The naval gunners card is too underwhelming

The Naval Gunners card provides +20% damage for warships (previously +25%) and that’s an age 3 card.
The Improved Warships card, which is an age 2 card, provides +25% damage AND hitpoints.
I can’t see why naval gunners is an age 3 card. It should at least be moved to age 2, and even with that it’s still very underwhelming.

It is better as an Age 3 card, since the Age 2 slot is already the most contested one in the game.

That’s true. But in that case the card should have more bonuses, or at least the same as its age 2 counterpart.

Maybe the card could make the broadside attack more powerful like +30% and that would stack with the 20% for all attacks naval gunners give already What do you think? I think it could even be +40 to broadside, I think this is a good way to make it different from other warship improvements because it’s not a linear increase

That would probably work. Naval cards always have huge bonuses and another damage/hp card would make the stats explode. A better way to make some old cards viable is to be a little more innovative like the recent additions.

I think Naval Gunners should actually increase Ship Range or Broadside Attack Range, but then again, not every civ gets it, and the ones that do have a considerable advantage already.

1 Like

You could merge it with offshore support card

1 Like

Offshore Support is never even used, so it could be a nice idea.

Would that mean that Ports would get Team Naval Gunners, though? They currently do not have Naval Gunners (as baffling as it is) but have Team Offshore Support as an Age 1 card.

P.S.: I got it mixed up with Coastal Defenses. Ports have no Offshore Support either.

Fine, that would be OP.
Merge with admiralty card maybe?

It is quite a key card for balancing water strength.

1 Like

I got Offshore Support mixed up with Coastal Defenses.
Ports lack both Offshore Support and Naval Gunners, despite being the one people in Europe who completely abandoned continental politics and conflict, to entirely focus on maritime expansion.

Whoever designed the Euro civs, did a really sloppy job at it.

It is a balance thing, not a historical accuracy thing.
Ports have very good water boom, so in order to balance that, their war fleet is weaker.

Besides, port fleet wasn’t known for its power. They were always overshadowed and supported by their British allies who essentially controlled all European shores (except the black sea).

Then the original merge is still on.
I think water balance needs a complete overhaul anyway. They did some much needed changes to water booming, they need to take a new look at warships.

Lol, no!

Check how many of these were Portuguese victories.

If anything, the Portuguese fleet was stronger than the British fleet, all the way until the Napoleonic invasion.

Japan has Naval Gunners and better ships than Ports, yet History shows this:

Still way overshadowed by the British.
Their war fleet performance is average i’d say
They were better at sea trading and commerce, and that’s represented in game with better economy boom on water.

Let’s not get over ourselves :slight_smile:
European sea battles have always been British vs Spanish with some French and Dutch and Germany mixed in.

No, you are just wrong. The Portuguese fleet won battles where it was outnembered 60 to 1, no other fleet ever did this.

Back on topic

The idea of naval gunners is to give a straight up advantage to the civs that have both cards, while also giving them an option of a lower bonus if they dont want to waste a II age card.

Hence, if you relly are going full naval you should get both, if not, you need to consider which one is more valuable to you (a card more powerful but in the age II slot) or a card less powerful but in age III.

This is why it is so balanced.

This is simply wrong. The Portuguese fleet was the best fleet in the world until 1588 no question about that. They invented the caravel, the Nau and the Galleon (which the spanish then adopted) and leaded several expeditions agains the ottomans in north africa and in india outgunning most of their competitors.

But most of their fleet was destroyed at the invencible armada invasion, and it was a blow they never recovered from. With spanish dominance the capability of the armada dwindled, and it went further down as the Dutch developed better ships that dominated both the atlantic and the indian oceans.

In 1640 with the Portguese independence the dutch already had developed flyuts and frigates which were way more manuverable than the large Nau and Galleon and dominated the indian ocean from their base in Batavia.

By the 7 years war, most large ships were mass produced in shipyards in France and Britain hence they had the best fleets. Portugal was years behind in this technology - not producing iron cannons (but bronze ones which were way more expensive - nor the shipwhight to mass produce Frigates or Man-o-wars).

1 Like

Yop, I agree with your analysis.

@JonOli12 Just look at the War of the spanish succession, Portugal is at war against France and Spain. You don’t see portuguese ship in big battles (e.g. Battle of Málaga (1704) - Wikipedia) . Mostly French, Spanish, English and Dutch ship. If the portuguese was that powerful, why didn’t it fight alongside its allies in naval engagment that are litteraly at its doorstep?
After the war of the spanish succession, the british become slowly the undeniable first maritime power, which did not prevent the french navy to win some battle here and there.

In the War of Spanish Succession, Portugal took Madrid by Land 3 times. Why would we even engage in naval battles?

Also, while it is true that Portugal never really recovered from the Invincible Armada fiasco, taht is still not good reason to miss Naval Gunners, while the Japanese get them, and we beat them 60 to 1 in a few naval battles.

All taht Portugal ever was, is Water. That it misses both Offshore Suypport and Naval Gunners, is like British without Redcoats, or Russians without Cossacks.

For the glory of the portuguese navy ? To show the world its might ?
Honestly, given the cost of mainting a huge war fleet, if you don’t use it when you have the occassion, it’s just a waste of money.

You know I have critizied the portuguese civ design on this forum in the past, and this is probably one of the reasons. They should have access to these cards, or to others custom-designed ones for the portuguese.

No, but because it is a huge design fail.
They gave Portugal a Dragoon focus when Portugal seldom used Cavalry to any significant effect, and did not give it actually decent Naval cards for God knows what reason.

Which is my point, the civ design is way off.
I am not asking for historical accuracy, but you have to admit that AoE3’s Portuguese civ, is not Portuguese at all. Even the units are improperly named.

1 Like

That makes a lot of sense.

1 Like