Changes to Navies (Little Upsilon)

Lucky I have 80000 interceptors.

Quote:
Countries with 100 Interceptor wings are now untouchable

WRONG - As you discovered I rarely keep more than 1000 fighters in a country, and I have no problem with interceptors. Tactics aren't much different using NFP's other than you need to measure carefully.

Taking down 80,000 interceptors is only as hard as acquiring the ammo to burn up in the process.

And I didn't (nor do I think anyone else did) ask for a limit on attack numbers just a limit on total numbers. I'm sure this was a quick fix until fleet sizes could be stablized.

Once they are I see no reason why they couldn't be increased if necessary. You'd have liked it even less to sign in and find 80% of your fleet in reserves.

W3 has recognized a problem with these "Mega" fleets for some time now.

You are 100% correct Yankee.

Fun, a word that seems to be lost in this game.
Fleets were fun. Fighters, pain in the arse!
1000 fighters plus lots of ammo can take down 80,000 interceptors but it is a lot more work, much less fun and totally unrealistic. If sims aim is to add realism to the game then interceptors should down fighters before drones.
This is a game and sim really you try and keep some of the fun in it!
Bring back the fleet!

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

Taking down 80,000 interceptors is only as hard as acquiring the ammo to burn up in the process.<!-/Quote-!>

Depends. Is the target watching you burn ammo or killing your wings as soon as you pop them up?

Laguna has been using bomber/fighter combinations to take out one of my c3 air defenses. 800 interceptors down to 150 bombers. Interceptors are half the cost of bombers so 3/8 of the resourse cost.
So now we will have massed bombers destroying countries rather than massed navies...
NFP by the way cost 50% more than bombers. Maybe the cost of NFPs should be reduced inline with their reduced effectiveness.

"This change was by the way, requested by sevral very experienced players who know the game for a long time and who alterted us to some recent wars that were conducted in a ridiculous way, using huge navies to destroy defenses that had no chance against the unlimited force of such navies."

Translation: some vets who like to brag about how they know the game so well underestimated the value of a large navy, and the ability of other players to acquire one. They saw the tide of war changing against them, and got scared and petitioned the game masters to change the rules to protect them.

It is not easy to build a large navy. It is expensive to build and expensive to maintain. It takes knowledge and skill to build it and to keep it from bankrupting your countries. It takes knowledge and skill to use it effectively. A large navy alone has not been a ticket to success in war.

The other day four players, three with large navies, took eight hours to bring down Jason's heavily defended Got Some Death To Do. Jason had a large navy too. At least he didn't complain that it was "ridiculous". He just made a couple of tactical mistakes that most players could not have taken advantage of. That country had been a looming, imposing presence for many months. Taking it down was a big accomplishment, and that accomplishment is being denigrated by saying the defenses "had no chance." How could the country have survived so long if it had no chance?

"Defenses that had no chance"?! I have a country that was recently declared upon by three players, six countries all in the top 75 war rank. One is number 5 war rank. Some have or had large fleets. My country was in the 50s when the war started. It's held on because it's not at all easy to break through strong defenses with large navies. Nothing against my opponents, but they couldn't break through. It's very easy to burn through ships and planes and ammo and get absolutely nowhere. Nothing ridiculous about it.

What's ridiculous anyway? Many aspects of this game could be called ridiculous. You play the game according to the rules as they exist. Smart players try to eke out an advantage by gaining experience and thinking things through. What kind of player tries to get the rules changed when things aren't going their way?!

Getting the rules changed when you or your friends are worried about losing assets or status is poor sportsmanship. Laguna, Yankee, was it you who "alerted" the gamemasters of the hazards of large navies? If you or your allies, then shame on you. I'm serious, you can get all holier than thou if you want, but this is just lousy play. You say you're going to "eliminate" players from FB, then this. Bah. I'm not impressed.

Changing the rules while players are in the middle of a series of big, pivotal wars is a poor way to run a game. Tom, why not consult with players on both sides of the aisle? This change reeks of favoritism toward particular players.

