New Idea for an Elite Naval Unit

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • New Idea for an Elite Naval Unit

      Hi mates, I would like to introduce you to a new idea I got some days ago. I know that battleships now day are mostly irrelevant in modern conflict, but I think they would make a good adition to the game and, well implemented, they could make naval warfare much more interesting. Anyway, here are some of the specs...

      Description: An old relic from the past, refitted to meet modern standards and capabilities in war. The mighty armor of the dreadnought is only matched by the massive damage it inflict on his targets. Although very well arm and capable, this battleship should never be left without an escort.

      Requires Naval Base lvl 5, Arms Indusrty lvl 1, Secret Lab lvl 1

      — T1 — South Dakota Class (Western), Richelieu Class (European), Gangut Class (Eastern)


      STATSATKDEFATK RANGERADAR RANGE
      INFANTRY68580
      ARMORED48580
      FIXED2
      ROTARY2
      MISSILES112580
      SHIPS25258580
      SUBMARINES1150
      BUILDINGS2.585
      POPULATION685




      RADAR SIGNATURE: Naval HIGH
      ATTACK RANGE: 85
      RADAR DETECTION: 80 (GU HIGH, NU HIGH)
      ANTI AIR: 25 (MISSILES)
      HP: 125
      SPEED: 3 (HIGH SEAS), 1.75 (COASTAL WATERS)
      SIGHT RANGE: 40

      COST: 4000 (COMPONENTS), 1500 (MANPOWER), 1750 (RARE MATERIALS), 1200 (ELECTRONICS), 3500 (MONEY)


      — T2 — Iowa Class (Western), Lion Class (European), Imperator Class (Eastern)


      STATSATKDEFATK RANGERADAR RANGE
      INFANTRY810090
      ARMORED610090
      FIXED2.5
      ROTARY2.5
      MISSILES1.51.53090
      SHIPS303010090
      SUBMARINES2275
      BUILDINGS3.5100
      POPULATION8100




      RADAR SIGNATURE: Naval HIGH
      ATTACK RANGE: 100
      RADAR DETECTION: 90(GU HIGH, NU HIGH)
      ANTI AIR: 30 (MISSILES)
      HP: 150
      SPEED: 3 (HIGH SEAS), 1.75 (COASTAL WATERS)
      SIGHT RANGE: 40

      COST: 4500 (COMPONENTS), 2000 (MANPOWER), 2000 (RARE MATERIALS), 1400 (ELECTRONICS), 5000 (MONEY)


      — T3 — Montana Class (Western), H-44 Class (European), Sovetsky Soyuz Class (Eastern)

      STATSATKDEFATK RANGERADAR RANGE
      INFANTRY10125100
      ARMORED8125100
      FIXED3
      ROTARY3
      MISSILES2235100
      SHIPS3535125100
      SUBMARINES33100
      BUILDINGS4.5125
      POPULATION10125



      RADAR SIGNATURE: Naval HIGH
      ATTACK RANGE: 125
      RADAR DETECTION: 100(GU HIGH, NU HIGH)
      ANTI AIR: 35 (MISSILES)
      HP: 175
      SPEED: 3.5 (HIGH SEAS), 2 (COASTAL WATERS)
      SIGHT RANGE: 40

      COST: 5500 (COMPONENTS), 3000 (MANPOWER), 2250 (RARE MATERIALS), 1600 (ELECTRONICS), 7500 (MONEY)

      Fell free to tell me what you think about it, if you like it, suggestions and so on...

      The post was edited 2 times, last by TheGENOC1D3R ().

    • Are you proposing this because you feel there is a gap in the units that results in a hole in the strategies or tactics players can employ, or because battleships were impressive (and consequently might attract players) in the days before submarines and air power (planes and flying weapons) ascended to dominate naval engagements?

      If you think there is a gap in the game play, would you please describe it, and describe how this unit's abilities and vulnerabilities fill it?
    • KFGauss wrote:

      Are you proposing this because you feel there is a gap in the units that results in a hole in the strategies or tactics players can employ, or because battleships were impressive (and consequently might attract players) in the days before submarines and air power (planes and flying weapons) ascended to dominate naval engagements?

