Naval Commander Strategy

I've been playing this strategy lately, and have come up with some ideas to increase it's popularity. The new amphibious marines is a very nice feature and could actually work in conjunction with naval commander well. The main drawback of naval commander is that most every war ends in a land battle. With this strategy, your main land units are nerfed. So, here's what I came up with.

Battleships and subs: fine just the way they are

Transports: maybe add an additional +1 or +2 defense?

Marines: -20 cost, +2 attack , maybe increase range?

Tanks and Bombers: -1 attack, defense, range. +20 cost for tanks, +50 cost for bombers.

Air Transport: +50 cost, -1 or -2 defense?, -1 range

Essentially, you are using marines instead of tanks as the main land force.

In another thread there was an excellent idea to introduce cargo ships, non-combat units that will earn you money by going from city to city. Add to this a possible new victory condition, scenarios, map presets, and Naval Commander might be a lot more useful in the future. At the moment, we'll leave it be though. Your proposal is not bad, but looks a bit like Master Of Stealth (with boosts to Subs and Marines).

That sounds over powered... I would switch to it hands down... I have played against Naval commander and its just hard in some maps... and the Battleships become so strong that fighting at see is a loss any way you look at it... and bombers dont help.. I have learned to just stay away from maps like that

and right now there is only 1 that I dont play because there is no way around it.. subs cant fight them and I wish subs would get a bonus VS Battle ships since they are under water. Just an idea

Written by Ivan, 24.12.2010 at 06:39

Add to this a possible new victory condition,

Does this have anything to do with the fact that many players only like to build a mini empire and alliances but never actually attack a player?

Written by King Cow, 26.01.2011 at 02:07

Written by Ivan, 24.12.2010 at 06:39

Add to this a possible new victory condition,

Does this have anything to do with the fact that many players only like to build a mini empire and alliances but never actually attack a player?

This is annoying to me sometimes too. Ivan or Amok have said they might institute penalties for too many alliances, which would probably help to solve this problem.

The main thing that happens when people all ally up is that there is less SP to be gained. Seems that once people are aware of this, they want to fight for it more.

If people wanna ally with everyone else and attain less SP, that's up to them. There's nothing stopping you from allying them, building up your empire, and then warring the fuck out of them. I ally people all the time, but I'll still invade others because that's the only real fun aspect about this game, fighting other players and seeing who's better. However everyone's sense of fun is different, I like fighting others but some just wanna be neutral and have a big empire. We shouldn't penalize them for playing the game in a way they enjoy. Especially when it doesn't negatively effect anyone.

Also, keep in mind that people don't have to use game mechanics to ally one another. It isn't like your units automatically attack nearby enemy units. There's this thing called a NAP - Non Aggression Pact, two players mutually agree not to attack one another and as such simply don't attack eachother. If alliances were penalized all it'd do is make NAPs far more popular. If people don't want to fight, they wont fight, no matter what you do.

I suggest checking out my post in the beginning strategy rework thread, I've got some very good ideas for buffing naval commander in there.

Yeah I had the idea of giving those who use this strat a extra weapon on battleships. Or even maybe a new ship type? The artillary ship? (spelling might be wrong there)

Basicly a ship that has a certain attack range. (Say similar to a tanks movement range) and can attack passively (like bombers do) any city with in its radius?

Im thinking make them the same amount battleships are now, and put battleships down too 200 cost to make them more viable as a attack option. Mortar ships cant attack other sea units and get bested by subs and battleships, however are excellent as a naval AA gun to make up for there shortcomings against other ship units. (Attack bonus on airbourne units)

Attacks on cities would need to work in these three ways if they were to be balanced imo.

1) Too iniate attacking they need to be docked on land. This stops hit and run tactics with them or just general spamming of these to take out whatever.

2) Attack would be similar to one ship taking out 2 inf units each wave of attack depending on the cities defence. That way about 25 of these (9000 roughly in money) could reduce a 100 strong city to about 10-0 in 4 turns, 5 if including docking.

3) It takes one turn to 'undock' them, stopping hit and run tactics.

