:. Making the Navy suggestion worthwhile, Navies as other than a 2nd Air Force

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.

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.

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.

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:

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

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.

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.

This post has been edited by Hickersonopolis on Mar 18 2007, 02:36 PM

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.

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.

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.

This post has been edited by Zero Wing on Mar 18 2007, 03:03 PM

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)

oh but i like the other two ships as well, thats just an addition. :J

How about submarines allowing more nukes and/or allowing the launching of nukes in anarchy?

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:

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.

This post has been edited by Hickersonopolis on Mar 18 2007, 04:26 PM

*Moridin screams

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

This post has been edited by Moridin on Mar 18 2007, 04:09 PM

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.

this looks like the best one I've seen so far...then again, I've not really looked at many of them :P

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.

And as was proven by the battle of midway, America has the best navy pilots

SUBMARINES THAT COST 5 TIMES MORE THAN NUKES!!!!
AND CRUISERS 10 TIMES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This post has been edited by amiles on Mar 18 2007, 11:22 PM

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