keep adding units. So in both cases support should be numerous, because of low early casualties. The thing is, upgrading those Berserks to Guerillas makes little sense to me - it loses their main purpose in my forces. I'd really rather wait until Marines are available. |
Have you actually done what you describe here against rifle-armed opponents? It looks to me like it would take an awful lot of frigates to have the bombardment power to soften up several cities at once against riflemen.
quote:
You get a fortified defender in a city which usually gives a defensive bonus because if it's size. You get almost every unit fortified. You get the 1-tile zone that prevents any slow-movers from attacking you on the same turn. You get to attack farther inland, if you have brought additional units. This makes the invasion a lot faster, perhaps even allowing to take some inland cities on the very first turn. Think a Cavalry stack entering ports straight away, instead of having to sit down for a turn. Again, if you are already with an advantage, it's no biggie, but if struggling - this is necessary. |
I don't disagree that taking a city with an amphibious assault in the first turn provides a considerable advantage. I'm just saying that there are tradeoffs involved. If I have Beserks and adequate naval bombardment support, I would definitely use amphibious assault tactics. But whether I'd make a special effort to build adequate naval bombardment support instead of focusing my efforts elsewhere is a much bigger question.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:33.
Apolyton Time is 00:33. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
08-01-2004 00:16
)
|