destruction of planes when they attack ships

[Goomy]

So after discussing with other people we agreed that IRL if you were to launch an air strike on ships, some of the planes would be destroyed. for this reason I think that there should be anew mechanic introduced where some planes get destroyed when they attack ships. i came up with a basic formula that would calculate how many planes would be destroyed.

 

no of planes destroyed when attacking ships= (no.of ships/no of planes)*100

 

so for example if you launched an air strike with 360 planes a against a naval fleet of 50:

 

(50/360)*100=13.888 we would round up do 14 planes would be destroyed.

 

or say 90 planes against 50 ships

 

(50/90)*100=55.55 so 56 planes destroyed.

 

this means you would have to weaken you opponents naval force by naval battle or spy attacks, or build a decent Air force in comparison to their navy to launch a good attack.

 

this would slightly de-power planes as at the moment they can only be destroyed by other planes, yet can attack everything. 

 

thoughts?

[Sephiroth]

I like this idea since at the moment planes can only fight each other and spying on them is literally useless.

 

So planes can beat on all other units and never lose a single plane.

 

Plus its a bit illogical in my opinion that ships with turrets can't nail a single plane.....

[stetonic]

I am not 100% sure but a anti ship missile fired from a plane has a longer distance than a ship based anti aircraft system.Maybe some realism is creeping into the game.

[Director]

I am not 100% sure but a anti ship missile fired from a plane has a longer distance than a ship based anti aircraft system.Maybe some realism is creeping into the game.

Not necessarily. The sea based s-300FM has a range of 150km, whereas, say, a Kormoran anti ship missile only has a range of 35km. Of course, there are air launched anti ship missiles with much longer range than existing shipboard SAMs, but these are generally more expensive, and based on big expensive bombers rather than on tactical fighters. Regardless, I don't think realism should play that much of a role in these kinds of games, and letting aircraft attack ships without any real risk is just dumb.

 

As it currently stands, the only efficient way to kill aircraft is with other aircraft, and unless we want to add a whole new category for SAMs and such(which may not necessarily be a bad idea)this sounds like an excellent way to combat enemy aircraft.

Edited June 7, 2015 by Director

[Sailor Jerry]

Well, 10 out of my 20 years in the U.S. Navy were spent on 3 different ships, 2 Arleigh Burke class destroyers (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arleigh_Burke-class_destroyer) and 1 Ticonderoga class cruiser (similar go the Burke class but with more missiles and a second 5" gun and is used primarily as an anti-air asset with carrier battle groups). So in answer to the $64k question is....."can ships take out planes"?.......you're god damn right they can!

[Big Boss]

This would make ships more OP than they already are. I don't support this, considering 240 ships can already do 600+ damage per attack, and if you had any less than that 240, say goodbye to your nation. 

[stetonic]

So a quick google search shows. That the ships shown in the image under military is a lpd20 transport ship.Whose anti plane missile defence system only has a range of 9km but anti ship missiles have a range of 150km and missiles under development will have a range of upto 900km.

So no ships should not be allowed to shoot down planes.If you are going to start adding things to the war system like ships killing planes.Then you need to add ground troops killing planes.Or special forces which kill more regular soldiers.Or modify the blockade system as a sea based blockade would only work against an island nation. As any other would still have a land based trade system.

 

You cant pick and choose realism either bring it into the game completely or leave it all together.

[Goomy]

So a quick google search shows. That the ships shown in the image under military is a lpd20 transport ship.Whose anti plane missile defence system only has a range of 9km but anti ship missiles have a range of 150km and missiles under development will have a range of upto 900km.

So no ships should not be allowed to shoot down planes.If you are going to start adding things to the war system like ships killing planes.Then you need to add ground troops killing planes.Or special forces which kill more regular soldiers.Or modify the blockade system as a sea based blockade would only work against an island nation. As any other would still have a land based trade system.

 

You cant pick and choose realism either bring it into the game completely or leave it all together.

I presumed people would be 100% against having ground forces destroy some planes, though i people agree with it i think we should be able to buy ant-aircraft ground troops.

[Sephiroth]

Throughout all the battles in history there has never been an airforce that strikes a naval fleet without losing a single plane,

and yes ships can deal a lot of damage but consider that 240 ships already has a massive cost that compensates for all that damage:

 

a ship cost approximately 100K to build (a little more during wars because prices inflate) = 100,000*240 = 24,000,000 (thats just to build them)

during war time the upkeep would be 1,350,000 (1,282,500 if you have statocracy)

the cost to attack is 648,000 (more during war inflated market) just on munitions and around 768,000 (more during war inflated prices) just on gas so it would cost 768,000+648,000= 1,416,000 just to attack once.

 

plus to have that many ships you need 10 or more cities each with max harbors

at that point you can only rebuild 50 ships a day but you can lose between 5-7 per spy attack (I think you can kill more with spies but ive never seen anymore than 7 killed in a single spy run) 7*3 = 21 ships killed just from spies. 5-13 killed from planes (same for spies ive never seen more than 13 gone in a single strike) 13*3 = 39

so people can kill 60 of your ships in a day, and nobody will have that size reserve to even build that many ships again. even worse while at war.

Than it takes 5 days to max your ships (you also need to pay upkeep for all that time as well).

lastly having that size navy insures that the player will have the other fronts very weak since the upkeep will drain over 1mil a day (which is a bit over half of the revenue a player with a full economic city would make.)

 

If people dont want ships to get stronger then at least what sheepy should do is buff the spy attacks against planes, so that players have some means of fighting back against planes.

at the moment if you have a decent airforce and your enemies have less they can literally pound away at your ships and tanks which cost a fortune to make..... and they still do infra damage after destroying your military units.

or at create a project like a bomb shelter that slightly weakens airforce bombardment of infra by a bit (I think a bomb shelter would also weaken ships a bit?), or a project that slightly weakens attacks from planes.

Edited June 7, 2015 by Sephiroth

[George W. Bush]

This would make ships more OP than they already are. I don't support this, considering 240 ships can already do 600+ damage per attack, and if you had any less than that 240, say goodbye to your nation. 

No one has 240 ships. That would require 16 cities.

[Isolatar]

No one has 240 ships. That would require 16 cities.

 

There were a few people in tS that had over 200 ships

[George W. Bush]

There were a few people in tS that had over 200 ships

The point is that if you want to complain about someone having a massive fleet, when most people had fleets below 75, even at high tier, is stupid. If it's so powerful, then build one yourself. For god's sake, I had 150 ships in the war, and the only people I could fight had below 50 ships(though then again that's after a couple days of fighting). Thing is, most of the balancing issues I see are being pointed out by the people who got dogpiled, which I will admit they have some truth to what they say, but they can't complain about how unbalanced it was because the whole war was unbalanced. They were outnumbered 6 to 1. People need to take that into perspective before they complain about balancing.

[Phiney]

There were a few people in tS that had over 200 ships

That's not true, I have 13 cities and my max Is 195

[Buck Turgidson]

The subject is actually air superiority. It takes a long time to fire up, and is very expensive. In a fight, you have to first gain air superiority, then you can overwhelm safely from the air. Nuts to the player who doesn't challenge control of airspace in a war.

 

In game terms, aircraft simply encompass fighters, AAA, SAMs, pistols shot in the air, and rocks.

[Goomy]

The numbers of planes destroyed aren't huge unless you have like no airforce in comparison to their navy. I think that we would do the aircraft and ships destroyed both off of the original numbers if the 2 forces. so we'd do the calc to determine ships destroy at the same time we do it for planes destroyed.