View Full Version: Making the Navy suggestion worthwhile

Cyber Nations Forums > Suggestion Box > Making the Navy suggestion worthwhile

Pages: [1] 2

Title: Making the Navy suggestion worthwhile
Description: Navies as other than a 2nd Air Force


Cirrus - March 18, 2007 05:14 PM (GMT)
Yeah yeah; I know. Navy is one of the most common and frequently-shot-down suggestions here. The primary reason it seems to be shot down is that within the mechanics of the game a Navy would basically have the same functionality as an Air Force, and therefore be redundant. Occasionally someone suggests that Navies allow for trade-canceling blockades, but that punishes all the innocent trading partners of the blockaded nation, and is therefore unpopular.

Personally I am fairly ambivalent about the whole Navy issue, but it occurs to me that there is a way to make them useful.

I see three types of ships:

Cruiser: Having a cruiser deployed against an enemy nation allows you to launch 1 additional cruise missile against that nation each day. Cruisers cost $2,000,000 each and you may only deploy 1 at a time per nation with which you are at war.

Submarine: A deployed submarine collects additional intelligence on the nation it is deployed against. Everything the war screen doesn’t already tell you – such as the figher versus bomber make-up of a nation’s air force, for example – a deployed sub would. Submarines cost $1,000,000 each and though you may deploy as many as you like, having more than one involved in a war doesn’t give you any additional benefit except enhanced odds of survivability against Destroyers (see below).

Destroyer: Destroyers are the Fighters of the Navy. They attack and defend Cruisers and Subs. Destroyers cost $500,000 each and there is no limit on how many may be deployed.

Truhijo - March 18, 2007 07:06 PM (GMT)
interesting, I've never seen it put this way before. But this is very good. I made a topic a while back trying to figure out why we don't have a navy. I found out, members felt a Navy would be too destructive. This definitley tackles that problem. I'm just questioning the functionality of your navy suggestions because of the ginormase costs.

Dragontamer - March 18, 2007 07:09 PM (GMT)
But modern Navies revolve around carriers now a days. Subs can stay, but I think it would be more realistic to have different classes of carriers as well.

RulerEthan - March 18, 2007 07:09 PM (GMT)
I like how you use "these will be the fighters of the navy". It seems exactly like a second air force, not really what I was expecting

<M> <sadno> :angry:

Truhijo - March 18, 2007 07:10 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Dragontamer @ Mar 18 2007, 01:09 PM)
But modern Navies revolve around carriers now a days. Subs can stay, but I think it would be more realistic to have different classes of carriers as well.

suspension of disbelief. You need it just to live through this game. I think we''ll definitley need it to put in a navy.

Truhijo - March 18, 2007 07:11 PM (GMT)
Actually I just realized. Why don't you add carriers make them worth like
$3 000 000, and they double the air attacks for that day.

Hickersonopolis - March 18, 2007 08:35 PM (GMT)
This is getting a bit more on track for what I think navies should be but could never really express well. A little like improvements (but not really), specifically deployable, and destroyable, but not doing any actual damage to an enemy in and of themselves, instead creating a bonus of some sort for the attacking nation, preferably one that could be potentially exploited by a properly developed enemy navy.

Cirrus - March 18, 2007 08:45 PM (GMT)
QUOTE
I like how you use "these will be the fighters of the navy". It seems exactly like a second air force, not really what I was expecting
Comprehending implications FTW.

That one aspect is like air force, in the sense that one type of vehicle is used to protect the others, but as far as navy's effect on game play, this proposal is nothing at all like a second air force. Unlike air force, a navy following these or close to these conditions would have a genuine and unique effect on fighting wars.

QUOTE
modern Navies revolve around carriers now a days
Only the very biggest of them. IIRC, the US has several, the UK has two, France and maybe two or three other countries have one each, and that's it.

Truhijo's suggestion for a carrier sounds excellent to me, but I dispute the claim that modern navies revolve around carriers. Carriers are like nukes; only the very top countries have them.

