[Vote] (2-22) Proposal: Integrate Enhanced Naval Warfare into VP (with modifications)

Approval Vote for Proposal #22 (instructions below)


  • Total voters
    73
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.

balparmak

Prince
Joined
Sep 20, 2015
Messages
544
Voting Instructions
Players, please cast your votes in the poll above. Vote "Yea" if you'd be okay if this proposal was implemented. Vote "Nay" if you'd be okay if this proposal wasn't implemented.

You can vote for both options, which is equivalent to saying "I'm fine either way", but adds to the required quorum of 10 votes in favor.

All votes are public. If you wish, you can discuss your choice(s) in the thread below. You can change your vote as many times as you want until the poll closes.

VP Congress: Session 2, Proposal 22

ENW is great, but the naming convention of the melee line doesn't sit well with some of us. The final melee ship (Advanced Destroyer) at information also feels redundant. UPDATED: Rek's suggestions below are perfectly fine, I'm going with them (can bring back the tpd when torpedo boats are actually integrated)

Proposal:

Melee

Modern: Destroyer
Atomic: Fleet Destroyer
Information: Sensor Combat Ship (using Advanced Destroyer model)
(one melee ship is removed)
Ranged
Modern: Dreadnought
Atomic: Battleship
Information: Missile Cruiser (using BNW Missile Cruiser model)

note: I plan to move the submarine line to an earlier tech and starting it with the torpedo-boat unit, this received some interest on discord but I cannot properly test & sponsor those changes right now. While a mouthful, "Torpedo-boat Destroyer" was a crucial development and it'll make a lot more sense if/when torpedo boats are added to VP.

Taken from the ENW thread:
Spoiler Details :

Melee
Ironclad
: Industrialization 55:c5strength: 5:c5moves: 900:c5production: No Bonus Vs City
Destroyer: Radio 70:c5strength: 5:c5moves: 1400:c5production: Anti-submarine I . No Bonus Vs City
Fleet Destroyer: Nuclear Fission 80:c5strength: 5:c5moves: 1800:c5production: Anti-submarine I . Intercept :c5rangedstrength:2 . Interceptor I . No Bonus Vs City
Sensor Combat Ship: Stealth 90:c5strength: 6:c5moves: 2600:c5production: Anti-submarine II . Cargo 3 . Intercept :c5rangedstrength:3 . Interceptor II . No Bonus Vs City

Ranged
Cruiser
: Dynamite 40:c5strength: 55:c5rangedstrength:2 4:c5moves: 900:c5production: Iron -1
Dreadnought : Radio 50:c5strength: 65:c5rangedstrength:2 4:c5moves: 1400:c5production: Iron -1
Battleship : Nuclear Fission 60:c5strength: 75:c5rangedstrength:2 5:c5moves: 1800:c5production: Iron -1
Missile Cruiser : Lasers 75:c5strength: 80:c5rangedstrength:2 6:c5moves: 2300:c5production: Iron -1 . Armor Plating I . Cargo 3 . Intercept :c5rangedstrength:3

Submarines
Submarine
: Plastics 40:c5strength: 55:c5rangedstrength:1 4:c5moves: 1200:c5production: Aluminim -1
Attack Submarine : Electronics 50:c5strength: 65:c5rangedstrength:1 5:c5moves: 1600:c5production: Aluminium -1 . Cargo 1 . Dive I
Nuclear Submarine : Robotics 50:c5strength: 75:c5rangedstrength:1 6:c5moves: 2250:c5production: Aluminium -1 . Cargo 2 . Extra Sight 1 . Dive II

Aircraft Carriers
Carrier
: Computers 70:c5strength: 45:c5rangedstrength:2 5:c5moves: 1800:c5production: Oil -1 . Cargo 2 . Air Supremacy I . Intercept :c5rangedstrength:4 . Interceptor I
Supercarrier : Robotics 85:c5strength: 70:c5rangedstrength:2 6:c5moves: 4000:c5production: Limited to 2 per player . Uranium -1 . Can see Submarines . Cargo 5 . Air Supremacy I . Intercept :c5rangedstrength:5 . Interceptor III . Air Recon

