| Andy | Tuesday, October 8, 2013 - 10:11 pm 
Work is continuing on the new navy units and the release date is getting much closer.
Example:
Navy carrier group:
It will have one or two aircraft carriers and one or two helicopter carriers.
It will have 125 to 250 navy fighters and the same number of navy helicopters.
The units will also include other navy ships, both offensive ones and defensive ones.
Navy units will be supplied by navy supply units that will carry large amounts of ammo and be accompanied by other ships if navy groups need replacements.
When a navy group is losing its aircraft carriers, the navy fighters will be lost too. Same happens with any other weapons or ammo that is placed on the carrier.
Other ships in the group remain in function.
We will start with a set of units that will enable us to replace the current navies.
At the time of release, all current navy units will be dismantled and the available weapons and ships can be used immediately to construct new navy units.
When done, we will add navy landing units that will make it possible to carry a military unit and land it anywhere in the world.
The defense missiles that will be placed on the carriers and will be part of the carrier group, will be used to defend the group against attacks on any of the ships or weapons in the entire group.
Once these units become available, it will be possible to upgrade their quality in the same way this is done with other units. |
| William V | Tuesday, October 8, 2013 - 10:28 pm
Alright Andy... i'm real excited about the navy landing units. |
| Andy | Tuesday, October 8, 2013 - 10:34 pm
excited?
wait first to see them. |
| Tallisibeth na Colliete | Tuesday, October 8, 2013 - 10:39 pm
Finally, the navy's gonna get some love. Any plans on adding attack submarines? |
| SuperSoldierRCP | Tuesday, October 8, 2013 - 10:52 pm
So if i get this right.
A fleet will have 250 fighters and 250 helicopters per group.
The GM knows that is very low for a fleet.
When going to attack countries it takes easily a dozen wings to break the air defense. The cost of maintaining dozens of fleets would be MASSIVE.
Heli's either air or navy do the same damage. But if a carrier has a very limited capacity shouldn't they do more damage?
Also will navies see any kind of additional protection?
It was always debated that there was very limited weapons systems for navies. Will addition weapon types be added?
According to the docs navies do the same defense as land based weapons. Before this update can the GM re look at how well these weapons preform.
Can i make a suggestion to the GM?
How about gunships? Identical to artillery but are mini ships that assist the in offensive actions.
How about adding Naval Bombers? Just like Precision bombers.
ow how about attack submarines?
Also this got discussed awhile back but there was little air defense on navies. Is the GM still planning to add navy anti air batteries?
OR how about letting a single carrier being able to carry 2-3wings with it into battle?
Or just like airforce using remote depots to increase there range, how about letting us you navies in the same manner |
| William V | Tuesday, October 8, 2013 - 10:55 pm
Finally haha, and @Andy you're right about checking it out first before i get too
happy an stuff but i am excited to see some new naval stuff is all  |
| Andy | Tuesday, October 8, 2013 - 11:40 pm
The defense of the navy will be improved. We think the numbers are right but in the past we decreased the size of units to reduce the cost of war and make it a little more "realistic". they remain too large.
If the navy, with its superior weapons and high quality will remain to small, we may decrease the size of other units to improve the balance.
we intend to add submarines and possibly one or two types more.
There is no need for navy bombers as navy fighters are effective against many more targets than land based bombers or fighters.
New weapons should add a new dimension and should not be more of the same. |
| Nico | Tuesday, October 8, 2013 - 11:46 pm
Andy,
Where is my monthly award?  |
| SuperSoldierRCP | Wednesday, October 9, 2013 - 01:00 am
Awesome thanks for clearing that up andy its much apperatied.
since Navy's are to be a important part of warfare what the quality range going to be?
I think since really navys will lack mobile units is the cap going to be stuck at 450? any chance of letting us upgrade to 500 or maybe 600 to counter there small size?
Also one more question navy helicopters where always weaker then most other weapons. How will they be balanced?
I believe budman back in the day suggested they do more damage to land based weapons. Any plans to tweak them? |
| Tallisibeth na Colliete | Wednesday, October 9, 2013 - 08:46 pm
In all honesty, helicopters should do more damage to land based weapons, since that is reason why they were created. |
| Aries | Wednesday, October 9, 2013 - 10:19 pm
I am not sure why navy weapons need to be super-weapons. Currently, weapon balance is that units that have a disadvantage in range, have some other advantage in use.
examples:
1. Land weapons need to be real close but can be organized in large units (of 850).
2. Fighters and bombers can be a bit further away but are smaller in size (450).
3. Longer range weapons, like stealth and conventional missiles, tend to be expensive and have trouble dealing with country defenses in an efficient way but offer ranges about three times further than fighters and bombers.