Zero Wing - March 18, 2007 09:02 PM (GMT)
It sounds okay, but how can submarines see the airforce of the opposing nation? Maybe it could should the navy of the enemy nation and who they are trading with since cargo ships are are the most important mode of transportation for foreign resources.

bigbob6789 - March 18, 2007 10:04 PM (GMT)
maybe

carriers:add to the total amount of planes that a nation can have(or just make it like cruiser,one more air attack)

troop transports: allow you to deploy the amount of soliers you have on the ship.(mainly allows you to deploy more than once a day)

bigbob6789 - March 18, 2007 10:05 PM (GMT)
oh but i like the other two ships as well, thats just an addition. :J

OverlordXenu - March 18, 2007 10:08 PM (GMT)
How about submarines allowing more nukes and/or allowing the launching of nukes in anarchy?

Hickersonopolis - March 18, 2007 10:09 PM (GMT)
My idea, based loosely on the original poster's:

All navies work as a single fighting unit, so basically if you own a carrier, two cruisers, and 20 destroyers, they act as a single fighting unit. I figure this would make it easier to code, and simpler to play.

Four units, each with certain air (aircraft or CM) or naval (when navies clash) attacks or defenses, as specified below:
QUOTE

  • Nuclear Submarine
    Initial Cost:  2,000,000
    Upkeep: 12,500 daily
    Limit: One
    Tech Required:  150
    Rank Required:  Top 2%
    Infrastructure Required:  1300

    Air Attack:  Allows one additional nuclear attack against a single target (regardless of how many wars you're involved in) per day.  Attacker must own sufficient nuclear weapons to launch such attacks.

    Naval Attack:  None


  • Carrier
    Initial Cost:  2,000,000
    Upkeep: 8,000 daily
    Limit: One
    Tech Required:  90
    Rank Required:  N/A
    Infrastructure Required:  1000

    Air Attack:  Allows one additional aircraft attacks against a single target (regardless of how many wars you're involved in) per day.

    Naval Attack:  When defended by Cruisers, a 5% defense bonus is applied for each.  When defended by Destroyers, a 2% defense bonus is applied for each.  Cannot destroy enemy ships by itself, and is destroyed if attacked without escort.


  • Cruiser
    Initial Cost:  1,500,000
    Upkeep: 6,500 daily
    Limit:  Two
    Tech Required:  75
    Rank Required:  N/A
    Infrastructure Required:  800

    Air Attack:  Each Cruiser allows an additional cruise missile attack against a single target nation (regardless of how many wars you're involved in) for a maximum of two against a single target nation.

    Naval Attack:
    1/10 odds of destroying a Carriers (1/7 odds if you own two).
    1/5 odds of destroying Cruisers (+5% if you own two).
    1/3 odds of destroying Destroyers (+20% if you own two).
    1/15 odds of destroying Submarines, plus 10% for each destroyer and/or Cruiser.


  • Destroyer
    Initial Cost:  1,200,000
    Upkeep: 5,000 daily
    Limit: None
    Tech Required:  40
    Rank Required:  N/A
    Infrastructure Required:  750

    Air Attack:  None.

    Naval Attack: 
    Increases odds of Cruisers destroying a Carrier by 5% for each destroyer, never to exceed a 25% bonus.
    1/10 odds of destroying Cruisers, plus 5% for each destroyer.
    1/5 odds of destroying Destroyers, plus 5% for each destroyer.
    1/15 odds of destroying Submarines, plus 10% for each destroyer and/or Cruiser.


All naval attack rules apply for attacking or defending.

Air attack and naval attack options are independent of each other.

And, of course, the actual implications of coding all of this is well beyond me -- but I did try to keep it simple.

Edit: Basically, my idea adds some "toys" for the bigger nations to play with... We'd probably want to add in some infrastructure and technology prerequisites too, now that I'm thinking about it.

Edit again: Added above infra, tech, and rank prerequisites.

Moridin - March 18, 2007 10:09 PM (GMT)
*Moridin screams

It's another Navy suggestion! Run for the hills!

Hickersonopolis - March 18, 2007 10:18 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Moridin @ Mar 18 2007, 04:09 PM)
*Moridin screams

It's another Navy suggestion! Run for the hills!

