Naval units

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

    • Naval units

      I have only one game under my belt.. almost!
      My observations so far regarding Naval units: they are not correct when it comes to caapabilities.

      Corvettes:
      Can fight offensively in one dimension. Usually ASuW (Anti Surface Warefare)
      Some selfdefence AAW capability. Big Corvettes/Light frigates have some ASW capability (ASW Helo embarked).

      Frigates:
      Can fight offensively in two dimensions. Usually ASuW and ASW (Anti Submare Warfare)
      Self defence in AAW (Anti Air Warfare). FFG (Frigate with guided missiles is a Destroyer tagged with F due to political reasons)

      Destroyers:
      Can fight offensively in three dimensions. All AsuW, ASW and AAW (Anti Air Warfare). DDG (Destroyer w/guided missile) do have cruiser missile capability. I would regard this as a light cruiser.

      Cruisers:
      Can fight inn all dimensions including long range land strikes (cruise missiles).

      Bottom line! Why is the frigate a better AAW unit compared to a Destroyer?!
      And where is the coastal submarines? Diesel electric -> AIP (Air independent Propulsion)

      Best regards!
      <iframe width="1252" height="704" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/54uCKEFwExg" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
    • I think you'll find that most units don't posses the exact capabilities as their real counterparts, some more than others, for one simple reason: Balancing. Naval units as a whole were more versatile many iterations ago, at one point they were super OP. Eventually, they became more specialized in the game to tie better into the rock/paper/scissor mechanics of the game. Wouldn't exactly be fun if the game only consisted of building three go-to units :D
    • ThePanda wrote:

      ... to tie better into the rock/paper/scissor mechanics of the game...
      Rock-Paper-Scissors is more appropriate for medieval war game, where axemen trump spearmen, spearmen trump horsemen, horsemen trump swordsmen etc... And if I want to play Rock-Paper-Scissors I do not need computer, I can do that with my hands :) But I want to play "World War 3", so I would like Frigates and Cruisers with proper stats and reasonable prices. For example, if the Corvette costs all these electronics, it should have a little towed sonar included in the price. And the only OP naval unit used to be the Frigate, which was a floating TDS, that should have been the Cruiser instead.

      @UltimaSRi I agree with you sort of, but you are thinking only about US naval doctrine, for other countries it may be a little different
    • Arleigh Burke is the best Anti Air Warefare unit out there! but it suck compared to an old Oliver Hazard Perry class?!?
      Anyway: If you stick to the original baseline of Naval units and their capabilities they would be perfect for upgrades (costly or not) to become a light version of the bigger class.

      A funny note: European cruiser is a Danish Auxilary (mulirole) unit! :) You should rather exclude that unit (cuz Europe dont have any) and give European Destroyers more upgrade possibilities. Daring class (DDG) is a light cruiser anyway.
      <iframe width="1252" height="704" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/54uCKEFwExg" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
    • Sima_7 wrote:

      I think you still fail to realize this is not a simulation game, but a grand strategy one. It ds not attempt - or claim - to be realistically accurate with unit types
      Im not complaining over the game itself. Im suggesting a few things that would not change the game at all, but maybe make it a bit more realistic.
      <iframe width="1252" height="704" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/54uCKEFwExg" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
    • If you start researching a unified naval class-convention with other forces around the globe you can stop right at the beginning. And we wanted that - for simplicities sake. It's funny how every nation sort of classifies its ships in a different way.

      Also we shifted roles several times - and indeed US frigates and destroyers are basically inverted to the ones in game - but then there are the missile destroyers... Anyway thanks for the really good write-up - we should definitely keep it for planned naval expansions ;)
      "Going to war without France is like going hunting without an accordion." Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf
    • There's usually - almost always - a trade-off in games between realism and balance/gameplay. Unfortunately, you can't have full-on effect of both simultaneously.

      You need to consider that everyone should be on equal footing, in terms of the available units anyway. Otherwise, those that are at a significant disadvantage with their units would have little to no reason to continue playing that map.
      "Any of you *uckin' pricks move, and I'll execute every mother*uckin' last one of ya!" - Honey Bunny
    • Sima_7 wrote:

      I think you still fail to realize this is not a simulation game, but a grand strategy one. It does not attempt - or claim - to be realistically accurate with unit types.
      OK it is not a simulation, but it is a game about modern warfare, and it is inevitable that the units will be compared to their real life counterparts. And when I do these comparisons, a lot of things do not make sense to me, because I think in terms of "modern warfare".
    • Germanico wrote:

      If you start researching a unified naval class-convention with other forces around the globe you can stop right at the beginning. And we wanted that - for simplicities sake. It's funny how every nation sort of classifies its ships in a different way.
      Tnx for considering anyway! :)
      Best thing is to look at the history of naval ships. These days each nation, as you are mentioning, are classifying differently - due to politics! Germany still cant build destroyers, but look at the Zachsen class..
      <iframe width="1252" height="704" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/54uCKEFwExg" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
    • ..Are there any thoughts about adding more missiles into the game? I know NSM (Naval Strike Missile) would be a great last research (Stealth IIR guided).
      <iframe width="1252" height="704" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/54uCKEFwExg" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
    • Yeah, navy isn't realistic at all. I have some kind of feeling that it's generally SUPER HARD to balance, in any game, navy power in regard to air power or ground power.

