Anti-ship project

[Nonna]

Certain players have the advantage when it comes in terms of ships.

So to lower the abuse of ships , is a anti ship missile project which  a. allows the making of anti ship missiles , b. allows the defenders planes target ships.

The project give's a 60% chance of jets being  attack via the air once attacked if b is added , while a just means you need the made missiles to attack ships.

Attack me if you want , it can nerf the ship by a lot.

 

 

 

[BelgiumFury]

Ships need significant buffs, not nerfs.

[Schnauzerguy]

Ships are pretty weak tbh. Don’t need a nerf, if anything they should be buffed 

[Chad]

Make ships do either more damage or allow them to take out planes. Making ships weaker is insane.

[darkblade]

46 minutes ago, Seriko Lee said:

Certain players have the advantage when it comes in terms of ships.

So to lower the abuse of ships , is a anti ship missile project which  a. allows the making of anti ship missiles , b. allows the defenders planes target ships.

The project give's a 60% chance of jets being  attack via the air once attacked if b is added , while a just means you need the made missiles to attack ships.

Attack me if you want , it can nerf the ship by a lot.

 

 

 

Ships are considered a defensive unit in this game. The only reasons you would use them is to either get a blockade (the main reason), or hit cities with massive infra (which is pushing it).
If nations are using max ships on a nation with little to no infra, then that nation is gonna cause more damage to themselves then they would to the opponent because of the cost of resources to initiate the attack being more than the damage dealt.

And after looking at your nation. I would recommend not running 2k infra per city while only having 6 cities. That isn't something you should consider till at least city 15 imo. Anyways, like others have said, ships need to be buffed or have a new mechanic introduced to them.

Edited May 28, 2022 by darkblade

[Jacob Knox]

1 hour ago, Seriko Lee said:

a. allows the making of anti ship missiles

No, just... no.

1 hour ago, Seriko Lee said:

b. allows the defenders planes target ships.

You can already do this. Planes can hit whatever they want. Hence why they're considered the MVP of units in PnW.

 

Ships are basically useless already, so nerfing them further would basically guarantee they are NEVER used (which, as darkblade pointed out, is basically already the case).

[Kalachthefirst]

Buff not nerf

[Nonna]

Buff , sure but I want to focus on land units  so I want to target ships with planes.

[Nonna]

4 hours ago, Jacob Knox said:

No, just... no.

You can already do this. Planes can hit whatever they want. Hence why they're considered the MVP of units in PnW.

 

Ships are basically useless already, so nerfing them further would basically guarantee they are NEVER used (which, as darkblade pointed out, is basically already the case).

Very true , it's my opinion  and not the whole the whole server.

The ships are great for naval combat and it can't target planes so my idea is pointless but everyone can freely tell their opinion.

[Lumo Wojiak-Deng]

No, just no…

Ships need a to be better, not worse. And if you want an advantage just build more drydocks, 2 should be good enough.

[Majima Goro]

I like this suggestion because it goes against the narrative of "ships weak, pls buff".

[Mayor]

Like others have said, adding a project specifically to nerf ships would render them utterly useless. Unless it was a sort of project that could reduce the damage you get from ship attacks, having anti-ship missiles would just mean everyone would buy the project and stockpile a few cheap missiles. This would also ruin a lot of players tactics like blockading banks in wars or raiding.

Maybe an alternative would be using the MLP project to fire missiles at ships to destroy a few of them.

[Origin]

12 hours ago, Seriko Lee said:

Buff , sure but I want to focus on land units  so I want to target ships with planes.

literally in the game though, offensively. or is this the 'i dont want to build any of x unit why am i getting beaten by players exploiting my lack of x unit, this game is unbalanced pls nerf, pls fix'

anyways i totally agree that ships are super broken and overpowered, ships should be nerfed because they are obviously way too cheap, so i propose increasing the cost to 9,500 steel and 1.85bn Orbis bucks (idk i read somewhere that that's how much you need for a arleigh burke)

[Avakael]

What if we just buffed missiles so they could be used to directly target any of planes, tanks or ships? The MAP cost would mean you'd never use them over regular air/ground/naval assaults unless you had no other choice, but you'd have the ability to retaliate against nations that hold you completely on lockdown. It'd make it much riskier to declare a large number of wars, because even if you've beaten 4 people, they could coordinate missiles to make the difference for number 5. It'd do a lot more for "balancing beatdowns" than the obnoxious beige changes Prefontaine has previously suggested.