The navy should fall somewhere as being somewhat less efficient in combat as land-based fighter and bombers with the advantage of global mobility. I think unit sizes of 250 sound very reasonable in game balance and any adjustments should not increase their combat ability beyond land-based air weapons. |
| XON Xyooj | Wednesday, October 9, 2013 - 10:46 pm
i read the papers almost everyday, i don't see so many sc wars going, especially pvp. why so much time and energy into the war aspects of this game?
we need economic players in this game, can we fix economics in this game? i have not met players who can survive in this game without going to c3 wars. what's wrong with this?
there is simply too much focus on the war aspects of this game?
it would make sense to spend so much time to develop the military wares of this game if i go to every world, and there are hundreds of PvP wars. which players are not warring with which players now, in what worlds? i like to get some popcorns and drinks to watch these wars. |
| thewhy | Thursday, October 10, 2013 - 12:11 am
why dont we get rid of navy weapons and just have the ability to put a certain amount of units ground or air into the navy group |
| SuperSoldierRCP | Thursday, October 10, 2013 - 05:00 am
I agree with Aries statement above to an extent.
My only issue with that though based on aries comment is this.
With land based weapons you can have 10 bases and 500 wings.
Navy you get 1 base(the carrier) and 1 wing.(of 250 fighters)
Navies use just as much man power(sometimes a bit more) and cost a great deal of cash. Looking at the US Navy those ships are armored and supplied to wage war for MONTHS before they need to see an allied port.
I'm not saying that navies should be the most powerful weapons of simcountry, but they should be powerful.
Naval units since they on the coast of a nation or closer then land based arms, Is it unfair to say they would be twice as accurate? I mean if there on the coast of a nation and 250km from the target why should they do the same as a wing 2000 KM away? Makes scene the closer you are the less time your enemy has to prepare.
In my opinion i think that navy land based cruise, fighters,helis should be 2 times as accurate as there land based counter parts. This wouldn't OVER power them, as a land based unit could still have 10 times MORE firepower but it would allow someone half way across the world to be able to lend a real helping hand to an ally.
Even if 250 navy fighters fought as if they where 500 fighters, A single land based wing can have 400 fighters and a base can make 50 at a time. In no way would they outperform a land based army but they would be able to deal a good amount of damage. Even though would be do a large amount of damage they would still be no match for a nation with a division of missiles nor a complement of bombers. |
| Aries | Thursday, October 10, 2013 - 05:13 am
You are assuming those land based fighters are deployed in their own country. In this case, yes these planes should absolutely be at least as effective as navy counterparts.
However, what about a more distant war? For land based planes, you need to find a place to base them overseas. An ally's airfield or remote depot may be needed. These planes will have to be airlifted. Sometimes for these planes to be in range, you need to find an airfield over 10k km away.
In that example, the navy is a striking convenience. No search for an airfield or planning an airlift that could require multiple hops. No need to assign dozens of air transport units.
I don't see any real life precedent or game play reason that navy aircraft would outperform their land-based counterparts. They already have a real utility. |
| SuperSoldierRCP | Thursday, October 10, 2013 - 06:00 am
Again
1 Carrier - 1 wing
-----VS-----
1 Base - 50 wings
Even if you had to move the wings you still can have several bases and several depots.
Plus it takes a month to move a fleet in the same time you can move several if not more wings. Plus once you lose fighters you have to wait a month fro them to resupply. In those 2 months you could have moved how many land based wings? I'm just speaking from a experience, the GM is moving a bit to realism I'm just trying to help the process |
| Aries | Thursday, October 10, 2013 - 06:19 am
Alright, I am lost on what you are comparing. 50 units is the most you can deploy at one time regardless. This is likely to be the same with the navy and is not a real limitation as it takes a few seconds more to deploy another 50. There is no comparing 1 to 50.
This is assuming you are deploying, in the case of land based aircraft, 20,000 planes at a time along with 1.8 million bombs with likely comparably large numbers of things if you were deploying 50 navy task forces.
About resupply, I thought we were just told that navy supply units would supply them. I would assume they are as efficient as land based ones. |
| lenpeat | Thursday, October 10, 2013 - 06:21 am
Bait a Navigation Group,
Essential, Ben if it fits the Plan. we will go out their and make Pick up.
bring back quantity Rick O'shea would have no other Contractor before US. |
| SuperSoldierRCP | Thursday, October 10, 2013 - 07:03 am
No...
Navies for years have re-supplyed on a monthly rate and they would move on a monthly rate aswell. Unless the GM changes this something will need to be done.
Andy Stated
"Navy carrier group:
It will have one or two aircraft carriers and one or two helicopter carriers.
It will have 125 to 250 navy fighters and the same number of navy helicopters. "
Right now I'm assuming there's going to be a cap on how many planes will be limited to a carrier.(just as there's a cap on wing/base ratio). Also even if there wasn't Andy said that when the fleet is destroyed the weapons/ammo in the fleet will be lost to. So i Highly dout anyone wants to sail around with several thousand planes in a fleet. Unlike a base as where if its destroyed the units just deactivate.
Maybe Andy can clear this up but if navy's are going to only have 150-250 planes at any time that makes they VERY weak in comparison to anything.