      A good example of "tried as hard as possible and still didn't succeed very much" would be Wargame Red Dragon.


      It's just that ships are by essence the biggest single entities our armies field, and when you try to explain an order of battle, they always feel "odd". "The operation mobilised 3 000 soldiers, 120 AFV, 50 air fighters... and the Nimitz". They are so big we tend to call them by a single name that has been given to them.

      We mainly try to compare "regiments" to "squadrons" when it comes to trying to place on the map an single warship with hundreds of sailors.

      As other have said, in previous balancing of the games, trying to "give ships what they were equipped" usually resulted in an odd "good against everything" operational value that wasn't desirable.


      Now, the ships are very specialised, and so, they are way more vulnerable, more fragile, and less potent than the real entities they represent, but it works better through the economy of the game and the general "dynamic".
      Running an online alliance is pretty much like running a small company, except you need to find other way than money to keep your employees productive. May they play or work, they are humans.
    • GeorgeGrivas wrote:

      Sima_7 wrote:

      I think you still fail to realize this is not a simulation game, but a grand strategy one. It does not attempt - or claim - to be realistically accurate with unit types.
      OK it is not a simulation, but it is a game about modern warfare, and it is inevitable that the units will be compared to their real life counterparts. And when I do these comparisons, a lot of things do not make sense to me, because I think in terms of "modern warfare".
      @GeorgeGrivas I understand what you're saying and agree with the general gist of it but I wasn't addressing you specifically, btw.

      However, in addition to what you said, it's not just a modern warfare game, it even has elements of futurism to it, as most of the scenarios happening are set in the future and also largely hypothetical. This should allow us to be forgiving of inaccuracies.
      "Any of you *uckin' pricks move, and I'll execute every mother*uckin' last one of ya!" - Honey Bunny
    • @UltimaSRi actually the real issue is that every navy classifies stuff differently - but we cannot do this in the game. In the Russian or French navy a destroyer or frigate may fill an entirely different role. That's fine in real life, it's totally not fine in game terms.

      We also do not want Destroyers migrating from X to Y throughout their research history - because players would start the DDs with a need for eg. ASW and end up with something they don't want, like AA (just an example). So in this regards we really more than in the land combat need to look at it from a game perspective, where certain classes have and stick to certain roles in EVERY nation's navy. Which is NOT realistic. At all. But we neither want nor can accurately depict global navies in their complex changing roles and terminologies. Sorry but that's where we are "game first".

      Here an example from the German Navy:

      "Die momentan modernste Klasse ist die F124 mit dem Typschiff [i]Sachsen, die als Ersatz für die Zerstörer der Klasse103B (Lütjens-Klasse) ab 2004 in Dienst gestellt wurde. Trotz der Klassifizierung als Fregatten sind diese Schiffe größer und bis auf die reduzierte Artilleriebewaffnung auch kampfkräftiger als die alten Zerstörer. Im Gegensatz zu allen anderen deutschen Fregatten besteht die Aufgabe dieser Klasse vorwiegend in der Flugabwehr, wobei sie vor allem das APAR-Radar in Verbindung mit SM-2-Flugabwehrraketen einsetzen. Dieses deutsch-niederländische Radar- und Feuerleitsystem ist mit dem amerikanischen Aegis-Kampfsystem vergleichbar."[/i]

      "The most up to date class is the F124 type, which was put into service as a replacement for the destroyer Class 103B. Despite the classification as frigates these ships are larger and up to the reduced artillery armament also more powerful In contrast to all other German frigates, the task of this class is predominantly in air defense, whereby they mainly use the APAR radar in conjunction with SM-2 anti-aircraft missiles.This German-Dutch radar and fire control system is comparable to the American Aegis combat system." So much for Anti-Submarine or Self Defense AA.

      Please also note that this Frigate is a replacement for a destroyer - it's bigger yet still called Frigate. Makes no sense but that's how the navy works. Just look at the recently introduced US Stealth Destroyer - easily a cruiser by size and role in a way. But termed destroyer. In a nutshell there is NO unified global terminology in navies - not even within a nation's navy.

      Hope I provided some understanding, because it's not me or the team being retards not able to read ship specs - it's more complex in trying to balance out usability, player expectation and finally game mechanical/design restrictions.
      "Going to war without France is like going hunting without an accordion." Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf