W3C - The Navy

Work is continuing on the new navy units and the release date is getting much closer.

Example:

Navy carrier group:
It will have one or two aircraft carriers and one or two helicopter carriers.
It will have 125 to 250 navy fighters and the same number of navy helicopters.

The units will also include other navy ships, both offensive ones and defensive ones.

Navy units will be supplied by navy supply units that will carry large amounts of ammo and be accompanied by other ships if navy groups need replacements.

When a navy group is losing its aircraft carriers, the navy fighters will be lost too. Same happens with any other weapons or ammo that is placed on the carrier.
Other ships in the group remain in function.

We will start with a set of units that will enable us to replace the current navies.

At the time of release, all current navy units will be dismantled and the available weapon

Alright Andy... i'm real excited about the navy landing units.

excited?
wait first to see them.

Finally, the navy's gonna get some love. Any plans on adding attack submarines?

So if i get this right.

A fleet will have 250 fighters and 250 helicopters per group.

The GM knows that is very low for a fleet.
When going to attack countries it takes easily a dozen wings to break the air defense. The cost of maintaining dozens of fleets would be MASSIVE.

Heli's either air or navy do the same damage. But if a carrier has a very limited capacity shouldn't they do more damage?

Also will navies see any kind of additional protection?
It was always debated that there was very limited weapons systems for navies. Will addition weapon types be added?

According to the docs navies do the same defense as land based weapons. Before this update can the GM re look at how well these weapons preform.

Can i make a suggestion to the GM?
How about gunships? Identical to artillery but are mini ships that assist the in offensive actions.
How about adding Naval Bombers? Just like Pre

Finally haha, and @Andy you're right about checking it out first before i get too
happy an stuff but i am excited to see some new naval stuff is all

The defense of the navy will be improved. We think the numbers are right but in the past we decreased the size of units to reduce the cost of war and make it a little more "realistic". they remain too large.

If the navy, with its superior weapons and high quality will remain to small, we may decrease the size of other units to improve the balance.

we intend to add submarines and possibly one or two types more.

There is no need for navy bombers as navy fighters are effective against many more targets than land based bombers or fighters.

New weapons should add a new dimension and should not be more of the same.

Andy,
Where is my monthly award?

Awesome thanks for clearing that up andy its much apperatied.

since Navy's are to be a important part of warfare what the quality range going to be?

I think since really navys will lack mobile units is the cap going to be stuck at 450? any chance of letting us upgrade to 500 or maybe 600 to counter there small size?

Also one more question navy helicopters where always weaker then most other weapons. How will they be balanced?

I believe budman back in the day suggested they do more damage to land based weapons. Any plans to tweak them?

In all honesty, helicopters should do more damage to land based weapons, since that is reason why they were created.

I am not sure why navy weapons need to be super-weapons. Currently, weapon balance is that units that have a disadvantage in range, have some other advantage in use.

examples:

1. Land weapons need to be real close but can be organized in large units (of 850).

2. Fighters and bombers can be a bit further away but are smaller in size (450).

3. Longer range weapons, like stealth and conventional missiles, tend to be expensive and have trouble dealing with country defenses in an efficient way but offer ranges about three times further than fighters and bombers.


The navy should fall somewhere as being somewhat less efficient in combat as land-based fighter and bombers with the advantage of global mobility. I think unit sizes of 250 sound very reasonable in game balance and any adjustments should not increase their combat ability beyond land-based air weapons.

i read the papers almost everyday, i don't see so many sc wars going, especially pvp. why so much time and energy into the war aspects of this game?

we need economic players in this game, can we fix economics in this game? i have not met players who can survive in this game without going to c3 wars. what's wrong with this?

there is simply too much focus on the war aspects of this game?

it would make sense to spend so much time to develop the military wares of this game if i go to every world, and there are hundreds of PvP wars. which players are not warring with which players now, in what worlds? i like to get some popcorns and drinks to watch these wars.

why dont we get rid of navy weapons and just have the ability to put a certain amount of units ground or air into the navy group

I agree with Aries statement above to an extent.

My only issue with that though based on aries comment is this.
With land based weapons you can have 10 bases and 500 wings.

Navy you get 1 base(the carrier) and 1 wing.(of 250 fighters)

Navies use just as much man power(sometimes a bit more) and cost a great deal of cash. Looking at the US Navy those ships are armored and supplied to wage war for MONTHS before they need to see an allied port.

I'm not saying that navies should be the most powerful weapons of simcountry, but they should be powerful.

Naval units since they on the coast of a nation or closer then land based arms, Is it unfair to say they would be twice as accurate? I mean if there on the coast of a nation and 250km from the target why should they do the same as a wing 2000 KM away? Makes scene the closer you are the less time your enemy has to prepare.

In my op

You are assuming those land based fighters are deployed in their own country. In this case, yes these planes should absolutely be at least as effective as navy counterparts.