250 planes would give you very little offensive power in warring. When a Player would be allowed 3 interceptor wings, plus 2 land based units and possibly a garrison... I don't see how 250 planes could do anything, even if we used the current stranded of navies which allow 400 planes. |
| Aries | Thursday, October 10, 2013 - 07:27 am
Yes, Andy said
"Navy units will be supplied by navy supply units that will carry large amounts of ammo and be accompanied by other ships if navy groups need replacements. "
This is new. Give him a chance.
Navies fighters are not a unit to replace roles of everything else. The have a very good utility with the ease of deployment and being effective against many targets. I would expect though, for a player with a very good defense like you described, that a navy only strategy would be less effective. Which is likely where this comes in:
"When done, we will add navy landing units that will make it possible to carry a military unit and land it anywhere in the world. "
Let navy have its role and other weapons keep theirs. |
| SuperSoldierRCP | Thursday, October 10, 2013 - 08:25 am
Aries...
How informed on navies are you? Because i honestly feel as if you don't understand the problem. I sure you want to throw in your 2 cents just as much as the next guy but if you don't use them you don't understand the problems I'm speaking of.
I'm not trying to take away ANYTHING from other units, i'm simply stating that if the GM keeps all the current stats and way navies work they wont be effective or worth while.
Navies used to have 11,000 weapons systems allowed in them because that's what was needed to protect them.
Will the same be used for them now?
Lets say you use
400 Defensive missile batteries - 800 Officers/1600 enlisted
400 Missile inters batteries - 1200 officers/2400 enlisted
50 destroyers - 1200 officers / 3600 enlisted
250 Helicopters - 750 officers / 3250 enlisted
250 Fighters - 5000 officers / 19500 enlisted
2 Aircraft carriers - 600 officers / 3000 enlisted
2 Helicopter carriers - 400 officers / 1800 enlisted
1 Command fleet - 150 officers / 600 enlisted
Total troop count = 10100 officers / 35750 enlisted.
That's just a bare bones number, that doesn't include attack destroyers, missile units, seals, subs, ect.
Plus lets not forget that 400 missile units? That's barely a defense. Navies don't get much defensive support but what they take is what they get. SO you can always add more and increase the numbers. But my point still raises. You need all that and thats just 250 fighters/250 helis. Seems like alot for just that little bit of firepower.
A Single attack wing 240 fighters = 2160 Officers / 7200 enlisted.
That means for what that navy use i could have just short of 5 of these wings.
1 Navy or 5 Attack wings? Which would you prefer. Also lets remember that if the base is lost you still keep your wings but if you lose the navy you lose ALL of those weapons PLUS ALL THERE AMMO...
Which seems like a better deal?
I don't know about you but id rather keep 5 wings at home with 1200 planes of firepower, then 250 planes any day.
I used to war alot with navies but even back then you had to DEDICATE a military to it. You shouldn't have to do that |
| Stephen Ryan | Thursday, October 10, 2013 - 09:33 am
sounds like a further dud to me |
| SuperSoldierRCP | Thursday, October 10, 2013 - 10:12 am
As long as we can get the bugs out first. Remember before the war levels step... Navies where bad ass |
| Andy | Thursday, October 10, 2013 - 01:24 pm
125 - 250 means that 250 is max.
the navy units, like all other units, will be supplied (by navy supply units) and will have limited amounts of ammo and supplies and will not be automatically supplied like they are now.
you will have to make sure you have the materials they need (like now) but also, to have the means to move these materials and ammo to the navies wherever they are in the world.
Navy units will need supplies less frequently than land based units and the quantities they can hold will be larger.
They must be able to operate at least 2 real days before they are out of supplies or otherwise, you will need too many navy supply units. |
| SuperSoldierRCP | Thursday, October 10, 2013 - 06:03 pm
Andy if planes will be limited to those numbers can navies see an increase in accuracy and damage?
For the cost that navies will have the limited damage will staggering. Navy guided freights sell for OVER 1-billion under market value. Market value is 2 Billion.
They do little damage in retrospect but use alot of manpower and cost a great deal. Even losing a dozen or so in a single attack in higher Q would cost a player 50-100 Billion in a single attack,
also with current defensive standards 250 fighters will not be enough to seriously contribute to anything. Even if a garrison has 200 anti air, 200 missile def, 200 missile interceptors. They would do quite a number on any attacking forces. If they receive air and/or ground support 250 fighters would be stuck fighting a garrison 2 land based air def units plus 2-3 interceptors wings. They would last a SINGLE attack maybe 2 if they where lucky. I would like to ask the GM to test this and seriously think this over.
As i stated above, damage could remain the same if need but the doubling there accuracy would GREATLY improve the ability of these weapons |
| Aries | Thursday, October 10, 2013 - 06:16 pm
No one attacks a defended garrison before removing defense wings. You are also describing a heavily defended country, affordable by few players, which would and should take considerable effort to take. I think it is okay if such a target is very inefficiently taken with navy firepower alone.
