To have a navy you must have 1000 miles of land. But what if you no longer want a navy? Just sell land right? Well if you are a native fur nation that is more than 700 days old you will have over 1000 miles of land that can not be sold. I know this don't affect many nations but It seems a bit unfair for some nations to always be a target for navies while others can just sell below 1000 miles to avoid getting blockaded.

I suggest that the Navy requirements to change from 1000 miles of land to 1000 miles of purchased land.

Approved for discussion.

Makes sense, although a shame for those who wish to purchase navies earlier.

I see where the suggestion came from, and there are other things that are based off of purchased instead of actual, so there is precedence, but I think it pushes navies a little to far out of range for some of those that want them.

Id rather the 1000 land to be targetted limit be taken out altogether. If you don't want to invest in getting a navy and get attacked by someone who has one, why should they be denied their advantage?

I tend to agree with this for the most part. The only issue is that the blockades are extremely damaging and if the 1000 mile land requirement is to be dropped completely or reduced then I think the blockades need to be looked at.

"native fur nation that is more than 700 days old you will have over 1000 miles of land"

I'm trying to think of how many scenarios in which such a nation would want to sell off land in order to engage in what amounts to blockade evasion. Can't be more than a few.

Beyond that, nations with fur as a native resource enjoy the benefits of it and the increases in land it provides on a daily basis.

We're talking about statistical outliers and making major rules mechanics changes for a benefit they don't need. No change.

Wow it too 2 months to get this topic approved?

Anyways,I humbly agree to this, however instead of purchased land I was thinking more of growth? Because after this major CN war, i'm sure there are alot of nations who lost an incredible amount of strength but have little as 1000 land, now obviously, since the current rule is you must have 1000 land, he'll definitely target nations who reach the 1000 miles requirement. I've been looking and the lowest targeted nation is in the 4,500NS range, completely unfair for those who are getting attacked. Now let's say that my suggestion was approved, and now it requires that you buy 1000 miles of land; what about the nations who didn't buy 1000 land but still has a navy? I suggest that they are able to keep their navy however they are not allowed to use it in battle until they reach 1000 miles of land bought.

I vote this should be changed immediately, in my opinion navies should be more for the bigger nations in CN, not the little ones that still need to grow.


Any comments?

If land was all that useful I would have agreed with ChairmanHal. But it isn't, thus the OP is correct that what is supposed to be a bonus - and is not so much - can become a liability (also: the fact that only a few are involved and thus a tiny change in the code would be "pointless" is a quite weird argument, if you ask me... Why not the other way round then, with "harmless" instead of "pointless"?)

If this was implemented the defending spy bonus for land should also be linked to the purchased land. If this was rejected the Wonders' land requirements should probably be linked to the land total, not just the purchased one.

It's not a weird argument at all.

And I do understand what you are saying (though I believe that all the tangibles and intangibles of Fur make it a better resource over the long haul you are thinking), and I'm just sorry you don't find my argument persuasive (it's the significant results of changing that "tiny bit of code" that is at issue). I don't see a compelling reason to take a bit of mechanics that works so well and change it in this circumstance.

This I'd agree with
I'd replace the 1000 miles of land requirement with the requirement that a nation needs a harbour to be blockaded

I think if we do it, nations shouldn't be able to delete harbors, once bought.

I totally agree that either the land restriction needs to be removed, or natural growth needs to be lootable, however making the harbor the only requirement doesn't make much sense from a gameplay perspective, as it's the very first improvement on the list, and doesn't say anything about a nation's ability to support or defend against a navy.

I'd suggest any nation with both 1k infra and 75 tech is an allowed target of naval attacks (this is the current minimum requirement for nuke purchases, but the tech limit perhaps should be a bit higher, like 150 or 200), previously large nations in the middle of a long war should still able to use their navies against each other, but new nations that are still growing and selling tech shouldn't have to worry about it(they'll have their hands full with high level air force and nukes anyway).

I have to agree with jerdge and disagree with ChairmanHal.

If it was made so it was based solely on purchased land it would be a neutral tradeoff; those who don't have 1k purchased land couldn't be attacked/blockcaded, but by the same token, they could not do that to others. However, those who grow naturally to 1k land may not be able to afford a decent navy compared to others for a number of factors.

I think people forget not everyone plays this game trying to optimize their nation to the best (or fails in their attempts) and not everyone spends a lot of time doing stuff like tech importing or getting good trades which make differences. Unlike stuff like not doing tech deals which just lets others pass you up though inactivity a nation can enter into naval warfare zone simply by existing.

Yes and I had a perfect Idea

If you look at athens they had 1 of the best navies in that part of the acient world

the city of Athens was only 15 sq miles..... the urban area right outside athens was only 159....

so there can be something called a pre navy... that is only used for naval battles

which would be like greek triremes


or if you look at boston the city is only 48.43 sq miles and they had a navy during the revolutionary war (Might I add there was colonies... there was no states or US country )

on top of which they was blockaded in boston harbor



So for a navy to blockade you really only need a good 500 sq miles at best....

the length of mass is 113 miles.... the with is 183...... so the coast is less than half of 500 sq miles





So I think for a navy land should be changed to 500 sq miles, and 1,000 infrastructure, as well as 100 tech





don't you think this is enough land to have a navy???






thats only 554.681 mile diameter





.

