| Keith Allaire (Little Upsilon) | Wednesday, February 4, 2009 - 06:52 pm 
2. Navies [ top ]
Navies in Simcountry have always been very large. There was in fact no limitation on the number of weapons per navy ship. This is of course unrealistic and an update is long overdue.
The problem became even much larger after the introduction of army units that are limited in size. The only limitation on navies is in the number of weapons, per type of weapon, that can be used in a single attack.
The problem will be solved in two steps. The first one is installed in Simcountry today.
The number of navy weapons that can be used in a single attack is now reduced to 400 per weapon type. This limitation will reduce the problem as the defense will become relatively larger while an attack will become less devastating.
The next update that will be installed next week on Tuesday Feb. 10, will reduce the max size of a navy, in several steps, to the size of a large military unit and also set a maximum to the total number of weapons that can be used in a single attack.
Very large navy units will see their numbers decline and the unused weapons will be placed in the reserves.
To keep large numbers of navy weapons active, you should have more navies and distribute the available weapons over a larger number of navy units.
We will make sure that the navy remains an important part of the war game but will prevent it from being much more destructive than any other unit in the game.
^^^^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... |
| Váli (Fearless Blue) | Wednesday, February 4, 2009 - 07:15 pm
I think these changes will put an end to the war game. Navies will be slaughtered against garrisons of 2000 defensive weapons. War will become too costly. I have a war later today, so I will test out these new limits. I fear my navy will be battered by these new limits.
Changing the limits with no warning is going to cause real problems. Some of us are in the middle of a large war. We are set up to fight the way the game was, changing things is going to cause problems.
Reducing the power of navies is going to greatly reduce your ability to wage war far from your home. 3000k range for bombers is not enough. Real life bombers can fly much further plus inflight refueling. Changes to the air war will need to be made to make up for the reduced naval power.
Or war will become a battle of c3s |
| Keith Allaire (Little Upsilon) | Wednesday, February 4, 2009 - 08:01 pm
I think that the war game will change to "tabbing between" 10 different fleets, but I would have to test the destructive power of 400 NFP against garrisons to be sure. I'm not that experienced in war, but if 400 NFP can still take down a garrison relatively quickly (even if it does take two rounds for big garrisons), it'll just be a matter of switching between ten fleets often.
I just need to know how many aircraft carriers I need before the 10th, lol. |
| Orbiter (Little Upsilon) | Wednesday, February 4, 2009 - 08:12 pm
their have always been cheaper ways to destroy garrisons, than nfp. pb are cheaper, more effective (for what they hit,) and use allot less manpower. (they use less than half of sims) the problem is they are a little less versatile...and less mobile...
my concern, is the "attack target," button, when attacking fleets, if that is removed, then this is cool, if not, then navies are effectively obsolete. that is, when the max weapons are reduced to that of a large military unit, (3600ish???) |
| Johanas Bilderburg (Little Upsilon) | Wednesday, February 4, 2009 - 08:21 pm
Quote:Reducing the power of navies is going to greatly reduce your ability to wage war far from your home.
That has been the stated goal of W3C since the inception of the new war engine. I am glad to see more realism interjected into the game. Thanks W3C. |
| Váli (Fearless Blue) | Wednesday, February 4, 2009 - 08:41 pm
Too much realism is a bad thing..this is a game after all.
You play with other players, if they happen to be on the otherside of the world then you cant play.
The reduced navy will reduce game playability. Less enjoyment equals less players. |
| andy Clark (Fearless Blue) | Wednesday, February 4, 2009 - 08:59 pm
perhaps changing it on other worlds may be fine,but,,The players on FB DO want[for the most part] to fight.Please take a little time to think about such a vast change. thanks,,Andy |
| Beast (Little Upsilon) | Wednesday, February 4, 2009 - 09:03 pm
I think the change would be more reasonable if there was some sort of long range alternative, such as marines, or transport ships.
I agree that in real life, navies aren't the primary force used to conquer another country, but they definitely are used to transport ground forces to other places across the world. |
| Elaieva (Little Upsilon) | Wednesday, February 4, 2009 - 09:33 pm
Give this change a chance, and let's see where W3C is headed with it. Yes, it'll mean changing tactics, but isn't changing tactics and adjusting to different styles of warfare what the wargame is all about anyway? |
| William Miller (White Giant) | Wednesday, February 4, 2009 - 10:17 pm
Ok, I have always found it unrealistic that you could have an unlimited amount of naval fighters on one carrier so that aspect is acceptable to me. Naval forces were like a death star in this game before now. However it has been possible in real life to have a strike of over 800-1000 planes from a naval task force ( i.e operation hailstone in ww2 ). So why not limit the attacks to 1000 weapons combined rather than putting limits on each type.
