A poll on the new naval system

[Arup]

I haven't a single idea how the balancing thought the new naval was a good idea. Ram Ships are def OP broken, any civ that doesn't have either fire ship or ram ship is inherently in a worse position than an enemy who does have them. This is ridiculous: HOW DOES GARRISON NOT AFFECT THE SHIP AT ALL? How is the speed of a ship manned by 30 crew the same speed (slower if the one you're chasing has one single stupid upgrade and you don't) than an ungarrisoned boat? How does it make sense?

[Seleucids]

Firstly, there is a fundamental problem with ship pathfinders and the passability of ships. They have a serious difficulty doing anything on small maps. So if you want to play naval, you must use giant size maps or maps specialised for naval play. 

Secondly, I think the changes were intended to nerf ships against units on land. But I do agree that the old system was better. 

Thirdly, if you make ships, I will shoot you down with archers. 

In conclusion, ignore navy and stick to TG STANDARD SETTINGS ! 

[chrstgtr]

I don’t like the current navy system. But we should also remember the old system was absolute garbage. 

I think a lot of problems with the current system owes to balance problems and an overly complicated system that should be stripped down. 
 

Problems With Current System

Balance is bad. There are a bunch of ship types but players basically only make arrow ships. This says balance is off and/or there are too many ship types. We should try to balance the ships or just get rid of some types. 

Land-water balance is off too. Ships die quickly to land units, which means ships are only useful to patrol the water. This means it’s mostly just about denying fishing and they’re a sunk cost if fishing isn’t contested at any point.

There are too many techs that no one researches. The techs are overly costly and complicated. The fact that ships are basically only used to deny fishing underscores how the tech tree way over complicates this.

We lost the siege ship, which could destroy buildings from sea. This is an aspect that has just gone missing. Again, another element where navy is inferior to land units 

Ships are too expensive. I don’t want to get into a fight where I pay 100m every minute just so I can fish. This very quickly leads to a system where fishing means you will slow/stall yourself and players should skip fishing or rely on their teammates to defend fishing  

Scout ships are useless against other ships. They should be in p1 or not exist. Giving an option to rush fishing in p1 seems like better gameplay anyways. Having a system where rushing can backfire against a phased opponent also seems like better design. 

The only real strategy right now is to train more ships than your enemy and to train them earlier than your enemy. Again, this is a balance problem. A lot of this could be fixed by putting scout ships in p1. 

Positives With Current System

It got rid of the garrisoning=strength meta. I can’t understate how much I hated that system. It slowed down eco, made you susceptible to losing a massive amount of pop and resources in seconds, and led to snowballing.

 

Edited 10 hours ago by chrstgtr

[Arup]

1 hour ago, chrstgtr said:

Scout ships are useless against other ships

@JC (naval supremacist) with his 70 or smth armada of scout ships only obliterated me and sheep in 2v1 scenario... all ships can be useful depending on the scenario

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

Ima be honest whichall.

 

Old system ain't coming back, lol.

 

So, focus on making the new system better. Thanks @chrstgtr for his analysis and suggestions (I have quibbles, but w/e). 

 

Any new overhauled system is gonna be trash in the first iteration (see: capture/attack balance). This alpha changed a lot of things. Keep playing and give suggestions to improve the changes besides "changing it back." There are many valid reasons for the new changes that aren't invalidated by an awkward 1.0

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

2 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

Balance is bad. There are a bunch of ship types but players basically only make arrow ships. This says balance is off and/or there are too many ship types. We should try to balance the ships or just get rid of some types. 

Well, let's try the former before the latter.

 

2 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

Land-water balance is off too. Ships die quickly to land units, which means ships are only useful to patrol the water.

Yeah, we can rebalance this with health/armor/bonuses. 

 

2 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

There are too many techs that no one researches. The techs are overly costly and complicated. The fact that ships are basically only used to deny fishing underscores how the tech tree way over complicates this.

I agree. I'd like to redo the tech tree. Also, there's a problem with presentation of the techs where in other games the tech that affects a specific unit is placed right below that unit. In 0 A.D. this is not possible. Please, someone code this. Asked for it for 10 years.

 

2 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

We lost the siege ship, which could destroy buildings from sea. This is an aspect that has just gone missing. Again, another element where navy is inferior to land units 

Huh? What's this? 

