Change Naval Commander(and maybe other strats) to reflect World Map2.0

I believe that Naval Commander(and probably some others, like possibly Sky Menace, and arguably RA/PD) should be updated for World Map 2.0

The naval main attack buff is: +2 attack/defense/crit,+1hp,+3range, +2view/capacity, -80 cost
The new naval types have no buffs.

Since World Map 2.0 is supposedly going to be the default map, I would argue that all strategies need to reflect the new units in it(specifically, I am talking about Naval Commander). Certain strats, like blitz and imperialist will work as they are supposed to, because they effect all units in a specific way(unless there's some exceptions, but I doubt that they apply to World Map 2.0). NC and others need changing, as the new units are not currently affected by them, even if they should be.

I propose the following for the new naval types:

For naval secondary attack, I propose half the buff(except for hp, range and view) of naval main attack:
+1atk,def,crit,hp,
+1(probably +2)capacity
+3 range, +2 view
+1 attack vs air
-50/40 cost

I also propose making the corvette a secondary defense ship, and giving these buffs to Defense and secondary defense ships:
Defense ships:
+2 Defense, crit, view
+1 hp
+3 range
+1 capacity
+1 Defense vs air
-25 cost

Secondary defense ships:
+1 Defense
+2 crit, view
+1 hp
+3 range
+1 Defense vs air
-10 cost

The reason for these changes is to keep the new ships in line with how NC is typically played:
The transport buff makes NC on world map 1.0 slightly inferior perfect defense, with an infantry range buff, and a strong coastal focus, along with improved destroyers and subs.
Note: Some people play with marines/subs instead of using transports, which is usually frowned upon.

World map 2.0 is the modified pd with battleships and subs, and no buffs for the new ship classes. I as an NC player would want them to have bonuses that match their classifications.

I proposed the bonuses against air units because the non main attack naval units get mostly smaller buffs, and the defense units get no attack buff. Giving different alternative bonuses instead may be preferred(e.g. defense/secondary defense ships could get wall/city defense buffs, and secondary attack ships could get an attack buff on the same. I would suggest only giving secondary defense ships the wall buff, and maybe giving the regular defense ships a bonus defending in cities-perhaps +2 each).



Alternative ideas:
-Give new ship types the same buffs as main attack, with cost buffs altered as above and these changes:
-The main defense ships can maybe get +1 attack instead of +2, and maybe only +1 capacity
-Secondary defense ships get an attack bonus of 1 less than main defense, only +1 defense and no capacity. Also, don't give them an hp buff, and maybe don't include a range buff. If secondary defense is looking too cool after the buff, maybe increase the cost by 10 or 20 instead of making them cheaper.
-Secondary attack gets (+1 attack, defense), (+2 attack), or (+2 attack, +1 defense). They can still get +2 capacity, since cruisers are still big ships.

-The other types of ship could get the same buff as main attack, with adjusted prices(corvettes: +10 price, destroyer: -20, Cruiser: -50)
-If no other buffs, at least give these new ship types +3 range and make them much cheaper. This allows transports to be escorted without losing range, and the price buff gives NC players a reason to use them(especially with range being the only buff). Cost buffs per new ship class:
-Secondary attack: -80 to 50(up to as high as main attack, but with the reduced buffs, is still a good idea-Cruisers are still expensive)
-Naval defense: -50 to 30
-Secondary defense: -30 to 20

As an NC player, the only ship worth getting(other than the ones affected by NC) is the corvette, since you can create cheaper walls to defend your ports. Cruisers are(for NC) almost as pricey as battleships(-30 cost, -5atk/def, -3 range, -4hp, no capacity-it's only good if you're using other strats), and the destroyer is virtually pointless, when for just a price of 120 more, you get +10 attack, +4 defense, range that lets you escort your transport with the transport only going 1 range slower, improved view range, +2 capacity, and +4hp.





