| Sunday, August 24, 2014 - 02:19 pm |
Currently there is no way to set up a defense that actively tries to destroy attacking Cruise Missile Ships or Guided Missile Frigates. I suggest the best balance to this issue is to allow the placing of Defensive Navy Missile Batteries in garrisons.
| Sunday, August 24, 2014 - 02:36 pm |
Oh you've got some balls Aries. Straight after you've just taken all those assets you report the problem with suggestions on how to stop the exploit. Right after you've just exploited it. So nobody can do the same to you. Pffff
| Sunday, August 24, 2014 - 02:44 pm |
This isn't a new issue. I was arguing against the power of some of the new navy changes from the beginning. Ask Super, we did some rounds.
I sure know I am not going to highlight it again just before a conflict to invite the attack or to alert my enemies. Although, they were well aware of the weapons having used them on an ally of mine some weeks ago.
So, I take it you are for the suggestion, or no?
| Sunday, August 24, 2014 - 02:53 pm |
I fully expect this to be fixed asap.
| Sunday, August 24, 2014 - 03:49 pm |
So you knew this was an issue but you still exploited it. Bad form. Thing is with issues like this the GM doesn't do anything until it's been used and someone looses there country.
| Sunday, August 24, 2014 - 08:48 pm |
You didn't know? It's in the game docs.
You are going to be so surprised when you realize that I didn't invent the navy rules. Check out this thread.
Where I say:
"The navy should fall somewhere as being somewhat less efficient in combat as land-based fighter and bombers with the advantage of global mobility."
"any adjustments should not increase their combat ability beyond land-based air weapons"
"Navies fighters are not a unit to replace roles of everything else."
"I would expect though, for a player with a very good defense like you described, that a navy only strategy would be less effective."
"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. "
"Why should navies, with their immense range, be any better than land units or land-based air power?"
"I don't think naval units should be unstoppable unlimited range weapons of doom"
"Weapons should be balanced by being effective in different roles and relative to their cost. "
"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?"
Where was anyone else with these views then? I now have "bad form" because I didn't remind my enemies about the power of navies on the eve of war? The same guys who used navies themselves on an ally of mine recently.
That's kinda a stretch. You think?
| Sunday, August 24, 2014 - 09:45 pm |
Call me old fashioned but I believe in a fair fight. What you've done is exploit a known game flaw to you. To effectively nip in an slit an active players throat, without taking a single loss. It's bad form alright.
And yes I was unaware of this flaw. I only just started playing again. Had to search the game docs for an hour this morning to find how you took these countries without losses.
The GM needs to fix this asap.
I would be absoultley raging if this was used against me.
| Sunday, August 24, 2014 - 11:14 pm |
he pointed it out it was used against an ally of his, whats he supposed to do? take it up the bum? quit playing because he can't win? what?
| Sunday, August 24, 2014 - 11:27 pm |
although i do have a couple of questions, i'd been looking at that in the doc for a while, i thought the dude had Mobile missile defense set up, the MIB are suppose to hold off the navy, aren't they? making it a contest on who has more ammo? at least the MIB in garrisons are suppose to work?
did he have those things set up? i only saw like one attack the used Missile interceptors, so it seems like he didn't have his defense set up against a bug that he/team used himself... which essentially means he underestimated his opponents...
bad thing to do when your talking about aries and his allies
| Sunday, August 24, 2014 - 11:49 pm |
It is true that the limit of this type of attack is ammo. Each sea-based cruise missile is over double the cost of a missile interceptor battery and over ten times the cost of a missile interceptor. I came well prepared with 18 strategic carrier fleets with an extra 350,000 of each guided missiles and sea-based cruise missiles in reserve to ensure I had enough firepower.
