Navy: One sided warfare.

[Prefontaine]

Sure, blockades might be reasonably broken at the smaller nation sizes when there's only a couple ships to deal with, or in small scale fights. But in alliance warfare, alliance coordinated blockades are devastatingly powerful. Being able to start a war and minutes later having near every of note you're fighting blockaded is brokenly powerful. Best 4 points spent ever. 

 

Makes fights infrequently challenging, and therefore little fun when you're winning, even less when losing. 

 

 

1[00:33] <Prefontaine> We had them all blockaded where they couldn't break the blockade and were able to constantly pour damage on while taking minimal damages.

01[00:33] <Prefontaine> I think the biggest thing is being able to start a war, and instantly blockade.

01[00:33] <Prefontaine> When you do that on an alliance scale..

01[00:34] <Prefontaine> It's crippling. 

01[00:34] <Prefontaine> Like, war's over, crippling.

[00:34] <Sheepy> Sounds like a great strategy, but not uncounterable

[00:34] <Sheepy> All you have to do is buy some ships and maybe use some spies to help gain the edge in naval battles and blam you're unblockaded

[00:34] <Sheepy> Or use your air force to soften up their navy

01[00:35] <Prefontaine> Easy to say, hard to do when you start the war already in a blockade.

01[00:35] <Prefontaine> You need gas/ammo/steel/aluminum/cash.

01[00:35] <Prefontaine> And if you run out of one of those things, you're &#33;@#&#036;ed.

[00:36] <Sheepy> If you think this is a big problem, what's your ideal solution?

01[00:37] <Prefontaine> I was thinking having Naval attacks not possible for the first 12 hours of a war, or making a blockade require 2 successful naval attacks, or something.

01[00:37] <Prefontaine> I dunno what's best.

[00:38] <Sheepy> What if they just cost more military action points?

01[00:38] <Prefontaine> It's just is wars are over in the matter of a couple days, and do a lot of damage, and thus take a lot of time to recover from, no one's going to want to have large scale alliance wars that aren't a 1 sided victory.

01[00:38] <Prefontaine> Well, unless they're higher than 7 it's still instaneous.

01[00:38] <Prefontaine> Because you can declare a war just before the point increase.

01[00:38] <Prefontaine> And then get 7.

[00:38] <Sheepy> Alright, well we could make things like airstrikes destroy slightly less infrastructure, that sort of thing

[00:39] <Sheepy> Or, in terms of war points, there's a number of other ways it could be done

01[00:39] <Prefontaine> I'll make a suggestion thread about it, and post some of our convo in it?

[00:39] <Sheepy> For example, when you attack someone maybe you get 4 MAPs and they get 6

[00:39] <Sheepy> Sure, that'd be great.

[00:39] <Sheepy> There's a variety of different ways you could go about tweaking things like this

 

I was chatting with Sheepy about how wars, mostly alliance wars, need to not be over in a matter of days. There should be prolonged fights, ups and downs, and so forth. We've yet to really see much of that outside of Rose v (just) EoS, before other alliances entered. So what do we do about the potency of mass-blockades at the start of a war?

[Alex]

What I think might make for an ideal solution is this:

 

Make Naval Battles require 6 MAPs

 

When you declare a war, as the aggressor you start with 4 MAPs. Your opponent starts with 6 MAPs.

[Dwynn]

I dunno... I'm not really with the idea of punishing those who were more prepared. I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with you on this one and agree with Sheepy. It's not uncounterable, it's simply a matter that one side was more prepared than the other. If you start taking away the advantages of preparation, you may as well turn the game into a simple Rock/Paper/Scissors based war system.

 

 

 

What I think might make for an ideal solution is this:
 
Make Naval Battles require 6 MAPs
 
When you declare a war, as the aggressor you start with 4 MAPs. Your opponent starts with 6 MAPs.

I'm not sure this is the right way to ago about this. And are you saying you'll change it so that agressors only get 4 MAPs? Cause right now agressors get 6.  So you're putting the attacker at a disadvantage to begin with. Not sure I like that.

Edited December 19, 2014 by Micheal Malone

[Phiney]

That would make your navy unused vs navy, making AF even better than it is now, -1 bad idea. Just make ships more powerful as a defends option and more people will buy them. Someone airstrikes your infra whilst you have ships? They get a load of AF destroyed because the ships are there to defend. Even more so if some one targets ships with AF. Make them the ultimate defense unit basically.

 

Also make the hardier vs spies

Edited December 19, 2014 by Phiney

[Alex]

I dunno... I'm not really with the idea of punishing those who were more prepared. I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with you on this one and agree with Sheepy. It's not uncounterable, it's simply a matter that one side was more prepared than the other. If you start taking away the advantages of preparation, you may as well turn the game into a simple Rock/Paper/Scissors based war system.

 

 

 

I'm not sure this is the right way to ago about this. And are you saying you'll change it so that agressors only get 4 MAPs? Cause right now agressors get 6.  So you're putting the attacker at a disadvantage to begin with. Not sure I like that.