Missiles
Rocket Missile
: Rocketry 120:c5rangedstrength:8 400:c5production: Oil -1 . Bonus Vs City (50)
Guided Missile : Advanced Ballistics 180:c5rangedstrength:12 1200:c5production: Oil -1 . Bonus Vs City (50)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

nekokon

Prince
Joined
Aug 9, 2017
Messages
434
I prefer this to stay as modmod since I won't ever be using it.
Reason being even though the modmod added a lot of tiers, they practically play the same way (with more bonus for later upgrade) which to me feel like power creep and not enhancement. Naval warfare is already stale because of the lack of terrain so the main tactical thing going for them is role specialization, and having a bunch of free upgrades just make them less specialized and more all rounded all powerful, with a creeping mandatory upgrade every few techs.
 
Joined
Jan 30, 2016
Messages
622
Location
Hungary, Earth, M.W. Galaxy
I personally don't see why they should be renamed. I kinda understand the torpedo-boat from a historical perspective (but then why the destroyer part?), but the "Surface Combat Ship" is just so generic and ... blank. Guided-missile destroyer is a term common for nowadays destroyers, so missile destroyer seems a perfect choice (and goes well with missile cruiser).

Also, why remove advanced destroyer? (I guess so 4 melee and 4 ranged?)
I might be alone at this, but I like the semi-futuristic units of the late game, they add an extra military edge in case you need it.
 
Joined
Jan 30, 2016
Messages
622
Location
Hungary, Earth, M.W. Galaxy
The first destroyers were built to destroy torpedo boats, so were named to torpedo boat destroyers.

The idea is to reduce the number of times destroyer is repeated.
Sure, I understand, but considering that there is no "Torpedo Boat" unit in the game (as bal has written, yet ;) ) and that the term "destroyer" became widely used and recognized by WW1, it feels a bit ... odd, or too specific, so to say.

But that part I'm not hardly against - as opposed to abandoning missile destroyer and removing a unit :)
 

pineappledan

Deity
Joined
Aug 9, 2017
Messages
8,266
Location
Alberta, Canada
Reason being even though the modmod added a lot of tiers, they practically play the same way (with more bonus for later upgrade) which to me feel like power creep and not enhancement.
It’s not power creep to subdivide so modern and atomic have ship upgrades. There’s a big gap between ironclads and destroyers where they fall off. Same with the cruisers. Adding a modern destroyer/dreadnought bridges a gap without increasing power.
 

N.Core

Chief of Neoa
Joined
May 17, 2021
Messages
264
Location
East Indies
I suggest a minor change for subs.

Submarines
Submarine
: Plastics 40 :c5strength: 55:c5rangedstrength:1 4:c5moves: 1200:c5production: Aluminum -1 (Obsolete when Attack Submarine is unlocked)
Attack Submarine : Electronics 50:c5strength: 65:c5rangedstrength:1 5:c5moves: 1600:c5production: Aluminum -1. Cargo 1. Dive I (Does not obsolete)
Nuclear Submarine : Robotics 50:c5strength: 75:c5rangedstrength:2 6:c5moves: 2250:c5production: Uranium -1. Cargo 2. Extra Sight 1. Dive II

Make Nuclear Submarine requires Uranium and have 2 Range, so then sub line isn't too powerful but still have an option to get the better one. IT'S A NUCLEAR SUBMARINE!
I would also suggest to make Submarine requires Oil instead, but I don't know if it's gonna conflict with plane supply.
 

nekokon

Prince
Joined
Aug 9, 2017
Messages
434
It’s not power creep to subdivide so modern and atomic have ship upgrades. There’s a big gap between ironclads and destroyers where they fall off. Same with the cruisers. Adding a modern destroyer/dreadnought bridges a gap without increasing power.
I forgot we have 2 threads for this.
While there is indeed a time when cruiser falls off, one tier to bridge between cruiser and battleship would be enough given their respective increase in strength. There's no need to add a few other better tiers while having the same pacing in power, it just makes their progression boring and "mandatory", and at the same time make last tier too strong/multipurpose it reduces the specialization from earlier era (where we have a semi balanced destroyer > sub > cruiser rock paper scissor situation).
In comparison, going from lancer to landship or tank to modern armor takes longer but the spike in CS is better, or going from field gun to artillery takes 2 era but it comes with +1 range which is also very significant. Those strong power spike makes the timing of getting each tech more significant and can be make use of better than going with a very steady pace: 1 era, 10 CS increase, repeat until end game.
Power creep might not be the correct term to use, but to me if it's a steady increase in power that you "have to" take (since it's close enough that not taking it is unoptimized) then it's a power creep. The opposite of that would be meaningful power spike with specific techs spaced out enough you can choose to delay or rush based on your future plan.
 

azum4roll

Deity
Joined
Jul 17, 2018
Messages
2,243
I suggest a minor change for subs.

Submarines
Submarine
: Plastics 40 :c5strength: 55:c5rangedstrength:1 4:c5moves: 1200:c5production: Aluminum -1 (Obsolete when Attack Submarine is unlocked)
Attack Submarine : Electronics 50:c5strength: 65:c5rangedstrength:1 5:c5moves: 1600:c5production: Aluminum -1. Cargo 1. Dive I (Does not obsolete)
Nuclear Submarine : Robotics 50:c5strength: 75:c5rangedstrength:2 6:c5moves: 2250:c5production: Uranium -1. Cargo 2. Extra Sight 1. Dive II

Make Nuclear Submarine requires Uranium and have 2 Range, so then sub line isn't too powerful but still have an option to get the better one. IT'S A NUCLEAR SUBMARINE!
I would also suggest to make Submarine requires Oil instead, but I don't know if it's gonna conflict with plane supply.
If it requires uranium it'll have to be a lot stronger than this.
Note that there's a push on Discord to remove the Attack Submarine and make the line Torpedo Boat (no invisibility) -> Submarine -> Nuclear Submarine.
 

N.Core

Chief of Neoa
Joined
May 17, 2021
Messages
264
Location
East Indies
Nuclear Submarine : Robotics 65:c5strength: 85:c5rangedstrength:2 6:c5moves: 2250:c5production: Uranium -1. Cargo 2. Extra Sight 1. Dive II

Slight :c5strength::c5rangedstrength: boost, and Nuclear Submarine having 2 Range is already quite powerful.
I also don't know why Ranged line requires Iron and Melee line isn't, it isn't fair. I know Iron is useless at late game, but it's still a hinder for civ that have few Iron.

Don't change the resource requirement for ships, please.
 

pineappledan

Deity
Joined
Aug 9, 2017
Messages
8,266
Location
Alberta, Canada
Power creep might not be the correct term to use, but to me if it's a steady increase in power that you "have to" take (since it's close enough that not taking it is unoptimized) then it's a power creep. The opposite of that would be meaningful power spike with specific techs spaced out enough you can choose to delay or rush based on your future plan.
I get what you're sayin now.

We have land melee and archer lines update on a constant 2 tech turnover, and some special units like mounted etc spaced out around that to give the spikes. You're arguing that there should be no baseline power for the naval units, just all spike. I don't agree with that.

Naval has these times where they are either very strong relative to the ranged land defenders and cities, or really weak and so naval feels untethered and really swingy relative to land combat. If we had the main naval melee and ranged lines regularly update, we could put more emphasis on the spikes that come about with carriers/air units and submarines.
 
Last edited:

Rekk

Emperor
Joined
Dec 9, 2017
Messages
1,998
Alternate naming/model scheme that I prefer:

Melee
Modern: Destroyer
Atomic: Fleet Destroyer
Information: Sensor Combat Ship (using Advanced Destroyer model)

Ranged
Modern: Dreadnought
Atomic: Battleship
Information: Missile Cruiser (using BNW Missile Cruiser model)

I prefer "Destroyer" to "Torpedo Boat Destroyer" because it's a much shorter name, and doesn't refer to a ship that doesn't exist (and if it did, we would have two ships that have the long name "torpedo boat" in it). Historically, The prefix was quickly dropped when it was found that the ships were useful for more than just protecting against torpedo boats. "Fleet" is a prefix associated with destroyers that were differentiated from the original TBDs as they became much larger and began to perform an even larger breadth of duties (including anti-submarine and anti-air).

"Surface/Aegis/Sensor Combat Ship", don't exist as a real-life naming scheme. The closest we come to this is "Surface Combatant", which refers to any self-propelled, combat-focused naval vessel that floats on the water (so isn't useful here); it could also refer to the yet-to-be designed Canadian frigate-class ship. I am suggesting "Sensor" because of how much these ships have incorporated them for fast responses to air/surface/submarine missile and torpedo attacks. The Aegis Combat System is an example of such a system and is used by many navies throughout the world, so if "Sensor" reads too generic/boring, then "Aegis" makes a decent prefix. The primary goal is to reduce the number of times we see Destroyer, so the use of "Missile Destroyer", as used in ENW, suggested above and used in real-world militaries, is undesirable:
a) it has the same front naming scheme as Missile Cruiser, allowing the potential for confusion between the ranged and melee ships at a glance
b) it has the same back naming scheme as its prereqs, allowing the potential confusion between Atomic and Information era ships at a glance. With the modern->atomic shift, there's an additional word added to differentiate, but the previous naming suggestion just involves a change in the prefix, and takes roughly the same amount of space of text.

The ENW Missile Cruiser model is the Kirov-Class Battlecruiser. This ship is huge and the model is meant to be huge, so they look out of place as when you have 10-20 of them together (as one does in this game). Luckily, ENW does include a reasonable likeness of modern destroyers for its Advanced Destroyer model, so I suggest continuing to use a reduced-size version as the (only) Information-Era Destroyer, and repatriating the Ticonderoga model for the Missile Cruiser.
1668453341077.png

Spoiler Additional Historical Information :
The age of the battleship/battlecruiser peaked in World War II. Afterwards; navies have focused on producing smaller weight-class ships. Generally, if a larger ship are desired, it will be an aircraft carrier that an entire fleet is designed around. There are only 2 ships of Kirov-like weight classes currently in commission; the other Kirovs (of 4 total, ever) are being decommissioned, and the few other designs of the same class that existed were decommissioned before the 1950s. On the other hand, the BNW Missile Cruiser is a model of the Ticonderoga-class, of which there are 17 in commission; there are also a decent amount of other analogous ship designs of the same weight class used as well (and many more had been operational before ~2000).
 
Last edited:

pineappledan

Deity
Joined
Aug 9, 2017
Messages
8,266
Location
Alberta, Canada
Alternate naming/model scheme that I prefer:

Melee
Modern: Destroyer
Atomic: Fleet Destroyer
Information: Sensor Combat Ship (using Advanced Destroyer model)

Ranged
Modern: Dreadnought
Atomic: Battleship
Information: Missile Cruiser (using BNW Missile Cruiser model)

I prefer "Destroyer" to "Torpedo Boat Destroyer" because it's a much shorter name, and doesn't refer to a ship that doesn't exist (and if it did, we would have two ships that have the long name "torpedo boat" in it). Historically, The prefix was quickly dropped when it was found that the ships were useful for more than just protecting against torpedo boats. "Fleet" is a prefix associated with destroyers that were differentiated from the original TBDs as they became much larger and began to perform an even larger breadth of duties (including anti-submarine and anti-air).

"Surface/Aegis/Sensor Combat Ship", don't exist as a real-life naming scheme. The closest we come to this is "Surface Combatant", which refers to any self-propelled, combat-focused naval vessel that floats on the water (so isn't useful here); it could also refer to the yet-to-be designed Canadian frigate-class ship. I am suggesting "Sensor" because of how much these ships have incorporated them for fast responses to air/surface/submarine missile and torpedo attacks. The Aegis Combat System is an example of such a system and is used by many navies throughout the world, so if "Sensor" reads too generic/boring, then "Aegis" makes a decent prefix. The primary goal is to reduce the number of times we see Destroyer, so the use of "Missile Destroyer", as used in ENW, suggested above and used in real-world militaries, is undesirable:
a) it has the same front naming scheme as Missile Cruiser, allowing the potential for confusion between the ranged and melee ships at a glance
b) it has the same back naming scheme as its prereqs, allowing the potential confusion between Atomic and Information era ships at a glance. With the modern->atomic shift, there's an additional word added to differentiate, but the previous naming suggestion just involves a change in the prefix, and takes roughly the same amount of space of text.

The ENW Missile Cruiser model is the Kirov-Class Battlecruiser. This ship is huge and the model is meant to be huge, so they look out of place as when you have 10-20 of them together (as one does in this game). Luckily, ENW does include a reasonable likeness of modern destroyers for its Advanced Destroyer model, so I suggest continuing to use a reduced-size version as the (only) Information-Era Destroyer, and repatriating the Ticonderoga model for the Missile Cruiser.
View attachment 644964
Spoiler Additional Historical Information :
The age of the battleship/battlecruiser peaked in World War II. Afterwards; navies have focused on producing smaller weight-class ships. Generally, if a larger ship are desired, it will be an aircraft carrier that an entire fleet is designed around. There are only 2 ships of Kirov-like weight classes currently in commission; the other Kirovs (of 4 total, ever) are being decommissioned, and the few other designs of the same class that existed were decommissioned before the 1950s. On the other hand, the BNW Missile Cruiser is a model of the Ticonderoga-class, of which there are 17 in commission; there are also a decent amount of other analogous ship designs of the same weight class used as well (and many more had been operational before ~2000).
additional background, the Ticonderoga class is classified by the US navy as a missile cruiser, mainly to differentiate it from the slightly smaller Arleigh-Burke class missile destroyer. Both ships use the Aegis combat system to integrate their enemy detection and attacks.
The model for the Advanced Destroyer which @Rekk suggests renaming to Sensor Combat Ship is a Kolkata class. It does NOT use the Aegis system, but does use a similar CEC information warfare suite independently designed by the Indian government to accomplish the same goal.
 

nekokon

Prince
Joined
Aug 9, 2017
Messages
434
I get what you're sayin now.

We have land melee and archer lines update on a constant 2 tech turnover, and some special units like mounted etc spaced out around that to give the spikes. You're arguing that there should be no baseline power for the naval units, just all spike. I don't agree with that.

Naval has these times where they are either very strong relative to the ranged land defenders and cities, or really weak and so naval feels untethered and really swingy relative to land combat. If we had the main naval melee and ranged lines regularly update, we could put more emphasis on the spikes that come about with carriers/air units and submarines.
There's this big difference when comparing land melee and archer lines to melee and ranged ship lines: on land melee and archer lines are more suited for defending (thus it's ok to have a steady baseline upgrade which you can even skip sometimes) and horsemen/skirmisher lines are more suited for attacking (thus making good use of spikes in power that go with the spaced out tech), both designs are great for their purposes; however, melee and ranged ship lines behave a lot more like horsemen/skirmisher lines that they're well suited for offense with mobility and open-field combat, having spaced out tech would fit the spike design more than baseline (while carrier and sub go onto a completely different approach - allrounder and stealth/recon, both of which I don't think would create a spike when rushed based on the fact carrier needs much more investment than just building the ship, and sub is limited to sea target)

That being said, having 3 techs turnover might be a good spot for a bridge tier. Currently cruiser and battleship are indeed quite far apart (even though I would argue that the spike makes it so much more satisfying if you can rush battleship and dominate the war game from naval field).
 
Last edited:

Legen

Emperor
Joined
Sep 13, 2015
Messages
1,156
Note that there's a push on Discord to remove the Attack Submarine and make the line Torpedo Boat (no invisibility) -> Submarine -> Nuclear Submarine.
If that means making submarines part of the naval melee line, I disagree, given how destroyers were employed in anti-submarine warfare in the first place. These two types of vessels had drastically different roles and capabilities in naval warfare:
  • Speed: destroyers had to sail over 30 knots minimum, and a few were able to sail over 40 knots during WWII. Submarines rarely reached 20 knots. This meant that submarines were unable to keep up with the fleet formation during a battle and usually would not take part during fleet engagements.
  • Armament: destroyers were the main platforms for torpedo attacks, able to employ larger torpedo calibers than any submarine or plane could. They were also the main platforms for depth charges and would be armed with anti-aircraft equipment throughout WWII, including dual purpose guns for their main battery. Submarines were, for the most part, restricted to torpedoes of lower caliber.
  • Role: destroyers had a multitude of roles during the world wars, among them the escort of capital ships and anti-submarine warfare (ASW). Submarines were not adequate for either of these two tasks. They were too slow to keep up with capital ships and were very vulnerable against destroyers during fleet engagements. Submarines were also, for the most part, unable to locate and damage enemy submarines; there is only one recorded battle between submarines in over 100 years, in contrast to the abundance of destroyer vs destroyer engagements.
 