I generally like rules changes. It keeps players from getting complacent, keeps the game interesting. Changing rules in the middle of heated play, with no advance warning, especially when it happens to favor complacency itself, is bad for the game, whether the rule change itself is conducive to better game play or not.

You hate that so much you're really gonna like the other changes several players have been asking for (and yes I'm included in that group)

Most of this has taken 6 months to finally get W3 to do, seems like this "heated play" is coming in the middle of that.

I have no problem losing, there wasn't a fleet involved in that, in fact Jojo .. I don't remember your mega fleet doing too much when it was anchored off my coast. Who owns it now???

The simple fact of the matter is the size of Naval units where not addressed when W3C limited every other base in the game. It was long past time to limit them. You wish to stash more equipment?

Just do like everyone else and build more bases and of course run the risk of losing whatever is on that base when it's destroyed.

Hey JoJo, hush before you make yourself look like an idiot. I shall destroy your post point by point:

" some vets who like to brag about how they know the game so well underestimated the value of a large navy, and the ability of other players to acquire one. They saw the tide of war changing against them, and got scared and petitioned the game masters to change the rules to protect them. "

That's not how it works, has never been how it works. As a matter of fact, all the game changes hurt vets, and are geared to making it easier for new players to catch up to vets. It's funny that you would pick this one change and stand on a soapbox yelling "GMs ARE IN LEAGUE WITH VETS," when it's obvious to anyone with half a brain that the GMs are (intentionally or not) in fact systematically nerfing the advantages of vets - such as large cash reserves.


"It is not easy to build a large navy."

Yes it is. You can get all the weapons you need, minus NFPs, with only 4 or 5 months spending space. A day and a half on FB. The NFP you continue to build up over time anyways, but if you use several countries and a CEO you can still do it rapidly.

Massive ammo reserves are all that take time, but even then it's not like you can't field something formidable within a week's time.

"It is expensive to build and expensive to maintain. It takes knowledge and skill to build it and to keep it from bankrupting your countries."

No, and no. You only have to be a mediocre player. With a country over 40M.

"It takes knowledge and skill to use it effectively. A large navy alone has not been a ticket to success in war. "

Orly? Attack defense with NFP, attack target with cruise missiles. Rinse. Repeat. Yeah, navies are hard to use. Granted you are a lot more deadly with other tools in your arsenal, but myself, along with plenty of other players, have won wars with only a navy.

Oh wait, what's that? I took ARYAN's original Tutonic Knights with only a navy back over the summer? Guess you just forgot. Not to mention the other countries barn and I largely took with navies during the second push of our little war with 3M (version 1.0?)


"The other day four players, three with large navies, took eight hours to bring down Jason's heavily defended Got Some Death To Do. Jason had a large navy too. At least he didn't complain that it was "ridiculous". He just made a couple of tactical mistakes that most players could not have taken advantage of. That country had been a looming, imposing presence for many months. Taking it down was a big accomplishment, and that accomplishment is being denigrated by saying the defenses "had no chance." How could the country have survived so long if it had no chance? "

Incompetence, because I watched how you all attacked it.

Although, it's wrong to say defenses "have no chance," but I believe the statement if being made relative to the defenses that can be pushed into a navy, which would be accurate.


""Defenses that had no chance"?! I have a country that was recently declared upon by three players, six countries all in the top 75 war rank. One is number 5 war rank. Some have or had large fleets. My country was in the 50s when the war started. It's held on because it's not at all easy to break through strong defenses with large navies. Nothing against my opponents, but they couldn't break through. It's very easy to burn through ships and planes and ammo and get absolutely nowhere. Nothing ridiculous about it. "

Congrats at that. Nothing to really say other than good job defending.


"What's ridiculous anyway? Many aspects of this game could be called ridiculous. You play the game according to the rules as they exist. Smart players try to eke out an advantage by gaining experience and thinking things through. What kind of player tries to get the rules changed when things aren't going their way?!"