However, if you are definitely going to stick w/ an attack limit of 400 for each type of weapons, then please fix the range of defensive missiles back to 2000 km as the documentation states. Right now, defensive missiles have unlimited range. That's not realistic either. |
| Tom Willard | Wednesday, February 4, 2009 - 10:47 pm
Navies are used to smash any defense from a long distance with hardly any need to invade countries and use army units to win a war.
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.
We hope that this will bring back more balance to the war game. we will see the results and will tune parameters gradually to achieve such balance.
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.
The unlimited size of the navies originated with the previous war engine. During the transition to the new war engine, all other war units where reorganized is a way the reduced the numbers of weapons involved in each attack or in the defense. The navies remained unchanged. This was clearly overdue. |
| Stuart Taylor (Little Upsilon) | Wednesday, February 4, 2009 - 10:51 pm
Thanks Tom, but may I ask if there are any plans to introduce troop ships? This would help make navies more realistic..... |
| Tom Willard | Wednesday, February 4, 2009 - 10:52 pm
I removed one reaction to this change from this discussion.
The player clearly thought that this change is wrong. He probably thinks that this change will damage the war game.
This is fine. His opinion should be expressed.
However, the choice of words and insults he used were unacceptable and he will not be on the forum for a while. |
| Tom Willard | Wednesday, February 4, 2009 - 10:57 pm
We plan to add transport ships that will move army units to remote locations, in the same way air transport is doing so now.
Ships are larger and they will be able to move larger quantities.
"Troops" is not clear. We have soldiers on jeeps and we have a lot of military as crews with each type of weapon. we do not have troops as such. |
| Stuart Taylor (Little Upsilon) | Wednesday, February 4, 2009 - 11:10 pm
When I said troops, i did infact mean units Tom. My mistake, sorry.
Do you have any idea when the new ships would be implemented, and what their range would be? I really can't see you allowing us to have them travel worldwide!!!
Another good addition if you are allowing military transport ships, would be to include marines and landing craft.
Also, when are trains being added??? 
Thanks again Tom..... |
| Yankee (Fearless Blue) | Thursday, February 5, 2009 - 12:20 am
Reduction in the size of the navies will not end thier usefullness, it will however make it possible to knock those carriers out of commission.
I personally have lobbied for a long time to limit the number of weapons a carrier group carries along with several others.
Every other military base has limits, carriers need them also. Reduction in the attack limits was not something I asked for, yet I do not know that this will be an issue anyway.
400 NFP is enough to strip an air defense, just will take you slightly longer.
400 Guilded missile frigates are enough to deal with defense.
400 Guided missile cruisers are enough to destroy a capital, city, town, military base.
What this will end is showing up off someone's coast with a fleet containing 30K Naval defense weapons (of each type) that is next to impossible to knock out of commission.
For those of you that rely on that tactic, you'll either have to learn to deal with the same restrictions your target has, or build more fleets and risk the total loss of weapons in them once they are destroyed. |
| Tattooed Priest (Golden Rainbow) | Thursday, February 5, 2009 - 12:22 am
I agree that the range and use of the air force needs to be more long range. |
| Stuart Taylor (Little Upsilon) | Thursday, February 5, 2009 - 12:32 am
Bloody hell TP. Long time no see dude. We were getting worried about you man!!! |
| Keith Allaire (Little Upsilon) | Thursday, February 5, 2009 - 12:32 am
Tom, since you are reading this thread, would you mind answering my original question of how many total weapons a single carrier group could support?
10000 single weapons per carrier? 2000? 3600? Keep in mind I am asking for the total SUM of weapons that could be in a single fleet...the uber-navies that you seek to break up have at least 40000 (10k navy missile batteries, 10k navy missile int batteries, 20k NFP).
I get that I can only use 400 weapons of a single type per attack, but carrier groups will still have to support multiple kinds of weapons, both offensive and defensive. Hence my request to know the total cap per carrier you have planned.
I seek a hard-number answer to this question so that it is possible to prepare for this change IN ADVANCE. Instead of simply having the change occur and finding 80% of my navy deactivated.
I need to know how many carriers I need to procure, and I believe this is a very reasonable question. |
| General Dirt (Little Upsilon) | Thursday, February 5, 2009 - 12:36 am
I have an idea. How about fixing the gear in the navies that don't work before we start tweeking the stuff that does.
Land2Sea missles and both types of destroyers have flaws and don't work at all. Light attack boats and Seal teams are also a joke. I have invested a huge amount of money into these and its all for nuttin'.
