Jump to content
Alex

PROJECT PROPOSAL - Naval Air Support System

Recommended Posts

Isn't better having this for tanks instead of ships?

Ships are already very powerfull (more res and blockade) while tanks are less powerfull than air and ships but cost more

If you have max ground and the enemy has max air he can destroy your tanks while you can only destroy infra and loot money

So converting like 250 tanks in one aircraft would be nice

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Micchan said:

Isn't better having this for tanks instead of ships?

Ships are already very powerfull (more res and blockade) while tanks are less powerfull than air and ships but cost more

If you have max ground and the enemy has max air he can destroy your tanks while you can only destroy infra and loot money

So converting like 250 tanks in one aircraft would be nice

Why would tanks be able to shoot aircraft? I don't think that makes sense logically. I know it's a game, but I do like it when things at least sort-of make sense.

Also, as I mentioned in the other thread, I want to add a lot of projects. Like up to 20. So if you have a different project suggestion, please post it, and if you don't like this idea, please say so. But please try to keep the conversation relevant to what is being proposed here, instead of proposing your own new idea in the same thread.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Alex said:

Why would tanks be able to shoot aircraft? I don't think that makes sense logically. I know it's a game, but I do like it when things at least sort-of make sense.

Converting tanks in some sort of anti aircraft tanks? Something like this

1200px-Gepard_1a2_overview.jpg

btw the idea is good also with ships but I think 1 ship = 1 aircraft makes the project too OP, 2 ships = 1 aircraft is better

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Alex said:

Why would tanks be able to shoot aircraft? I don't think that makes sense logically. I know it's a game, but I do like it when things at least sort-of make sense.

Also, as I mentioned in the other thread, I want to add a lot of projects. Like up to 20. So if you have a different project suggestion, please post it, and if you don't like this idea, please say so. But please try to keep the conversation relevant to what is being proposed here, instead of proposing your own new idea in the same thread.

Tank based anti-air platforms have existed since World War II. As a matter of fact, Germany CONVERTED obsolete tank hulls into this role (look at the Flakpanzer I, for example).

Not only tanks, but even lighter vehicles (such as trucks and half-tracks) were mounted with AA weaponry for AA purposes. 

BVRc2SE.jpg

American M16 Multi Gun Motor Carriage, mounted with quad .50's.

LJK6LuW.jpg

German Sd.Kfz 7/2, with a 37mm FlaK cannon mounted on it.

Nowadays they usually just slap SAM's into them, rather than guns, as is the case with the Avenger:

hN9dKnr.jpg

As for the idea itself for the fleet, while good in theory, the problem with it is that it can easily be circumvented by simply zero'ing or largely destroying the opponent's air first (which is common procedure anyway), and you'd be left in a case where the 300 planes spawned by the CV (plus whatever the target still has left, let's say 200) would ultimately still get curbstomped by the 1000+ aircraft the other person has (ships usually only get targetted once ground and air have been secured, since having ground helps secure air and the other way around, while the naval aspect is a bit isolated from that dynamic).

Perhaps assigning an AA % value to the ships themselves would result in a more meaningful cost for the attacker to consider before launching an air strike.

Edited by Shiho Nishizumi
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Alex said:

Why would tanks be able to shoot aircraft? I don't think that makes sense logically. I know it's a game, but I do like it when things at least sort-of make sense.

Unless you are saying that ISIS has an airforce or navy, some foreign power shot down Russia's jet, or they staged their jet being shot down, then it makes perfect sense. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, but I have to be honest here: This is an awful idea, at least how it is presented here. Having a combined-arms bonus makes a lot of sense, but isn't that what ground control or air superiority are?

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

I'm sorry, but I have to be honest here: This is an awful idea, at least how it is presented here. Having a combined-arms bonus makes a lot of sense, but isn't that what ground control or air superiority are?

Why is it an awful idea? People have been complaining to me for years that ships should be able to shoot back at aircraft, and that it doesn't make sense for them to just be helpless as soon as your air force is gone. I think this project gives you an option, where if you feel that way, you can equip your ships with AA to defend themselves when they're targeted.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Dr Rush said:

It needs buffed on the numbers, other wise its okay.