The navy template was left over from the old war engine. In a sense, it wasn't playing to the rules. It was playing to the old set of rules. It's finally been made to match the new WE. Finally.


"Getting the rules changed when you or your friends are worried about losing assets or status is poor sportsmanship. Laguna, Yankee, was it you who "alerted" the gamemasters of the hazards of large navies? If you or your allies, then shame on you. I'm serious, you can get all holier than thou if you want, but this is just lousy play. You say you're going to "eliminate" players from FB, then this. Bah. I'm not impressed. "

Again. No. The gamemasters didn't need to be alerted to anything. Navies aren't a secret.


"Changing the rules while players are in the middle of a series of big, pivotal wars is a poor way to run a game. Tom, why not consult with players on both sides of the aisle? This change reeks of favoritism toward particular players.

I generally like rules changes. It keeps players from getting complacent, keeps the game interesting. Changing rules in the middle of heated play, with no advance warning, especially when it happens to favor complacency itself, is bad for the game, whether the rule change itself is conducive to better game play or not."


Sorry to say, but your war is not "pivotal" in any way to the game. There have been other wars, there will be other wars, and it effects the people you're fighting as much as it effects you.

Man up, don't be a wuss, and die without whining too much.

I would think that the rules change was requested long before your war started, and I doubt it was asked in mind with that war.

Why shouldn't navies have weapon limits like everything else? Why should navies be superior to everything else? I welcome the change, as it seems do many others.

Q

After screamin at my monitor all day over this change I have made peace. I welcome the 400 npf limit. Wild is dead-on when she says changes keep the game fresh. It is unfortunate to all who are in wars tho.

To GM,

The land 2 sea batteries, offensive/defensive destroyers, lt. attack boats/seal teams, and offensive aa batteries STILL DON'T WORK! This is the 3rd time I've written you guys about this over 1 1/2 years time. I understand it takes time but damn. I have 30T worth of worthless shit weapons because I can't use them. I'm afraid to sell them off cuz you guys will prolly make them work right after my stash is gone.


I'm off to go build a buttload of aircraft carrier corps...


Dirt


PS-Hey Wild, thanks for the country!

And my question in the original post still has not been answered...

WHAT IS THE LIMIT ON TOTAL WEAPONS PER CARRIER GROUP?

The doc only answered the question of how many weapons of a single type could be used per attack.

I declared war before the change. The change occurred mid war. I was prepared to fight that war with the old rules. There was a sudden change in the game characteristics but no change in my ability to buy replacement units. This is not good. Regardless of the long term impact sudden changes to a key component of the war engine is not good.

W3C could have announced that a change would be implemented next week. We used the war engine for months without modification why would one more week be a problem.

The change could have been implemented in increments. W3C could have announced that 995 navy fighters (or naval units) could be used in combat effective immediately and then the number could drop by 5 per month until it reaches 400 or some other number.

Many people have put in over a year building up his or her attempt at a "good military". This is a sudden adjustment that changes one of the most effective weapons into a marginal weapon. The change itself would be less of a problem if we could exchange the old use-less weapons for other weapons. I already cannot sell the old weapons and orders for replacement systems are already in the red for months.

There is also an economic problem. CEOs and countries that invested in naval corporations are going to take a blow. The damage could be mitigated by allowing some sort of conversion.

I have no problem understanding how to take advantage of the modified war engine. I could win wars before and once I rearm I will be able to win wars in the future. My concern is that I will rearm and suddenly find that all the rules have changed again right at the start of a large war. It seams like trying to play smart is pointless.

I would like some sort of consistency in a long term game. At least make the huge sudden heinous changes on the same day each month.

I am not opposed to reducing the number of naval units usable in combat. I would have tried 600 per attack and also reduced the base prices. I am opposed to how it was implemented.

