[Dankbud]

Since the battleship is expensive in purchase cost and upkeep shouldn't it do something besides blockade and break blockades? Since Battleships in teh past have been used to bombard coastlines shouldn't they have a similar ability. Either to destroy enemy troops or destroy infra. Something similar to a cruise missle but that also can only be done as a support ability.

[EvenStar]

Approved for discussion

[Maxwell]

Infra damage= 0.1-0.5 infra per vessel strength. So 50 strength in B-ships can do 5-25 infra damage. Make it count as 1 naval action.

[PorkPotPie]

I think the appropriate term to call said infra attack by B-Ship would be Naval Bombardment?

Also, to decrease Naval Bombardment effects, you could have an improvement called Costal Battery. You could buy five(5) of them, each with an effect of: decreases the damage received by Naval Bombardment by ~5%.

[SilverHawk]

I agree with the idea that Battleships should have a Naval Bombardment option, have each use take up one of the 3 allowed Naval actions per day. Have the attack focus on Military targets rather then infra and tech like Cruise Missiles.

[HHAYD]

Agree, I love to have a new naval battle choice.

However, the defender should have a chance to defend his or her nation from naval bombard. Such as:

1. Setting ground forces for defense against naval bombard, will take up an action slot for ground attacks.

2. Setting air forces for defense against naval bombard, will take up an action slot for dogfights or bomb raid.

3. Defender's naval ships will auto attack the naval bombard force unless if the bombard force is escorted or if the defender has no defending ships. If the attacker sends in the naval bombard force unescorted while the defender still has naval attacking ships, then some of the naval bombard force will be sunken and bombard damages reduced.

[SilverHawk]

Bump.

[ccjmk]

loved HHAYD's idea! also the idea of the new improvement really shines! =D

ABSOLUTELY AGREE.

[Joe Stupid]

HHAYD, on Dec 28 2008, 07:50 PM, said:

Agree, I love to have a new naval battle choice.

However, the defender should have a chance to defend his or her nation from naval bombard. Such as:

1. Setting ground forces for defense against naval bombard, will take up an action slot for ground attacks.

2. Setting air forces for defense against naval bombard, will take up an action slot for dogfights or bomb raid.

3. Defender's naval ships will auto attack the naval bombard force unless if the bombard force is escorted or if the defender has no defending ships. If the attacker sends in the naval bombard force unescorted while the defender still has naval attacking ships, then some of the naval bombard force will be sunken and bombard damages reduced.

Awesome Idea is awesome.
Look no further admin.

Has Joe_Stupid's Seal of Approval.

[zzzptm]

Hold on... isn't there already a ground support option for the navy?

Quote

Battle Support - Navies can provide battle support against enemy nations. A nation may effectively increase the damages from battle attacks by first placing their navy into battle support mode against a defending nation and then launching ground battle, cruise missile, and nuclear missile attacks against it. Aircraft Carriers that are in Battle Support mode allow for additional deployment of aircraft. A navy must be in battle support mode against a defending nation in order to activate the battle support vessel abilities. (see vessel abilities chart below) A defending nation must have zero Break-Blockade capable ships in order for an attacker to conduct Battle Support against it. Conducting Battle Support consumes one navy action slot.

IIRC, that gives a bonus to attacking forces in addition to the ability to use AC aircraft.

Now, having the BB be able to destroy the HARBOR with an associated trade... that would be FIERCE.

[Max Beck]

No.

Z said it before me. And I think it's enough.

No improvement destruction will ever be accepted by admin so forget it

EDIT: Not supported.

This post has been edited by Max Beck: 02 January 2009 - 12:00 PM

[ChairmanHal]

Keep it simple.

Currently...

Landing Ship
Base Cost: $300,000
Base Upkeep: $10,000
Strength: 3
Vessel Infrastructure: 2,000
Vessel Technology: 200
Requires Shipyard Improvement
Provides 1% ground battle damage increase up to 20 ships. Provides fleet support.

Battleship
Base Cost: $300,000
Base Upkeep: $25,000
Strength: 5
Vessel Infrastructure: 2,500
Vessel Technology: 300
Requires Drydock Improvement
Can create and break Blockades. Invulnerable to nuclear attacks. Provides fleet support.

