DIscussion: Nerf Navies

[Triyun]

Would this work like income taxes everyone gets the same rate in each bracket on that part of their infra?

I personally don't see the need to handicap navies. Navies aren't for controlling territory so I don't see what utility one gains. Especially without caps on surface to ship missiles one can control their own offshore waters easily enough it's mostly a projection and commerce control force.

Edited September 3, 2014 by Triyun

[Yerushalayim]

For my proposal, the points apply the same to everyone for each chunk of infra that you're measuring. So everyone gets the same points for the 0-5k infra section, but players with nations that don't pass 5k infra wouldn't get the 5-10k infra section, and so on. Each chunk of infra just has a diminishing return is all.

[Captain Enema]

lay it out specific, I think we have enough here for viable poll options. I would move we start getting them put together and prepared for a vote at this time. 

 

 

Ty and my crap one are ready. Yeru's not sure about yours.

 

If anyone else has something specific to add other than vague concerns, start creating viable polling options or proposing ways to alter current ones that are well received.

[Voodoo Nova]

I'll offer up my suggestion as an alternative based in the current system.

[Kevin Kingswell]

I offer my suggestion everyone has whatever equipment they want as long as people RP it correctly and don't go too overboard into unrealistic levels. 

[Triyun]

Have to run but will post up a detailed case for an alternative system if we can hold off posting a poll till tonight, I think that some of the proposals are actually going to do more harm than good for little guys if looked at the whole system.  I will post up a case study showing my theory of why.  

[Yerushalayim]

I'm willing to wait for Triyun's post. :P My objective is a balanced RP that's fun for everyone, regardless of IG nation size, so if he can poke holes in our suggestions and show how it'd further unbalance things, then I'd withdraw my suggestion. Lol

[Triyun]

So imo there are a couple things people are neglecting here or rather simplifying which shouldn't be simplified.  

 

It is absolutely true that the reduction in naval numbers will reduce the influence of a single state to dominate the global system.  However, at the same time, the potential of a single state to do that in CN RP 2 with caps on aircraft and troops is questionable at best.  On the other hand, it will absolutely strengthen the individual strongest powers in each region to dominate the region.   In other words action to reduce the proliferation of naval forces today as far as balancing the game, is only serving to address a hypothetical far off event, while enabling the more likely future near term event of a few strong feudal feifdoms.  Why?  For two reasons: 1)  Navies are essential if a far off major power wants to hedge against a major regional power, logistically air cannot substitute  2)  We have zero regulation on anti-access area denial technologies which would enable a regional power to go on the operational (theatre level) offense, while maintaining a near impregnable strategic level defense against smaller navies.

 

Navies are unique in their domain.  With the exception of the torpedo which plays a minor role, Navies are platforms to deliver weapons in other domains.  Missiles and Planes still travel through the air.  Marines still achieve effect when they move through land.  The ability to deliver punishments navies deliver with true kinetic effect, can be delivered anyway, if you are located in the near abroad of another target.  

 

As a case study (and disclaimer I'm using this as a hypothetical of what could be done not what I intend to do) If Britain chose to launch an invasion of Normandy, the presence of the Royal Navy across the English channel would have virtually no utility.  It'd be really cool to shell Normandy with Zumwalts, but their effect on the outcome would not make a difference, Eagles, Hornets, and Widows could do the job with GPS bombs just as easily.  I can launch missiles and aircraft from land.  Smaller landing craft can cross the channel alone, and have a actual higher probability of success that way.  

 

What the lack of a Navy would do would ensure that no outside power could stop me from invading and make the ability for FHIC to retaliate significantly lower because I'd have an easier time destroying her forces in a first strike.  

 

On the first point, if we take the assumption that France would receive mostly help from big nations outside of Europe (which looking a a map is fairly safe) then it needs to get there and get there in a major way.  Sending in ground and air forces via air lift is not a very likely prospect.  The Initial US Forces sent in to protect Saudi Arabia against a very weak Saddam relative to US strength, were perceived as highly vulnerable had Saddam decided to attack.  America was in large part able to deter Saddam because for one thing it was a global super power with the ability to in the long run inflict overwhelming damage to Iraq and secondarily it was unclear if the US was bluffing about going all the way.  Should such a build up in CN RP occur, its unlikely a major regional power would not strike first in this build up stage and quickly destroy these forces.