Keith,

If any garrison has more than 400 missile interceptors it will be able to stop all navy fighter missiles, 250 missile interceptors will stop all guided missiles, and 834 missile interceptors will stop 400 missile cruisers. Defensive missile batteries and anti-aircraft batteries will destroy some of the systems before they can fire all ammunition. So, a garrison with 1000 missiles interceptor batteries, 500 defensive missiles batteries and 500 AA batteries can annihilate any navy until the garrison runs out of ammunition.

trains, trains, trains! What we realy want is some trains to put on the train tracks! Can we please plezzzze Please get some trains? I have got countless miles of train tracks and I am spending huge sums of sim cash for traintrack maintaince. But I never see any trains rolling down the train tracks. Never do I hear any train whistles blowing in simcountry. When will we ever get some trains to put on all of them tracks?


Simcountry Daily Telegraph, Thu Nov 2, 2372
Country News
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Thu Nov 2, 2372 Country Orders
The country is not purchasing all products that are needed for the population.
The citizens of Simcountry are complaining of shortages. There is a shortage of Trains.

Nute Gunray

Taking down an attacking base is a defensive move. When running it out of ammo while losing everything thrown at it simply due to the numbers advantage is your only viable option .... (other than attrition and you saw that first hand Jo Jo did you even know what was happening?)

Then "defense has no chance"

You want your mega fleets fine, give me a corresponding number of PB's or better yet Land to sea missiles that work. Heck I'd even be glad to go with 1/3 the amount of defense in a fleet.

These base, garrison, unit and attack limits are for a reason, they reduce the required number of weapons any country has to own. That makes it easier for new players to survive.

Limits on naval units were not changed when every other base in the game was. This was long over due.

"Vets" live with the exact same limits as anyone else. Unlike some, I don't lobby for change that gives anyone a distinct advantage.

Myself and others have been after them to change this long before I came to FB, so quite frankly your idea that I had no knowledge of the ramifications simply doesn't wash.

And FYI my ceo could "puke down" multiple mega fleets along with ammo, with boosters maybe in as little as 6 game months. If I thought they where important to the game I could have had them easy enough.

I have built a small navy and just floated it. Now I don't know if it will have half of it's weaqpons by morning. More ships to build!!
But a navy of the sizes that have seen is still a formidable weapon, even if you have to tab to three or four screens to access them all. Or ten!

I am hoping for an NFP number of about 800/ship.
And maybe interceptor batteries and navy batteries abut the same. How about fleet command numbers??? Shouldn't they be a little larger?
A real answer to the numbers question is certainly due...

How about drydocks so you can keep your navy in your country even when you are landlocked. Before the last round of changes, m navy was in my country, but now I cannot put it back.

Q, I'm sure the rules change was requested a long time ago. Lot of rules changes have been on the table a long time. However, Tom specifically mentioned that some vets "alerted us to some recent wars." The "alert," or complaint, must have been even more recent. I'm inferring that the "alert" was instrumental in bringing this particular rule change to the forefront.

I'm assuming the "Got Some Death" war is one of these recent wars prompting this action. The country was in Laguna's fed, as have been some of Yankee's countries. It's a matter of conflict of interest. The same "ridiculous" techniques could be used against their own countries. Using influence when there is a conflict of interest opens one up to complaint, and that's what I'm doing.

It's possible this rule change will benefit the game. I'm arguing that its manner of implementation hurts the integrity of the game.

As for the merits of the rule changes, some of it is good, some not, in my opinion. We'll see. Personally, I'll adapt, no problem.

I'm also arguing the rationale given. Some of it is BS, and that should be pointed out as such.

Yankee, you make one of my points...I did have a mega fleet right there, and did not take your country. I could have taken the rest of your forts and drive your WI lower, but I didn't think I had enough in my mega fleet to take your well defended targets and conquer the country. Maybe a more skilled player such as Wild Eyes could have. Point is, a big fleet alone is not enough.

Wild, some counter-rebuttal.

I do figure that all vets do what they can to improve the game, certainly Laguna does. In this instance, though, the rule change appears to be in his interest. Yankee's too. It's too much to ask anyone to separate their own pressing interest from the general good. I'm sure he would argue that there is no "pressing interest," but that doesn't mean it's not true.