[Chad]

I think we should just buff loser weapons that should fix the issue.

[Ramona]

Ships are a loser weapon, don't buff them or need them lol.

[Sweeeeet Ronny D]

17 hours ago, Ramona said:

Ships are a loser weapon, don't buff them or need them lol.

Or a, I am kicking your butt by so much i got no issues dropping 2k muni/gas just to see a big number.

I look forward to the day when my navy does more damage than a nuke.  I am closing in on that day.

[Hredhaan Singh]

On 5/30/2022 at 7:24 PM, Ramona said:

Ships are a loser weapon, don't buff them or need them lol.

The thing is the determination of winning or losing a war is resistance. Attacks of different types eliminate different resistance amounts. Naval attacks do the most, you can eliminate 42 resistance in 12 turns; with ground, you can do 40; with air, 36. This balances out the ships lack of worth in other categories, so I would leave it be.

[Jacob Knox]

1 hour ago, Hredhaan Singh said:

The thing is the determination of winning or losing a war is resistance. Attacks of different types eliminate different resistance amounts. Naval attacks do the most, you can eliminate 42 resistance in 12 turns; with ground, you can do 40; with air, 36. This balances out the ships lack of worth in other categories, so I would leave it be.

If you think resistance is what determines who truly wins a war, I've got some terrible news for you.

[Chad]

Just now, Jacob Knox said:

If you think resistance is what determines who truly wins a war, I've got some terrible news for you.

this especially for globals resistance does not matter much for a multi round conflict.

[Jacob Knox]

1 minute ago, chad said:

this especially for globals resistance does not matter much for a multi round conflict.

Hell, global or not, resistance matters little. It is merely the vehicle by which the war mechanics work and by which wars reach a conclusion (other than expiration). You may see "Victory," but are you really the winner if you ate more infra damage and got looted to high hell?

[Majima Goro]

On 5/29/2022 at 5:55 PM, Avakael said:

What if we just buffed missiles so they could be used to directly target any of planes, tanks or ships? The MAP cost would mean you'd never use them over regular air/ground/naval assaults unless you had no other choice, but you'd have the ability to retaliate against nations that hold you completely on lockdown. It'd make it much riskier to declare a large number of wars, because even if you've beaten 4 people, they could coordinate missiles to make the difference for number 5. It'd do a lot more for "balancing beatdowns" than the obnoxious beige changes Prefontaine has previously suggested.

This is a good suggestion. Nukes should be able to kill units too infact. Nuking a city should wipe out a substantial amount of all units in the city(or really modifier*army/city count).

Eg: nuke should hence kill some 10k troops, 1k tanks, 60 planes and 10 ships. 

Not a lot but it adds up when 8 or 9 people are nuking you.

[BelgiumFury]

On 6/1/2022 at 2:20 AM, Hredhaan Singh said:

The thing is the determination of winning or losing a war is resistance. Attacks of different types eliminate different resistance amounts. Naval attacks do the most, you can eliminate 42 resistance in 12 turns; with ground, you can do 40; with air, 36. This balances out the ships lack of worth in other categories, so I would leave it be.

So generally; in global wars, doing more resistance damage is worse. For raiding its good sure. But in a global when beige cycling you'd much prefer to be able to do 8, or hell even 9 attacks without beiging them. 
Now with ships its slightly (very slightly) more nuanced because of one ship beiging and because ship vs infra is kinda shit. (so you usually don't want to do a ship vs infra because as SRD said, it's basically dropping thousand(s) of munis and gas to see big number go up, which usually is not worth it. But the bigger point still remains. 

[Integrated Regions]

Maybe instead of dedicating an entire project to this, we can add an option under nuclear weapons to target ships instead of cities.
...my idea behind this, is that the weapon would detonate under water, in the vicinity of the ships, and take out up to 35-40 ships (but no infrastructure).

As far as planes attacking ships, that already exists.

[Nonna]

Great to see everyone sharing their point of view on this.

Cheers