He did have some missile defense setup in garrisons as well as some mobile missile defense units. However, I calculated the risk of fleets and my defense is much more substantially aimed at them.
| Sunday, August 24, 2014 - 11:55 pm |
and their you have it, the problem in this case wasn't trully a bug, so much as Aries was better prepared,
so stop crying VX, Aries pointed out above that the target knew about the bug, and used it, he just wasn't prepared to have it used against himself, thats either poor planning, or just getting out classed, you pick
| Monday, August 25, 2014 - 12:07 am |
Stop cyring? You have to be kidding? This has nothing to do with being prepared or outclassed or whatever. Regardless of MIB'S or Mobile missile. The issue is the air defence being completely bypassed. That's the problem I have. Nobody is safe from this cant you see that? Aries himself knows it's a problem. Right after he exploited it he started this thread.
| Monday, August 25, 2014 - 12:24 am |
VX, Orbiter asked you a very good question. What was I supposed to do in terms of the conflict?
As to identifying the problem, you are late to the party. I was on the front-line warning of making navies too powerful before ANYONE. So stop acting like I created this problem because NOTHING could be further from the truth.
The timing of this thread is ideal. This would not be the first time I argued that something was wrong, it wasn't changed, and then I demonstrated the problem. Last time the GM took notice and changes were made.
That said, the terms of the conflict were equal. We had access to the same weapons and fought under the same game rules. I have won numerous conflicts with different strategies using ground weapons and land based aircraft. This was the first time I used the navy. Though the weapons were different, the victor was still the one that had the best preparation and strategy.
| Monday, August 25, 2014 - 12:44 am |
You could have reported it when it was used against your ally?
I'm not acting like you created the problem. That clearly lies with the GM.
I read the link you posted. Nothing was mentioned about air defence being bypassed. It was centred around navy fighters. I bet nobody imagined air def could get bypassed when this was being discussed.
It's takes very little preparation to setup this kind of attack. How many days did it takes you? Less than a week I bet? Again something that bothers me that someone can move onto another world and take these well defended countries with ease. And risk little. I mentioned it in another thread. Compared to preparing to take on fed air defence. This method is childsplay. You wouldn't have even bothered trying to take those countries if it weren't for this exploit. Right?
| Monday, August 25, 2014 - 02:06 am |
Reported what? That weapons were being used in accordance with game rules?
Specifics were light on that thread, as you can see it was prior to the updates being released and the amount of information we had was all that Andy provided in the first post. It was our opportunity to provide feedback as the features were being developed and you can clearly see where I stood on it.
On preparation, I am not sure what you are comparing? Compared to other offensive weapons, strategic carrier groups require no less than 13 different weapons with minimum quantities (don't forget supply ships) and 8 of those cannot be shuttled. This means that a country using navies must purchase sufficient quantities of those items within its spending cap. Further, as I mentioned, sea-based cruise missiles are very expensive and 10,000 such missiles will deplete a full military spending cap. The some 500,000 I had required no less than 50 (and likely more) separate purchase orders at a cost of $49.5 trillion if purchased at 330 quality (The ones I employed were nearly fully upgraded to 450 quality). That cost is just for the cruise missiles, you then most stock ammo for the other 10 weapons that require it and the weapons themselves.
With all that said, preparing defenses has always been the more involved endeavor and, despite the need for a change, I was quite prepared with countermeasures were I faced with a similar attack. In addition, I revised my overall attack plan and individual tactics several times in the weeks before the war and spammed my allies accordingly.
I am Aries. I only make it look easy.
| Monday, August 25, 2014 - 03:22 am |
the best thing I can think of is allow attack sub fleets to counter attack as a stealth bomber or convent missile unit would. then all three ways to war is covered.. obviously ints and helos will not fight navy. attack sub fleets are the best answer in my opinion to act as a counter attack method.
UMM, Just so you know VX I knew it bypassed air defenses., game docs clearly tell you what AD does and when you read what weapons attack or defend against them, no navy unit is listed. that's a dead give away there.
| Monday, August 25, 2014 - 03:40 am |
About that. The sub fleets.. um.. are not very good right now. They also need addressing at some point. Trying to take it one at a time. The sub group is currently no match for a strategic carrier group which smashes it beneath its heel not even noticing it was there.