You'd give my comments more credence if I complained about all rules changes? I don't think so.

I guess it is easy to build a big navy when you know how to do it. The difficult part is learning how to do it. Much of the game is like that. It's also easy to build a strong defense---just stock up your garrisons with missiles, throw up some wings---piece of cake. So why doesn't everyone have huge fleets and massive defenses? Because they don't know how or don't realize its value.

A lot of players do not know how to maintain large armies and navies and are in chronic debt, making it difficult to use the forces they have. Again, it's easy when you know how, the hard part is learning how.

Last summer? Past glory. Why not do it now if it's so easy? Too boring? Or it takes a lot of time and attention--making it not so easy as it sounds.

Thanks for the congrats on my defense, but the point was that it's not necessarily so difficult to defend against a large navy, even against relatively skilled players.

"The gamemasters didn't need to be alerted to anything. Navies aren't a secret." Again, Tom mentioned being alerted. Must have had something to do with it being done now, or he wouldn't have given it as a rationale. Also, big navies ARE a bit of a secret. Players I know had no idea you could build such a large fleet until we saw yours (Zden's).

"Your war is not "pivotal" in any way to the game." No, just pivotal to me. I'm not actually at war with the "vets," though my allies are, so I could be. Nothing is pivotal I guess, if you can always build a big navy in a week.

"It effects the people you're fighting as much as it effects you." No, not true, that's the whole point of the complaint! Party A has big fleets. Party B has big other stuff. (Could have big fleets too, but doesn't). All of a sudden big fleets are not so powerful. Party B has a lot more influence over rules than Party A. Gamemaster says someone with influence used that influence and so we changed the rules we've been sitting on for 6 months. What does one say to that if one is Party A?

And it's "affects," have to throw that in for calling me a wuss.

lmao wow wild!!!! good post!!!

Before you let your wild, ludicrous imagination run free, let me tell you that I've request no changes. Specially, if they handicap me more than they do you by a large difference.

The only recent change you see that is my fault is the way messages are treated, filtered. Other than that, none.
But if you would like for everyone's account be opened for hacking, we can revert that one.

And this should have been done, twenty days from now, a year ago at my request, but it didn't. It happened now, because someone else did my job.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

sudden changes to a key component of the war engine is not good.<!-/Quote-!>

Read every post before commenting. Willard said and I repeat:

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

Navies should be able to help but cannot play the decisive role in wars, let alone, destroy units and garrisons that are limited in size and can never really fight back.<!-/Quote-!>

And you can always search and read the news related with the new war engine implementation.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

OK, so how many weapons can a single aircraft carrier support? It would be nice to know how many little fleets to split my big navies into, to avoid deactivations...<!-/Quote-!>

Right now, it's unlimited. In the future, well... that number is yet to assessed. Numbers aren't random at all, just like 400 isn't a random number.

@Sam

I don't think this is the navy overhaul we were talking about?

/me works out how to redistribute his 100k NFP

This is all Laguna's fault. We should harrass him.

" What does one say to that if one is Party A?"

Oops! I shouldn't have put all my eggs in one basket and learned other ways to fight.


Something like that, I'd imagine. I told all of you that Barn and I didn't show you everything we knew, only a small piece. Navies are an easy way to fight, but there are many many other ways. That's why I was never worried when you started making big fleets, and when other people started copying the big fleets before your group: because it's only one weapon in the arsenal.


"Last summer? Past glory. Why not do it now if it's so easy? Too boring? Or it takes a lot of time and attention--making it not so easy as it sounds. "

Why don't I do it again? Well yankee & co beat me to Hunnish Pride which I had set up on as soon as I re-registered on FB, but don't worry. Shortly I'll be in your base, killing all your mans, once again.

Of course, we keep this infantile notion of offensive and defensive weapons. Realism. pfft.

I am just more bothered by the myraid of internal server messages encountered throughout my war/wars today. Its quite terrible. Especially when doing certain things are essential to effectively carry out actions during war to make it meaningful.