      If you think there is a gap in the game play, would you please describe it, and describe how this unit's abilities and vulnerabilities fill it?
      Well, putting it that way, I've always thought that the naval units in the game are well balanced, but at the same time, they've always given me the impression that they're just for a support role that in turn is sidelineed away by most players. The big mayority doesnt even bother to take the time to build a proper navy, let alone going for the carrier and its entire set of planes and helicopters. Or at least that is how has been in the games I have played; take a note, I'm a recent player with less than a year of experience.
      But maybe, with one addition like the one Im propossing, - that for me is really really cool coz I have always been a fan of Dreadnoughts, - may attract more player on invest in naval, coz who wouldnt want to have in his armada a flamant and menacing battleship, that despite its inmense firepower, still needs the support from frigates, destroyers and even carriers to get the job done.
      And, on the other hand, for those who do not have the battleship in their arsenal, they will have to put together strategies outside the norm to defeat it, not facing it directly, but perhaps with an aircraft carrier and the military planes that come with it, which are especially effective against battleships, as submarines are too.
    • OK

      FYI - If this thread attracts much discussion . . . Most of the experienced players here tell me that a good CoN game-navy almost is almost never made out of carrier battle groups complemented by stealthy submarines split between protecting the carriers and taking the fight to enemy subs and surface combatants.

      CoN carriers catch a lot of ridicule. About as much as CoN MBTs catch.

      For that reason, when you discuss what's in a "proper navy" be clear about whether you're referring to real world navies or CoN navies - They very much aren't the same.

      I think the game designers want the two navies to be similar enough for players to feel like their real-world-based intuition helps them play, but beyond that, CoN is only a VERY rough approximation.
    • Anti-Missile range of 35 is pretty much the same as having a range of 0

      Missiles are extremely fast and the tick occurs every 10 min, so a player must be very inexperienced or ignorant to get his missiles get caught in swipe with such a low range

      Not to mention, that you would need at least 5 ships for even a chance to kill of a maxed out Cruise Missile with swips and point defense.


      Cruiser had a range advantage of 125 in old times, and they lost it for a reason

      Sure this ship is slow, but with range and damage advantage and so much HP, I suspect, you would need at least 10-15 Cruiser to even bother a stack of 5 of these leviathans

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Kalrakh ().

    • KFGauss wrote:

      OK

      FYI - If this thread attracts much discussion . . . Most of the experienced players here tell me that a good CoN game-navy almost is almost never made out of carrier battle groups complemented by stealthy submarines split between protecting the carriers and taking the fight to enemy subs and surface combatants.

      CoN carriers catch a lot of ridicule. About as much as CoN MBTs catch.

      For that reason, when you discuss what's in a "proper navy" be clear about whether you're referring to real world navies or CoN navies - They very much aren't the same.

      I think the game designers want the two navies to be similar enough for players to feel like their real-world-based intuition helps them play, but beyond that, CoN is only a VERY rough approximation.
      Yeah, I'm refering to a proper navy in the game, with the game standards. In example, I can have sixs stacks of five destroyer to siege a city, and thats a lot on naval power, but what if the enemy has naval patrol aircrafts. My destroyers wouldnt be much of a threat in the long run. Instead of having so much destroyers, why dont add to the mix some stacks of frigates. The same example with cruisers, a stack of five cruisers is a lot of firepower, but what if the enemy has subs; you'll need the destroyers then to clear the way. And that was what I was refering with "proper navy", some naval units are good, and another ones are even better, but to work at is best they need to complement each other
    • Kalrakh wrote:

      Anti-Missile range of 35 is pretty much the same as having a range of 0

      Missiles are extremely fast and the tick occurs every 10 min, so a player must be very inexperienced or ignorant to get his missiles get caught in swipe with such a low range

      Not to mention, that you would need at least 5 ships for even a chance to kill of a maxed out Cruise Missile with swips and point defense.