Oh yeah, how about fixing the offensive aa batts while your at it.
Thanks
Dirt |
| Váli (Fearless Blue) | Thursday, February 5, 2009 - 12:55 am
argh laguna and co start losing countries so the game changes to save them. Nice |
| Váli (Fearless Blue) | Thursday, February 5, 2009 - 01:16 am
Well the new changes result in massive NFP losses and few interceptor losses.
Attacking a supplu unit with 150 jeeps in, supported by 2 interceptor wings I am losinr roughly 300NFP to 300 Interceptors.
This is far to in favour of the defensive forces. It is now next to impossible to take out air defense. Countries with 100 Interceptor wings are now untouchable. Unless you have 80 000 NFP lying about just to take down airdefense. |
| Johanas Bilderburg (Little Upsilon) | Thursday, February 5, 2009 - 01:22 am
Air defense has been way too weak since the new engine was instituted. Glad to see it back to the old days.
Quote:Countries with 100 Interceptor wings are now untouchable.
Good. |
| Váli (Fearless Blue) | Thursday, February 5, 2009 - 01:34 am
War game is dead.
Good By Sim |
| WildEyes (Little Upsilon) | Thursday, February 5, 2009 - 01:38 am
I have 80,000 NFP lying around. Don't you?
I thought everyone did.
I always said people oughtn't rely too heavily on their navies, and should have some flexibility and know other strategies.
All the same, 400 is low... I'm not the happiest about it but it is incredibly more balanced now.
Not only were interceptors outgunned by the stats, but they were outnumbered. This, I think, will be better. |
| Váli (Fearless Blue) | Thursday, February 5, 2009 - 01:53 am
Lucky I have 80000 interceptors. |
| Yankee (Fearless Blue) | Thursday, February 5, 2009 - 02:24 am
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. |
| Crossdale (Little Upsilon) | Thursday, February 5, 2009 - 02:33 am
You are 100% correct Yankee. |
| Váli (Fearless Blue) | Thursday, February 5, 2009 - 03:04 am
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! |
| Johanas Bilderburg (Little Upsilon) | Thursday, February 5, 2009 - 03:16 am
Quote:Taking down 80,000 interceptors is only as hard as acquiring the ammo to burn up in the process.
Depends. Is the target watching you burn ammo or killing your wings as soon as you pop them up? |
| Váli (Fearless Blue) | Thursday, February 5, 2009 - 04:21 am
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. |
| Jo Jo Hun (Fearless Blue) | Thursday, February 5, 2009 - 05:08 am
"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. |
| Yankee (Fearless Blue) | Thursday, February 5, 2009 - 05:35 am
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. |
| WildEyes (Fearless Blue) | Thursday, February 5, 2009 - 05:39 am
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. |
| quaxocal (Golden Rainbow) | Thursday, February 5, 2009 - 05:43 am
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 |
| General Dirt (Little Upsilon) | Thursday, February 5, 2009 - 06:06 am
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! |
| Keith Allaire (Little Upsilon) | Thursday, February 5, 2009 - 06:25 am
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. |
| Pathetic Sheep (White Giant) | Thursday, February 5, 2009 - 06:25 am
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. |
| Pathetic Sheep (White Giant) | Thursday, February 5, 2009 - 06:43 am
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. |
| Nute Gunray (Little Upsilon) | Thursday, February 5, 2009 - 06:51 am
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 |
| Yankee (Little Upsilon) | Thursday, February 5, 2009 - 06:52 am
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. |
| Noproblem (Fearless Blue) | Thursday, February 5, 2009 - 06:59 am
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. |
| Jo Jo Hun (Fearless Blue) | Thursday, February 5, 2009 - 07:53 am
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. |
| jason (Fearless Blue) | Thursday, February 5, 2009 - 08:31 am
lmao wow wild!!!! good post!!! |
| John R | Thursday, February 5, 2009 - 11:26 am
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:sudden changes to a key component of the war engine is not good.
Read every post before commenting. Willard said and I repeat:
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.
And you can always search and read the news related with the new war engine implementation.
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...
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. |
| The Grand Poobah (Little Upsilon) | Thursday, February 5, 2009 - 11:31 am
@Sam
I don't think this is the navy overhaul we were talking about? |
| Messiah (Little Upsilon) | Thursday, February 5, 2009 - 02:12 pm
/me works out how to redistribute his 100k NFP
This is all Laguna's fault. We should harrass him. |
| WildEyes (Fearless Blue) | Thursday, February 5, 2009 - 03:01 pm
" 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. |
| FarmerBob | Thursday, February 5, 2009 - 03:08 pm
Of course, we keep this infantile notion of offensive and defensive weapons. Realism. pfft. |
| ShcyzMattiCa (Fearless Blue) | Thursday, February 5, 2009 - 05:12 pm
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. |
| ShcyzMattiCa (Fearless Blue) | Thursday, February 5, 2009 - 05:14 pm
like this one . . . .
