Navy Damage

[Aenir]

https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=35413

 

Chief Data Officer ELPINCHAZO of schadenfreudeia ordered a naval attack upon the nation of Resvernas. The attack was an immense triumph. Chief Data Officer ELPINCHAZO's forces lost 0 ships, while HRH the King Grealind's defenders lost 19 ships. The attack destroyed 183.33 infrastructure in the city of Coine.

 

Chief Data Officer ELPINCHAZO of schadenfreudeia ordered a naval attack upon the nation of Resvernas. The attack was an immense triumph. Chief Data Officer ELPINCHAZO's forces lost 0 ships, while HRH the King Grealind's defenders lost 2 ships. The attack destroyed 246.33 infrastructure in the city of Pegwell Bay.

Since when was navy better at destroying infra than missiles?

 

I also don't think 19 ships would be destroyed without taking out -any- of the opponent's ships...

[Clarke]

Yeah definitely, just change it to be the same as aircraft when fighting.

There is always losses and having a huge advantage isn't broken completely and doesn't kill the entire airforce.

 

 

This is embarrassing, this would have being embarrassing for June 2014.

I'm pretty sure I said as well back in May/April that the casualties were too high, I think that was one of your wars Aenir. 

Edited March 9, 2015 by Diabolos

[Phiney]

Casualties may be too high, damage isn't. Bare in mind he used 60 ships, costing more than a missile to do.

[fistofdoom]

wow.

[Clarke]

Casualties may be too high, damage isn't. Bare in mind he used 60 ships, costing more than a missile to do.

Well no it doesn't, it's only 180 munitions and 120 gasoline which is considerably less than $150,000, 100 Aluminum, 75 Munitions and 75 gasoline.

At half the MAP's as well making it quite broken since aircraft and other forms of attacks are a lot lot less damaging.

Edited March 9, 2015 by Diabolos

[Phiney]

Well no it doesn't, it's only 180 munitions and 120 gasoline which is considerably less than $150,000, 100 Aluminum, 75 Munitions and 75 gasoline.

At half the MAP's as well making it quite broken since aircraft and other forms of attacks are a lot lot less damaging.

 

Who knows. No one has done a 400+ AF attack this round. remember 60 ships is the most anyone has in the game, so not exactly a common occurrence. Plus the 400 steel to build the ships and $800k. And the 250k*12 for the (destroyable) drydocks.

[Ashland]

Yeah ships are pricey af.  That many ships SHOULD be better than a missile.

Edited March 9, 2015 by Ashland

[Clarke]

I did a ~300 AF attack and it wasn't much better than ~10 AF attack. I don't think 400 AF or 500 AF will be much better. 

 

 

 

Yeah ships are pricey af.  That many ships SHOULD be better than a missile.

Missiles are more pricey and cost more MAP's and evidently do less damage especially if the navy attack damage doesn't scale.

I had 120 navy back in the alpha round with 8/9 cities, that's not impossible and by the looks of things that is the best way to cause damage. 

 

We're talking doing 6000 - 8250 infra damage with just navy attacks in a single war.

Edited March 9, 2015 by Diabolos

[Phiney]

I did a ~300 AF attack and it wasn't much better than ~10 AF attack. I don't think 400 AF or 500 AF will be much better.

 

Missiles are more pricey and cost more MAP's and evidently do less damage especially if the navy attack damage doesn't scale.

I had 120 navy back in the alpha round with 8/9 cities, that's not impossible and by the looks of things that is the best way to cause damage.

 

We're talking doing 6000 - 8250 infra damage with just navy attacks in a single war.

Can't scale back missile damage to make there be other options in war then just scale back everything else too. Pointless. Also, can do a Max of 16 ship attacks in a war, with 60 ships that's a Max of 4k or so infra damage, but 3000 munitions and 2000 gas. A lot more than what 7 missiles cost. Edited March 9, 2015 by Phiney

[Jodo]

If 60+ war ships pull up into a harbor of a city and fire into that city it should by all rights be absolutely leveled. Ships are extremely costly with upkeep, docks, gas, ammo, and their lack of resistance to spies.

 

War is costly. Damage is costly. That is the nature of the game we play.

[Clarke]

Can't scale back missile damage to make there be other options in war then just scale back everything else too. Pointless. Also, can do a Max of 16 ship attacks in a war, with 60 ships that's a Max of 4k or so infra damage, but 3000 munitions and 2000 gas. A lot more than what 7 missiles cost.