Why a buff to the numbers? @Micchan thought they should be nerfed, for example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I'd prefer AA to be default on naval ships (like cities fight back against soldiers) and the project instead gives you a carrier per X ships - so once you've finished your city air slots you can get a few more planes than the opposition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Alex said:

I'm looking to add a lot of new National Projects to the game to increase diversity, specialization, and dynamism in-game (while giving larger nations more to do and more options to pick from.) So expect a lot of posts like these. Initially I'd just like to get feedback on the ideas and proposals for number tweaks.

apNUXO7.png

Name: Naval Air Support System (NASS)

Description: Converts some fraction of your nation's navy to 'aircraft carriers' or ships capable of defending against aircraft.

What it does: Allows your ships to fight back against attacking aircraft. Each ship would count as the equivalent of 1 Aircraft in defensive airstrikes targeting your navy.

Example: Assuming two 20 city nations, maxed out in military, each would have 1800 Aircraft and 300 Ships. This means that the attacker would be facing 2100 "aircraft" when doing an Aistrike on ships if the defender had this project (about a 16% boost.) This would not directly impact ships destroyed, but it would increase the number of offensive casualties and reduce the likelihood of offensive success.

Proposed Cost: 2,000 Steel, 5,000 Aluminum, $40,000,000

---

Now, please offer your thoughts. Numbers could be tweaked from each ship being "1 aircraft" to the cost of the project.

The scenario posited here is very unlike reality in the game. It is very rare for two twenty city nations to fight on equal terms. It would basically make ships invulnerable in a lot of situations especially if it was combined with the fortify casualties. People already max out ships knowing they're harder to deplete if someone doesn't have a similar ship building capacity.

It's not a good idea under the current system. Ships were extremely vulnerable before because you could only beige someone with ground battles, so over time you could destroy a navy within a five day war cycle. In most simulations and in practicality not that many ships proportionally are destroyed by aircraft attack. If you use your aircraft attacks on ships, you deplete resistance faster, which enables someone to double buy when you have limited resistance to use on them. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First off, I've always been a heavy proponent on Ships having some sort of Air Defense.  Even if it's minor.  So I'm a huge supporter on this direction.  Ships are expensive to build and maintain, but are easily wiped out by Air.

@Roquentin - I heavily disagree.  Naval Attacks are the quickest way to beige someone, as well as do the most Infra damage per hit.  They're still a prime target to Airstrike once you establish control.  In fact, they're more important now than they were in the past (As Ground was the only way to beige someone, as you stated).

 

@Those disagreeing with this project.  While I question the Project Idea (Not opposed to it, but my argument has always been that it should be default for Ships in the past) - the fact of the matter is that the Ships will only affect Airstrikes if they target the Ships directly.  Which is what quite a few of us players from years ago have been arguing for to make Ships more viable, and considering their importance now - this is a good way to go with things.

Honestly I don't mind the Project idea.  Some of us don't go high Infra builds with full Econ projects, and there's been a need to find more projects to build once you're past the Iron Dome/Intel/Propaganda.

Edited by Buorhann
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still think the desire to "nerf" planes is unfounded. If all units  are "equal" then its literally just a game of rock paper scissors. Either way, locking up something as crucial as this in a project seems heavily unbalanced imo.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Sketchy said:

I still think the desire to "nerf" planes is unfounded. If all units  are "equal" then its literally just a game of rock paper scissors. Either way, locking up something as crucial as this in a project seems heavily unbalanced imo.

How so?

You build the project and transfer Naval power into Air power ONLY if the Navy gets targeted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have anyone's opinions changed on this suggestion? I'd like to bring it back to the forefront for discussion, and look at implementing it on the test server shortly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My stance hasn’t changed.  It’s either this or just outright nerf Air in some other way.

You could also make a Project like this for Tanks too.  Although not at the same ratio (Say maybe 5 tanks = 1 Air).

