N A V A L B A T T L E M A P

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

    • N A V A L B A T T L E M A P

      Is a naval battle map a good idea? 12
      1.  
        yes (7) 58%
      2.  
        no (3) 25%
      3.  
        i dont care and you should log off internet (2) 17%
      Recently, I have been reading Naval unit threads and I thought they were cool ideas, However, wouldn't it be nice if there was a map purely dedicated to Navy battles? Like, make a blown up pacific theater map, all the tiny islands would be there, but you wouldn't be relying on ground troops, it'd be a Naval and Air Power game.

      My idea is that you take the force numbers of the Navies in the pacific at that time and put those ships, planes, and troops into the game. Resources should reflect this too. So essentially, take 1942, the IJN, USN, British Navy, Aussie Navy (idk if that was a thing), PLAN, Russian Navy, and all of it, then put it in the game. More units could be built and added onto the current force count and whatnot and you could even do this for the alantic.

      Ground units should not be a large factor of this game type, the ground units that you do have should be relying on your Navy for artillery and your air force for support. Your ground units, when embarked, should be relying heavily on the Navy to protect them from harm, as a single Submarine could sink an entire division of infantry. Taking the islands should also have a large affect on the game (I edited this so here is what I said later:

      JCS Darragh wrote:

      - Give them lots of manpower, oil, etc so that they serve a purpose to capture

      - If at all possible, make the game mode like conquest from the battlefield series, a country holds x amount of islands for x amount of time and they win the game.

      - Again, Armies should NOT be the primary focus, losing a single infantry battalion should be a HUGE blow to your country, well early game anyway, losing infantry battles should be costly, and not having air power and naval power should also affect these battles.

      - Limit the special and ground units: In this game mode, you shouldn't be able to have Heavy Tanks as they would be unwieldy in the jungles of the pacific. Commandos, Militia, LT, MT, Arty and small easily produced units should be the ones available. (Railroad guns should be 100% not available here, imagine a railroad gun landing on Okinawa lol)
      Everyone should also start with basic naval units researched, I.E. Destroyers, Submarines, Cruisers, etc. Battleships and CV's should exist at the start, but you shouldn't have them researched (for game balancing purposes) For example, USA (With the help of a quick google search) should have 9 battleships and 3 CV's, but this can and should be changed to be balanced.
      "ANU! CHEEKI BREEKI IV DAMKE!"

      The post was edited 1 time, last by JCS Darragh: the bell hasn't rung yet so i can edit ().

    • So wait, how would this work? Assuming you use the current CoW gameplay, you would need some land units to capture provinces. You could have a bunch of isolated islands that make planes almost completely ineffective, and would then in turn force players to focus more on their armies and navies. And because you have to repeatedly cross through the seas, you would need sea protection, providing sufficient reason to build a navy. If this is what you mean, I like your idea, after all Cruisers and Battleships would give a high advantage to some players because of their ability to deal damage on land units. The main concern of mine is the length of the initial research to get some ships combined with the time to construct the ships could enable some to potentially reach the islands off their opponents before they build a navy.
      "Know your enemy and know yourself and you can fight a hundred battles without disaster." ~ Sun Tzu, The Art of War

      "War does not determine who is right - only who is left."
    • I have interpreted this proposal as a balancing one, not an absolute one... sure, land units would still be required to capture provinces, but if they are all islands, the problem would be taking them there. I think this was the original idea of the 50p Pacific map as proposed, which was then invalidated by two continents still being there (E.Asia and N.America) which contained most of the resources and production, which resulted in players needing to take either of these continents first, anyway.
      When the fake daddies are curtailed, we have failed. When their roller coaster tolerance is obliterated, their education funds are taken by Kazakhstani phishers, and their candy bars distributed between the Botswana youth gangs, we have succeeded.
      - BIG DADDY.
    • So perhaps what would be good is a dozen player size "South Pacific " map?

      Focus the 100 player map on : Australia, New Zealand, PNG, Borneo, Phillipenes, Japan, Korea, Sumatra, Siam

      Maybe throw in Hawaii and a decent US force there?

      If we want a naval focus probably start with some naval units and naval research unlocked?

      To keep it a naval focus perhaps start with a lot of ships, the usual 20 land units or so, and a manpower shortage like the arms race. Of course an oil shortage also due to the ships will reduce the ability to build planes.



      Not a bad idea fleshed out like that
      War is a game that is played with a smile. If you can't smile, grin. If you can't grin keep out of the way til you can. - Winston Churchill



      VorlonFCW
      Retired from Bytro staff as of November 30, 2020.