Here was my very pathetic attempt to attack a strategic carrier group with an attack submarine group that very carefully made its way into its 1000 range just before the conflict and joined with five other attack submarine groups:
"Hostilities between Outpost and Tutonic Knights
Tutonic Knights (the attacked country) reports:
The country used 294 navy missile interceptors in the defense.
20 soldiers were killed and 40 were wounded.
The War Index remains 99.95
Outpost (the attacker) reports:
Samplon lost 60 seal units and 2 attack submarines.
Samplon lost supply ships, gasoline and military supplies.
The attack may have been reduced or eliminated by Anti Missile Missiles.
189 soldiers were killed and 437 were wounded.
The War Index remains 100.00"
My remaining attack submarine groups limped home (more accurately disbanded instantly but going for visuals here) having proved they had no use. I guess VX would have had me stop the war right there and complain to the gm but I digress.
However, I did lose 8 guided missile frigates, 3 cruise missile ships, and an attack destroyer when I attacked the naval base which appears to be defended by spare naval batteries.
| Monday, August 25, 2014 - 01:36 pm |
similar to drys, i think that putting land to sea batts into a mobile unit, and giving it counter attack ability like conv and stealth, would be really groovy,
but maybe more the size of attack units of 400ish number, they seem to die fast in every report i've checked, but that could just be a quality thing
| Monday, August 25, 2014 - 10:30 pm |
Back to the original.. ahem.. topic, I still stick with the ability to add defensive naval missile batteries to garrisons. This is available to free and premium players and I think strikes the right balance between the power of navies and the options on defense.
| Tuesday, August 26, 2014 - 06:14 am |
i do agree, i just like the mobile sales, gc was flashing before my eyes, cha-ching, anyways, yes, helis and/or dmb should autodefend fleets, given the number of navy weapons that can be used, maybe they should be in the efective range similar to that against stealth, but instead of 0.2 effective, maybe like ~1%, so equal q, 100 DMB would, kill 5 CMS or 25 GMF
| Tuesday, August 26, 2014 - 02:03 pm |
yes aries they would work like DM or AA against navy. would you propose a increase in max garrison size as well? gonna be hard to figure out what to sacrifice in a garrison to add such. the reason a counter attack was stated by myself is that you don't have to reconfigure and if its an effective counter attack feature it might end up cheaper. not sure about mobiles orbiter! lol
but, ahem, It would work Aries, but i'd rather see a new battery created vs using navy batts. IE: land based naval Def Batt.
| Tuesday, August 26, 2014 - 03:01 pm |
I don't think an increase in garrison size is needed. I think with some creativity and with the additional weapon choice that the defense can be quite powerful.
| Tuesday, August 26, 2014 - 04:35 pm |
Any solution that bypasses the air defence is second best. Simple arithmetic dictates. 200 targets to destroy vs potentially 1000's of air defence wings, plus the garrisons. Garrisons are slow to resupply. Air defence can be rebuilt instantly. A short term quick fix would be an option for stealth bombers to counter against the navies. In the long run a whole rethink is needed. I'd go down the road of supply. It's crazy that supply units can drive across the sea to other continents. Make navies about controlling the sea/supply lanes in inter continental warfare. It would add a whole new dimension to the war game.
| Tuesday, August 26, 2014 - 05:15 pm |
Another idea. Make the navy-based helicopters effective versus fleets and have them respond to fleet based attacks within a radius similar to regular helis versus land.
| Tuesday, August 26, 2014 - 07:03 pm |
That would mean every country needs a navy.
| Tuesday, August 26, 2014 - 10:09 pm |
Alright, I was at work when I made that suggestion so I didn't have time to elaborate. Anyway, navy helicopters don't have much going for them right now anyway and this would give them a logical role. I think they could be a useful defensive weapon.
I do see some challenges to solve though. The map, specifically. Fleet placement in lakes and how this would work for inland countries could be tricky. I am thinking the 2000 range they have is a fair response distance though. Along with having a non-navy defense option the solution to map things could be a navy helicopter wing you could form in your country.