Destroyer
Base Cost: $1,000,000
Base Upkeep: $20,000
Strength: 11
Vessel Infrastructure: 4,000
Vessel Technology: 600
Requires Drydock Improvement
Provides 2% damage increase to cruise missile damage up to 10 ships. Can break Blockades. Invulnerable to nuclear attacks. Provides fleet support.

Effectively Destroyers and Landing Ships fill the role in game that historically was taken on by Battleships, which over the years served as both shore bombardment platforms in support of invasions and as cruise missile platforms in support of theater-wide operations.

Remember too that while Battleships were effective shore bombardment platforms, destroying a nation's entire Harbor capacity ('Harbor' is very abstract in game) would be too much. Never happened historically. Even if you look at specific cases of individual harbors, most all the modern era (and the game concentrates on 1940 to the present in terms of tech) were taken out by air power, not naval bombardment.

If however the masses demand it...

Battleship
Base Cost: $300,000
Base Upkeep: $25,000
Strength: 5
Vessel Infrastructure: 2,500
Vessel Technology: 300
Requires Drydock Improvement
Provides 1% ground battle damage increase up to 10 ships. Can create and break Blockades. Invulnerable to nuclear attacks. Provides fleet support.

A simple tweak. You could just as easily make that an increase in cruise missile damage if you prefer, but given that sea-based cruise missiles don't become a threat until later in the modern era, that would be ahistorical and not preferred.

[Latenighthobo]

The damage increase seems to make the most sense. Sure, Battleships could bombard places, but we already have battle support to do the same thing. Battleships should still be able to do more than just be overpriced (for their strength) ships that just sit there and wait to be damaged.

[Neighbor]

I have to agree >.>

[SilverHawk]

The ground battle damage increase is most agreeable if we cannot get a seperate Naval Bombardment Option.

[zzzptm]

Goosing the BB as ChairmanHal said would be fine by me.

[Steelrat]

What about giving the BB a special strength ability like

Corvette
Base Cost: $300,000
Base Upkeep: $5,000
Strength: 1 (3 vs. Landing Ships)
Vessel Infrastructure: 2,000
Vessel Technology: 200
Requires Drydock Improvement


as EXAMPLE the new BB would look like

Battleship
Base Cost: $400,000
Base Upkeep: $30,000
Strength: 5 (6 vs. Frigate and Cruiser)
Vessel Infrastructure: 2,500
Vessel Technology: 300
Requires Drydock Improvement


The Strenght part could be adjusted to
Strength: 5 (6 vs. Frigate and Cruiser)
or
Strength: 5 (7 vs. Frigate and Cruiser)
or
Strength: 5 (7 vs. Frigate)
or
Strength: 5 (7 vs. Cruiser)

Whatever is the best to balance the game with adapted purchase and upkeep cost.


Note: I choosed Frigate and Cruiser as targets as both aren´t targeted yet and both were upgraded after the last game mechanics update for nukes.

[Alterego]

Why not just bring the price down and leave it as it is?

[Max Beck]

How about battleships would be harder to destroy instead, while getting them would take lots of time (only one per day could be bought) so that they would be a good but expensive naval defense?

[ChairmanHal]

Max Beck, on Jan 3 2009, 09:49 PM, said:

How about battleships would be harder to destroy instead, while getting them would take lots of time (only one per day could be bought) so that they would be a good but expensive naval defense?

I've played strategy board games where battleships take two hits to sink. Wonderful idea for CN as well, but...the implementation of it in code would be another matter. Essentially you'd have to give the defender (the person being attacked) the ability to assign damage as they saw fit. Thus they could chose to lose a Corvette or take a hit on a Battleship instead, with the knowledge that one more hit on it sinks it. Coding issues aside, battles would come to a screeching halt if a player decides not to log in for a few days.

"Stop the war, Bill went on vacation."

That isn't going to work.

You *could* randomly assign damage to ships of course...and I don't want to be Kevin if anyone actually implements it. I can already hear the whining about how their alliance's air craft carriers get sunk a disproportionate amount of time, with lovely bar graphs and pie charts to back up their point.

This post has been edited by ChairmanHal: 06 January 2009 - 06:43 PM