 

Right, my initial response was that one side just needed to be more prepared, but I'm always open for discussion. My proposal was based on a couple of premises:

 

1) Starting the aggressor at 4 and the defender at 6 will give the defender a slight, minute advantage seeing as he isn't around when the war is declared. The 2 MAP discrepancy would be to more or less even the odds a bit, and keep the aggressor from being able to do too much all at once before the defender even realizes it.

 

2) Making Naval Battles cost 6 MAPs and having aggressors start with 4 prevents anyone from being instantly blockaded. Even if you attacked someone right before the turn update, and had essentially 5 MAPs right when you declared, you'd still have to wait 2 more hours before you could blockade your opponent. This isn't much, but I thought that perhaps it would be enough to ease the situation a bit.

[Hansarius]

I wasn't really going to make a suggestion on this before after the war.

But I have been thinking that perhaps it might be better that blockades, ground control and air control, isn't achieved before you've reached your 3rd or 4th immense triumph.

 

The effect of control in each individual field can be so devestating that fighting back becomes overwhelmingly difficult.

The trend I've seen in this war is tactics where nations specialize in either tanks or air, and hit their target together with someone who specialized in the other field.

I'm not complaining about these tactics being used, I find it a very interesting part of the game in fact

But it does mean that the attacker can each focus on destroying one part of a defender's force, and there is little to nothing the defender can do to fight back as the air and ground control means that he can only fight back with 50% of his forces (which has already been depleted entirely, or is heading that way.)

 

But if the air control, ground control or blockade aren't added before the 3rd immense triumph, the defender will at least have a bigger chance of fighting back, and get in some last ditch supplies to help him fight before he is blockaded.

And the attacker would still hold an advantage for striking first, which I believe is fair enough.

Edited December 19, 2014 by Hansarius

[Dark Specter]

2) Making Naval Battles cost 6 MAPs and having aggressors start with 4 prevents anyone from being instantly blockaded. Even if you attacked someone right before the turn update, and had essentially 5 MAPs right when you declared, you'd still have to wait 2 more hours before you could blockade your opponent. This isn't much, but I thought that perhaps it would be enough to ease the situation a bit.

Im not sure a about option one, i like my six starting points and dont want that to change.

 

Im against option two because if you make ships cost 6 points and make aggressors start with 4 points then that means i will have to wait four hours before i can blockade my opponent. But what if my opponent has the same ships as me and if i get declared on while the defender is gone, the guy who hit me can just use his 4 points that he gets as the agressor upon declaration and use his airforce to destroy some of my ships and this will put my navy at a disadvantage against the guy i declared on because now i will have a harder time getting a blockade.

 

At the same time i can be hit by another guy who starts with 4 maps and can also hit me with his airforce and destroy more of my ships and then when the defender gets on he can just blockade me.

 

Or what if the defender is on and gets two or three people to hit me and whipe out my navy thus making it easier for him to instantly blockade me. This is basically putting the aggressor at a huge disadvantage.

Edited December 19, 2014 by Dark Specter

[Prefontaine]

I wasn't really going to make a suggestion on this before after the war.

But I have been thinking that perhaps it might be better that blockades, ground control and air control, isn't achieved before you've reached your 3rd or 4th immense triumph.

 

The effect of control in each individual field can be so devestating that fighting back becomes overwhelmingly difficult.

The trend I've seen in this war is tactics where nations specialize in either tanks or air, and hit their target together with someone from who specialized in the other field.

I'm not complaining about these tactics being used, I find it a very interesting part of the game in fact

But it does mean that the attacker can each focus on destroying one part of a defender's force, and there is little to nothing the defender can do to fight back as the air and ground control means that he can only fight back with 50% of his forces (which has already been depleted entirely, or is heading that way.)

 

But if the air control, ground control or blockade aren't added before the 3rd immense triumph, the defender will at least have a bigger chance of fighting back, and get in some last ditch supplies to help him fight before he is blockaded.

And the attacker would still hold an advantage for striking first, which I believe is fair enough.

 

Would it be harder to lose one of these controls too?

[Hansarius]

Would it be harder to lose one of these controls too?

 

I'm a bit conflicted there to be honest.

It seems fair that if control is harder to achieve it should also be harder to break, but then again, you'd be in even more trouble if it's harder to break.

perhaps a compromise should be that control takes 3 immense triumphs to achieve, and 2 immense triumphs (or is it just victories that are required now?) to break

[Vincent]

I would say is better to stick to the current one, if attacker got 4 MAP but Defender get 6 then obviously is not fair. It is bias towards the Defender.

[Ayayay]

I like how war is, it favors a first strike doctrine, of which I am a fan of. I think the biggest problem was that we were outnumbered in the top tiers, not the folly with a first strike.

[Thor]

I like it how it is. i have no problem with the way it currently is

[Prefontaine]

I like how war is, it favors a first strike doctrine, of which I am a fan of. I think the biggest problem was that we were outnumbered in the top tiers, not the folly with a first strike.

