General Robb
Num Posts: 45 |
Defense against cruise missiles
As player strategies evolve it is becoming clear that cruise missiles are too great a weapon. Here are two simple changes that will add options and therefore expand strategy:
1) Artillery defense: Allow any artillery bordering boats to attack the fleet as though it were a land territory. This will force navies to either eliminate all units on a country or risk counter attack and gives players a non-navy option
2) Do not allow navy units (including super battle cruisers) to carry anti aircraft guns. This will have 2 positive effects: Air forces will become more valuable. Air units are already reduced in value in the online version because of their inability to land in a different country than they took off. Bombers are almost worthless against a large fleet because they have a 33% chance of being shot down before they even attack and then will certainly be shot down if there are any defending units besides subs. So the attacking bomber is guaranteed to get shot down and often without doing any damage. The best case scenario would be avoiding the AA fire and landing 2 (if fully upgraded) hits before being shot down. This means the best case is killing $16 and losing $15. This makes no sense at all. At the very least fully upgraded bombers should be able to roll 3 dice just like they do in land battles. Killing $24 in 2/3 of battles while losing $15 and killing $0 wile losing $15 in 1/3 would at least make it even. The side benefit to thus change would be more diversity of ships used in a navy. No longer would you be able to defend a huge fleet of subs with a single SBC because a huge air force would crush it. More battle ships and carriers would be required. On a side note the recent change to make upgraded fighters immune to AA fire is great and helps give an option in defending against navies.
I like both options and think they would both make the game better.
Thursday 7/29/2010 |
AndrewAAGamer
Num Posts: 59 |
Re: Defense against cruise missiles
I agree with your assessment that Cruise Missile attacks are too powerful. Any attack method that fears no loss is going to be abused.
While I like both of your ideas I have some reservations on both too. Since I am not a programmer I do not know if they can be alleviated.
Artillery: Can this be made to be a one-shot attack? Either as part of an Air/Sea counter attack or lone land return fire.
No AA Ship Guns: This is cool as it would force more varied navies which makes perfect sense. However would it not leave Fleets vulnerable to Nuke attacks? Is there a way to program a Naval AA Gun as part of a Battle Cruiser or Super Battle Cruiser to be able to fire at only Nukes and not planes?
Thursday 7/29/2010 01:41:42 PM |
TGB
They exerted themselves and like dragons did they fight.
Num Posts: 334 |
Re: Defense against cruise missiles
1) They would have to be able to fire into water w/o spotters and I have a funny feeling that would nullify the spotters on the ground as well. Thought the destinction should be doable. This is a feature in the official Manual.
2)Andrew points out the unwanted side effects of this option. Can AD guns be told to first see if they are either 1.cargo or 2. in a sea zone? If they answer yes to either of these then the would only shoot at a Nuclear Missile. If they answer no to both then theay could fire freely at any aircraft.
Thursday 7/29/2010 03:18:28 PM |
Rick
We make war that we may live in peace. -Aristotle
Num Posts: 409 |
Re: Defense against cruise missiles
i've long considered giving artillery a "free" attack on waterways, which would level the playing field. I'll see how easy it is to do without messing things up.
Thursday 7/29/2010 04:40:55 PM |
TGB
They exerted themselves and like dragons did they fight.
Num Posts: 334 |
Re: Defense against cruise missiles
I think it could level the playing field, and in most cases probably will. I'll just toss out that Tomahawk missiles target vehicles. Since they will always get the first shot the artillery may be destroyed before they get to shoot.
This does require extensive investment into tech and can also be thwarted by having tanks to absorb the hits, so it doesn't guarantee the fleet owner a sure victory.
Thursday 7/29/2010 05:13:35 PM |
Bishop
Num Posts: 23 |
Re: Defense against cruise missiles
I've always thought that the best option, and most realistic from what actual nations have used in actual warfare, wouldm just be to add a new universal piece called "Coastal Defense Unit" that would respresent an array of guns, missiles, etc. that a territory has to defend against sea-based attacks.
It would be relatively easy to craft rules for...just base it on what AA guin rules are. Cost would be 5 each, max of 2 functioning per territory. Every time a cruise missile fleet attacks a territory the CDU gets 1 defense die against each attacking vessel and hits on a "1". Each hit prevents that attacking naval unit from getting a cruise missile attack.
Just like AA guns, CDUs can't be hit but can be captured...BUT, unlike AA they can't move...they are affixed in the territory, so you think hard about where you put them.
I think that would balance thinks out nicely without re-writing everything.
Thursday 7/29/2010 05:15:23 PM |
TGB
They exerted themselves and like dragons did they fight.
Num Posts: 334 |
Re: Defense against cruise missiles
Hmmm.... Not too shaby. I still like the idea of being able to fire back though, if it's not toooo much trouble.