However, what about a more distant war? For land based planes, you need to find a place to base them overseas. An ally's airfield or remote depot may be needed. These planes will have to be airlifted. Sometimes for these planes to be in range, you need to find an airfield over 10k km away.

In that example, the navy is a striking convenience. No search for an airfield or planning an airlift that could require multiple hops. No need to assign dozens of air transport units.

I don't see any real life precedent or game play reason that navy aircraft would outperform their land-based counterparts. They already have a real utility.

Again

1 Carrier - 1 wing
-----VS-----
1 Base - 50 wings
Even if you had to move the wings you still can have several bases and several depots.

Plus it takes a month to move a fleet in the same time you can move several if not more wings. Plus once you lose fighters you have to wait a month fro them to resupply. In those 2 months you could have moved how many land based wings? I'm just speaking from a experience, the GM is moving a bit to realism I'm just trying to help the process

Alright, I am lost on what you are comparing. 50 units is the most you can deploy at one time regardless. This is likely to be the same with the navy and is not a real limitation as it takes a few seconds more to deploy another 50. There is no comparing 1 to 50.

This is assuming you are deploying, in the case of land based aircraft, 20,000 planes at a time along with 1.8 million bombs with likely comparably large numbers of things if you were deploying 50 navy task forces.

About resupply, I thought we were just told that navy supply units would supply them. I would assume they are as efficient as land based ones.

Bait a Navigation Group,
Essential, Ben if it fits the Plan. we will go out their and make Pick up.
bring back quantity Rick O'shea would have no other Contractor before US.

No...

Navies for years have re-supplyed on a monthly rate and they would move on a monthly rate aswell. Unless the GM changes this something will need to be done.

Andy Stated
"Navy carrier group:
It will have one or two aircraft carriers and one or two helicopter carriers.
It will have 125 to 250 navy fighters and the same number of navy helicopters. "

Right now I'm assuming there's going to be a cap on how many planes will be limited to a carrier.(just as there's a cap on wing/base ratio). Also even if there wasn't Andy said that when the fleet is destroyed the weapons/ammo in the fleet will be lost to. So i Highly dout anyone wants to sail around with several thousand planes in a fleet. Unlike a base as where if its destroyed the units just deactivate.

Maybe Andy can clear this up but if navy's are going to only have 150-250 planes at any time that makes they VERY weak

Yes, Andy said

"Navy units will be supplied by navy supply units that will carry large amounts of ammo and be accompanied by other ships if navy groups need replacements. "

This is new. Give him a chance.

Navies fighters are not a unit to replace roles of everything else. The have a very good utility with the ease of deployment and being effective against many targets. I would expect though, for a player with a very good defense like you described, that a navy only strategy would be less effective. Which is likely where this comes in:

"When done, we will add navy landing units that will make it possible to carry a military unit and land it anywhere in the world. "

Let navy have its role and other weapons keep theirs.

Aries...
How informed on navies are you? Because i honestly feel as if you don't understand the problem. I sure you want to throw in your 2 cents just as much as the next guy but if you don't use them you don't understand the problems I'm speaking of.

I'm not trying to take away ANYTHING from other units, i'm simply stating that if the GM keeps all the current stats and way navies work they wont be effective or worth while.

Navies used to have 11,000 weapons systems allowed in them because that's what was needed to protect them.

Will the same be used for them now?
Lets say you use

400 Defensive missile batteries - 800 Officers/1600 enlisted
400 Missile inters batteries - 1200 officers/2400 enlisted
50 destroyers - 1200 officers / 3600 enlisted
250 Helicopters - 750 officers / 3250 enlisted
250 Fighters - 5000 officers / 19500 enlisted
2 Aircraft carriers - 600 offic

sounds like a further dud to me

As long as we can get the bugs out first. Remember before the war levels step... Navies where bad ass

125 - 250 means that 250 is max.
the navy units, like all other units, will be supplied (by navy supply units) and will have limited amounts of ammo and supplies and will not be automatically supplied like they are now.

you will have to make sure you have the materials they need (like now) but also, to have the means to move these materials and ammo to the navies wherever they are in the world.

Navy units will need supplies less frequently than land based units and the quantities they can hold will be larger.

They must be able to operate at least 2 real days before they are out of supplies or otherwise, you will need too many navy supply units.

Andy if planes will be limited to those numbers can navies see an increase in accuracy and damage?

For the cost that navies will have the limited damage will staggering. Navy guided freights sell for OVER 1-billion under market value. Market value is 2 Billion.

They do little damage in retrospect but use alot of manpower and cost a great deal. Even losing a dozen or so in a single attack in higher Q would cost a player 50-100 Billion in a single attack,

also with current defensive standards 250 fighters will not be enough to seriously contribute to anything. Even if a garrison has 200 anti air, 200 missile def, 200 missile interceptors. They would do quite a number on any attacking forces. If they receive air and/or ground support 250 fighters would be stuck fighting a garrison 2 land based air def units plus 2-3 interceptors wings. They would last a SINGLE attack maybe 2 if they where lucky. I would like to ask the GM to test th