 

Fair enough. I do sort of like Hans idea though.

Edited December 19, 2014 by Prefontaine

[Phiney]

Honestly I don't see it as a war mechanic issue, but a ship cost to benefit ratio issue. Currently their only use is to blockade. Make them able to defend against af infra bombing and make them much hardier vs spies and you'll see a lot more people buying them, ergo, more interesting wars.

 

Edit: although I do believe Hans' idea has merit

Edited December 19, 2014 by Phiney

[Grillick]

Im not sure a about option one, i like my six starting points and dont want that to change.

 

Im against option two because if you make ships cost 6 points and make aggressors start with 4 points then that means i will have to wait four hours before i can blockade my opponent. But what if my opponent has the same ships as me and if i get declared on while the defender is gone, the guy who hit me can just use his 4 points that he gets as the agressor upon declaration and use his airforce to destroy some of my ships and this will put my navy at a disadvantage against the guy i declared on because now i will have a harder time getting a blockade.

 

At the same time i can be hit by another guy who starts with 4 maps and can also hit me with his airforce and destroy more of my ships and then when the defender gets on he can just blockade me.

 

Or what if the defender is on and gets two or three people to hit me and whipe out my navy thus making it easier for him to instantly blockade me. This is basically putting the aggressor at a huge disadvantage.

My favorite part about this objection is that all your examples are basically exactly the point of this suggestion.

 

Hans' suggestion has merit. I'd suggest that it take 3 immense triumphs to establish control, and one immense triumph or two victories of any sort to break it?

Edited December 19, 2014 by Grillick

[TheNG]

Honestly I don't see it as a war mechanic issue, but a ship cost to benefit ratio issue. Currently their only use is to blockade. Make them able to defend against af infra bombing and make them much hardier vs spies and you'll see a lot more people buying them, ergo, more interesting wars.

 

Edit: although I do believe Hans' idea has merit

Agreed, right now, navies are only useful for blockades, and fairly expensive, but they can be killed en masse by cheaper units like planes and (arguably) spies. This means that most of the time, navies never get a chance to be used for that purpose, and just end up being expensive target practice for the first person with an air force. If ships were actually able to defend themselves and survive long enough to get a chance to blockade on both sides of war, plus being deadlier to planes, they would be much more varied and interesting units on the battlefield. 

With that said, I do like Hans suggestion as well.

[stetonic]

I know not many players like realism in the game but unless you are an island a naval blockade would not stop you getting resources.So why not stagger the blockade. If your navy wins you can still buy resources but you have to pay an ingame tax on top of the cost of the resource and if your soldiers and aircraft dominate aswell you cant buy anything or only trade within your alliance or something along them lines

[Tim Armstrong]

Honestly I don't see it as a war mechanic issue, but a ship cost to benefit ratio issue. Currently their only use is to blockade. Make them able to defend against af infra bombing and make them much hardier vs spies and you'll see a lot more people buying them, ergo, more interesting wars.

 

Edit: although I do believe Hans' idea has merit

 

I agree with your suggestion here that it would be nice if ships protected against infra damage from air strikes. Also, I see your point about the spies, although if you keep a good number of spies the ships are pretty well protected. 

 

For nations that have limited resources naval attacks can be an efficient way to get 25 - 30 infra damage using only a fraction of the gas and ammo that an airstrike would take to deliver comparable results. So from that perspective ships are useful for more than just blockades. (Having been in a David and Goliath situation in the last war I was grateful for this.)

[Aisha Greyjoy]

If someone has air, sea, and ground superiority of forces against you, you deserve to lose badly.  If I have ONLY sea power on someone, they'll bomb my navy out of existence.  If I have Air and Sea forces superiority, they'll do a ground win first, then start doing air strikes against my half-power air force/navy.  IF I have all 3, they're screwed and they don't deserve any sympathy or rules changes.  Blockades are easily broken.  I don't see a need for a change.

[Alex]

If someone has air, sea, and ground superiority of forces against you, you deserve to lose badly.  If I have ONLY sea power on someone, they'll bomb my navy out of existence.  If I have Air and Sea forces superiority, they'll do a ground win first, then start doing air strikes against my half-power air force/navy.  IF I have all 3, they're screwed and they don't deserve any sympathy or rules changes.  Blockades are easily broken.  I don't see a need for a change.

 

I think this is also an important point to recognize, and the fact of the matter is also simply that P&W isn't like (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways) or other games in war mechanics. The game clearly favors and encourages preparedness in war, and the "guns vs butter" scenario. Before war time comes, you're forced to choose between building your economy (either through commerce or resource production) and keeping a strong military on hand. The opportunity cost is both in improvement slots used and the overall revenue that you generate. You can go all econ, but it's hard to have a strong economy when your nation is blown to bits.

 

I'm torn of the ships issue. On the one hand, we could make them hardier, but that potentially makes it more difficult for the underdog in a war. If your spies and airstrikes are less effective on your opponent's ships, you're going to have a harder time ending your blockade. On the other hand, making ships hardier might encourage people to buy them more.