Navy Armys costs

Hi, is there any reason why navy weapons are EXTREMELY costly?

Let's analyze a common scenario:
* offensive/defensive weapons quality are both the same.
* defensive helis and ints wings: 50000 each (total fed)

With current game engine, you need at least 100k oaamb/mrmb to get trough helis defense. If they are out of ammo, cause if they have active helis in reserves, it is more costly.

Now, if you want to get through defensive ints wings with Navy Fighters you will need a high amount of Navy Fighters naturally. But not only that, if not other navy weapons too.


So, based on my own tests you need a well financially built country of +450m population to have a huge navy army active (100k).
Even having 50k navy fighters is not affordable and you need many dozens of trillions in reserves to afford it for some game months.
You don't want 50k navy fighters, ok. 25k navy fighters active along with other navy weapons is extremely costly when compared offensive land weapons.

And Andy, please remember attacking a W3 is one thing but attacking an active semi-experienced/experienced human is completely different and the amount of offensive weapons needed are too high.
I understand setting up a defense is cheaper than a good offensive army. But it is really unbalanced this way. It makes navy figher useless because they are not affordable at all with the amount of weapons that are needed. Navy Army costs are like 6 times what offensive land weapons costs in similar numbers, if not more.

You need large numbers across the war game.
we will reduce sizes as part of an effort to reduce the cost of war.

the navy ammo will also come at a lower cost, and all other types of ammo too.

Combined with the current profitability levels, it will much reduce the relative cost of war.

Hi Andy, I hope it can happen anytime soon because even with "current profitability levels" it is literally impossible to afford a large Navy for PvP war.

I got a country in FB with 520m pop. Good indexes and even the population is growing every game month.
Without defense weapons the country makes around 1T every game month in profit.
As you could imagine, I cannot leave a country undefended so between active and inactive defensive weapons this country profit is reduced to 500-620B every game month , which is , yes, a good number.
Now, I have tried to make this country an offensive large Navy army ONLY and I went from 500-620B profit every game month to 800B-1T LOSSES every game month.

It is already unaffordable for a very well profitable built country with +520m pop, imagine what's left for countries between 40-130m pop which is the average in FB at least.


I really hope you get the message clear, because it is currently impossible to have a Navy army right now to play war game.

I made the same conclusion and had to sell my 100k cruisers fleet.

In the past it was possible for 50M country to have a fleet with a 1M navy fighters and now with 500M country you could not afford having 100K. No profitability changes will solve this

Lord Mndz, 1 navy fighter aircraft requires 10 officers and 36 soldiers. A country with 50m pop has never had 46m people in it's army, that would be impossible.

It was possible, believe me as deactivation worked differently and there were no units. So all 1M could fit in a single fleet.

You're wrong, it was never possible to activate military of over 50m in a country with 50m pop.

I must admit I am happy that it is not possible to keep 100K cruisers or 1M navy fighters.

The army was not meant to be that large. It would make the war game impossible for all players but a handful who could afford this kind of numbers.

Ammunition cost is now already much lower than it was before.
it went down by a large factor and as I promised before, it will keep going down, reducing the maintenance cost and the cost of purchasing ammunitions of all types.

At the same time, the numbers of officers and soldiers will remain as it is now.
also, the cost of the weapons is increasing.

we hope to end up with reasonable size armies. I do not know what reasonable is but millions is in my view not reasonable.

We want to decrease the maintenance cost and make it possible for players, with one or several profitable countries, to keep an army and be able to participate in war.

some players will be able to afford a much larger army.
this will come at a high cost and a war against a well defended country remains of course possible but will come at a high cost.

A single navy with millions of weapons is way out of proportion.
I do understand the invincible feeling that comes with it but such a navy will be able to attack and destroy many countries very quickly and in my view, this will not create a war game that will be attractive for many players.

As I said before, a next round of cost reductions will be part of the next upgrade that I hope, will become available coming Saturday. provided everything move swiftly into place.

Andy,

This is just a number. Game will never be close to real numbers where entire Ukraine army has up to 100 SAMs and only handful of fighters, but is able to kick russians out. It is not about numbers we all see that.

I think it would work better if:
> you highly decrease numbers of solders and officers for weapons
> highly increase cost of military bases
> limit number of max bases based on war level
> make military bases use normal workers like factories
> make military bases able to train solders, officers, proffesionals
> increase price of weapons
> limit number of units per base, both support and defensive/offensive
> increase sizes of units
> increase limits for deactivation/reactivation
> remove cost for having innactive weapons


Those changes will significantly balance the game from country development perspective.

If you want to improve defence then you could just allow more def units per base or make supply work faster in your own countries.

