Is this a bug (in-port penalty in sea bases when attacked by air)

[Yitzi]

If an air unit attacks a sea unit in a sea base, it gets an in-port penalty.  This doesn't really seem to make much sense, as it means the base is providing a penalty to defense (as opposed to sea units in land bases, which otherwise could not be in that square at all.)  Is this a bug?

[gwillybj]

A ship in port cannot maneuver to try to avoid getting hit; even if it has AA guns, it's still a sitting duck.

[Yitzi]

A ship in port cannot maneuver to try to avoid getting hit; even if it has AA guns, it's still a sitting duck.

But is it really in port just because there's a base there?  I wouldn't think the base would take up the whole square, so it could be outside the base.

[Nexii]

Debatable I think.  What about Gravship/Locust attacks where the ship would be in port to prevent base capture?  I think the ship would be in port in all situations in order to protect the city.  Well, in SMAC air units don't have the functionality to bombard the city but I picture sea units staying in port to protect from that.  Same way they would stay in port for land units attacking a base.

Personally I think 100% is steep and play at 0%, but that doesn't matter for the debate.

[Question]

Technically speaking sea bases are mostly underwater (hence the pressure dome requirement and what happens during global warming). Therefore there shouldnt be an in port penalty. Bonus : It encourages using sea units as defenders in a sea base, which is sucidal right now because air units will slaughter them.

[Lord Avalon]

Kind of hard to say. A ship would have to dock for resupply/shore leave. When an attack occurs, is the ship docked, or is it on patrol around the sea base?

So is it better for gameplay to have sea units be better defenders?

[Nexii]

It is better for gameplay to have sea units to be better defensively in sea bases (i.e. not penalized).  Sea bases are inherently hard to defend.  Sea units move quite fast and there isn't terrain to bottleneck a navy.

But you could also apply the land base in-port penalty argument against defensive air units.  Wouldn't they be 'on the airstrip' refuelling?

[Question]

Eh, by that logic every unit should be penalized within a base because the infantry are in the barracks sleeping and the vehicles are parked in the garage, etc, etc....

[Nexii]

Yitzi are you sure on this one?  I tried with an air unit vs a sea base, and the defending naval unit didn't get a penalty.  I think the penalty only applies to land bases.

[Yitzi]

Technically, the in-port penalty takes the form of a bonus for the attacker; did you check for such a bonus?

[Nexii]

Yea I see it now, I had set the penalty to 0% after you mentioned this and forgot to re-check. 

I think it'd be best to just break this modifier out also as some may disagree.  Something like bonus in port vs land base, and bonus in port vs sea base.  I feel sea bases shouldn't give a penalty as there's really nowhere else for a sea unit to be protected.  For land bases you can make more of an argument for the in-port bonus.

[Yitzi]

Yea I see it now, I had set the penalty to 0% after you mentioned this and forgot to re-check. 

I think it'd be best to just break this modifier out also as some may disagree.  Something like bonus in port vs land base, and bonus in port vs sea base.  I feel sea bases shouldn't give a penalty as there's really nowhere else for a sea unit to be protected.  For land bases you can make more of an argument for the in-port bonus.

Rather than break it out, it'd be easier to just make an option to enable or disable it applying to sea bases; I doubt anyone will want a different, but still nonzero, modifier for sea bases.