A few ideas regarding units from an NC player's perspective:

Regarding Battleships, maybe give them 1 or 2 capacity before applying strategies. It is a bit of a let down that they don't have slightly more capacity than the original destroyer(this prevents changes to World Map 1.0; I'm not sure if NC destroyers with a capacity = air transport with 1 cap upgrade is a good idea; also, this is a battleship, I'm not convinced it would be game breaking to allow non NC players to put 1 tank in a battleship, but maybe increase the price to 360).
-If it's possible to affect a strategy's affect on a specific unit, maybe give battleships additional capacity to NC players, so that it's usually +2 for main attack, but +3 or 4 for battleships specifically.


I'm not really sure why anyone would ever need a destroyer over a corvette, given that they are more than twice the cost, and only have +2 defense(and a small bomber bonus/submarine nerf). Even vs. bombers, corvettes are still giving you way more defense per money(16 defense for 140 vs 9 defense for 150, that's +7 def for less cash, and no nerf against subs). If you include the destroyer attack buff vs subs, corvettes are still better, because the two corvettes together still have +2 attack over the one destroyer, and double the attack generally. In other words, 2 corvettes are always slightly better than 1 sub, and one destroyer is roughly equal to 1 sub, if you ignore strategies(enemies that use NC will have subs that cost as much as, and are better than, destroyers, can sometimes out perform 2 corvettes(mostly in defense-corvettes have no attack), and are stealth ships).
I could be wrong, but I am not sure if 2 corvettes is ever less useful than 1 destroyer

Maybe corvettes should be nerfed? I propose the following:
-Since they seem to be there for cheap walling, maybe give them 7 range, 2 attack, 5 defense and 50 cost, as well as +1 defense when in a wall and a small hp nerf, making destroyers the escort ship, and corvettes the true secondary defense ships.
*It may be better to lower the range to 4, and the cost to 30/40, making them serve the role of a patrol boat. If they're going to be this cheap, though, give them a nerf when defending in cities. This way, they are used to build sea walls, or won't be worth the price.
*Since corvettes should probably be able to beat transports in a fight, maybe also give them +2 attack vs transports, or an hp bonus.
-I don't know if corvettes can take cities, but maybe remove that ability if they can? I don't think that swarms of corvettes should be able to take a coastal city

Alternatively, maybe give destroyers some buffs. For example:
-Give them a defense bonus when escorting transports, and when in a city. The escort buff is 100% more important from an NC perspective, so I wouldn't say that the city buff alone is really worth it.
-Maybe instead make destroyers cheaper(say, 100/120?)
-Give destroyers a higher buff vs submarines(maybe +2 attack? That would make destroyers good sub hunters, but also still let subs sink destroyers)
-Give destroyers a +3 buff when attacking/defending vs corvettes(and perhaps also give Battleships/cruisers a +1 attack buff against them, and give subs +1 attack against them as well). This means that destroyers have 7 attack, 11 defense vs two corvettes with 4 attack, 6 defense each. This will mean that it won't be cost effective for corvettes to attack destroyers, but a destroyer will have a reasonably good chance of sinking 2 corvettes, and 1 destroyer will usually destroy at least one corvette in any fight.










Miscellany

Preventing change of balance on (probably very few) custom maps:
These changes may adversely affect a handful of custom maps, because they were designed to work with strats that had the original world map in mind.

Options for NC and other strategies:
Maybe make the strat changes for WM 2.0 not applicable to custom maps by default, and add an option in the map editor to enable these changes(i.e. make original NC and similar strats default in custom maps, and allow map makers to use the new version instead, if their maps are balanced for the changes).

Since you can select a strategy to be disabled in a game, you can also allow players hosting a custom map to choose the original Naval Commander(or other strat changed for 2.0) over the new one.
A better solution would be to have an option called "Use world map 1.0 strategies", which prevents strats from specifically affecting advanced units(Naval defense, air defense, etc) that do not appear in 1.0, which would allow strats like imperialist or blitz to behave normally(idk, maybe put a -10 cost on the advanced units that apply to these strats, so -10 cost on advanced naval units with NC, -10 cost on advanced air units on SM, -10 on ground transport in logistics wizard, -10 on advanced stealth on MoS). It could also be possible for mapmakers to disable this option/limit what strats it applies to if they're already balanced to handle these changes for some/all strats.