Internal server error: no message text (tradeproducts) |
| ShcyzMattiCa (Fearless Blue) | Thursday, February 5, 2009 - 05:15 pm
or EVEN BETTER
"This error should not occur
Internal server error: no message text (tradeproducts)" |
| Tom Willard (White Giant) | Thursday, February 5, 2009 - 06:19 pm
It is obvious for everyone who cares to look, that navies were the only weapon in the war game that had virtually unlimited power.
While all other units declined in size, we have not updated the navy.
Wars in the past had many more weapons involved and you could destroy a navy with 60.000 weapons in a couple of attacks.
It did not make sense. The cost of some wars was staggering.
We have limited the size of units and the total numbers of weapons and also the cost of wars. At the time, the complete world industry was not able to produce the numbers of weapons people were forced to purchase.
So now we have, at last, brought the navy to shape.
We were not able to limit the number of weapons and cannot do it too quickly; we need to give players time to adapt.
The easy way was to limit the attack size.
We are now developing the feature that will allow the limitation of the max number of weapons in a single navy by limiting the number per type of weapon.
The feature will be finished by Monday and can be installed on Tuesday next week.
For starters, we will limit the number to 20.000 per type of weapon. This is hardly a limitation and hardly realistic.
Max attack size is 400 per type of weapon.
We will then reduce the numbers gradually and may end up at 2000 per type or less but it will take two months or so to get there.
Needless to say, nothing will be lost in the process.
Some more testing and the setting of conditions to the rearming of navies will need to be decided on and completed before we can decide on the definitive numbers.
Changes are always at the wrong moment. This one was overdue and announcing it could have adverse effects on the behavior of some players and cause even more trouble.
We are aware of other problems in weapon systems and intend to solve them ASAP. |
| Tom Willard (White Giant) | Thursday, February 5, 2009 - 06:22 pm
When navies become smaller, weapons will not be deactivated. They will remain active but not deployed on a carrier. |
| ShcyzMattiCa (Fearless Blue) | Thursday, February 5, 2009 - 07:21 pm
TOm, for whatever reason I can order from the strategic menu and the error coming up reads
"
This error should not occur
Internal server error: no message text (tradeproducts)"
Any thoughts??? I am currently on the menu, itsa not associated with any country in particular either. So far its two I have tried |
| Keith Allaire (Little Upsilon) | Thursday, February 5, 2009 - 09:00 pm
Thank you for the numbers, Tom. However as others have pointed out, navies will soon become so small as to become utterly ineffective against anything other than very lightly defended targets. 400 MIBs completely nullifying a NFP/CM ship bombardment? Give me a break.
I would like to suggest a limit of 8-1000 weapons per carrier (as defensive naval batteries and NFP are a lot smaller than the actual SHIPS), and that the number of weapons usable in a single attack increase to 6-800 of a single type.
An alternative to NFP's former uber-effectiveness would be to simply increase the maximum size of air defense wings from 400 to 1000, letting more ints respond to a NFP attack at once, and wear them down quicker.
Basically, the only thing the phase-in means is that I have two months to sell my soon-to-be-worthless navy, rather than immediate-panic-selling it all at once.
A more backdoor way to handle the problem would be to increase the firing rate of naval weapons to partially offset their diminished numbers. In the past, when W3C has sought to reduce numbers of weapons, it has increased the effectiveness per weapon. |
| Johanas Bilderburg (Kebir Blue) | Thursday, February 5, 2009 - 09:25 pm
@ Austia.
Not exactly.
But Tom did give us this
Quote:We plan to add transport ships that will move army units to remote locations, in the same way air transport is doing so now.
Ships are larger and they will be able to move larger quantities.
Its a start in the right direction. |
| The Grand Poobah (Golden Rainbow) | Thursday, February 5, 2009 - 11:31 pm
:-) |
| Jo Jo Hun (Fearless Blue) | Friday, February 6, 2009 - 05:03 am
Thank you, Laguna, for putting to rest my strongest concern. |
| Pathetic Sheep | Friday, February 6, 2009 - 05:48 am
Tom,
What you are posting does not make sense. Changing the size of the fleet does not change the war engine or make a unit weaker or stronger. 50,000 units that are slaughtered 400 at a time are useless. All 50,000 of them. Separate small fleets of 1200 that are devastating in waves 1000 are very effective. You are going to slowly implement the insignificant change and have instantly delivered the huge change.