Your personnel numbers in your previous post should wait until the update because we do not know if numbers have been changed and simply do not have the new unit maxes. In addition, you compared a navy formation with helicopters and fighters, not to mention imbedded defensive ability, to a land-based unit with fighters alone.
Lastly, unit stats should not seriously be altered. This is because any boosts should be considered in the costs in the item but this does not take into account existing weapons held by players. These weapon stocks should not get a sudden boost in effectiveness. |
| SuperSoldierRCP | Thursday, October 10, 2013 - 09:43 pm
Please with your wisdom Aries.
Explain how navies should be used. I mean in the upper war levels, Which i assume you are from your vast wealth of knowledgeable. Please explain your use of navies vs C3 at the upper war levels.
90 Interceptor wings
45 Helicopters ------------------------ All 3 are 450Q
30 Stealth bomber wings
and full garrisons of 500Q
Please the GM recommends that we use navies please explain how you do it id love to hear your strategy on naval warfare. |
| SuperSoldierRCP | Thursday, October 10, 2013 - 10:33 pm
On a side note question for Andy.
Will the cost of weapons and ammo for navies be reduced?
Navy weapons cost 3 times as much on a base market level. The cost of trying to make a navy would be MASSIVE.
Almost all ships cost 1.5B base price meaning in a high market they would cost 2B easily.
Meaning players would need to spent TRILLIONS just to get a navy to a real fighting level. With the risk of it being sank.
A single navy defensive missile/interceptor missiles costs 13.5M per missile at market.
100 of both batteries @ 6 missiles a round = 1200 missiles
1200 missiles cost roughly 16.2 Billion at 300Q that hits 49 Billion.
With a full compliment it would cost a MASSIVE amount of just missiles to provide even a minimal defense. Is there plans to reduce these numbers or cut the cost? |
| Aries | Friday, October 11, 2013 - 02:55 am
Not all weapons are meant to be used for raiding. Stealth bombers are terribly expensive for this purpose. A mess of land units are not typically used. In addition, in raiding you can choose your opponent from many from across the map. Why should navies, with their immense range, be any better than land units or land-based air power?
Back to your suggestions. You believe navies, in addition to global range, should:
1. Be much more accurate than land based units.
2. Be organized into larger units.
3. Be cheaper.
4. Be upgradeable to higher quality than other units, except mobile.
What is left? What shouldn't they get?
Make no mistake. I am excited about this update. I plan to form units shortly after release. However, again, I don't think naval units should be unstoppable unlimited range weapons of doom. |
| Star Foth | Friday, October 11, 2013 - 04:24 am
Cheaper? More like 3x as expensive with more costly upgrades! |
| SuperSoldierRCP | Friday, October 11, 2013 - 04:59 am
Back to your suggestions. You believe navies, in addition to global range, should:
1. Be much more accurate than land based units.
Sure. its like like you'll be able to throw endless amount of wings like you can with land based weapons.
2. Be organized into larger units.
As Andy said they would only be 250 planes. I fail to see how adding 250 more planes would MASSIVELY effect the war game. 500 planes wouldn't stop ANY war but a combo with some missiles might just allow you to hit a few more forts.
3. Be cheaper.
All Ships are 1-Billion and that's under market price. Most ships are 1.5Billion at market. With the GM reducing the cost of weapons and ammo, i don't see how spending 50Billion to defend against 1 attack isn't expensive
4. Be upgradeable to higher quality than other units, except mobile.
450Q seems good for navies(lets pretend that they GM lets them go to 500 or 600). Even in that higher level i fail to see how Mid-range and Land-to-Sea wouldn't stop them. Sure it be a bit harder but wouldn't make them unstoppable.
I don't see the why your arguing against this Aries. I fail to see how 500 planes or 1 wing would make navies OVERPOWERED. The GM even says that Navies should be used for raiding. If they plan on letting us use them for that purpose then they need to rethink some of the stats. All weapons have gotta reductions or tweaks.Navies have been put on the sidelines for a LONG time. A lot changes in 1 year just want to try and help smooth the process...
Please if you want to keep debating this with me i will happily keep doing so but please research navy units a bit more, Your lack of info is making it hard to have a real discussion with you. |
| Jack | Friday, October 11, 2013 - 04:03 pm
An aircraft carrier group in real life projects a massive offensive force anywhere on the globe. The Sim navy should also do the same.
Due to the smaller number of navy fighters that will be available they do have to be more accurate and effective - more lethal - than their land based counterparts or they are useless. Their survivability must also be increased over their land based counterparts. They also need to continue to be more effective against all targets. However it is accomplished the navy fighter must be weighted greater than its land based counterpart to enable it to project enough offensive capability to make the carrier a force to be reckoned with. It should not be totally invincible but it should be a defensive challenge.
