W3C - The Navy

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.

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.

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?

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.

Cheaper? More like 3x as expensive with more costly upgrades!

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

" 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.

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?

navy is far more expensive so deserves to be superior in many areas , but yea , not all

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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!

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

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.

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?

"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.

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.

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.

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.