We're back to the old problem of mixed units (500 CN "square miles" is actually 500 miles diameter and the area of the circle can be calculated from there) but let's not derail the thread.

Honestly I'm finding the argument for eliminating the land requirement altogether persuasive. If a nation has a harbor, it would have to have a coastline, thus the possibility of a navy. Logical.

This happened to me in the last war as well.


Oh yeah, the "benefits of fur" argument. Good god. It's such an amazing resource, lol.

The main situation I was thinking about was any alliance war in which the fur nation is on the losing side. Nations that are 700 days old tend to have access to nukes and so do their opponents. So during any war involving nukes the a nation's land rapidly approaches zero. So after a couple of days of tossing nukes back and forth the non-fur nation has the option of cutting costs by not buying back their navy without fear of blockades while the fur nation must maintain a navy to prevent new declaring nations or even the current nation if they have a superior navy strength from blockading/battle support.

THe obvious response is "well that nation should be prepared to deal with this by having a bigger warchest" but that just makes having fur a penalty instead of a bonus. I don't think any other resource penalizes a nation for having it during war time.

I have to agree with those for dropping the land requirement altogether. Land is destroyed so quickly in war that larger nations can easily drop to under 1k during a prolonged war. It isn't something people really see much value in boosting beyond the 3k mark that some wonders require until they are a very large nation. They're expensive enough to make their blockade ability more than fair in my opinion. I do like the idea that I can bomb someone so hard they no longer have a coastline.

Anyone who deletes a Harbor to avoid getting blockaded just did more damage to themselves than any blockade ever will.

Make the limit 2000 infra and 200 tech (current minimums to build ships). If you can build a navy, you can be hit by one. Seems simple enough to me.

200 tech is fine, but 2k infra is too big a requirement, as people are only ever going to buy up to 1k infra in wartime, to buy nukes, and should still be able to use whatever navy they still have (if you can use your navy, your enemy should be able to as well, warchest permitting).

people who are building up to 1k infra to buy nukes regularly are already on the bad end of a beatdown to the point where navy shouldn't even be mattering anymore.

Others already persuasively replied, anyway I wish to make it clear that I wasn't talking of Furs altogether, just of their land bonus. If it's a bonus the game mechanics should (try to) avoid situations in which it becomes a malus.

Not nessasarily there is such a thing as an inland harbor. These use rivers and as such most naval vessels cannot fight effectively, if at all, there. There is als the possibility of being a harbor to an inland lake or sea.

The amount of land a nation has should really have no effect on its ability to have a navy.

Look at island nations, and then look at much larger landlocked nations who likely have no navy at all.

If you have 2k infinstructure you need 1k land or around that.... as well as the fact you can afford 1k land



I think it should be 500-1k infinstructure, (land not required) and 50-150 tech minimum

In nuclear wars unless you start with a ton of land you're gonna lose most of your purchased land anyway.

Indeed, but it should limit its size. A 2-mile island nation isn't going to compete with non-island nation with 500 miles of coastline.

I would argue that the 2-mile nation is probably much more heavily focused on a strong navy as opposed to a nation with 500 miles of coastline, and a suitably militaristic 2-mile nation might have many times more ships than could be at port at any given time.

Look at the size of Britain's navy compared with everyone else's, especially historically. Then look at their size.

How about 200 tech, 500 infa, and a harbor gives you the opption to buy a navy and than scale the infa requirement to fit that? If you don't have a harbor than you can't be attacked by navies.

People's Republc of China v. Taiwan?

Poor example. That includes the colonies (previously) and commonwealth (currently).

actually it's a good example

the colonies at the time that england became the #1 naval country, was not housing naval ships...... that wasn't untill later that the colonies became important....... in 1660 when the british royal navy was founded the colonies was not a big importance that they should have a navy

it wasn't untill 1690–1815 that England, Spain, and france started wars over the colonies, and at that time England was already the ruler of the sea, which made them the ruler of most of the world

(by the way I don't just mean the americas)


Also when the fighting 1st started England, France, and spain prefered to hire sea mercinaries called Buccaneers, who latered became pirates

In modern day it is a international crime to to have colonies.......... accept for nations who did not sign the treaty.... so england gave up their colonies and they still have 1 of the best navies


Now you also forget the acient world's best navy belong to Athens a city state that did not own much land because it was not a country yet

You may discuss the original post in relation to game mechanics here, take the historical and geographical comparisons elsewhere. Let this serve as a warning.

If someone can build and pay the bills to maintain a navy, they should be able to use it on anyone in their declaration range in war mode, the land requirements don't currently add anything to gameplay.