      Cruiser had a range advantage of 125 in old times, and they lost it for a reason

      Sure this ship is slow, but with range and damage advantage and so much HP, I suspect, you would need at least 10-15 Cruiser to even bother a stack of 5 of these leviathans
      Well, that was my point of having such a short range for anti missiles; the ship has some kind of defense capabilities against them, (missiles), but thats not its main role in the battlefield. You´ll be forced to have with you some frigates for air defense if you want the dreadnought to get unscated from a missile attack, or any airbone attack for that matter.


      And for the other point you present, my strategy would be using those cruisers you mention to destroy the escort of the dreadnought, if it has one, not to direct engage with it. Then, it will be more easy toget the job done with subs or naval patrol aircrafts or even cruise missiles. Although, it is easier said than done, I think it will be interesting thinking on the strategies you can come up to sunk that ship down
    • This, the Frigate, and Destroyer would be the only battleships in the fleet
      only advantage the cruiser would have would be it would be MUCH less expensive for Rares and Electronics, otherwise somewhat replaces the role of Cruiser
      Just stack a Frigate and Destroyer in with 3 of these, you've got the near- Unbeatable stack with hundreds of HP something grossly large, over 500 HP, only way it gets beaten is by constant expensive to build air support, probably even combined with many cruisers that will have to take losses to even get close to this behemoth of a naval stack
      Only real way to defeat it would be submarines, it is quite weak against them even combined with a Destroyer
      It's interesting but I don't know whether it would just basically become the ship...
      What is the upkeep cost?
      Also, this would decimate a city instantly
      Pretty much, any counters like are good but not that good because of the massive HP pool, the high cost and extremely low healing rate compared to HP does help balance this out, though. The range also makes it a little like piercing a AA bubble, something of an exact and complicated art. Except instead of trying to destroy an SAM with something like 17 HP, you are trying to destroy something with 175HP.
      Pretty much in conclusion, I would say this is rather overpowered except for the balance of the terribly high mobilisation cost and low air+sub defense. It actually has quite high helicopter defense, however, making ASW helicopters not so useful against it, especially as it will only be used for destroying navy in the high seas and from afar in the coastal waters and provinces and it isn't going to just stay in coastal waters for no reason and allow ASW helicopters to attack it anyway unless it can be trapped by navy, quite hard to do with ships but possibly with submarines it could happen.
      The real weakness is fixed wing and submarine and the insanely high mobilisation cost
    • [Tongue-in-cheek ON]

      Battleships could be added to the game to add the following features.

      Players could build battleships, and either tie them up in harbors to use as museums, or could sink them to create new aquatic habitats, or could tow them to allies' shipyards to be broken up and used to supply the raw materials modern units need, or could use the for target practice when training other units.

      A museum would improve a city's morale, an aquatic habitat would improve an entire countries morale a bit, a donation to another player's shipyard would temporarily increase that city's resource production, and target practice would create a combat buff for the units that did the practicing.

      This would be consistent with battleships' current, real-world costs, capabilities, uses, and net value.

      [Tongue-in-cheek OFF]

      Seriously - I don't want this to come across as sounding mean, but when I thought about battleships for a little while, I realized that they simply aren't useful in modern navies.

      Are there really any task force commanders in at sea today who are really wishing hard for a new battleship, instead of another Aegis-class cruiser, or a non-USA equivalent?
    • KFGauss wrote:

      [Tongue-in-cheek ON]

      Battleships could be added to the game to add the following features.

      Players could build battleships, and either tie them up in harbors to use as museums, or could sink them to create new aquatic habitats, or could tow them to allies' shipyards to be broken up and used to supply the raw materials modern units need, or could use the for target practice when training other units.

      A museum would improve a city's morale, an aquatic habitat would improve an entire countries morale a bit, a donation to another player's shipyard would temporarily increase that city's resource production, and target practice would create a combat buff for the units that did the practicing.

      This would be consistent with battleships' current, real-world costs, capabilities, uses, and net value.

      [Tongue-in-cheek OFF]

      Seriously - I don't want this to come across as sounding mean, but when I thought about battleships for a little while, I realized that they simply aren't useful in modern navies.