AFAIK, every civ that had a siege ship before still has a siege ship.

 

2 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

Ships are too expensive

Possibly.

 

2 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

Scout ships are useless against other ships. They should be in p1 or not exist. Giving an option to rush fishing in p1 seems like better gameplay anyways. Having a system where rushing can backfire against a phased opponent also seems like better design. 

My original design for this had Scout Ships available in P1. I forget why that was changed. But Scout Ships aren't supposed to be effective against other warships, at least. It's a scout ship. But perhaps it should have an attack bonus vs. civvie ships. 

 

 

[Dakara]

Hi everyone,

Answert 3 for me

I haven’t played many naval matches in the new alpha, but I feel like the initial excitement quickly turned into disappointment.

Catapult accuracy:
I find it strange that catapults can hit moving ships with such precision. It breaks immersion and gives land units too much of an advantage against fleets.

Ship spacing and cost:
Seeing so many military ships crammed into a tiny area bothers me. Maybe their cost is too low? I think ships should be more expensive but also more durable to encourage tactical battles rather than unit spamming.

Unit balance:
Infantry should be almost useless against ships, except for specialized units with fire or crush damage. On the flip side, ships shouldn’t be land unit slaughter machines, except in logical cases (like triremes with archers or fire ships).

Naval technologies:
I appreciate the fishing-related techs, but some military upgrades feel boring or even make water combat more unbalanced between civilizations. It would be interesting to rethink these aspects to better reflect each faction’s strengths and weaknesses.

I understand that perfect balance on water might be impossible given the unique identities of each civilization — and that’s a good thing! But we could aim for equivalent power levels across factions to keep naval warfare engaging.

On naval combat:
I’d love to see water battles become a space where cunning and strategy outweigh sheer ship mass. There’s so much potential to make naval combat exciting — far more than what Age of Empires 2 offers, where sea battles can quickly become dull.

I’m sure the community has plenty of ideas, and even if not everything can be implemented right away, a few balance tweaks (like cost, population, or ship durability) could already improve the experience. Honestly, 1 population per military ship feels way too low. I’d suggest 3–5 pop instead!

What do you think? Which adjustments would you prioritize?

See you on the seas of 0 A.D.! ⚓
 

 

Spoiler

My dream for naval battles:

I dream of seeing units physically on ships, fighting on deck! They would be vulnerable to arrows and projectiles from enemy ships, adding an extra layer of strategy. The ship itself could be treated like a building, with a dual-garrison system: one for units inside the hull, and one for units on deck. Even move on the ennemi ship then take the control after kill all opponent there. 
This way, a ram ship with a weak crew would be an easy target.

I know this would be incredibly hard to implement, but imagine being able to move your units around on deck, like placing troops on walls in Stronghold. It would be pure magic and would make naval combat so much more immersive.

 

Edited 7 hours ago by Dakara

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

3 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

There are too many techs that no one researches. The techs are overly costly and complicated

Tangentially related:

https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/issues/7666

[chrstgtr]

48 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

AFAIK, every civ that had a siege ship before still has a siege ship.

You’re probably right. I just haven’t seen it yet and consequently forgot. 

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

6 hours ago, Arup said:

This is ridiculous: HOW DOES GARRISON NOT AFFECT THE SHIP AT ALL?

I'd say almost 100% of games of 0 A.D.'s type have no garrison effects for ships. 

 

6 hours ago, Arup said:

How is the speed of a ship manned by 30 crew the same speed

Because it's not a "crew." The ship already comes with a crew. The garrisoned are passengers, not rowers.

 

6 hours ago, Arup said:

I haven't a single idea how the balancing thought the new naval was a good idea. Ram Ships are def OP broken, any civ that doesn't have either fire ship or ram ship is inherently in a worse position than an enemy who does have them

This is possibly a concern, but we were proactive in mitigating this with the tech tree. See: Flaming Projectiles for those civs without Fire Ships or Siege Ships. There was some thought put into this, despite the implications in this thread. It's also funny that you say melee ships are OP when another much better player is saying arrow ships are OP. 

 

7 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

You’re probably right. I just haven’t seen it yet and consequently forgot. 

I'd be down for moving Siege Ships to Town Phase. 