My proposed concept allows really nice end game and good country development experience. You need that

Lord Mndz is 100 percent correct.

Units didn't exist until years after the game was started.

You simply attacked with what you had in a slider bar.

I remember when units appeared with painting maps.

Interesting times.

Then after this or in parallel you can decreas size of air wings, reduce ranges, improve land units, improve speed of logistic etc.

My single biggest attack was with 23M drones and 700K Fighters in war against TSPX, wiping 80k interceptors at once, and that was ok.

I agree to some of these ideas.
not all.

I do not think that attacking with everything you had was useful for everybody.

It was for those with a huge number of weapons and money.

the flip side of it was that some lost their entire army in 2 minutes and did not have any fighting chance at all.

Reducing the number of soldiers and officers per weapon will allow for larger armies. This is not what we are aiming at.
it will only help players who have all the resources to keep a very large army, leaving many even further behind.

It may force players to purchase professional soldiers and officers. Do you really want this?

if at all, we might need to increase the numbers.
It is one of the ways to limit the size of armies.

We will keep the numbers at the current levels.

Andy,

I don't say that I want to get back to those large numbers just that it was simple and fun, balanse was ensured by federation as it was needed to attack all air defences at once.

What I propose is end game logic, where you could compete against higher and higher war levels to increase your own war level and become stronger because of ability to build more bases and units. This would also help players to learn and advance in war game.

Expensive weapons ensure that advancement would be slow.

I think it is bad idea to prevent players to become strong, what is the point of the game then?

We have been discussing differrent options about new players and can find solution that ensures they grow and learn.

Army size currently is not controlled as part of population is taken automatically, it is unpredictable.. I think training army would be nice, as then there would be no sudden armies just bought oven the night .

All this activation, deactivation is chaos and mostly hurts defending players, I think the logic would be that bases would allow for reserves but the maintenance would be per base only.

I hope it makes sense what i write and happy to discuss more

The size of the army is in fact limited by the amount of money you want to spend.

building an army, many times larger than what most players can afford, should be very difficult but it remains possible.

we are not introducing any changes to make that impossible.

recent changes are aimed at reducing the cost of maintaining an army,
trying to repair imbalances between offensive and defensive units
improving the land forces
and limiting the ranges of weapons to encourage short range wars instead of fighting at large distances.

Andy,

Just imagine a situation, some player is spending 50B per game month for years to feel safe, but another player buys a large army and for few days maintain military cost of 1000B per day. In this situation defending player had spend many times more and lost because of not being able to counter an army that is created only for that war.

More stable situation would be with army that you can maintain all the times, that is expensive to buy but cost little to maintain. Active units reduce complexity when under attack players need to create everything in hours under stress of being attacked.

We agreed, long time ago, that the maintenance cost of the army should decline and the cost of weapons should increase.

Both are being implemented and the cost of maintenance declined by a very large margin in the past months and the process continues.

we have also reduced the maintenance cost of deactivated weapons and made the reactivation faster.
Eliminating the cost of deactivated weapons will create the possibility to create huge reserves at no cost.
There is no reason to do that.
we could instead give everyone several trillions in cash per game month.

players have enough time to reactivate the entire army between the time war is declared and the time the war starts.

There are more measures we are introducing to improve the war game, including shorter ranges and better balance between offence and defence.

But, war will alway be costly. there is a lot of destruction in war and assets that were built at a high cost are being destroyed.
It should not be too easy to destroy such assets.

We also do not think that the numbers of soldiers and officers used in all military weapons and bases should decline.

The number limits the possibility to build a huge army by a small country that cannot afford it.
Small countries can better start with a defensive army where smaller numbers of soldiers and officers are needed, keep most of it in the reserve and try to deter attacks the could destroy them.

You could argue that numbers per weapon are too small.
armies could become smaller is the numbers are higher.
there are some armies in Simcountry that are much too large.

We will limit the number of weapons, or units, per military base which will require more bases if you want a large army.
the cost of bases is high enough and they require many soldiers and officers which is, as with weapons, a limiting factor.

1) Reactivation was 10% per month whats the new percentage?
2) Maintenance cost is reduced only for deactivated weapons?
3) Will give everyone trillions in cash (sarcasm)

1 and 2 both good, 3 I wish.

lower the amount of ammo being used per month by 50%. Across the board. This would help everyone both old and newer players. Just my 2 cents

Rob

Activation and deactivation is at 15% for a long time.

The cost of ammunition declined a lot, twice in the past 10 days, for a total of probably at least 20%.
this is on top of previous declines in the cost of ammunition.

The range of the navy is now smaller.
It will have to go closer to the targets.

the range will decline more in the coming weeks.

The cost of navy weapons is increasing gradually.

-.-