      Are there really any task force commanders in at sea today who are really wishing hard for a new battleship, instead of another Aegis-class cruiser, or a non-USA equivalent?
      Yes I get it dreadnoughts are obsolete, just as cruisers will be some years from now. The thing with this post I made was to propose not a reinvention of the naval warfare as it is presented in the game, but to put in the table a unit that could or could not be of interest for some players to earn it and, of course, for them to using it later in the game. Coz you see, putting it plainly, this battleship I put together is as different from the cruiser as the elite MBT is different from the ordinary MBT, or the elite heavy bomber againts the ordinary bomber, or the elite attack helicopter againts the normal one. All those units are pretty similar and nontheless, they all have some unique traits that makes them just that: unique or "elite" if you will. And belive me when I tell you that, if I should see a unit like the one Im proposing in the elite slot, I'll buy the council subscription in no time just to get it. Maybe more players could be of the same opinion than me, maybe not and thats okey. At the end, are those same opinions and ideas that make possible for this game, and everything else for that matter, to become a better version of itself
    • Lmao. This is very similar to cruisers except the missile anti air. You don't need 30+ anti air protection against missiles for ships. Only players that would benefit from this is island countries like Indonesia, Japan or Cuba. Ships can only get targeted by cruise missiles. Cruise missile hp is like 15 I think at max lvl.
      regardless it would be interesting and definitely would need to go to beta test but I think it would make a few other units obsolete. My 2 cents and first reaction
    • KFGauss wrote:

      [Tongue-in-cheek ON]

      Battleships could be added to the game to add the following features.

      Players could build battleships, and either tie them up in harbors to use as museums, or could sink them to create new aquatic habitats, or could tow them to allies' shipyards to be broken up and used to supply the raw materials modern units need, or could use the for target practice when training other units.

      A museum would improve a city's morale, an aquatic habitat would improve an entire countries morale a bit, a donation to another player's shipyard would temporarily increase that city's resource production, and target practice would create a combat buff for the units that did the practicing.

      This would be consistent with battleships' current, real-world costs, capabilities, uses, and net value.

      [Tongue-in-cheek OFF]

      Seriously - I don't want this to come across as sounding mean, but when I thought about battleships for a little while, I realized that they simply aren't useful in modern navies.

      Are there really any task force commanders in at sea today who are really wishing hard for a new battleship, instead of another Aegis-class cruiser, or a non-USA equivalent?
      Uhm... could you talk a little bit more about the Mothball Fleet research tree?...

      Honestly, if I could do this with my early game corvettes I'd be more than content
    • Kalrakh wrote:

      Anti-Missile range of 35 is pretty much the same as having a range of 0

      Missiles are extremely fast and the tick occurs every 10 min, so a player must be very inexperienced or ignorant to get his missiles get caught in swipe with such a low range

      Not to mention, that you would need at least 5 ships for even a chance to kill of a maxed out Cruise Missile with swips and point defense.


      Cruiser had a range advantage of 125 in old times, and they lost it for a reason

      Sure this ship is slow, but with range and damage advantage and so much HP, I suspect, you would need at least 10-15 Cruiser to even bother a stack of 5 of these leviathans

      Well I feel that its powerfulness can be balanced out because of its weakness: submarines. It would make players use a more diverse set of units, and not just cruisers. People would start using submarines, which I rarely see in current games. It would also increase airforce use.
    • I was thinking on this post yesterday and I made some changes that balance a little more the unit I described above, and might even make it a bit more interesting. So, this were the changes I made:

      • I made the radar range shorter so when, for example, the dreadnought reach its max level with an attack range of 125, its radar range would be only of 100, so it will need support from other units spotting the enemy in question to make a full range attack. For that I took inspiration from the Krupp K5 railway gun from CoW
      • I decrease dreadnought's defense against helicopters, making it equal to that of planes, so both now are a good options for attacking the dreadnought if it comes too close to your shore or if you have an aircraft carrier
      • I made the cost of rare materials a little more higher, so you would need more of them if you want to make more dreadnought. That is just an assumption more than a propposal acctually. If you think is too cheap for a ship like this it migth be even more, that is left to the judgment of every person that read this
      • And its not listed above, but as every elite unit, dreadnoughts would be limited to a certain number of units, like five or ten