Improvements to Naval

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

    • Improvements to Naval

      Good day everyone, today we shall discuss a mutitude of suggestions regarding naval in general, so without further ado let's get started !
      _____________
      Suggestion N°1
      _____________

      - Increasing the stack limit of naval units in high seas from 5 to 10 units, while keeping the coastal waters at a maximum of 5 units per stack.

      stacks of 5 naval units are called a "Task Force", in the case of a 10 unit stack it shall be called a "Fleet".

      _____________
      Suggestion N°2
      _____________

      - giving each single unit of frigates, destroyers and cruisers the ability to carry 1 ASW helicopter on their back

      modern ships can be seen having a small helipads at their rear to carry ASW helicopters.

      _____________
      Suggestion N°3

      _____________

      - adding a new unit called "Amphibious assault Carrier"

      this unit will be carrying Helicopters but no jets; as well as well as being able to carry amphibious units (( naval infentry and amphivious AFVs)).
      units that are being deployed from this Amphibious assault Carrier will get a reduction of 50% on their disembarking time.

      Note :
      - This unit is to have only 1 single tech tier ((similar to stealth jets))
      - this unit is able to be researched after the player finnishes researching level 1 cruisers

      Western doctrine :

      - America-Class Amphibious Assault Ship

      Eastern doctrine :

      - Project 23900 Ivan Rogov-Class Amphibious Assault Ship

      European doctrine :

      - Trieste-class landing helicopter dock

      _____________
      Suggestion N°4
      _____________

      - Adding a new type of waters called "frozen waters'"; these are to be found near the poles, for example in the north of russia, and south of
      chile and will significantly reduce the movement speed of ships moving there (( although no one is crazy enough to use these routes lol )).

    • Anyone who actually wants to avoid wasting readers' time will check whether what they have in mind has been proposed before.

      Anyone who wants to avoid wasting readers' time and who finds what they want to propose has been proposed before, will invest some time in reading players' previous reactions to those ideas.

      Anyone who wants to understand (or predict) Teburu's overall reaction (and the reasoning behind that reaction) to what got posted here can almost certainly learn that by doing some research in the this forum.

      I think that there is an important life-lesson in what I've written here; but hey, that's just me. Other forum users surely have different opinions.

    • "Anyone who actually wants to avoid wasting readers' time will check whether what they have in mind has been proposed before."
      Anyone who actually wants an idea to be adopted will let the devs know that they also support the idea.

      "Anyone who wants to avoid wasting readers' time and who finds what they want to propose has been proposed before, will invest some time in reading players' previous reactions to those ideas."
      Why dig through ancient posts from players that may not even still be in the game?
      Besides, the game has changed over time, and I for one am not about to waste my time reading about opinions expressed that are no longer valid.

      " Anyone who wants to understand (or predict) Teburu's overall reaction (and the reasoning behind that reaction) to what got posted here can almost certainly learn that by doing some research in the this forum."
      Who the heck digs through a persons forum posting history in an attempt to do a psychological profile? Other than cops investigating a serious crime?

    • Hydralysk wrote:

      DodiMiki wrote:

      you could atleast comment on it rather than being so vague :-|
      That would require him to actually think about it.Then he would have to take the time to compose a response.
      That might subject him to a critique of his own ideas.

      Easier to be vague.


      Oh, dont worry your cute little brain, I did indeed think about it. I just concluded that most points of criticism are obvious enough that condensing the answer to a simple „No.“ is enough, the people that liked my simple response seemed to agree with it.
      But because not everyone can be a bastion of Intelligence and Wisdom like myself here a short breakdown for you.

      1. Utterly ridiculous, it would require a metric fuckton of rebalancing of not only navy but other units too, stacking limits are a pretty big part of balancing. IMO its also completely unnecessary; the current stacking limit is fine because it somewhat forces you to choose.

      2. Pretty sure there are also plenty of other details that disagree with actual gameplay. Units in con usually have their own „gimmick“ that makes them special eg: only Infantry captures land, Carriers carry aircraft, MBTs pad my stats… stuff like that. It also would make it harder to justify investing in carriers, especially paired with 1.; Why build a carrier and waste a spot in your stack on it for 15 capacity; when you can have a fully combat capable stack with 10 capacity. I also doubt it would be easy to implement.

      3. There has been similar suggestions like this tho I dont really see much of a point in it. Actually giving units with the amphibious trait shorter disembarkment time seems like the more practial thing to do instead. And thats not even getting into the viability of the amphibious units themselves. Simply doesnt seem much to justify an entirely new unit.

      4. While i would love to see navy do more stuff with terrain modifiers, introducing a new type of terrain and then limiting it to a handful of places on the map that will see action extremely rarely, if at all, seems fairly counterproductive.


      In general a lot of these things are fairly ridiculous and clearly not very well thought through.
      Tho now that I have written my piece about it I am curious as to what you think about his suggestions. I wouldnt be surprised if you dont have any and just came here to start shit, it seems to be somewhat of a theme with you.
      After all talking On Topic would require you to actually think about it.
      Then you would have to take the time to compose a response.
      That might subject you to a critique of your own ideas.
      I am The Baseline for opinions

    • Hydralysk wrote:

      "Anyone who actually wants to avoid wasting readers' time will check whether what they have in mind has been proposed before."
      Anyone who actually wants an idea to be adopted will let the devs know that they also support the idea.
      That's why you add your support to all the previous support in the existing thread to create a big pile of long-running support - Duh

      "Anyone who wants to avoid wasting readers' time and who finds what they want to propose has been proposed before, will invest some time in reading players' previous reactions to those ideas."
      Why dig through ancient posts from players that may not even still be in the game?
      Besides, the game has changed over time, and I for one am not about to waste my time reading about opinions expressed that are no longer valid.
      I agree that you aren't that person. That person is deliberate and thoughtful, and understands that the world doesn't begin anew each day just because they get out of bed.

      " Anyone who wants to understand (or predict) Teburu's overall reaction (and the reasoning behind that reaction) to what got posted here can almost certainly learn that by doing some research in the this forum."
      Who the heck digs through a persons forum posting history in an attempt to do a psychological profile? Other than cops investigating a serious crime?
      See above.
      I firmly believe that anyone who is truly serious about getting an idea accepted will learn from the past, not ignore it.

    • It wastes other people's time and is lazy.

      I was brought up to believe that wasting other people's time because you're lazy is rude.

      But, that's just me.

      You keep on being you. It appears to be working out well. You certainly have accumulated a wide variety of useful pictures. Those are definitely going to worth something when you retire some day.

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

    • DodiMiki wrote:

      giving each single unit of frigates, destroyers and cruisers the ability to carry 1 ASW helicopter on their back
      I come here to wrote the same thing. How about making possible to use all types of helicopters except transport helicopters? It will increase damage from ships and using of helicopters and using of smallest anti-air.

      DodiMiki wrote:

      adding a new unit called "Amphibious assault Carrier"
      Also these "Helicopter carrier" should be able to carry units that can be transported by helicopter (special forces, airborne forces, smallest artillery, etc.)
      Что вы остолбенели?! Живо поднять гарнизон! Ну!

    • jack21c wrote:

      I have one more idea - increase number of aircrafts carried on carrier.
      2 lvl - 6 units
      4 lvl - 11 units
      5 lvl - 12 units

      It will be useful for transport helicopters, uavs, awacs or for fighters/helicopters that will replace the destroyed ones.
      hard no

      it already got increases and having it be a multiple of5 is pretty neat.
      I am The Baseline for opinions