Cruiser vs frigate/SotL

[Emelio Lizardo]

There is no way that an armored cruiser be in any danger from a wooden ship with old ball cannons. Heavy gun vs wood should have an order of magnitude multiplyer and cannon vs steel ship an order of magnitude malus.

[Tankfriend]

This is not trying to be a realistic naval battle simulator, though. Steamships already have the advantages of greater range, turreted weapons, and being able to move against the wind without losing most of their speed.
On the other hand, sailing ships have greater raw firepower, and higher speed when sailing with the wind to give them some purpose throughout the game.

[Emelio Lizardo]

I'm not proposing a "realistic" naval engagement but at least a reasonable comparison of what an armored cruiser is compared to a wooden ship that throws iron balls.

Sailing ships would still have some use because they are cheap but no one builds wooden ships of the line once ironclads appear, for good reason.

They may indeed have "greater raw power" that may damage a dock but it's completely ineffective against an armored vessel. And it shouldn't have anywhere near the range.

It's pretty expensive to make a cruiser, it needs to justify that cost.

If you're going to label something a cruiser, make it meaningful, not the Civ style inanity of galleys blowing up aircraft carriers.

[XceptOne]

A Ship of the Line is only stronger when close up to its target, though. While the cruiser can deal its full damage at max range and can outmaneuver a Ship of the Line to stay at max range.
In additon to the falling off damage at range, the Ship of the Lines salvos also suffer from spread the farther it is from its target. This might be good against tightly packed groups, but reduces damage against single targets even more. So it's only utterly devestating when close to point blank range.

The cruisers real upside are raw staying power, especially against land based defenses and consistent damage output.
If threatened by a massive fleet of wooden ships, that your cruisers cannot easisly deal with (and often enough they can), just bring some Monitors with flamethrowers, which get massive damage bonus against wooden ships and reduced damage against metal ones, or use some items.

[Emelio Lizardo]

That's really interesting, but does not address my point. The gun class of the wooden ships is (should be) ineffective against an iron or steel armored ship. We can look at the American civil war battle between the Monitor and the Merrimak and see that the only thing that gun powder propelled iron balls do to such ships is bounce off the hulls. The cannon mounted on ships of the line of that time would be even less effective. The minute the Monitor sailed out of dry dock everyone's wooden fleet was obsolete. In game terms I think it is more than reasonable to downgrade the effects of hits armored ships by such cannon and magnify hits by advanced guns on wooden targets. Fire vessels have their own rules those seem somewhat reasonable though I think they are still over powered vs iron/steel armor.

[Emelio Lizardo]

In a side note both ship captains of that battle wrote after action reports of the battle and they are quite an interesting read, particularly in comparison with each other.

[Tregon]

Originally posted by Emelio Lizardo:

That's really interesting, but does not address my point. The gun class of the wooden ships is (should be) ineffective against an iron or steel armored ship. We can look at the American civil war battle between the Monitor and the Merrimak and see that the only thing that gun powder propelled iron balls do to such ships is bounce off the hulls. The cannon mounted on ships of the line of that time would be even less effective. The minute the Monitor sailed out of dry dock everyone's wooden fleet was obsolete. In game terms I think it is more than reasonable to downgrade the effects of hits armored ships by such cannon and magnify hits by advanced guns on wooden targets. Fire vessels have their own rules those seem somewhat reasonable though I think they are still over powered vs iron/steel armor.

And that would make game very, very boring. If wood ships lost also damage output, then game would all be about getting cruisers first and after that wood ships would be worthless.

Cheapness does not help if you lose at range and lose close up.

[Emelio Lizardo]

Originally posted by Tregon:

...
And that would make game very, very boring. If wood ships lost also damage output, then game would all be about getting cruisers first and after that wood ships would be worthless.
Cheapness does not help if you lose at range and lose close up.

I would disagree about being boring. Yes, you definately want cruisers ASAP. Yes, wooden ships should become worthless. How many Navies after the late 1800s kept wooden ships?

It's like keeping horse and buggies in play after cars are widespread.

[Tregon]

Originally posted by Emelio Lizardo:

Originally posted by Tregon:

...
And that would make game very, very boring. If wood ships lost also damage output, then game would all be about getting cruisers first and after that wood ships would be worthless.
Cheapness does not help if you lose at range and lose close up.

I would disagree about being boring. Yes, you definately want cruisers ASAP. Yes, wooden ships should become worthless. How many Navies after the late 1800s kept wooden ships?

It's like keeping horse and buggies in play after cars are widespread.

Look at this game. You do not see things become obsolete. You get better things, but idea of game is that nothing is completely worthless.

Wooden ships already have handicap in range and speed, so they get boon in form of cost and dps.

Again, this is NOT a simulation.

[Emelio Lizardo]

It's not a simulation is not an argument. A thing should be the thing that it is. The program tries to be "realistic" within the limitations of programming and time. Otherwise we could make cruisers out of bread.

[XceptOne]

Originally posted by Emelio Lizardo:

It's like keeping horse and buggies in play after cars are widespread.

Interestingly though, that's exactly what this game does too.

Anyway, I actually agree with the sentiment that wooden warships shouldn't be completely obsoleted by their steam counterparts.
It just makes for bad balance if a huge SotL warfleet gets ripped apart in minutes, just because the other player unlocked cruisers an hour earlier than the first one.
(It's actually not even about the warfleet, but if your tradeships stand no chance anymore because their guard ships are suddenly worthless, the game is pretty much over in a competetive setting. As it is currently, it still takes time and effort to shut down well defended trade routes and in an all out war scenario wooden trader need to be replaced quite fast anyway, once flamers are a thing.)

[Tregon]

Originally posted by Emelio Lizardo:

It's not a simulation is not an argument. A thing should be the thing that it is. The program tries to be "realistic" within the limitations of programming and time. Otherwise we could make cruisers out of bread.

It is not a simulation IS an argument. This is city and production planning and logistics game with some lightweight warfare added to it.

It never pretends to simulate anything or follow any real world principles. Or do you think that having gas mines on top of huge sheer cliff icebergs is realistic? Or that suddenly clockmaker a can start making them from raw ore?

Or fact that arctic explorers only can survive using remote heating...

Programming here says that wooden warships are not obsolete so they are not.

[Chuckawookie]

Originally posted by Emelio Lizardo:

It's not a simulation is not an argument. A thing should be the thing that it is. The program tries to be "realistic" within the limitations of programming and time. Otherwise we could make cruisers out of bread.

The game is what it is, but you don't like what it is. The devs intentionally made it so that the various ships have tradeoffs rather than the more realistic approach of one ship making the other obsolete. They felt it would be more interesting to do it this way and many players agree. You just didn't like the game design and that's fine.

[Emelio Lizardo]

True, I don't like the design decision. I think it's bad for the reasons stated. Well, many users like bad design, I can't help that.

[Smokerbait]

Originally posted by Emelio Lizardo:

True, I don't like the design decision. I think it's bad for the reasons stated. Well, many users like bad design, I can't help that.

You seem to be the only one who thinks your idea is any good. Maybe you should take that as a hint. Is everybody else wrong, or is it you?

[Chuckawookie]

Originally posted by Emelio Lizardo:

True, I don't like the design decision. I think it's bad for the reasons stated. Well, many users like bad design, I can't help that.

But is it fair to say that something is bad design because it's not realistic? Must all games be perfectly realistic in order to be good? Wouldn't this be an example of good design, where some realism was sacrificed in exchange for balance between units?