So, my generic proposal would be:

Phase 1

• Fishing Boat
  • Purse Seine
  • Salt Curing
• Merchant Ship
• Scout Ship
  • Lookouts
• Shipwrights

Phase 2

• Arrow Ship
• Melee Ship
• Siege Ship

Phase 3

• Arrow Ship Tech
• Melee Ship Tech
• Siege Ship Tech

 

[wraitii]

4 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

Problems With Current System

[...]

Interestingly these sound like they'd apply pretty equally to AoE2's naval system. People also complain about that one a bit but it's proven hard to improve.

 

[chrstgtr]

21 minutes ago, wraitii said:

Interestingly these sound like they'd apply pretty equally to AoE2's naval system. People also complain about that one a bit but it's proven hard to improve.

 

Honestly, all navy is going to be disliked until pathing works better. It is just too clunky right now. 

There are some items, like changing unit cost, that could easily be improved, though. 

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

11 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

Honestly, all navy is going to be disliked until pathing works better. It is just too clunky right now. 

 

I would very much like to reduce warship size by 25%, which I believe would reduce collisions and weird overlapping noticeably (but of course not eliminate it, that requires more pathfinding work).

[chrstgtr]

48 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

I would very much like to reduce warship size by 25%, which I believe would reduce collisions and weird overlapping noticeably (but of course not eliminate it, that requires more pathfinding work).

Do it. No one wants these monstrous ships. 

[real_tabasco_sauce]

9 hours ago, Arup said:

HOW DOES GARRISON NOT AFFECT THE SHIP AT ALL?

Garrison effects are pretty problematic for ships. Previously, ships subscribed to the "bigger = better" model, and 1) having a ton of ships and 2) garrisoning ships was the way to dominate the seas. But this takes an absurd amount of population, so very few players wanted to play like this as there is usually land to fight over.

With garrisons affecting the strength of ships, you often could not tell how strong an enemy ship was until after it sank your ship with your handful of soldiers inside.

 

On improvements we can make, I think moving scout ships to p1 would be good. I initially was against it, but I think its the right move. They might need to be weakened a little bit.

What cost changes would be good?

I heard that ships are a bit weak to land units, so we could bring up pierce armor.

I don't think the techs are very complicated, but if players don't get a lot of the techs and don't get value out of the techs compared to just making additional ships, they should be streamlined.

[chrstgtr]

10 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

What cost changes would be good?

 

Start with no metal. It keeps you in p2 forever and a prolonged fight will quickly eliminate a ton of other strategies like mercs, champs, and heavy siege. 
 

13 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

don't think the techs are very complicated, but if players don't get a lot of the techs and don't get value out of the techs compared to just making additional ships, they should be streamlined.

Complicated might be the wrong word since the techs are fairly easily to comprehend. But I imagine most players can’t tell you what techs exist, which suggests there’s too much going on with the tech tree. 

Techs just don’t make sense. Naval battles are mostly a sideshow, so investing in techs for a couple units is overkill. It’s like researching melee attack upgrades when your army is 95% range in the meat shield meta. It’s just not worth it, especially when the benefits are spread out over several different techs.

Also, because docks are limited, the meta is “attack fast with more boats.” A defender can’t just make new boats one by one because they get ganged up on and quickly die. Old attacking boats can be repaired. And a defending player can’t just queue up a bunch of warships because their whole fish eco will die before reinforcements finish training. As a result, it doesn’t make sense to clog up your production buildings with techs (defender will not have enough boats for the first fight and will lose all fish if they do it later while attacker just wants a bunch of boats early and can easily gang up on reinforcements)

27 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

I think moving scout ships to p1 would be good. I initially was against it, but I think its the right move. They might need to be weakened a little bit.

 

Maybe a slightly weaker attack. They shouldn’t die too easily against land units, though, so I would buff their health and/or armor.

——-

Agree with everything else you said @real_tabasco_sauce

[Gurken Khan]

4 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

I would very much like to reduce warship size by 25%

I always felt like ships were ~doubled in size after the maps were made; I would very much welcome a reduction in size.

 

1 hour ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

you often could not tell how strong an enemy ship was

By hovering your cursor over their sword & shield icon you could see their stats?

[real_tabasco_sauce]

I think being able to control what your ships attack has been a pretty nice improvement.

9 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

The only real strategy right now is to train more ships than your enemy and to train them earlier than your enemy.

this was worse in the old system for sure.