The effectiveness of a unit is determined by the percentage lost in a round of combat, the number of enemy units destroyed in a round of combat, the costs of ammunition and weapons used and the cost of weapons and ammunition used by the defender.
The cost of wars won't go down. It will just require more clicks of the mouse to get the job done. |
| Keith Allaire (Little Upsilon) | Friday, February 6, 2009 - 06:10 am
I would like to suggest a limit of 8-1000 weapons per carrier (as defensive naval batteries and NFP are a lot smaller than the actual SHIPS), and that the number of weapons usable in a single attack increase to 6-800 of a single type.
^^I left out a zero and it's too late to edit. I meant eight to ten thousand weapons per carrier, not something between eight and one thousand.
Otherwise I WILL sell my navy and just replace it with defense, until I figure out what other power projection capacity to build in the navy's place... |
| ShcyzMattiCa (Fearless Blue) | Friday, February 6, 2009 - 06:27 am
yeah my NFP's are dropping like flies |
| jason (Kebir Blue) | Friday, February 6, 2009 - 06:50 am
lmao! |
| ShcyzMattiCa (Fearless Blue) | Friday, February 6, 2009 - 06:55 am
Oh yes its a "LMAO", but I'll be laughing this one all the way home Jason. |
| Tom Willard (Golden Rainbow) | Friday, February 6, 2009 - 09:15 am
Thanks for these suggestions.
Obviously we will do some more testing ourselves and attack garrisons and army units with various numbers of navy weapons.
We know that 1000 NFP can destroy whatever they attack with little losses.
They should remain effective of course but at a cost.
The way the war engine works, there are many small rounds of fighting with the defense striking first.
With 1000 NFP, the first strike round destroyed too much of the defense to allow for any serious damage by the next defensive strike. |
| ShcyzMattiCa (Fearless Blue) | Friday, February 6, 2009 - 01:56 pm
Honestly, shouldnt the attacker be going first in any given round, seems only reasonable to me that attacking means you get off the first shots. |
| Keith Allaire (Little Upsilon) | Friday, February 6, 2009 - 05:07 pm
Yeah Tom, I would imagine that somewhere between 600-800 weapons attacking would be a far better balance, esp. with NFP |
| General Bobo (Fearless Blue) | Friday, February 6, 2009 - 07:18 pm
<---Orders Pizza |
| William Miller (White Giant) | Friday, February 6, 2009 - 07:49 pm
Quote " Yeah Tom, I would imagine that somewhere between 600-800 weapons attacking would be a far better balance, esp. with NFP "
Now that suggestion makes sense! |
| Tom Willard (Golden Rainbow) | Saturday, February 7, 2009 - 02:20 pm
we need to see how much damage the defense can inflict on the navy with any number of weapons, the losses, depending on the numbers and the cost.
And of course, how quickly can a navy destroy a target and at what cost.
Attacking is always more expensive than defending.
It seems that the main point is not clear yet:
When we introduced the new war engine, the navy remained huge while all other weapon systems became smaller.
we are now making an overdue correction and will bring the navy to its right size.
war will be won with land forces, air forces and navies and a lot more thinking. |
| Mircea Drac (White Giant) | Saturday, February 7, 2009 - 05:05 pm
That is clear Tom. However going from 1000-400 is a drastic change. Navies have gone from a death star caliber weapon down to a nuisance. Carrier Naval task forces should be strong, just not impregnable.
At least to the level of 1 Air Force Attack Unit.
Now they are more on par with a Defense Interceptor Wing. I do fully agree with the idea that the size of a fleet should be limited though. |
| Johanas Bilderburg (Little Upsilon) | Saturday, February 7, 2009 - 06:28 pm
Quote:When the current WE was introduced the change was intended to stop long range wars. It was mentioned in several updates. The naval portion of the game escaped the first series of updates. It was the last remaining "old style" portion of the new engine, meaning unlimited numbers of weapons could be deployed on a single "base" (carrier, helicopter carrier, fleet command).
The changes were long overdue. I would not be surprised to see more changes installed to limit long range warfare as it is the stated goal of W3C.
Quote: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.
Quote:It seems that the main point is not clear yet:
When we introduced the new war engine, the navy remained huge while all other weapon systems became smaller.
we are now making an overdue correction and will bring the navy to its right size.
war will be won with land forces, air forces and navies and a lot more thinking.
Some people see the point Tom. Keep the changes and keep on focusing on making the game more challenging. The complaints only mean people care. Which is a good thing. |