The least we can all do is try to be constructive. If this is what people want, and they are willing to give it the thought it deserves, maybe it is worth adding.

Not my choice either way (is Admin's) -- just figured I'd try to add something constructive to the situation.

Amnesiasoft - March 18, 2007 10:28 PM (GMT)
this looks like the best one I've seen so far...then again, I've not really looked at many of them :P

Truhijo - March 19, 2007 04:33 AM (GMT)
Well for one the Battleships has become obsolete with the use of the aircraft carrier. Why? because the aircraft carrier houses airplanes that can fly over the battleships and sink them with a bomb. A tin can sinking a juggernaut. Infact you can look it up wherever i'd try wikipedia if i were you , there are no battleships in service in any navy around the world. The comparable loss is humiliating, a $2,000 arial torpedo weighing in at several hounded pounds, can sink a multi billion dollar combat vessel that weighs thousands of tons. Aircraft carriers however are extremely expensive and most country's lack he economy to construct and maintain them. However the top nations of the world have few just to keep them in use. If there was a global conflict the ones that are available will be the first ones to fight, and then the war time economy would produce aircraft carriers as needed, and they will assume the rule of the power of the seas. The most powerful naval combat tactic is the use of carrier based battle groups. Carriers have the ability to direct communication between tens of units within thousands of nautical miles, and can serve as the command station for any attack. So there a little bit of naval theology to whack you folks over the head with so you can stop quibling.

Themea - March 19, 2007 04:35 AM (GMT)
And as was proven by the battle of midway, America has the best navy pilots

amiles - March 19, 2007 05:22 AM (GMT)
SUBMARINES THAT COST 5 TIMES MORE THAN NUKES!!!!
AND CRUISERS 10 TIMES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Mandystalin - March 19, 2007 07:25 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Cirrus @ Mar 18 2007, 11:14 AM)
Cruiser: Having a cruiser deployed against an enemy nation allows you to launch 1 additional cruise missile against that nation each day. Cruisers cost $2,000,000 each and you may only deploy 1 at a time per nation with which you are at war.

Nice ideas, but 1 question: would this be 1 CM per cruiser, or 1 CM because you have criusers?

SilverHawk - March 19, 2007 09:15 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Truhijo @ Mar 18 2007, 11:33 PM)
Well for one the Battleships has become obsolete with the use of the aircraft carrier. Why? because the aircraft carrier houses airplanes that can fly over the battleships and sink them with a bomb. A tin can sinking a juggernaut. Infact you can look it up wherever i'd try wikipedia if i were you , there are no battleships in service in any navy around the world. The comparable loss is humiliating, a $2,000 arial torpedo weighing in at several hounded pounds, can sink a multi billion dollar combat vessel that weighs thousands of tons. Aircraft carriers however are extremely expensive and most country's lack he economy to construct and maintain them. However the top nations of the world have few just to keep them in use. If there was a global conflict the ones that are available will be the first ones to fight, and then the war time economy would produce aircraft carriers as needed, and they will assume the rule of the power of the seas. The most powerful naval combat tactic is the use of carrier based battle groups. Carriers have the ability to direct communication between tens of units within thousands of nautical miles, and can serve as the command station for any attack. So there a little bit of naval theology to whack you folks over the head with so you can stop quibling.

Actually, Modernized BB-61 Iowas can shread fighters, launch the big missiles, kill subs and still have room for good old boom sticks. Problem is, they are Flag Ships, the Navy prefers Super Carriers be their Flag Ships, so the BBs got mothballed. Simple, not because of any lack of ability. :rolleyes:

Cirrus - March 19, 2007 01:51 PM (GMT)
Battleships could make a comeback when the Navy rolls out its spiffy new railguns.

Arka II - March 19, 2007 04:24 PM (GMT)
This idea is different, and awesome.


Euroslavia - August 23, 2007 04:43 PM (GMT)
Normally, navy suggestions are locked on site, because we've stated before that it would not be added into the game, but perhaps if a good enough suggestion is made, it can be considered. Personally, I think this one has great potential. I'll make this into a discussion thread.