Now I am going to say something that will surprise you. I think aircraft carriers should be more expensive than they are now IF (BIG IF) the GM will give the navy fighters a significant edge over land based fighters. There are only 21 real life aircraft carriers in the world as of today. Everyone can't afford one. If the GM will create a credible aircraft carrier based fighting force then it should be priced accordingly and should be reserved for premium members just like nukes are reserved. If you are going to have an aircraft carrier let's make it something to be respected and feared. |
| Aries | Friday, October 11, 2013 - 05:39 pm
Super, your whole argument is occurring before the navy update is released. If you wanted to limit discussions with lack of info, you would wait for the navy update to occur and see how the units perform first. Maybe, you should take your own advice?
Jack, yes, aircraft carriers are uncommon in the real world. Consider though that weapons in Simcountry are available on a much larger scale. Consider stealth bombers. The US operates less than 20 such planes (the B2) but, in Simcountry, those are typical unit sizes. A war player could deploy dozens of such units and has them available in the hundreds. What about precision bombers? War players have these in the 10s of thousands. The comparable US aircraft is the B1. How many are there? Less than 100.
Talking about price, a Simcountry aircraft carrier costs less than three stealth bombers. Should three stealth bombers be feared? Also, again, the issue with making naval weapons more effective and balancing them with higher costs is that many of these weapons are already owned. Existing weapons are simply returned to inventory. This might be different if we were forced to sell current weapons and purchase all new naval weapons.
Here are some costs comparisons at current base prices for weapons.
$65.3B 1 aircraft carrier, 125 navy fighters
$61.0B 20 stealth bombers
$130.6B 2 aircraft carriers, 250 navy fighters
$128.0B 400 fighter planes
$126.8B 400 precision bombers
Shouldn't these groups be roughly balanced with navy having certain advantages, like global reach, and the other units having certain advantages? |
| Jack | Friday, October 11, 2013 - 06:07 pm
Aries,
No doubt the GM has overblown the size of ALL military units in this game. That is one of the many reasons not many can afford a proper military in this game. He should have hired a military consultant to help him with that when he started developing this game because it is clear the GM is totally clueless about military operations. But too late for that now. All he can do is to keep what he does new in perspective with what he has already done. That means navy fighters will have to be more lethal than their land counterparts.
As for the existing naval weapons the GM could take them all back and reimburse us for them and allow a complete naval reset. It is just SC cash so it costs him nothing. And the navies we have aren't much as they are. That would actually be a better solution than us spending weeks and cash to upgrade the existing ones. Make the new and improved units cost more AND restrict them to premium members only for exactly the same reasons we do it for nuke weapons and space. GM - this could mean more premium members for your wallet.
Aries, while I like reading your thoughtful posts and even debating and usually agreeing with you and others in the end NOTHING we say matters to the GM. He knows everything and is going to do what he wants to do. Besides this sudden fervor for the navy by the GM is nothing but a smokescreen to distract us from the damage the GM did to our economies. |
| Aries | Friday, October 11, 2013 - 06:32 pm
The size of military units was never the problem. The abundance of cash through raiding was and, to an extent, still is. It doesn't matter how effective or how big units are if you are the guy that can simply buy up whatever he wants.
I don't blame the ones who can't afford a proper military. Unfortunately, the path to having a competitive military only went through, and continues to go through, raiding. I don't see how this translates to balancing weapons. Weapons should be balanced by being effective in different roles and relative to their cost. |
| SuperSoldierRCP | Saturday, October 12, 2013 - 06:49 am
" Super, your whole argument is occurring before the navy update is released. If you wanted to limit discussions with lack of info, you would wait for the navy update to occur and see how the units perform first. Maybe, you should take your own advice? "
No, because my advice comes from experience unlike your resent comments.
If the GM doesn't do ANYTHING to fighter planes they will keep there current values and stats.
Which means that the 400fighter planes the navies currently have will be stronger in comparison to the 250 they will have later. That means the old navies would have been more powerful.
Pretty much what the GM is doing is just slapping a new name tag and calling in better(like name brand and generic foods). Its similar to me being moved. If the Army moves me from Alpha company to Bravo company i keep my same rank, training, nothing changes but my company.
Let say that the Navies where able to drop units into an enemy nation? How many should they be allowed to drop. From that point why should they be allowed to be stronger off the bat?
Your telling me the navy shouldn't be allowed to do the SAME amount of damage as 1 midrange/anti air LRD unit?
I fail to see how updating them will link to them being over powered.
250fighters even if they did get my request of double accuracy and damage would mean that a fighter would fight as if it was 500 planes land based planes. Which is only 100planes OVER A WING of land based weapons.
Plus even if they resupply it takes time that mult land based will still have an advantage. All i'm saying is that if they had extra power they MIGHT be able to clear a few more garrisons. Clearing a an extra 4-5garrisons isnt going to end the war but it would GREATLY help someone in a dire situation.