Keep the sea-based wing at a larger strength of 300 helicopters to make up for the fact that the fleet should be the natural prey of attack submarine groups (which need beefing up for this role). Give the land-based wing maybe 200 helicopters with the idea they would support garrisons that could have defensive navy missile batteries.
I think this addresses concerns without adding a mobile unit, which seems like not the best solution since navies don't have one and free players can have access to this option.
| Wednesday, August 27, 2014 - 05:18 am |
maybe we just need off and def land to sea batts. make it simple. I do understand tho, the navy helos are rarely used. I do think a counter to the navy is a good idea since we have them for land and air, why not one for the navy. I agree the counter should not be a mobile unit. i'd leave stealth out of it, my SCG killed a whole unit with no loss, so it might not be a good choice given cost. I think rethinking the land to sea batts would be better, both uses same ammo. Garrison the def. and off could be the possible counter attack. As in the other counter attacks, they tend to be the same type unit that it attacks, ie stealth = air, convent = land.
so should it come from the navy and stick to what the GM is doing? IDK, this is a great topic with many outcomes and way too many for me to type. Aries we all could think of a hundred ways to make it work but I don't think we will get a win all solution on this subject matter. I see though we are in agreement with something needs to change. I mean we could even call for a naval defense unit w/ counter attack capability. I think it will be problematic to start with however it gets addressed. Note it would change how c3 wars are too I would assume. Nonetheless this won't be solved until they upgrade the servers and are back to normal again.
| Saturday, August 30, 2014 - 12:43 pm |
Just checked the documentation.
There are 10 different offensive weapons that can stop such missile ships and destroyers.
No mobile units needed at all.
The price of both the weapons and ammo has declined a lot but I do not have the current balance of the cost of destroying one of these ships versus the cost of the ship.
Many of you may not have these weapons and ammo that are needed for naval defense but they are available for as long as the navy exists.
| Saturday, August 30, 2014 - 02:57 pm |
Andy it's the lack of defence weapons that's the problem. Offence weapons are useless when your not online. That's the whole point of having a good defence, so you can have peace of mind that when your offline your country is very tough to take. Not anymore. Lees than 4 hours it took for that massive country to fall. Without any losses sustained by the attacker. Without a single shot being fired from fed air defence. I'm amazed the GM doesn't recognise the problem.
| Saturday, August 30, 2014 - 03:32 pm |
The problem is one of range though Andy - most of the weapons listed only go 3000 miles or less, so the CMS just sits out of range and shells the crap out of the country. While Stealth and LtoS MB are able to reach, putting more LtoS capabilities on the defensive side would help.
To say you can use precision bombers to respond is a joke, those things are shredded with no damage to the fleet. Even with SB you get 50% hit rate and 10% damage. Meanwhile they hit your strategic airport at 100% HR and 2% and soon you have no real response. LtoS MB have a 25% HR and 5% DR. They do not have an automatic response and do not destroy incoming missiles meaning that you have to target attack. SB's respond.
BTW - I asked that we be able to make stealth bombers and LGB's on WG so that we can have a response and not have to go out to space to keep up a defense.
| Saturday, August 30, 2014 - 04:42 pm |
A couple people asked me to throw in my 2 cents.
Navies are for the most part are very good in practice, They offer mobility and have a good combination on units. The GM has done well to create the new fleets. The Setup is great and the diversification is great
Navies lack and anti air ability. Only their planes can attack enemy air units and in the case of interceptors its like 1 or 2 attacks meaning in air battles they are WORTHLESS... My suggestion is adding an Anti Air Ship (like and anti air battery)
-Navies take less damage and are harder to destroy... ----BUT---- Lets keep in mind people that unlike land forces navies only gain air support and not land support. This means they accully have less weapons to defend with.
- All this talk on no defense is non-sense.
A player can set up a LRD of 850 Land to Sea missiles batteries and sink a navy fleet.
The Problem here is 850 Land to sea batteries + 30,000 Missiles @ 300Q costs around 1.4T....(Andy please double check this.)