Alden Peterson - August 23, 2007 05:06 PM (GMT)
Aircraft Carrier:
Cost: 10,000,000
Upkeep: 100,000 per day
Requirements: 500 Tech/3000 Infrastructure
Benefits: Increases maximum number of airplanes allowed by 10. Also may be deployed to allow for one additional air attack per day.
Limit 2 per nation and only one may be built per week

This is intended to be hard to get and expensive to maintain. For the bonus it provides it needs to be expensive.

smallfrog - August 23, 2007 05:20 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Alden Peterson @ Aug 23 2007, 11:06 AM)
Aircraft Carrier:
Cost: 10,000,000
Upkeep: 100,000 per day
Requirements: 500 Tech/3000 Infrastructure
Benefits: Increases maximum number of airplanes allowed by 10. Also may be deployed to allow for one additional air attack per day.
Limit 2 per nation and only one may be built per week

This is intended to be hard to get and expensive to maintain. For the bonus it provides it needs to be expensive.

How would the ten planes be selected. Apart from the helicopters I don't think any of the bombers were/are carrier deployable.

Republic of Umar - August 23, 2007 05:30 PM (GMT)
the prices are wayyyy to high guys. Make em a little more expensive than lvl 9 bombers, and put a max limit on how many you can own. And i dont think they should be limited to the top 2% either.

Jtkode - August 23, 2007 05:40 PM (GMT)
I came into this topic thinking I would shoot it down, but, I think its a good idea. Although I still think there is no need.

Lord Sharpe - August 23, 2007 05:50 PM (GMT)
This is a clever and unique way to deal with navies. I like.

Arka II - August 23, 2007 06:44 PM (GMT)
This is by far the best navy idea.

Euro is in a lock-fest, I wonder how this thing is still open...

Warfunn - August 23, 2007 06:57 PM (GMT)
One Problem: LAND

Great Idea, but my nation is on land and not near any major seas or oceans. My nation would feel it would be a waste to build ships.

Besides that, I hope this goes underway.

Euroslavia - August 23, 2007 06:59 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Arka II @ Aug 23 2007, 12:44 PM)
This is by far the best navy idea.

Euro is in a lock-fest, I wonder how this thing is still open...

Random Box - August 23, 2007 07:48 PM (GMT)
i definatly like this. this is nothing like a 2nd air force. you get more war options than just destroying infra.

jaketopia - August 23, 2007 09:18 PM (GMT)
nicely put and I like it however perhaps you should reconsider the effect that having more of a ship would have because I would understand that you would want at least 3 submarines and 3 cruisers so you could max out during a war but what about beyond that?

overall good suggestion not to overpowering.

jaketopia - August 23, 2007 09:20 PM (GMT)
Also I like the aircraft carrier suggestion. Sounds good too.

Random Box - August 23, 2007 11:54 PM (GMT)
how about there are levels of the ships?
for example:

aircraft carriers: levels indicate the # of extra aircraft. (i.e. level 1 gets 1 extra aircraft) up to level 5. limit 2 carriers

Subs: levels indicate liklyness to survive per fighter the enemy has. up to level 9. limit 10 subs

fighters: levels indicate their chance of hitting a enemy ship. up to level 9. limit 10 fighters

Logan - August 24, 2007 04:01 AM (GMT)
What if the nation is landlocked?

Haflinger - August 24, 2007 04:54 AM (GMT)
Location on the map is irrelevant, so no nation is landlocked.

I want the ability to use anti-submarine warfare tactics to destroy nukes, just to make the "But You Need Infra To Launch Nukes" brigade be quiet.

theArrowheadian - August 24, 2007 04:55 AM (GMT)
sure lets get over w/ it

Arka II - August 24, 2007 12:36 PM (GMT)
We should integrate the trade ship idea, and throw in a few other things in the mix::

Mine-hunters: can deploy mines; would work wonderfully with the espionage idea that is coming up. You can do this secretly on the guy's trade route and sink some of his trade ships, ruining his income.

Transport ships: would give you the ability to redeploy one extra time per day.

The Fleet: a complete array of all the different ships, combined with full destruction of the enemy's entire navy, gives you the 'siege' ability:: enemy nation's income drops by 10%!




* Hosted for free by InvisionFree