Or it would allow someone to maybe help clear a few land based units that are giving some problems. No where am i suggesting they be the END all weapon. All I'm asking is that they at least be as strong as a land based unit. |
| Aries | Saturday, October 12, 2013 - 01:18 pm
What you need to explain is, if the navy is as effective (or more effective) as a land-based air unit or a ground unit, why would one purchase those units over naval units? Specifically, should those units be cheaper? more effective? more durable?
The problem is that you seem to suggest the navy should be superior across the board, in price, effectiveness, and mobility. What is left for other units? |
| Lotato | Saturday, October 12, 2013 - 05:07 pm
navy is far more expensive so deserves to be superior in many areas , but yea , not all |
| Aries | Saturday, October 12, 2013 - 05:11 pm
Lotato, you might have missed this.
Here are some costs comparisons at current base prices for weapons.
$65.3B 1 aircraft carrier, 125 navy fighters
$61.0B 20 stealth bombers
$130.6B 2 aircraft carriers, 250 navy fighters
$128.0B 400 fighter planes
$126.8B 400 precision bombers
There you go. |
| Andy | Saturday, October 12, 2013 - 06:40 pm
Military units used to be huge and we have reduced their size gradually to make them a little more realistic and mainly to reduce cost.
So we do not want to create navy units that are too large or over powerfull with the best range, power, lowest cost etc.
If they end up not in balance with other units, we prefer to reduce the size of other units rather than creating one that is too large.
The price of all weapons will continue to decline as it did two weeks ago. ammo cost too.
It does not make sense to try and gues or ask for all kinds of special features for the navy. It will be powerful, and it will not be much more expensive than other units.
You will probably not attck your neighbor with the navy but a country further away.
we will test the military effectiveness compared to other units and will tune. |
| SuperSoldierRCP | Saturday, October 12, 2013 - 07:23 pm
Thank you for the response Andy.
If i may throw a few bits on Info that would help your testing.
Test Bombers vs the defensive. In my own test and in the docs a single bomber has a 50% hit rate and 100% damage on a battery, with them also being able to drop 8 bombs a round meaning a single bomber is worth 4 defensive batteries.
A wing is worth 1600 kills.
Also my Question has been you said they are used to attack countries farther away. Which means the GM wants us to use them for raiding in the event of higher war levels how are we used to use them?
Garrisons are 500Q and there are 40+ inter wings at 450Q. This is MUCH MUCH more then a single wing of either fighters or helis can handle even garrison wise. |
| SuperSoldierRCP | Saturday, October 12, 2013 - 07:29 pm
Here are some costs comparisons at current base prices for weapons.
$130.6B 2 aircraft carriers, 250 navy fighters
$128.0B 400 fighter planes
$126.8B 400 precision bombers
----------------------------------------------
Aries
Seriously dude, do your homework read above.
400 bombers are MUCH stronger then navies. For someone who claims to be a great SC player your proving to be really limited into your general education of weapons and econ. |
| Aries | Saturday, October 12, 2013 - 07:39 pm
"Navy weapons cost 3 times as much on a base market level. The cost of trying to make a navy would be MASSIVE. "
"Dude", you are the one, who like, said stuff that was, like, totally wrong and stuff, ehm, Dude! |
| SuperSoldierRCP | Saturday, October 12, 2013 - 08:37 pm
Navy Fighter Planes
Base Price 420.00M SC$ per aircraft
250planes = 105B
Navy Fighter Missiles
Base Price 22.20M SC$ per missile
18,000 missiles = 400B
---------------------VS--------------------
Fighter Planes
Base Price 320.00M SC$ per aircraft
250planes = 80B
Fighter Missiles
Base Price 9.25M SC$ per missile
18,000 missiles = 166B
Ok so not 3 times I'm so sorry Aries but 2 times the Cost.
Navy costs = 505B for 120Q, 1.5T for 300Q
Land based air costs = 246B for 120Q, 738B for 300Q
I'm sorry my math was off by 1 number its 2 times the cost not 3. Still 1.5T for 250 fighters and missiles. That is extremely excessive.
Aries before you try to play with the big dogs you might want to get out of the kiddie pool. Try all you want but this isn't a battle your going to win. I give you respect for debating this topic as long as you have but the fact is you haven;t been here long enough to know how to read or work the markets. You would be so much of a better player if you didn't ASSUME you know everything and listened to the vets. There's a reason we are called vets |
| Aries | Saturday, October 12, 2013 - 09:13 pm
Nice try.
Balance is achieved on a by-unit basis, not by weapon. Need an example?
Navy Fighter Planes
Base Price 420.00M SC$ per aircraft
20 planes = 8.4B
Navy Fighter Missiles
Base Price 22.20M SC$ per missile
2000 missiles = 44.4B
vs.
Stealth Bombers
Base Price $3.05B per bomber
20 planes = 61B
Laser Guided Bombs
Base Price $34.00M per bomb
2000 bombs = 68B
Navy Costs = 63.36B for 120Q, 158.4 for 300Q
Stealth Costs = 154.80B for 120Q, 387.0 for 300Q
Wow, navy looks cheap. Wait, maybe we should run actual units huh?