It’d put more Projects out there for players to decide on customizing their nations and what they want to do (Focus on Mil/War or Focus on Econ, or mix it up).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Alex said:

Have anyone's opinions changed on this suggestion? I'd like to bring it back to the forefront for discussion, and look at implementing it on the test server shortly.

Planes are still the main unit used because you target units only when air is already gone so even when you target ships you have huge air that get the IT and kills a huge number of ships by taking a little damage, how many planes you lose in a 1800 air vs 300 ships converted in air? 50 or even less, doesn't change the battle because if you have no air and max ships it's better to decom you ships instad of keeping them just to kill a small portion of air while losing a huge amount of steel

The bigger problem of air being able to kill any units while other units are unable to kill air is still there

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In reality, tanks represent ground vehicles of all stripes, whether artillery, air-defense, or IFVs. That considered, systems like the S-300 (or 400 or 500) or Patriot are reasonably effective at reducing the effectiveness of ground aircraft.

 

Likewise, Alex doesn't know his game that well, or perhaps he'll end up changing ships to compensate. Ships are not the fastest way to beige an opponent. Ships + ground is the fastest way of beiging an opponent, 5 naval strikes with 3 ground attacks, or the equivalent of 28 MAP. Ground by itself requires 30 MAP through 10 ground attacks, and ships by themselves require 32 MAP through 8 naval attacks. Air, in comparison, requires 36 MAP through 9 air attacks.


That said, the counter system seems to be that ground is supposed to counter air, air is supposed to counter navy, and navy is supposed to counter ground. We aren't seeing this because air is given the trait of being the best unit destroyer in the game, and the power of air superiority (50% tank reduction) means that air power can break ground attacks before the beige race begins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Buorhann said:

My stance hasn’t changed.  It’s either this or just outright nerf Air in some other way.

You could also make a Project like this for Tanks too.  Although not at the same ratio (Say maybe 5 tanks = 1 Air).

It’d put more Projects out there for players to decide on customizing their nations and what they want to do (Focus on Mil/War or Focus on Econ, or mix it up).

That ratio is utterly ridiculous. 

Unless you meant it as an example.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Micchan said:

The bigger problem of air being able to kill any units while other units are unable to kill air is still there

While it is, it does give you some extra Oomph initially and whenever you double buy back units.  So you're (theoretically) killing more Planes, giving you (Or your friends) a better chance of controlling the battles.

Plus the initial hit won't be so big, and it'd give more importance to Ground Attacking earlier than normal.

If anything, it's simply a Project.  So if you don't think there's any value in it, then don't buy it.  (I would) 

EDIT:

You guys really ought to stop citing real life examples to be an influence for this game.  Literally look at it as a pixel rock, paper, scissors type game (Bad example, I know, but still).

Edited by Buorhann

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

tl;dr: Alex is trying to buff an unseen unit composition called Ground Navy, i.e, max tanks, max soldiers, max navy. Problem is, what Ground Navy is good at is Beige Racing, and no one wants to mod their army composition for an expensive tanks-heavy composition just to beige race.

====

I'll also point out the various army compositions, because most serious games are balanced around combined arms. This also has to do with why Alex decided to post this suggestion, and why he might be wrong.

There are 7 possible army compositions, counting soldiers and tanks together as ground. These vary in five characteristics. First, the destructive capacity. This is best seen in terms of air-heavy strats, where air strikes comprise the core of the offensive units chosen. Second is looting ability. Ground is the only attack type that can loot while a war is on-going, but air can also destroy money. Third is cost. Some army compositions cost more than others, in terms of cost effectiveness, soldiers come first, then air, then navy, then tanks. Fourth is beige speed. As we've seen, navy is theoretically best in terms of resistance destroyed per MAP, but in practice you require a naval / ground combo to beige as fast as possible. Fifth is score added. Tanks, for instance, add way too much score for their ground power, while aircraft and navy and second, and soldiers are most efficient in terms of added score.