 

Carriers and amphibious warships are the only 'ready now' rapid reaction forces that can deliver air and ground power far beyond the borders of a nation.  A single carrier group with only a few escorts (the most someone could send without bing vulnerable at home), would have relatively smaller value and take a long time to get there (for the record a 2008 DOD sponsored RAND study found it would take six carriers to defeat a PRC force in the Taiwan Straits).  Assuming that one does not leave one's home water vulnerable on a regular basis it would take a really long time to say sale from the Carribean let alone the Pacific to the North Atlantic to engage Britain.  When it did get there, it would be highly vulnerable to missile forces, and it would most likely have very weak missile defenses because of the problem of lack of ability to protect large offshore radar stations, and having to switch weaker onboard ship radars between very different missions of engaging cruise missiles, ballistic missiles, and air planes.  Further each ship would run out of defensive missiles pretty fast against saturation attacks, and then it would take a weak in a friendly port to rearm.  During which time they'd be very vulnerable to attack.  The carriers themselves would likely have to fight from a far out engagement envelope so they themselves would be vulnerable to fewer missiles.  This would mean their fighter aircraft would have a much lower time to engage in combat air patrols over target.  When you have multiple carriers assuming you're using the super hornets, the hornets can refuel each other as well as pump out more volume to mitigate this problem, one or even two carriers simply can't do this.  Secondarily, because the carriers would face such heavy missile attack, electronic warfare would need to be divided more between suppression of British SAMs in the areas around the front, and defending the carrier from missile attack.  And if the carrier even takes one missile it could lose the ability to launch all its planes for weeks.

 

In short the presence of one or two carriers is unlikely to have much consequence, while due to closeness, Britain can keep using the British Isles to easily generate the volume it would with its current 10 carriers IG.

 

Secondly the presence fewer warships raises the incentive for someone to strike first.  Its a lot easier for me to track a small French Navy and commit a small number for forces to destroy that navy in an opening blow.  I'd not have to worry about the French Navy for the rest of the war, and could engage and destroy other countries navies as they tried to come into the fight.  

 

If there was a much bigger French Navy I could no doubt get a lot of it, but more would likely be deployed further away, more subs would exist, it'd be much harder to decimate it, and then I'd probably have to account for at least some of the French Navy as others came into the fight on me.

 

Further through all of this assuming I had global friends, most people who came in would have to make the choice if say if they deployed forces to fight me in any real number, what could my allies do to them in their home territory or their lines of communication to reinforce and resupply forces sent to France.  The answer is a !@#$ ton without sufficient navy forces to defend.  

 

France is just one example, you could project it anywhere there exists a single high powered nation surrounded by medium to low tier one.  The maps of CN RP are always dynamic.  That may not fit your situation today, but it could literally change tomorrow.  

 

I also can say a lot of players query me asking for advise on whether or not they should start a fight.  The number one thing they ask about or care about with the exception of maybe Cent and Eva,  is 'Will I win?'  I've seen so many wars stopped not by people caring about other people's cooperative RP experience (frankly most people don't that much), but whether or not the pixels they want they can actually take and hold.  The number one thing they are concerned about is uncertainty.  Large numbers of naval vessels either from the nation they are attacking or more importantly actually from great powers that could intervene increases uncertainty.  Naval ships in large numbers are very hard to track and provide a significant hedge.  Paradoxically Great Powers having a lot provides an even greater hedge for smaller powers because mid powers think they stand less of a chance.  

 

All that said, one could acknowledge that for the low tier Navy is relatively under powered.  I do not think it should be even.  We are play Cybernations RP.  Cybernations has always been an intergeral part of it.  

 

What I would propose is that the default base navy one could choose to build be if one person had one of each naval improvement and 5000 infra.  So everyone could have 1 of each ship type plus those current default points.  That increases the risk calculus and uncertainty.  I would then go forward to implement some of Voodoo's proposals un substitution, so more defensive minded players could get rid of landing ships and carriers to procure more submarines, and I would include subs in the X2 modifier.  

 

The net result would be more uncertainty for a player choosing war as an option, more nations able to participate in global affairs, and smaller nations able to build large smaller coalition to balance regional powers without getting torn to shreds by A2AD nets.

Edited September 6, 2014 by Triyun

[Mogar]

that was a gigantic wall of text, but should you both have similarly sized navies, then even with a minor advantage you would be unable to use most of your navy against france due to ASMs. If you can provide a reason as to why giving a larger navy to smaller players and weakening the navy of larger players would somehow ruin the experience of smaller players, feel free to share, but you didnt touch on that really.

[Triyun]

I did actually.  I said that 1)  If you read that wall of text past the second paragraph you would notice I said and showed why the navies do not matter in France vs. Britain, it matters for other nations entering the war from far away.  2) I said bigger powers have larger navies outside the combat space and entering deters conflict.  

[Hereno]

The tl;dr version of Triyun's post is that he's saying limiting the force projection of larger nations means that regional powers can exert influence relatively unchecked. He thinks we should let larger nations be more capable of projecting force further abroad, because it lets larger powers check each other's dominance over regions.

Edited September 6, 2014 by Hereno

[Evangeline Anovilis]

that was a gigantic wall of text, but should you both have similarly sized navies, then even with a minor advantage you would be unable to use most of your navy against france due to ASMs. If you can provide a reason as to why giving a larger navy to smaller players and weakening the navy of larger players would somehow ruin the experience of smaller players, feel free to share, but you didnt touch on that really.

It was a wall of text, but it's actually raising valid points. Points that should not easily be dismissed.

 

In essence, navies are tools of power projection. They are used to either engage enemies that are further away, or to keep the enemy's navy (and thus tool of power projection) away. The actual defense of your homeland will normally always rest ultimatively with the army and air force. What Triyun is stating here, is that if you take away power projection from the game, to the point where hardly anyone can credibly project power overseas, then it'll not benefit the smaller person, necessarily. It will strengthen the strongest nation in a region. Because this nation can pretty much overwhelm their neighbours, without a navy (Britain would not even need a large navy to move against France, if the French navy is not massively superior, due to land-based power projection being readily available in form of aircraft and missiles), but it would not need to fear outside intervention (because whatever strike force anyone outside the theater would send in would be totally inadequate to deal with the regional power, in this case, one or two carriers would not be enough to counter British land-based air and missile assets, which operate from an unsinkable platform, with much greater concealment and with greater volume). In essence, taking away navies will prevent people from attacking others that are far away. It will not prevent people from attacking their next-door neighbours. It thus would lead to a political dynamic, where smaller nations are not able to enlist the help of anyone outside the theatre, because noone aside from people in the theatre could credibly help them (in this case, unless France has major European allies, it would be without allies, as non-European allies cannot credibly project their power abroad).

[Mogar]

so instead of having a bunch of equally sized nations we should all bow down to cent, triyun, and lynneth, sounds familar.

[Triyun]

The tl;dr version of Triyun's post is that he's saying limiting the force projection of larger nations means that regional powers can exert influence relatively unchecked. He thinks we should let larger nations be more capable of projecting force further abroad, because it lets larger powers check each other's dominance over regions.

 

With the added caveat that increasing too some level smaller nations ability to band together also can provide an additional check, and providing more naval customization and substitution can let more defense isolationist minded powers defend themselves more.

[Evangeline Anovilis]

so instead of having a bunch of equally sized nations we should all bow down to cent, triyun, and lynneth, sounds familar.

Which misses the point.

 

But honestly, not really as if I'd be ever losing out from an overall decrease in naval strength...

[Centurius]

so instead of having a bunch of equally sized nations we should all bow down to cent, triyun, and lynneth, sounds familar.

What kind of thought process goes into coming to that conclusion from the previous posts?

 

What they are saying is that by making navies of larger nations to be inconsequential people get an unhindered ability to force their region into submission with no credible outside challenge.

[Triyun]

so instead of having a bunch of equally sized nations we should all bow down to cent, triyun, and lynneth, sounds familar.

Not two or three players, powers much more diffuse than that, but what has been said above.