$130.6B 2 aircraft carriers, 250 navy fighters
$128.0B 400 fighter planes
$126.8B 400 precision bombers
Yep, those are some units. Add ammo you ask? okay
$546.85B 2 aircraft carriers, 250 navy fighters, 18750 navy fighter missiles
$405.5B 400 fighter planes, 30000 fighter missiles
$465.2B 400 precision bombers, 36000 precision bombs
Nope. doesn't appear to be 2 times the cost at all. What did Andy say?
"it will not be much more expensive than other units"
Yep. this appears to be very correct. |
| SuperSoldierRCP | Saturday, October 12, 2013 - 09:24 pm
you cant compare a 20 stealth bombers vs 20 fighters because 20 stealth bombers have much more power then 20fighters.
Aries instead of making 250 navy fighters vs 400 FIGHTERS why dont you match them equally.
300Fighter planes = 300B by your math
and 2carriers and 250fighters = 550B
I dont have the time to do the hole math numbers but the rough guess is it looks almost 2times as much
Seriously are your debating this becuase you dont want to admit your wrong, or are you that self important? |
| Aries | Saturday, October 12, 2013 - 10:20 pm
"you cant compare a 20 stealth bombers vs 20 fighters because 20 stealth bombers have much more power then 20fighters"
Thank you. This is my argument. Navy fighters have more power then land-based fighters. So, comparing them in equal numbers, rather than unit strength, is dishonest.
Take your interceptor units. 130 strong firing 10 missiles/round. These 1300 missiles would take out:
195 Fighters or 156 Navy Fighters or 25% more Fighters.
Should we talk about firepower? Fighters are effective against 11 different weapons and targets. Navy fighters? over 40.
Where they overlap targets Navy fighters are twice as accurate against bombers and 50% more likely to land a hit on drones.
Then there is that nifty ability that their base travels around the map.
C'mon Super. Where am I wrong? You made the point that navy is three times more expensive. You have gone so far to admit that is wrong and you are the one that wants both sides of an an argument and to fiddle numbers to hold on to them being twice as expensive. |
| SuperSoldierRCP | Saturday, October 12, 2013 - 11:20 pm
Listen to yourself. you seriously cannot be this stupid Aries for god sake.
Take your interceptor units. 130 strong firing 10 missiles/round. These 1300 missiles would take out:
195 Fighters or 156 Navy Fighters or 25% more Fighters.
PROBLEM HERE, If we talk in terms of strictly size. You have mult wings of fighter planes as where you have 1 of navy planes. Meaning the loss 150 of 250 planes that is MUCH more devastating.
As with 200 fighters you can always have backup units. Plus with Fighters you can pair them with a diversity of other units for combat. Navies dont get that option. In land based weapons you can pair them with drones, bombers, Helis. These can also fight air 2 air or be used as shields and allow them to attack both land and air at the same time. As where navies only get 1 air unit.
The problem with navies is that 250 planes is VERY limiting. It would be a massive strain to create dozens of fleets to war a target farther away.
Im been discussing this on a C3 level. PvP its even worse.
How is anyone supposed to provide assistance with a navy?
In the docs it states it takes 3 Defensive anti air to take out 1 Fighter.
A Normal anti air garrison is 200-300 batteries, not including defensive missiles or a missile defense unit. Those units can EASILY add an extra 150-550 Anti air to the Mix.
Meaning that a single WING cannot even destroy the garrison on 1 attack. What would be the point?
Whats the point of this GLOBAL range you pride them on if they cant even fight 1 garrison battle. Or lose Half there air power in 1 air battle?
The Real question here is in the upper war levels on C3 warring. At what point should navies become obsolete?
I fail to see the current descriptions being able to punch though anything on a war level 11-500Q garrisons and 90 interwings of 450Q... They wouldnt stand a chance. It wouldnt even be worth it to even try, Hell even going down to level 8-9 would be just as bad.
As for your last comment sure one rough i looked 3times so ya i was wrong. I admit that, what do you want a cookie?
Point is they ARE twice as expensive for sure and with the limited unit or weapon sizes they will cost much more over the course of a battle making them less appealing.
And i think ill end this debate with you here. If i wanted to i could continue. But i fail to see how me debating this with a person who doesn't even know WHAT hes talking about is doing any good. Learn to use a navy, move up the war levels, and learn to play with the big boys
Because when you do, ill laugh when your tune changes. |
| Aries | Saturday, October 12, 2013 - 11:46 pm
Why would I have only one wing of naval planes?
