Rejected Fix fireships

[DeletedUser]

Here's what I think should happen:
1. Fireships engage before biremes
2. Fireships cannot kill transports
3. A city cannot be conquered if fireships remain in the harbor

 

[DeletedUser]

Hey Guys ~

It seems this idea is liked although the OP didn't follow a format. If someone would like to put the idea into a format and update it with new information from the discussion in this thread and mail me. I will update the thread on the behalf of the OP and see what I can do with this idea.

~ Lane

/This thread is also being moved back to Ideas as it wasn't moved by a moderator.

 

[DeletedUser]

I would like to see a change to battle process to allow Fireships to go first. I think they may then have some value in the game and most people would assume that they would go first. Fireships however cant be used to defend a Colony Ship (from memory), so it still means that are being used for city defence and not as a conquor weapon. In non-conquor games this could be useful though.

 

[DeletedUser20429]

Hey Guys ~

It seems this idea is liked although the OP didn't follow a format. If someone would like to put the idea into a format and update it with new information from the discussion in this thread and mail me. I will update the thread on the behalf of the OP and see what I can do with this idea.

~ Lane

/This thread is also being moved back to Ideas as it wasn't moved by a moderator.

Uh Lane I think Phoenix moved it due to the fact that Normal users can't move threads. Although he may have let the format slide.

 

[DeletedUser8396]

Proposal: Make fireships engage in battle BEFORE biremes, triremes, ls, etc.

The lists: N/A

Reason: Id like the game to be more REALISTIC when it comes to sea def Who Wants to Lose all their Briememes First when they have Fire Ships to use.

Also, currently if you have an incoming CS, if your city has ONLY fireships, the CS can waltz in an conquer with the fireships WATCHING!

Details: Fairly self explanatory. Fireships engage before the other ships.

Visual Aid/ Abuse Prevention/ Balance: N/A

Summary: Make fireships engage in battle BEFORE biremes, triremes, ls, etc.

 

[DeletedUser]

I agree pebble ... fireships are good in theory but poorly done. They should be the main form of sea defence with no ability to send to protect a Colony Ship. That way the FS is an excellent defender of your city and Biremes are excellent defenders of your Colony Ship.

 

[DeletedUser]

The realism card is overdone, and having FS hit before biremes would tilt the game further towards the defender, and unbalance naval defense. FS are only to be used to soak up warships under select circumstances.

 

[DeletedUser]

Actually I dont have a problem with tilting the game towards the defender when it comes to sea warfare as currently it is tilted towards the attacker too much for sea warfare. I do have an issue with land defence. Some players just create a level 25 wall and stack the city with land defence evenly distributed between the main three 1 space defenders. If its an issue over defence, my issue is with land. The game encourages scared people to stack their cities with land defence and just hope everyone else in their alliance holds out.
If you agree with my issues about land defence then you should agree with this and put forward an idea to lessen the ability of defenders through the mission impossible wall that people with a Level 25 wall with no sea warfare and only land defence can do.

 

[DeletedUser]

Actually I dont have a problem with tilting the game towards the defender when it comes to sea warfare as currently it is tilted towards the attacker too much for sea warfare.

Well you are probably the first I have heard in 2 years of playing this game that has said that naval warfare is tilted towards the defender. How so? There is only one decent offensive warship, and you have two quality naval defenders. Bireme defense per farm space is the same as LS per farm space, and fire ships take out warships, with the exception of biremes, at a preferential ratio of BP (8:10, or 1:2 for triremes). You can stack biremes to the heavens to the point that the amount of biremes killed, even if the LS nuke has bonuses, premium, and high luck, the odds are still in the favor of the defender. Biremes and fireships are also easier to reproduce than LS, via time and resource consumption. I could go on, this statement of yours holds no water.

I do have an issue with land defence. Some players just create a level 25 wall and stack the city with land defence evenly distributed between the main three 1 space defenders. If its an issue over defence, my issue is with land. The game encourages scared people to stack their cities with land defence and just hope everyone else in their alliance holds out.
If you agree with my issues about land defence then you should agree with this and put forward an idea to lessen the ability of defenders through the mission impossible wall that people with a Level 25 wall with no sea warfare and only land defence can do.