      >>> Click Here to submit a bug report or support ticket <<<
    • Maybe, but that map would probably have everbody flock to Australia, unless Australia is 1 or 2 players with (each having) an equal amount of resources as New Zealand. The idea of having some naval levels unlocked would be great, and changing the traditional given troops from land units to naval units would definitely force a focus on a navy. Yeah, when you put it like that Vorlon, it sounds like a potentially great idea.
      "Know your enemy and know yourself and you can fight a hundred battles without disaster." ~ Sun Tzu, The Art of War

      "War does not determine who is right - only who is left."
    • Give the islands a purpose, in real life the islands were captured so that planes can be able to fly closer to Japan/Other Targets, as far as the American island-hopping is concerned. Here is my idea for the islands:

      - Give them lots of manpower, oil, etc so that they serve a purpose to capture

      - If at all possible, make the game mode like conquest from the battlefield series, a country holds x amount of islands for x amount of time and they win the game.

      - Again, Armies should NOT be the primary focus, losing a single infantry battalion should be a HUGE blow to your country, well early game anyway, losing infantry battles should be costly, and not having air power and naval power should also affect these battles.

      - Limit the special and ground units: In this game mode, you shouldn't be able to have Heavy Tanks as they would be unwieldy in the jungles of the pacific. Commandos, Militia, LT, MT, Arty and small easily produced units should be the ones available. (Railroad guns should be 100% not available here, imagine a railroad gun landing on Okinawa lol)

      As far as the continents, make the map HUGE, so that the main combat will be on the islands, players should not be willing to wait the amount of time to take a continent, they should be taking the islands to get closer to the continents then invade. Make it obvious for the player that the enemy is about to do a naval invasion.


      VorlonFCW wrote:

      If we want a naval focus probably start with some naval units and naval research unlocked?
      Yes, Sir! We should probably have Destroyers, Submarines, and Cruisers, along with Naval Patrol aircraft. Maybe a couple Battleships and CV's to start off with, but not researched, and they should match how many BB/CV's that country had at the time. (press F for anyone who fights major powers though) I'm going to use more westernbias here, but the US should resemble the US Navy Pacific Fleet in 1942 with all the units, so possibly replace the standard 20 infantry units with the Navy (and possibly air units) units.
      "ANU! CHEEKI BREEKI IV DAMKE!"

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

    • I think some of your ideas are way too far away from the current game design. I don't think it would be easily workable to achieve the goal: a country holding x amount of islands for x amount of time and they win the game, because of the game mechanics. Now in terms of limiting units, you should be able to invalidate many of them with your naval presence in the seas. When you said make the map HUGE, did you mean make the distance from one set of islands to the next a few days? I was thinking more along the lines of not having any continents on the map, and it would just be the Pacific Ocean and maybe some of Australia, Japan and such.
      "Know your enemy and know yourself and you can fight a hundred battles without disaster." ~ Sun Tzu, The Art of War

      "War does not determine who is right - only who is left."
    • Well,
      1. Do not limit the amount of units, simply give the players all the naval units, give or take, the amount of naval vessels each country had in the pacific in 194x

      2. The conquest idea was just that, an idea. There have to be at least some small landmasses as well. You can't have a pacific war map without the US. Well, you can but it'd be weird.

      My idea of this map is that (Not actual numbers, just an example) the US would start off with 14 destroyers, 5 cruisers, 10 submarines, 2 carriers, 4 battleships, etc. As the game progresses you will build more of these to increase your fleet, along with the infantry etc. I don't really know how I can explain it more clearly..
      "ANU! CHEEKI BREEKI IV DAMKE!"
    • Unless this is a historical map, the US should be divided in some way if part of it does appear, unless it's just Hawaii and Guam. You don't want to have the US navy playing against opponents like New Zealand, Australia, or really anybody. The US Navy would be impossible to beat in a realistic scenario. But maybe that's just my opinion based heavily on my American values. :whistling:
      "Know your enemy and know yourself and you can fight a hundred battles without disaster." ~ Sun Tzu, The Art of War

      "War does not determine who is right - only who is left."
    • If the Japanese allied to the British AND all the minor navies in the area (Australia, Netherlands, etc) they would stand a SMALL chance.

      But yeah, it would be cooler to have "equal" startups like the other bigger maps.
      When the fake daddies are curtailed, we have failed. When their roller coaster tolerance is obliterated, their education funds are taken by Kazakhstani phishers, and their candy bars distributed between the Botswana youth gangs, we have succeeded.
      - BIG DADDY.
    • Lukenick wrote:

      The US Navy would be impossible to beat in a realistic scenario.
      Ear rape US National Anthem plays as the US Navy defeats everyone on the map and secures the battle royale in a week

      Nah, I think that if you played your cards right that you could easily sink US Ships. Not like they have more, right guys? Submarines, Aircraft, etc, probably will sink a couple ships. Plus, if you combine the Navies in some crazy way, like Japan and the Brits teaming up, then you could easily destroy the US. (if you use the amount of ships in the pacific for that navy in 194x and what not)
      "ANU! CHEEKI BREEKI IV DAMKE!"
    • Only 3 Pacific navies were significant at the time - US, Japan, UK. I hope you're not suggesting this to become a 3p map?
      When the fake daddies are curtailed, we have failed. When their roller coaster tolerance is obliterated, their education funds are taken by Kazakhstani phishers, and their candy bars distributed between the Botswana youth gangs, we have succeeded.
      - BIG DADDY.