If I don't know what I am talking about and lack intelligence, I am sure you can tell me where I am wrong. Apparently, I misunderstood some number of fleets limitation. I assumed I would bring more than one fleet formation. |
| lenpeat | Sunday, October 13, 2013 - 03:14 am
Aside from Automatic Weaponry, Navigation is where it's at.
the Learning Curve would you say is:
a). Somewhat spherical?
b). Totaly spherical?
c). Has an Edge too it?
d). Yaught too be able too pick up
the game with these toys?
ohh definitley (d)light full and please have the Courage too hold back the automatic weapons, until you have eeked out the Enjoyment of the coast benifit analysis. |
| Space313 | Sunday, October 13, 2013 - 03:42 am
Where are the battleships, landing craft, and submarines? I am very patient towards these, but when they come, it will be epic. And why is the world flat? |
| Star Foth | Sunday, October 13, 2013 - 03:57 am
It's not flat, I can send things over the edges and they end up respectively. It gets weird at the bottom, though. |
| Erin | Wednesday, November 13, 2013 - 12:12 am
if i understand both sides correctly... both have a valid point. The drawback seems to be that wile plane for plane the navy is stronger more adaptable and in general better.
But the problem is with them stuck in 250 unit wings they are way out numbered in any given battle so their over all effectiveness is not so great. On top of that a damaged wing would have a much harder time rebuilding up to full strength far from home and supply ships.
So seeing as the actual cost per plane is close enough to the same on any given match up they are just out numbered.
This would mean that if you had a large fleet of navy to toss at an enemy your costs per loss would be better in the long run than the non navy planes, but you would need a sickly large navy fleet as each wing would only be good for one attack before effectiveness falls to greatly.
Is this about right? |
| thewhy | Wednesday, November 13, 2013 - 03:01 am
id say Erin just about hit the nail on the head and I've am quite impressed with Aries and Supersoldiers sparring so many facts so much research and insights.... what it comes down to is obviously super cant find a purpose for a navy... if Aries can that would settle this debate..... as far as im concerned looking at the numbers i as a smaller player have no reason for a navy as i can barely maintain a decent land force (in comparison to giants like super and aries) will these navies simply be "toys for the rich"........ also i dont see much threat from navies before and now...... before it was because you couldnt even navigate them on the maps and now because the only defense required from me against my peers is a division with anti ship batts |
| thewhy | Wednesday, November 13, 2013 - 03:03 am
and dont forget supers point erin is that fighter wings can be mixed with other weapons in a unit to make them more adaptable while navy fighters cannot...... so in adaptability i would give the win to regular ground based air force..... simplicity of use obviously goes to navies... but i imagine most simpletons cant afford huge navies anyways |
| Erin | Wednesday, November 13, 2013 - 08:28 am
There is a use....
In pvp. You strike at the air defense of your enemy. Both sides take heavy losses. Finally after 500 traditional wings engage and the attacker is taking heavy losses due to allied air support and perhaps some mobile units the defender is using. Most forces on both sides are showing weakness and less than optimal. In comes super effective but smaller navy wings. No longer so out manned to push the losses back on the defender and save the battle.
If the attacker can get some cracks in the walls with traditional forces the navy will really clean up any defenders that are not at top Q and size. Just most likely not a first strike weapon...then again plane for plane the navy will do more dollars in damage than traditional just the resupply part really sucks. Useful but not in every situation. As all units should be. |
| thewhy | Friday, November 15, 2013 - 01:40 am
according to super the navies are pretty poor at clearing a garrison if thats what you mean by "defenders" .... and i imagine bombers would do a better job anyways even if navies were good |
| SuperSoldierRCP | Friday, November 15, 2013 - 02:32 am
The BIGGEST problem is the damage plain and simple.
Lets think for a min a garrisons of...
200 Anti air
200 Missile def
200 Missile interceptors
In an event of matching quality the losses are around 80 planes give or take. Then next attack lets say you lose 100.
In 2 attacks you lose 180 of your 250 planes.(we are being optimistic here)
Now you have to wait for a resupply well.
Also look in the docs some navy weapons fire LESS missiles per round then land based weapons meaning they do less damage overall and they are already limited in size. The GM should allow them to fire double the missiles. 10 cruise ships firing double the missiles per round, would make them fight as if they where 20 land based cruise which wouldn't do anything as you can have HUNDREDS in a land based force.
|
| "King Louis Emunne Thermopalis Gernaldi | Friday, November 15, 2013 - 03:56 am
SO MY COMMENTS WHERE DELETED BY ADMIN GUESS I AM NOT ALLOWED TO COMMENT ON POST....AND AT THE SAME TIME lenpeat POST ARE STILL LEFT IN THE CONVO |
| RAM | Friday, November 15, 2013 - 05:19 am
lol |
| RAM | Friday, November 15, 2013 - 05:21 am
navies allows u to touch far away targets, but unfortunately the touch is not tough enough to be worth stretching your hands there |
| Erin | Friday, November 15, 2013 - 07:21 am
Super i like the idea of allowing the navy to have a larger inventory even if Andy keeps the wing size at 250 that makes a lot of sense. Even 500 or something so you have a few full force attacks. |