Since there are a few unit types that are not on WM 2.0, perhaps a further change to apply to custom maps could be made. Lets call these units "super advanced units"(SAUs). If a custom map uses SAUs, there could be a few options for the strats that are relevant that a map maker can choose(I can only think of ground transport, but believe that there are a couple of others). For example, ground transports could have(depending on mapmaker decisions) +1 range, -10 cost, +1 def, or +3range, +10 cost, +1 def, etc. if logistics wizard was used, or no change if the mapmaker didn't choose one.

Alternatively, just give them the cost and range buffs, preventing the changes from impacting most custom maps(this is arguably the least likely to affect current maps, and also makes the advanced units worth buying, as per the strat).

Note: Any maps with absurdly cheap secondary attack/defense/secondary defense ships could have people recruiting free boats, but with such cheap ships, it probably is like imperialist making the super cheap(almost useless) militia free in that one map I played. If possible, maybe try one of these options:
1)limit these changes to World Map 2.0, maybe with an option to allow mapmakers and/or game hosts to allow World Map 2.0 strats.
2)make things so that the price of each class doesn't ever fall below 10, unless:
a) we're talking about ships with ridiculously low stats(e.g. 1 atk, 2 def, and 1 movement).
b) they already cost 10 gold, in which case you can make them cost 5.
3)make the new cost buffs limited to reducing the price to a certain percentage of the ship's price(since this is an edge case that will almost never happen, maybe 10%), rounded up to the nearest 10 or 5.
4)If trying options 2 or 3, then in maps where these ships already cost 10 gold or less, maybe just reduce the price by one.

p.s.
I apologize for this being rather long, but felt that the extra length would help developers if they decide that this is a good idea.

Teammates, I'm not a Naval Commander strategist, but the Admiral's (I promoted him) proposals are worthy of review and consideration. I know the developers are busy, but this gaming platform can adapt to the maps, and this is one area that could be updated. 71% of the earth is covered by water so implementing these changes will make the game more realistic.

I dont like the idea

(too long; didnt read)

लिखा द्वारा nutt, 14.08.2024 at 21:11

I dont like the idea

(too long; didnt read)

I realize it was very long, so this is the TL;DR version:

Note that destroyers are replaced with: Battleships(main attack), Cruisers(secondary attack), destroyers(defense version), corvettes(defense). See the below screenshot of WM 2.0 units

1)It kind of sucks that NC doesn't affect cruisers/destroyers/corvettes in the new map. With this in mind, I have suggested a list of smaller buffs to match their roles(and said that corvettes should be redefined as "secondary defense"). I have also noted that other strats should probably also have similar changes.
2)Corvettes seem kind of OP vs. other naval units(especially destroyers). I definitely don't see why anyone would pick destroyers over corvettes(and I'm not convinced that battleships/cruisers are much better in either attack or defense per $ spent, except for NC battleships). With this in mind, I suggest:
a)shorter ranged, weaker corvettes that cost less. They're either only for walling, or at least that would be their main use. I suggested several options on how to do this.
b)a few destroyer buffs, including steep attack and defense buffs vs. corvettes, making them corvette hunters(also a tiny buff for other non transport ships vs corvettes).
*I don't believe that all of the buffs here should be used together.
3)Battleships would be cooler if they could have a higher capacity than WM1 destroyers. I suggest either giving them a base cap of 1 or 2, or making NC affect WM2.0 differently than in all other maps, so that NC players can enjoy their cooler battleships. This is only for coolness, and I admit that this could be bad for balance, so maybe don't do this.
4)A few points on custom maps, and how changing NC/other strats could negatively affect them(e.g. free patrol boats, super tanky secondary defense, etc.). I suggested various ways that the devs could fix these issues, like making all of the maps already made only use the old versions of these strategies, unless a mapmaker specifically chooses to use them.
a)I realize that strats are not balanced for custom maps, but changes of this sort could cause big problems to a huge number of them.

IDK, maybe I should edit my post with this as an introduction?

https://imgur.com/FH5j1BK

Bump/ I support all points made. Units for 2.0 need the strats to match them.