Well in this case it is 60 ships but I think there will be more examples of a higher number in future, this could happen within the next week if someone wants to try it.

You can fire 8 missiles in a war that scales in damage, at the moment you could destroy probably 500 infra per a city in the top nations after the recent change, maybe a bit more in others. So 4000 infra damage which is about the same at a cost of $1,200,000, 800 Aluminum, 600 Gasoline and 600 Munitions.

And yeah ships cost about ~1.4 million more in that scenario but that isn't the problem since the 60 ships don't fully take advantage of the damage not scaling, the more ships you have then the more clear it becomes the lack scaling damage makes it clear that something is wrong and it will do possibly twice as much damage as missiles in a war. You could very easily destroy 100 million worth of infrastructure in some of the biggest nations in those 5 days with the navy I described, a hell of lot more effective to wipe out an opponent. 

 

On the 60 ships though you could destroy 4000 infra in any nation which missiles can't do. 

[Clarke]

I actually wonder if 3 people got together and got a stockpile, they could reduce 5 people to 0 infrastructure.

[Saru]

It all depends if the damage is linear or in relation to how much infra a person has. If it's the former, then ships are OP as !@#$. And the war system is even worse than I thought.

[Hansarius]

increasing ship damage might not be that bad of an idea to increase the interest in using other units than missiles.

But this is probably stretching it a bit.

Perhaps capping the damage at 100infra would be more reasonable?

 

Also, the fact that the attacker took no casualties also seems a little bit too good to be true.

There should be some risk involved when you go to battle, even where you have the upper hand.

Not so much as to discourage attacking of course, but enough so that it's felt.

Edited March 10, 2015 by Hansarius

[saeton]

smh

 

do you guys really think that 19 ships can do any sort of damage to 60? like seriously.

 

This isn't an 8v1 fight with Bruce Lee. This is a naval battle. 60 ships can easily outflank and surround 19 and lay waste while getting very little damage - it's 3.16v1. 

[Aenir]

smh

 

do you guys really think that 19 ships can do any sort of damage to 60? like seriously.

 

This isn't an 8v1 fight with Bruce Lee. This is a naval battle. 60 ships can easily outflank and surround 19 and lay waste while getting very little damage - it's 3.16v1. 

See, the problem is that they didn't even take "very little damage".  They took no damage at all.

[Prefontaine]

At least ships are far easier to defend against/kill than missiles.

[ELPINCHAZO]

you're all just jealous   

I sent an armada of battleships,this is exactly what should happen as far as the damage goes.

 

The fact that not one sank,is mere chance OR my special brand of Chaos magick (Khorne will be displeased).....it is at least one of those.

[Arthur James]

Since when was navy better at destroying infra than missiles?

missile damage can be ranged from 240 to 400 depending the infrastructure of the target city, the higher no. og the infra, it gives more damage..

 

Do the navy give greater damage the same as missile do to higher no. of infrastructure?

I guess missile still has the advantage over navies anyway, and navies use 2 less war points than missiles.

Edited March 10, 2015 by Arthur James

[Pfeiffer]

Well this is making me rethink building a missile project.

[Phiney]

If you're debating building a missile project, you don't have the room for 12 free slots and 300k a day upkeep to manage 60 ships. The lack of slots and inability to defend or kill missiles using your own military is what makes missiles the more straight forward choice. This just shows now that missiles are more balanced, there are more options than only throwing missiles.

Edited March 10, 2015 by Phiney

[Pfeiffer]

There wasn't a debate about building, til now...just a time constraint. I have to wait til the timer runs down. Growing my navy WHILE growing my cities is certainly a viable alternative to spending ~10 million on missiles though, which is why I said 'debating'.

[ELPINCHAZO]

the other attacks were just very lucky:

You ordered a naval attack upon the nation of Resvernas led by HRH the King Grealind. The attack was an immense triumph. Your forces lost 0 ships, while HRH the King Grealind's defenders lost 4 ships. You used 225 tons of munitions and 150 tons of gasoline executing the attack. The attack destroyed 165.63 infrastructure in the city of Blackwater.

that was with 75 ships

[Clarke]

Or that was very unlucky. 

We need more examples to be sure. 

Edited March 10, 2015 by Diabolos

[Phiney]

Looks like a very big range for damage, making them a lot less of a sure choice at least.