Could we take Bishops idea and just create a "Cruise Attack" button for the Artillery pieces, since much of the codes would theorehtically already exist in that case with just some minor alterations?
Thursday 7/29/2010 05:19:45 PM |
Bishop
Num Posts: 23 |
Re: Defense against cruise missiles
I don't like option one. I think if you did it you would create a major stagnation in the game. Artillary, espectially special artillary units, are very powerful in this game. Defensively, it is relatively easy for a player who just wants to hold territory to have one core territory loaded with artillery to blast anything that comes close and have screening infantry in adjactant territories to negate the danger of the artillery's low defense becoming an issue. There are ways to deal with players who just want to "turtle Up", but one of the most reliable is that you build a fleet to amphibiously assualt and bypass the screening troops to hit the artillery center. Giving artillery the ability to blast ships adjacent to them will drastically reduce the ability to mount sucessful invasions and will create artillery bottlenecks all over the place.
Also, artillery are ALREADY very powerful, isn't it a game balance issue if they get even MORE power. Naval units are expensive. The cheapest ones cost 8...and now MEF can buy scuds that can smoke them in massive quantaties with no risk of loss to themselves? Isn't this just the cruise missile problem in reverse? If there is a problem with a balance issue with a unit being able to kill too many other units with no risk of loss, don't we want to just fix that instead of swinging the pendulum too far in the other direction and just shift the same problem to another type of unit?
Finally, I just can't past the ridiculous factor from a realism point of view, I know this is just a game and some of the effects of existing units don't match their real world counterparts...but coastal defenses generally are meant to DEFEND againt attacks and, at best, control coastal waters. On "Ocean Control Weapon" is another issue entirely. It just seems crazy to have weapons that we're saying can hit fleets a few hundred miles out at sea who are no where near shore. If the issue is reigning-in cruise missiles a defensive-based solution should serve. Having offensive artilery that would scour the sea of ships would dramatically reduce the sea aspect of the game and, in my opinion, make it a lot less fun.
Thursday 7/29/2010 08:01:14 PM |
AndrewAAGamer
Num Posts: 59 |
Re: Defense against cruise missiles
You make some good points Bishop. Would it just be simpler to take some of the power of cruise missiles away instead of creating a whole new defensive unit to fight against them?
Perhaps lowering the attack value. Against another fleet the misiles still fire the same but at land troops they fire at say half rounded down. So a 3 or lower would attack as a 1 and a 4, 5 or 6 would attack as a 2.
Thoughts?
Thursday 7/29/2010 08:15:48 PM |
General Robb
Num Posts: 45 |
Re: Defense against cruise missiles
@Bishop: keep in mind that artillery can't chase after boats out in open water so boats will almost always get the first chance to reduce or eliminate artillery. But if they don't...it should be painful.
@AA: I agree that is a possible solution. Since you wouldn't need spotters and boats are more expensive it would make sense to limit the damages from artillery. This would also be realistic since there are no spotters they would be less accurate.
Thursday 7/29/2010 08:24:56 PM |
TGB
They exerted themselves and like dragons did they fight.
Num Posts: 334 |
Re: Defense against cruise missiles
Just like the Nuke is extremely weak against navy (doesn't even get upgraded) the Artillery bombardment into the Sea Zones should also be scaled way down.
As Robb said, without the spotters they won't be as accurate also with water "close" is just a near miss - you actually have to nail the target to harm it. So it makes realistic since to scale them back.
Thursday 7/29/2010 10:09:25 PM |
AndrewAAGamer
Num Posts: 59 |
Re: Defense against cruise missiles
Just to be clear my suggestion was not to scale back the artillery, though I have no argument against that, my suggestion was to not even instigate an artillery defense at all and instead halve the ability of Cruise Missiles to do damage to land troops. Against large single ships made of steel that are firing back at them Cruise Missiles attack at their full attack value but at widely dispersed dug in infantry who can not fire back they attack at a much lower value. 3 and lower at 1 and 4 and higher at a 2. Getting a 16.5% to 33% chance of a free hit is still a good deal but would drastically cut back on the damage being done to land troops.
Thursday 7/29/2010 10:55:34 PM |
PabloNada
Num Posts: 40 |
Re: Defense against cruise missiles
lol oddly enough thing cruise missiles would be really good at would be like nailing leader's bunkers and specific ships and airbases(like Saddam's headquarters in first gulf war (remember that video?)) and not terrible good vs dispersed infantry and armor units so it makes sense to limit their effect on land-based troops. Maybe you could reorganize the priority of their targeting?
Saturday 7/31/2010 08:59:48 AM |
PabloNada
Num Posts: 40 |
Re: Defense against cruise missiles
also I think Cruise missile attacks should cost some ICs, they are expensive pieces of precision guided munitions, to make them a freebie is unbalancing in a way.
Saturday 7/31/2010 09:02:03 AM |