 

I would also say being able to hold numerical superiority against major powers has never been an issue in any version of CN RP.  Its being able to have the qualitative skills that everyone's agreed has been a challenge.  Larger distributed navies are frankly a lot harder for me to leverage my qualitative advantage against than soloing smaller regional navies one by one and while maybe I could write something to kill one in an opening post, it'd take way way too long to do, compared to nerfed small navies.

[Mogar]

The tl;dr version of Triyun's post is that he's saying limiting the force projection of larger nations means that regional powers can exert influence relatively unchecked. He thinks we should let larger nations be more capable of projecting force further abroad, because it lets larger powers check each other's dominance over regions.

 

 

What kind of thought process goes into coming to that conclusion from the previous posts?

 

What they are saying is that by making navies of larger nations to be inconsequential people get an unhindered ability to force their region into submission with no credible outside challenge.

the thought process above

 

which basically can happen even without navies... so all it would change is larger powers abilities to dominance OTHER regions.

 

 

Not two or three players, powers much more diffuse than that, but what has been said above.

 

I would also say being able to hold numerical superiority against major powers has never been an issue in any version of CN RP.  Its being able to have the qualitative skills that everyone's agreed has been a challenge.  Larger distributed navies are frankly a lot harder for me to leverage my qualitative advantage against than soloing smaller regional navies one by one and while maybe I could write something to kill one in an opening post, it'd take way way too long to do, compared to nerfed small navies.

I would say the problem has always been a few of the largest powers allying who also have the highest level of skill, and you make it sound as though every single war would be a one on one, when every region is allied to one another that is highly unlikely, so multiple medium sized nations would hold a major advantage over you singularly.

[Hereno]

By making nations similar in strength and ability, you force people to band together to accomplish goals. That makes it impossible for a single player to dominate any one region alone, and solves the problem much more effectively and without giving people more advantages over one another.

 

In case you can't tell, I'm a big fan of what Africa did by having 4-5 nations with differing goals come together to protect a region for new people to roll into.

Edited September 6, 2014 by Hereno

[Triyun]

 

 

the thought process above

 

which basically can happen even without navies... so all it would change is larger powers abilities to dominance OTHER regions.

 

 

I would say the problem has always been a few of the largest powers allying who also have the highest level of skill, and you make it sound as though every single war would be a one on one, when every region is allied to one another that is highly unlikely, so multiple medium sized nations would hold a major advantage over you singularly.

 

There's been no evidence of anyone being able to dominate another region. 0.  They can only offset the dominant power in the other region.  To dominate a region you definitionally need ground power, troops are already capped.  You don't need ground power to prevent someone else from dominating though.  Which is where offsets come in.

 

Lynneth can't interfere in Europe without a Navy.  I can't interfere in America without a navy.  

 

The idea though that the dominant regional power won't enjoy friendly alliances with most in the region isn't backed up by a large amount of data.  Sure if everyone hated me as much as some do, in Europe/MENA no one would ally me.  Most people like me in Europe though.  Similarly if everyone in Americas hated Lynneth they could check him, but most like him.  You could always get a few allies, but so could the dominant power.  So instead of talking just two powers we can also talk about how this weakens the minority coalition in a region to resist the leader of the hegemonic coalition.

[Zoot Zoot]

We need TBM's retardopult for Mogar. Seriously man, just read what the man is saying, then go for a smoke or a coffee, and think about it properly before posting a furiously inaccurate resonse based on past indiscretions.

[Mogar]

By making nations similar in strength and ability, you force people to band together to accomplish goals. That makes it impossible for a single player to dominate any one region alone, and solves the problem much more effectively and without giving people more advantages over one another.

 

In case you can't tell, I'm a big fan of what Africa did by having 4-5 nations with differing goals come together to protect a region for new people to roll into.

pretty much why I wish to make navies more equal, so it makes it harder to build a hegemonic coalition in the first place.

[Yerushalayim]

So imo there are a couple things people are neglecting here or rather simplifying which shouldn't be simplified.  

 

It is absolutely true that the reduction in naval numbers will reduce the influence of a single state to dominate the global system.  However, at the same time, the potential of a single state to do that in CN RP 2 with caps on aircraft and troops is questionable at best.  On the other hand, it will absolutely strengthen the individual strongest powers in each region to dominate the region.   In other words action to reduce the proliferation of naval forces today as far as balancing the game, is only serving to address a hypothetical far off event, while enabling the more likely future near term event of a few strong feudal feifdoms.  Why?  For two reasons: 1)  Navies are essential if a far off major power wants to hedge against a major regional power, logistically air cannot substitute  2)  We have zero regulation on anti-access area denial technologies which would enable a regional power to go on the operational (theatre level) offense, while maintaining a near impregnable strategic level defense against smaller navies.

 

Navies are unique in their domain.  With the exception of the torpedo which plays a minor role, Navies are platforms to deliver weapons in other domains.  Missiles and Planes still travel through the air.  Marines still achieve effect when they move through land.  The ability to deliver punishments navies deliver with true kinetic effect, can be delivered anyway, if you are located in the near abroad of another target.  

 

As a case study (and disclaimer I'm using this as a hypothetical of what could be done not what I intend to do) If Britain chose to launch an invasion of Normandy, the presence of the Royal Navy across the English channel would have virtually no utility.  It'd be really cool to shell Normandy with Zumwalts, but their effect on the outcome would not make a difference, Eagles, Hornets, and Widows could do the job with GPS bombs just as easily.  I can launch missiles and aircraft from land.  Smaller landing craft can cross the channel alone, and have a actual higher probability of success that way.  

 

What the lack of a Navy would do would ensure that no outside power could stop me from invading and make the ability for FHIC to retaliate significantly lower because I'd have an easier time destroying her forces in a first strike.  

 

On the first point, if we take the assumption that France would receive mostly help from big nations outside of Europe (which looking a a map is fairly safe) then it needs to get there and get there in a major way.  Sending in ground and air forces via air lift is not a very likely prospect.  The Initial US Forces sent in to protect Saudi Arabia against a very weak Saddam relative to US strength, were perceived as highly vulnerable had Saddam decided to attack.  America was in large part able to deter Saddam because for one thing it was a global super power with the ability to in the long run inflict overwhelming damage to Iraq and secondarily it was unclear if the US was bluffing about going all the way.  Should such a build up in CN RP occur, its unlikely a major regional power would not strike first in this build up stage and quickly destroy these forces.

 

Carriers and amphibious warships are the only 'ready now' rapid reaction forces that can deliver air and ground power far beyond the borders of a nation.  A single carrier group with only a few escorts (the most someone could send without bing vulnerable at home), would have relatively smaller value and take a long time to get there (for the record a 2008 DOD sponsored RAND study found it would take six carriers to defeat a PRC force in the Taiwan Straits).  Assuming that one does not leave one's home water vulnerable on a regular basis it would take a really long time to say sale from the Carribean let alone the Pacific to the North Atlantic to engage Britain.  When it did get there, it would be highly vulnerable to missile forces, and it would most likely have very weak missile defenses because of the problem of lack of ability to protect large offshore radar stations, and having to switch weaker onboard ship radars between very different missions of engaging cruise missiles, ballistic missiles, and air planes.  Further each ship would run out of defensive missiles pretty fast against saturation attacks, and then it would take a weak in a friendly port to rearm.  During which time they'd be very vulnerable to attack.  The carriers themselves would likely have to fight from a far out engagement envelope so they themselves would be vulnerable to fewer missiles.  This would mean their fighter aircraft would have a much lower time to engage in combat air patrols over target.  When you have multiple carriers assuming you're using the super hornets, the hornets can refuel each other as well as pump out more volume to mitigate this problem, one or even two carriers simply can't do this.  Secondarily, because the carriers would face such heavy missile attack, electronic warfare would need to be divided more between suppression of British SAMs in the areas around the front, and defending the carrier from missile attack.  And if the carrier even takes one missile it could lose the ability to launch all its planes for weeks.

 

In short the presence of one or two carriers is unlikely to have much consequence, while due to closeness, Britain can keep using the British Isles to easily generate the volume it would with its current 10 carriers IG.

 

Secondly the presence fewer warships raises the incentive for someone to strike first.  Its a lot easier for me to track a small French Navy and commit a small number for forces to destroy that navy in an opening blow.  I'd not have to worry about the French Navy for the rest of the war, and could engage and destroy other countries navies as they tried to come into the fight.  

 

If there was a much bigger French Navy I could no doubt get a lot of it, but more would likely be deployed further away, more subs would exist, it'd be much harder to decimate it, and then I'd probably have to account for at least some of the French Navy as others came into the fight on me.

 

Further through all of this assuming I had global friends, most people who came in would have to make the choice if say if they deployed forces to fight me in any real number, what could my allies do to them in their home territory or their lines of communication to reinforce and resupply forces sent to France.  The answer is a !@#$ ton without sufficient navy forces to defend.  

 

France is just one example, you could project it anywhere there exists a single high powered nation surrounded by medium to low tier one.  The maps of CN RP are always dynamic.  That may not fit your situation today, but it could literally change tomorrow.  

 

I also can say a lot of players query me asking for advise on whether or not they should start a fight.  The number one thing they ask about or care about with the exception of maybe Cent and Eva,  is 'Will I win?'  I've seen so many wars stopped not by people caring about other people's cooperative RP experience (frankly most people don't that much), but whether or not the pixels they want they can actually take and hold.  The number one thing they are concerned about is uncertainty.  Large numbers of naval vessels either from the nation they are attacking or more importantly actually from great powers that could intervene increases uncertainty.  Naval ships in large numbers are very hard to track and provide a significant hedge.  Paradoxically Great Powers having a lot provides an even greater hedge for smaller powers because mid powers think they stand less of a chance.  

 

All that said, one could acknowledge that for the low tier Navy is relatively under powered.  I do not think it should be even.  We are play Cybernations RP.  Cybernations has always been an intergeral part of it.  

 

What I would propose is that the default base navy one could choose to build be if one person had one of each naval improvement and 5000 infra.  So everyone could have 1 of each ship type plus those current default points.  That increases the risk calculus and uncertainty.  I would then go forward to implement some of Voodoo's proposals un substitution, so more defensive minded players could get rid of landing ships and carriers to procure more submarines, and I would include subs in the X2 modifier.  

 

The net result would be more uncertainty for a player choosing war as an option, more nations able to participate in global affairs, and smaller nations able to build large smaller coalition to balance regional powers without getting torn to shreds by A2AD nets.

Some decent points here. However, I do believe that both of my proposals result in a net increase of naval forces in the game (with many more naval options available for smaller nations), while my second proposal (double points) would result in larger navies than we have at the moment (for the mid tier at least, I'm not sure about you super top tier guys)as well.

 

So if the objective is to achieve balance, and to increase the ability for force projection so as to prevent hegemonic domination of regions by single players, then what's the issue with what I put forward?

[Evangeline Anovilis]

Some decent points here. However, I do believe that both of my proposals result in a net increase of naval forces in the game (with many more naval options available for smaller nations), while my second proposal (double points) would result in larger navies than we have at the moment (for the mid tier at least, I'm not sure about you super top tier guys)as well.

 

So if the objective is to achieve balance, and to increase the ability for force projection so as to prevent hegemonic domination of regions by single players, then what's the issue with what I put forward?

Your first proposal pretty much cuts my navy by 5/6. Doubling it would cut it by 2/3. And I'm pretty sure that 2 carriers with two amphibs and a few escorts is not the kind of force that enables credible power projection. And when not even the top tier can achieve that, do we need to talk about anyone in a lower tier being able to actually matter outside their region?

[Yerushalayim]

Eva, wtf math are you doing? Someone with only 5k infra would get 50 points in one of my proposals (I think the second one). Carriers are 12 points. There's no way you only get two carriers, two landing ships (seven points, I believe), and a few escorts at your level. You're adding the numbers wrong.

 

Edit: And as I pointed out before, my numbers (for points) are very easily tweaked. If we all think they're too low, bump them up. 3 points, instead of 2, or even 4 if we really want to flood the game with naval ships. Doesn't really matter.

Edited September 7, 2014 by Yerushalayim