Navies are in fact powerful but they are not an exploit weapon to win all wars. To be honest Navies are to an extent at this point still under powered.
HOWEVER when it comes to defense against navies. I would love to see a Mobile unit that auto attacks enemy navies. Putting 300 Land to Sea missile Batteries and having them auto attack any navies that come into range. But thats just me
| Saturday, August 30, 2014 - 09:32 pm |
You are probably on line some times after receiving the war message and taking care of a naval threat is possible with the offensive weapons.
There are several defensive navy weapons including navy missiles, defensive destroyers, missile interceptors.
I will look into the balance of offensive power versus the possibility to defend.
If it is completely out of balance, we will tune them.
| Saturday, August 30, 2014 - 10:31 pm |
Just really need a weapon in a garrison that is effective against them. Adding the ability to include defensive navy missile batteries to garrisons should do it.
| Sunday, August 31, 2014 - 04:22 am |
I don't think we need to add a new defensive weapon to garrisons, I think we just need to tune the ones we have... I mean by that make the current batteries more effective pointless to add more weapons and costs when the gm is trying to reduce them. Also Thanks for investigating navies Andy we appreciate it
| Sunday, August 31, 2014 - 04:41 am |
Defensive navy missile batteries are not new. Just like you can find defensive missile batteries in land divisions and garrisons, the defensive naval missile batteries should be found in fleets and garrisons. Further, I think from your previous post you must have missed what happened on kb. Navies are quite effective. I proved it, against a real player, and you would have a heck of a time convincing any spectators of that war that navies are underpowered.
About lowering costs, I wonder if the intended consequences are that skilled players have many more units at their disposal. More units to transport, upgrade, deploy, move, upgrade, and manage and, when you go to war, more units to face. This would be a good topic for another thread, you know, that is not this one.
| Friday, October 24, 2014 - 04:55 am |
Having faced these units lately they really are a super weapon. I'll explain why.
The land or air units used to counter these weapons still have to go up against the air defence. They get a free shot.
The land or air units alone can never completely destroy the carrier groups because of the nuclear subs. Only naval units can take them out. So the carrier can resupply fairly easily and continue getting free shots at you.
What's needed is a combo of weapons. Land and naval. I tried using the Sub attack unit on it's own but it's useless. I'll need to first take out the Navy int batts from land or air. Then get my sub attack groups in close to finally sink it.
Thing is these sub groups can be sunk from the air or by the other navy. The navy will sink them easily as they have no defence plus they don't need to worry about a response from my air def. Then I'd have to go create more, move them back into range. By that time the enemy will have ressuplied
And round and round we go. The only way I could sink them is if the other guy wasn't online to take out my sub groups.
I thought these navy units would be easily countered if your online to attack them. I was badly mistaken. They're a huge pain I the ass.
| Friday, October 24, 2014 - 07:29 am |
I have persevered with trying to kill these carrier groups. Finally when I think I'm getting somewhere I'm down to this.
Navy fighter planes 125
Supply ships 20
Navy interceptors 217
Somehow the unit wont destroy?
Tell me what are those navy fighter sitting on top off? Lol
There was a huge effort involved to get the carriers to this stage.
I wont post the newspaper results there's to many attacks. Check the newspaper of Victory at midway. The unit I attacked is called Waynehill
The last few attacks I placed on the carriers where ineffective but when I recon It's showing those numbers I posted above.
Again how do those navy fighters survive. Can they float?
| Friday, October 24, 2014 - 05:30 pm |
Message from the peanut gallery:
"Did he say 18 strategic carrier groups???..........wow"
Long way to go I guess.
| Friday, October 24, 2014 - 05:37 pm |
Yeah. That was then. I have over 50 now.
| Friday, October 24, 2014 - 05:47 pm |
50 nice. Lots to practice on
Interesting your unit Waynehill hasn't resupplied.
Recon I'm still seeing this
Navy fighter planes 125
Supply ships 20
Navy interceptors 217