First this is not a "change total land to purchased land" topic. It's radically different.

The problem as mentioned in that topic is that people with furs as a bonus resource or as a trade resource can be pushed into the naval range far to quickly just through natural growth. However moving it to purchased land also has the drawback of allowing someone to easily turtle with little downside in most cases.

What I propose is to use infra as the determining factor for when you can purchase a navy and land for the ability to blockade and battle support.

Right now you cannot purchase any type of naval vessel until you reach 2k infra. My proposal would be to raise that level to 2500 and make that the entry level for the naval campaign. This is for 2 reasons. First it allows nations a bit more time to grow than 2k. Second, many nations will slide under 2k at 1999.99 infra because of the infra upkeep cost jump. While nations could still slide in under the 2500 mark, they would not be reciveing the full benifits of their infra tier which would be at 2999.99, thus it becomes a cost/benifit determination for them whether to climb all the way up or not. For many they may not. For others they may. In addition, you could not sell infra below 2k if you own naval vessels, though you could still be damaged below that level.

Now onto land. For battle support the amount of aircraft you could launch I would base upon your purchased land and for blockades it would total land.

For he former, for every 1000, you could launch an additional 5 AC up to 5* # of ACC. This has little bearing in RL - it's mostly for game balance reasons. The closest it could come to RL comparison would be simply the fact you'd have more resources to draw upon to support larger air campaigns. The reason for it is mostly an incentive beyond wonders to purchase.

For the latter the I'd raise the % from the current 1-5% to 2-9%, but give a -0.01% calculation for every 100 miles of land you own with a cap of 1% minimum for each attempt. Thus the new formula would calculate the random number and after that number is applied, subtract the percentage to the minimum cap of 1%. Thus even with 1000 day old nation with native furs that would only give you 1500 base land and -.15%, You would have to purchase land in addition to notice a difference.

Royal Seal of the Tsar

Why should your purchased land have any affect on your navy?

Just because a nation is bigger does not mean that their navy is better.

Also, no one realistically should be maintaining a navy at 2000 infra (or even 2500 infra) anyways.

You have more resources at your disposal. Land amount doesn't mean all that land is nessasarily connected (forget the in game map here).

No, but sometimes they have to even now.

That's the purpose of money in this game. I'm not sure how land represents some magical "resource" that they get additionally (aside from the .2/.5 additional citizens).

Problem is without that someone who is knocked down in war can easily trounce nations who can't even build a navy because they wouldn't have the 2k infra and that person could still have a navy left to pound on them with.

Not really, because those with less then 2k infra probably have less then 1k land ... Even with furs, the land will be less then 1k within a few days

I mean.. how long does it take? About 1,5 years before your natural growth land is at 1.000 mile? And in 1,5 years people will have more then 2k infra.. And as far as I know your growth land will also be destroyed in land?

I believe ender wants the land RQ removed entirely and there is also the problem of those with native furs.

Navy is the last reason why I'm going to trounce smaller nations if I get knocked down in a war.

The huge warchest (probably more than almost all nations in the 3k infra or less in whatever alliance is receiving some trouncing combined), combined with the ability to nuke nations almost daily (death to nations without warchests/huge cash inflows), maximum improvements, all military wonders, lots more strategic understanding of war, and the WRC/MP combination will cause me to trounce them.

All navy will do at that point is eat up cash for no reason (since one nuke + FAB => auto win air vs small nations without FAB anyways).



Removing the land RQ would solve the problem of native furs.

True, you can already own, but your ownage will only increase as your can easily blockade their nation.

I can't argue against that specific point, but it simply adds a whole new level of problems mentioned above and elsewhere.

When a nation is collecting 5 or 10 percent of their income as a result of anarchy and/or nuclear anarchy, another 5-50% off that really is not that important.



How so? Removing the land requirement for navies actually eliminates that problem, not adding more problems.

It could very well be longer in a prolonged war, up to and including 100% (though its doubtful it'll last that long it could get close).

It adds a new way for older natiions that get beat down to further dominate younger nations who haven't had the chance to prepare.

How is this different than the penalty of a forced nuclear anarchy collection? The difference between 95% and 100% income cut really isn't that much in any practical sense.



Again, navy is hardly the reason this happens.

Anarchy you have, in most cases a way to get out. Being blockaded you will have no way to get out if you haven't a good navy and you won't be able to quickly build one once the war starts.
No, but that's no reason to excuse the way it will be used.

If you are concerned with a 100% income penalty you are going to have to be at war for a minimum of 20 days, at which point you will likely be in anarchy still (possibly nuclear anarchy depending on your starting NS). Probably more since the maximum penalty a day is 5% but you can often get below that.





Let me put it this way: navy will NOT have this effect on smaller nations. If anything, it will eat away at the owners warchest much faster (since navy is quite expensive in upkeep for small nations) which actually means that in the long run it hurts them. If the benefits were great that would be one thing, but they aren't. Especially since nations that are blockaded for 100% can simply war someone in their alliance, blockade them once, and then have no penalty.

Not necessarily concerned with 100% as most people will collect before they would be in danger of 100%, if its even possible (i think atm its just theoretically possible). However, 50% guaranteed income loss is certainly quite possible within 20 days and within that timeframe if you were in anarchy you'd still have 5 days left to get out. However no amount of time will remove that blockade penalty nor will any amount of effort because at this point you wouldn't be able to break the blockade.
You don't need a large navy at low levels to be effective, just a mediocre one, one large enough to win against someone who purchases their navy on a daily basis. At this level nukes won't come into play so you can even get the cheaper ones.

Great Britain is a good example that your land = navy strength formula is not accurate.

Also, no nation would maintain navy unless during war or above 5k infra.
if a nation does not have any ships than another nation cannot perform navy operations.
(the latter may have been changed however)

I might also throw in that Russia has rarely ever had an impressive navy despite its huge gross of land.