Land defense is significantly more stronger than land attackers, even with a level 10 wall and enough stacking, you can outweigh the aggressor, especially if you bireme stack and crash the incoming transports.

 

[DeletedUser]

Either way Horus, the system encourages people to stack land instead of stacking sea. It means that players turtle on the belief that they can survive by doing this which decreases team work. Sea defence should be increased and land defence decreased.

 

[DeletedUser29371]

Either way Horus, the system encourages people to stack land instead of stacking sea. It means that players turtle on the belief that they can survive by doing this which decreases team work. Sea defence should be increased and land defence decreased.

Nah its perfectly fine... with sea defense increased offensive players will loose even more LS.... keep it like this...

 

[DeletedUser]

Hey Guys, I will be moving this idea to Improvements.

If we can once new plans are developed please keep me up to date so I can update the format since the OP doesn't seem to be active anymore.

Thanks!

 

[DeletedUser30767]

The system should be kept as it is ... if fireships engage before biremes, all TS and CS of attacker can be killed ... whats more is the fact that of the BP ratio ... either increase the amount of Farm Spaces used to build fire ships too

 

[DeletedUser]

The system should be kept as it is ... if fireships engage before biremes, all TS and CS of attacker can be killed ... whats more is the fact that of the BP ratio ... either increase the amount of Farm Spaces used to build fire ships too

Not really...You should always send clears before a CS lands in the first place. If you just send your CS alone..Your CS deserves to die! lol
If they have the city stacked well your CS would have died anyways.

 

[DeletedUser]

Not really...You should always send clears before a CS lands in the first place. If you just send your CS alone..Your CS deserves to die! lol
If they have the city stacked well your CS would have died anyways.

In a nutshell, this sums up my reasoning. A player shouldn't be helped or rewarded for lazy behaviour, if you want to succeed, you need to put in the time and effort.

 

[DeletedUser]

Theres another thread that is voting on this soon. Lets hope that the other one gets up.

 

[DeletedUser30767]

Ok ... whats the problem with current system ... and thats the thing .... if you start stacking up with FS .... the defensive guys will get more BPs then the offensive guys ... All this would do is encourage even more defensiveness in a game which already supports defense a lot

 

[DeletedUser]

well then all you would have to do is not attack the players that are strictly defensive!

eventually they will want the BP's bad enough to go on the offensive. Again a spy report will tell you what you need to get the job done you will either have what you need or work towards it so suck this idea gets +1 from me!

 

[Thane Badger]

The cost of Fire ships is reflected in their effectiveness, if you are going to make them more effective then to keep the game in balance the cost would have to go up.

Fire ships aren't a tactical weapon they are a weapon of attrition.
There is a very effective way to use fire ships. I'm not going to explain it, you have to work it out. They are superbly effective in certain circumstances and for their cost in material, population and Bp's they are already way ahead of anything else. You just have to know how to work with them.

In terms of realism an ancient fleet would not be able to engage fire ships and galleys at the same time. if you floated burning ships into the middle of an enemy attack then you couldn't engage your other ships at all until the hulks had been burnt out. Enemy galleys wouldn't try to sink them, they would just try to avoid them. if you tried to engage your biremes after your Fireships you would lose some of your own biremes to the fireships as well. Burning hulks carried by the wind don't discriminate.

If you want to play the realism card the fireships being slower would be prepared as the enemy fleet arrives, to be set on them later. An enemy fleet isn't going to sit around waiting to be set on fire, so you would have to engage your faster ships first and use the slower ones as a safety net. That is unless you have researched Greek RADAR.

 

[DeletedUser]

The idea is great....
But I hate fireships and would prefer they removed from the game, but if they are kept as I think they would be this is the logical manner they should be used.

As the defender does not need anymore help something would need to be balanced, maybe even a cheap attack ship to compensate.

Otherwise as stated above the cost of fireships would have to increase or something to reflect there new advantage