==========

Now, as to the possible army compositions:

There are the three one-type compositions, with one subdivided composition. First, you have heavy ground. This is split into soldiers + tanks or soldiers only. The soldiers only composition tends to be seen with raiders who need to minimize score, while soldiers + tanks are seen with raiders when score is of less importance. Second, you have heavy air. This was the "planes strat" IQ and Syndisphere used to success vs TKR in this war. We can see that it is obviously useful when you are trying to updeclare by preventing enemy declares. Third, you have navy only. We see this used sometimes with TKR-sphere fighters trying to beige inactives without lowering their score. This is, generally, of very niche use.

 

Now, let's discuss max mil. Some alliances prefer max mil, because it minimizes the opponents ability to fight back. But at the same time, it's boring, and means you're idle for a day while waiting for aircraft to max up. Moreover, max mil inflates score tremendously, meaning that you're going to be facing tougher opponents because of your score inflation. Vs more specialized opponents, such as plane-stratters, you're at a bit of a disadvantage due to their score efficiency. On the other hand, this is extremely strong defensively, because you're left with no vulnerabilities for your enemy to exploit, other than general score inflation.

 

Then we get to the combination of two army types, air-ground, air-navy, ground-navy. In theory, air-ground should counter air-navy, and air-navy should counter ground-navy, but ground navy should counter air ground. The latter isn't happening, and I think that's what Alex wants to address.

 

Air ground is sort of standard with merc/raiders, and is actually seen more often than you think, if you accept "low navy" as a feature of air-ground. Air ground, in terms of battle effectiveness, is best for wrecking enemy air forces because you quickly seize ground control and then have allowance to dogfight the enemy to zero air. It is vulnerable to naval attack, but once you've defeated the enemy air force, you can start airstriking enemy navy until you can gain naval supremacy with a double buy.

 

Air-navy, likewise, is technically a rare combination, but is actually standard if you include soldiers and consider the cost-effective 0 tanks military used by IQ in losing wars and self-developed by TKR-sphere this war. The absence of tanks reduces costs, compared to max mil, and reduces score inflation, compared to max mil.

 

Ground-navy, on the other hand, is absolutely rare. Ground navy, on paper, would have the strength of being able to beige faster than any other army composition, with three ground attacks pumped in and then 5 naval attacks. In practice, however, ground navy fails because the moment the opponent starts pumping in airstrikes vs your navy, you start falling apart because you can't build navy faster than air can destroy it, and the air superiority means that you won't be able to put in successful ground attacks once the opponent seizes air superiority, if you're facing air ground, or successful naval attacks if you're facing air navy because of naval airstrikes. The times we do see successful employment of ground navy, it's actually closer to navy only or ground only with one-shipping being used to beige inactives or the absence of tanks meaning that it's not true ground navy.

 

============

 

I think Alex's suggestion is intended to make it so that, in theory, ground-navy would be able to successfully defeat air navy. But the pragmatic problem is based around where ground-navy is good at, that is to say, being able to beige race faster than any other combat composition. In an actual war, why would you want to beige someone? I think that was what happened when IQ hit TKR; i.e, TKR managed to beige most of IQ, but the beiged IQ opponents usually retained most of their air, while TKR lost their air. Without the opposing air, IQ almost immediately launched a second wave and used airstrikes to destroy the enemy army composition. The end result was that TKR, without their aircraft, lost the rest of their military to IQ's airstrikes. That is to say, army destruction is more valuable than beiging in a real war, because it removes the opponent's ability to fight back and keeps it gone.

 

So basically the mechanical issue is built around whether beiging someone is desirable or not. If it is, say, if you make it so that beige destroys enemy military units alongside infrastructure and looting, then you weaken the strength of the beiging mechanic in giving people a chance to bounce back. Moreover, stuff like planes strat is dependent on weak beige effects, and certain unit compositions will become unviable, when they're already borderline. On the other hand, if it's undesirable, why would someone care about ground navy when the end result isn't different from what TKR did to IQ at the outset of the war?

Edited by Inst

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no reason to nerf planes. Mechanically planes already lose wars against all the other unit types. Ground attacks and ships both beige faster than planes so there isn’t a point into making planes even weaker. 

The presented scenarios is extremely unlikely in a real war as it is. Additionally since this is a project it effectively is buffing the largest players, the exact opposite of who should actually being buffed. 

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.