Rekk

Emperor
Joined
Dec 9, 2017
Messages
1,998
If that means making submarines part of the naval melee line, I disagree, given how destroyers were employed in anti-submarine warfare in the first place. These two types of vessels had drastically different roles and capabilities in naval warfare:
  • Speed: destroyers had to sail over 30 knots minimum, and a few were able to sail over 40 knots during WWII. Submarines rarely reached 20 knots. This meant that submarines were unable to keep up with the fleet formation during a battle and usually would not take part during fleet engagements.
  • Armament: destroyers were the main platforms for torpedo attacks, able to employ larger torpedo calibers than any submarine or plane could. They were also the main platforms for depth charges and would be armed with anti-aircraft equipment throughout WWII, including dual purpose guns for their main battery. Submarines were, for the most part, restricted to torpedoes of lower caliber.
  • Role: destroyers had a multitude of roles during the world wars, among them the escort of capital ships and anti-submarine warfare (ASW). Submarines were not adequate for either of these two tasks. They were too slow to keep up with capital ships and were very vulnerable against destroyers during fleet engagements. Submarines were also, for the most part, unable to locate and damage enemy submarines; there is only one recorded battle between submarines in over 100 years, in contrast to the abundance of destroyer vs destroyer engagements.
You're completely off-base here. Torpedo Boat would be a new unit in either Industrial/Modern that works like how submarines work now (ie. one range, move after attack), has the submarine promotion tree, but doesn't have invisibility.
 

nekokon

Prince
Joined
Aug 9, 2017
Messages
434
I wonder if we should just rework the design of submarine.

Instead of having them being all mobile hit and run with bonus of stealth, we can make them very immobile and relying on stealth entirely to survive. Something like 2 movements 2 range, can move after attacking, with the usual invisible submarine promotions. Reduce detection range to 2 for submarine and 1 for nuclear submarine, and can only be seen by ship with "can see submarine" promotion. They would act more like point defender, lurking behind the melee screen and do a lot of dmg but unable to keep up with other's mobility/hit and run tactic thus would naturally be in small group of 1-3 in a few key areas (enough to just kill off any straggler - wolfpack-like without a "wolfpack" promotion).
 

Stalker0

Baller Magnus
Joined
Dec 31, 2005
Messages
9,570
That being said, having 3 techs turnover might be a good spot for a bridge tier. Currently cruiser and battleship are indeed quite far apart (even though I would argue that the spike makes it so much more satisfying if you can rush battleship and dominate the war game from naval field).
I would argue by the time battleships are coming online, they are already starting to obsolete. Aircraft and artillery do a good job at beating them once they hit the field. The greatest spike in naval power right now is when the ironclad first comes out, and when your cruisers start getting logistics (which is generally the time most of my ships are able to get that promotion). That is your big spike. After that navy starts to wane in favor of other forces.
 

nekokon

Prince
Joined
Aug 9, 2017
Messages
434
Probably just how I use them then. With battleship I was able to do the 2 moves in > 2 attacks > 2 moves out thus completely out of range for all land units, while cruiser can only do 1 attack safely (thus half dmg per turn).
Also never actually having trouble with triplane/bomber since I got destroyer upgrade right before battleship. I can see the issue with fighter/heavy bomber a bit later though.
 

Stalker0

Baller Magnus
Joined
Dec 31, 2005
Messages
9,570
Probably just how I use them then. With battleship I was able to do the 2 moves in > 2 attacks > 2 moves out thus completely out of range for all land units, while cruiser can only do 1 attack safely (thus half dmg per turn).
Also never actually having trouble with triplane/bomber since I got destroyer upgrade right before battleship. I can see the issue with fighter/heavy bomber a bit later though.
I thought battleships can't move once they make their second attack, even with logistics? So you should be only getting 1 attack if your doing the full shuffle.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom