Needed Naval Blockade Feature

Don't know how this can be implemented, if you want someone not to benefit from the stock market in the game just put your diplomatic relation to "trade imbargo" or "war" and ask everyone else to do it. The stock market is instant and if implemented the blockade only effect waterways and not trade routes on land. Also most of the economy is fairly balance and the market is there for resource your short on hand with, personally I never use the market only if my resource are lacking.

About the navy it's use is to bombard coastal cities and land units the crusier and BB can do both while we need two different bombers, I think the navy is more rounded for city and unit bombardment and ship combat while the airforce is more specialize, also the NB is effective againts ships your right there, but the navy is more practical they can do three different things and the airforce can only do one at a time but way better. Of course the basis of this argument is IF you have access to the water or need the navy such as US, Canada, and maybe even UK and all the Mediterranean based countries like Italy, not all countries will be relying on their navy but to a certain few the navy prevents them from being completely surrounded (Italy).

All in all NB for navy, TB for units, SB for cities but the cruiser and battleship all of the above that is of course again if you spawn on a position that the navy is more important than the airforce.

It all depends on the position and the circumstances you find yourself in.

I like a different aspect in the same vein. I think that naval ships should have a patrol feature like aircraft. It is what they were designed for and how they were used historically. Going all the way back to the War of 1812 or the Napoleonic War, Naval vessels have patrolled or blockaded ports.

As for effecting the stock market, I agree that this doesn't sound feasible, either in game play or historical accuracy. Even while they were working with the Allies, the USSR supplied Germany with a vast amount of war materials via the land routes. The naval blockade was not effective until after the disastrous Operation Barbarossa.

-About the navy it's use is to bombard coastal cities and land units the crusier and BB can do both while we need two different bombers, I think the navy is more rounded for city and unit bombardment and ship combat while the airforce is more specialize, also the NB is effective againts ships your right there, but the navy is more practical they can do three different things and the airforce can only do one at a time but way better. Of course the basis of this argument is IF you have access to the water or need the navy such as US, Canada, and maybe even UK and all the Mediterranean based countries like Italy, not all countries will be relying on their navy but to a certain few the navy prevents them from being completely surrounded (Italy).-

2 units in the navy : Cruisers and BB can do the 3 roles (ship , unit and city combat) but for their high cost do they do well? lets have a closer look:

The cost of a BB is twice the cost of each : NB, SB and TB. This means that we could have invested in 2 bombers instead of the fancy BB.

What are you planning to use the BB for?

Attack Ships? - Get an NB instead and you can still afford yet one more bomber

Attack City? Get an SB ;

Attack Land units? Surprise ! You don' t need a TB , did you know that an SB deals almost the same damage to infantry and tanks as a BB!!

So with the amount you investedin a BB ,you could be having an NB as well as an SB that are doing the job much better as you can bomb the navy and the city at the same time where as using the BB you will shoot only one target at a time.

As for Cruiser: they cost 30% more than each of : SB, NB and TB and cost twice as the Interceptor.

With the cost of a cruiser , you could instead have an NB and an Interceptor, Dont laugh yet , Did you know that an interceptor deals the same amount of damage against tanks and infantry as a cruiser?

Plus Cruisers dont have impressive stats against cities, nothing that would justify their cost.

-----

As you can see , I have did a very thorough study and the current Navy ,namely the DCB (Dest,Cruise and BB) are not cost effective. Iam not saying that you should not use the navy, but there is an obvious balancing problem here.

The DCB needs a buff , granted, but altering the stats of so many units would be complex and might cause unwanted side effects and issues,for which i suggest adding a mechanism that increases the importance of a navy. Afterall , one of the main purpose of navies now and back in WW2 was to protect merchant ships that bring in supplies to the country.

This would be easy to implement , one button to enact a Naval Blockade when you have a DCB fleet near the shores of a country and an error message that tells you : You cannot order supplies from the market due to an enacted Blockade.

Ofcourse , the country can still trade via private trade (messages) and so it is not unfair, it adds a strategic dynamic and showcases the true purpose of navies. Navies shouldnot be better than an airforce in destroying targets but they are missing a crucial economical damage potential : A Naval Blockade.

You know what we can do to make the navy a bit more important: Aircraft Carriers! that way we can further expand the range of planes and it will be very fun in Pacific War map, this will also give us the excuse to protect it from with destroyers, cruisers, and battleships from other ships and subs! and even other planes.

Don't forget about Hit Points (HP) aircraft that much lower HP than ships. Plus the aircraft takes damaged from every unit while ships act like artillery.

Good point there hypersion , ships , particularly Cruiser and BB have better survivability to makeup for their moderate damage.

Higher damage potential + lower survivability ---) Airforce

Moderate damage potential + Better survivability ----) Navy

I will say its decently balanced , the choice therefore depends on your priorities

V1nd1cat0r wrote:

You know what we can do to make the navy a bit more important: Aircraft Carriers! that way we can further expand the range of planes and it will be very fun in Pacific War map, this will also give us the excuse to protect it from with destroyers, cruisers, and battleships from other ships and subs! and even other planes.

Air-warfare usability will be enhanced even further and someone mentioned something top secret which sounded like a combination of ships and planes. Let’s see what that may be.

GeneralPhara wrote:

Good point there hypersion , ships , particularly Cruiser and BB have better survivability to makeup for their moderate damage.

Higher damage potential + lower survivability ---) Airforce

Moderate damage potential + Better survivability ----) Navy

I will say its decently balanced , the choice therefore depends on your priorities