New rule concerning fleets and ground assault

[Baumgilad]

Suggested rule: if defender's navy is larger than attacker's navy, ground attack is not possible. So in order to attack on the ground, the attacker would need to destroy defending ships until his navy became numerically superior.

[Sailor Jerry]

That doesn't make any sence. Not everyones nation is an island. Troops and tanks could still come in by land or air. How would the U.S. Navy be able to stop Canada if they decided to invade......dropping down through the midwest. Even if Kuwait had a sizeable navy, how would that have helpped against Iraq's invasion. How would have any of the European countries navy's been of any use against Germany in WWII?

[Baumgilad]

That doesn't make any sence. Not everyones nation is an island. Troops and tanks could still come in by land or air. How would the U.S. Navy be able to stop Canada if they decided to invade......dropping down through the midwest. Even if Kuwait had a sizeable navy, how would that have helpped against Iraq's invasion. How would have any of the European countries navy's been of any use against Germany in WWII?

 

I suppose that's true, but I think this would make combat more interesting by giving ships a more significant role.  Perhaps an exception could be made for nations are that close by on the same land mass.

[Dimitri Valko]

This makes no sense, and it would only make war more boring.

Edited May 30, 2016 by Dimitri Valko

[Baumgilad]

How would it make war more boring? At any rate, what sense does it make to allow any country to invade any other on the ground, regardless of whether or not they're even connected by land? Don't you think the defending country's navy would have something to say about that?

Edited May 30, 2016 by Baumgilad

[Dimitri Valko]

How would it make war more boring?

 

It would just give the person with more drydocks the advantage, which takes away pretty much all strategy.

[Baumgilad]

But ships aren't cheap, and it isn't all that hard to take them out. Maintaining a large navy is a considerable expense, Players would be forced to make hard decisions.

Edited May 30, 2016 by Baumgilad

[Dimitri Valko]

It's better the way it is currently. This would not help the current war system.

[Baumgilad]

I still think this is a good idea. Ships need to play a larger role in the game, and there should be at least some barrier to ground assault.

[LordRahl2]

There is. It's called war range.

[Baumgilad]

There is. It's called war range.

So if you're within war range, it shouldn't matter if you're on an island and have a navy ten times bigger than your attacker? He should be able to roll tanks right across the waves? That doesn't make any sense.

Edited June 3, 2016 by Baumgilad

[LordRahl2]

Makes fine sense. It's a game m8. Real life is that way.

Edited June 3, 2016 by LordRahl2

[Dr Rush]

So if you're within war range, it shouldn't matter if you're on an island and have a navy ten times bigger than your attacker? He should be able to roll tanks right across the waves? That doesn't make any sense.

Due to our superior technology, intellect, & the power of Dio, Glorious Dioist State of Reasonable Logic has hovercraft tanks.

[Dr Rush]

>implying they touch the ground

[Thalmor]

I still think this is a good idea. Ships need to play a larger role in the game

I suppose that's true, but I think this would make combat more interesting by giving ships a more significant role.

 

I'm going to chalk your ignorance up to your little time on Orbis (merely 43 days).

 

Naval attacks stand a 15% chance of destroying improvements. That numbers goes up to 25% with the Tactician war policy. I have seen people purposely base their wars around naval attacks to try to destroy improvements. That's also not considering all the infrastructure damage they can do.

 

Navies, with their blockade function, can also cripple a nation's ability to receive aid from their alliance or to purchase materials from the market.

 

Navies are already a valuable and considerable part of any war-making experience; from the considerations of small, neutral nation who frequently raid others, to larger alliances who spend hours, if not days, planning their own wars against others.

Edited June 4, 2016 by Thalmor

[Baumgilad]

Ships are currently a mere afterthought. If you want to destroy improvements, you'll attack on the ground. I don't know why you'd bother, though, since you'll hurt him far worse bombing infrastructure.

[LordRahl2]

Actually, they have utility as described above and some others. However, if you do not find them useful at your current score level or play style you can simply not build them.

[Baumgilad]

Landing craft!

Germany had plenty of U-boats in the English Channel. They didn't exactly stop D-Day or the retreat from Dunkirk did they?

How well do you think D-Day would have gone if the Germans had had more ships than the allies?  And most countries aren't going to be as conveniently close as Britain and France.

[Doom]

I'm going to chalk your ignorance up to your little time on Orbis (merely 43 days).

 

Naval attacks stand a 15% chance of destroying improvements. That numbers goes up to 25% with the Attrition war policy. I have seen people purposely base their wars around naval attacks to try to destroy improvements. That's also not considering all the infrastructure damage they can do.

 

Navies, with their blockade function, can also cripple a nation's ability to receive aid from their alliance or to purchase materials from the market.

 

Navies are already a valuable and considerable part of any war-making experience; from the considerations of small, neutral nation who frequently aid others, to larger alliances who spend hours, if not days, planning their own wars against others.

Just correcting you. Attrition does not effect improvement destruction rate, only infra destruction rate. Tactician doubles the destruction rate of improvements making it 30% and if the defender is using Pirate, it doubles again making it 60%. The highest you can get is 60% and lowest is 7.5%. It all depends on the policy you and the other player is using.  

[Andrezj Kolarov]

I think a good idea would be that if a nation blockades another, the blockaded nation's tanks are 15% less effective, because of naval gunfire from the coasts which suppresses their attacks.

[Dr Rush]

P&W > Reality

 

If your suggestions only premise is that it is realistic, please just stop.

[Thalmor]

Just correcting you. Attrition does not effect improvement destruction rate, only infra destruction rate. Tactician doubles the destruction rate of improvements making it 30% and if the defender is using Pirate, it doubles again making it 60%. The highest you can get is 60% and lowest is 7.5%. It all depends on the policy you and the other player is using.  

 

Thank you for correcting me. I didn't read properly.

[LordRahl2]

I think a good idea would be that if a nation blockades another, the blockaded nation's tanks are 15% less effective, because of naval gunfire from the coasts which suppresses their attacks.

This idea is not mechanically terrible. How about soldiers instead of tanks? Planes already have a modifier for tanks so this would be sorta like that.

[WISD0MTREE]

This idea is not mechanically terrible. How about soldiers instead of tanks? Planes already have a modifier for tanks so this would be sorta like that.

I hate posting to say I like an idea because the like button is way better, but I like this idea.