It would be usefull if alliances can't be made with players, that are allied with your enemy

Again, Kaze, as I said nothing you do will stop the players. If they can't formally ally with someone they'll just make a NAP and not attack eachother. You can't make someone fight if they don't want to, so it's best to leave alliances the way they are.

Colt is 100% right. The only problem here is the nature of naval command. The fact is that it is not meant to be played by its self. Naval commander dominates at sea hands down. It's almost impossible to beat them as if you are using an offensive strategy, (haven't tried perfect defense vs. naval). The only reason they don't win every game is because of the simple fact that they only can take ports.it is a completely one sided strategy. You can destroy army after army in port cities but you will never get anywhere because u can't completely hold a country to save your life. This is why one needs a partner while you're destroying his economy by having one or more of his cities of mostly every country your partner can gain the upper hand and win.
This is the same for imperialist. Imperialist cant attack worth flip but they are defensive players. They run no deficit and each turn can send money to other players which depending on the map can be crucial i was playing against guest 14052 and HeyI in Africa the other with teams of ranks 3 or below. One of my guys got confused and spawned in the middle of the enemy. Now normally he should have been crushed but i was able to send him 500 per turn which allowed him to reinforcements when guest 14502 couldn't allowing him to kick but.

Written by specter, 30.01.2011 at 11:21

i was playing against guest 14052 and HeyI in Africa the other with teams of ranks 3 or below. One of my guys got confused and spawned in the middle of the enemy. Now normally he should have been crushed but i was able to send him 500 per turn which allowed him to reinforcements when guest 14502 couldn't allowing him to kick but.

Lol...so thats why I lost

Lol i thought it was pretty funny. worked out rather well, except my allies wouldnt listen to me afterwards

Written by specter, 30.01.2011 at 11:21

Colt is 100% right. The only problem here is the nature of naval command. The fact is that it is not meant to be played by its self. Naval commander dominates at sea hands down. It's almost impossible to beat them as if you are using an offensive strategy, (haven't tried perfect defense vs. naval). The only reason they don't win every game is because of the simple fact that they only can take ports.it is a completely one sided strategy. You can destroy army after army in port cities but you will never get anywhere because u can't completely hold a country to save your life. This is why one needs a partner while you're destroying his economy by having one or more of his cities of mostly every country your partner can gain the upper hand and win.
This is the same for imperialist. Imperialist cant attack worth flip but they are defensive players. They run no deficit and each turn can send money to other players which depending on the map can be crucial i was playing against guest 14052 and HeyI in Africa the other with teams of ranks 3 or below. One of my guys got confused and spawned in the middle of the enemy. Now normally he should have been crushed but i was able to send him 500 per turn which allowed him to reinforcements when guest 14502 couldn't allowing him to kick but.

Thats all fine and good but then while you're harrasing all these costal cities, you'll get capped, or your ally will have a 2v1 land war going on, and unless someone's capital is on a coast you're gonna be pretty useless, also, all the other strategies, imperialist included are decent when it comes to not having a team to back you up, and the strategies shouldn't be based on having a good team, because what if you don't? Admittedly now its viable because chances are you'll play with a lot of the same people and get to know them. But you should NEED them to be able to do good.

Let me get this straight you are supporting vamping naval commander? u do understand that naval command come with the ultimate weapon of the battle ship no other strategy has an attack of 10 no other unit has anywhere close to a defense of 9 (even with perfect defense infantry only get 7) these things are practically unkillable, unless u get bum roles. You're likely to lose 5 marines or tanks for every battle ship. If naval commander was any good on land which it's presently at 6/4 for marines and tanks (which is about what MOS was at awhile back). As someone said there is no such thing as a super strategy that wins everywhere.

Written by specter, 30.01.2011 at 13:03

Let me get this straight you are supporting vamping naval commander? u do understand that naval command come with the ultimate weapon of the battle ship no other strategy has an attack of 10 no other unit has anywhere close to a defense of 9 (even with perfect defense infantry only get 7) these things are practically unkillable, unless u get bum roles. You're likely to lose 5 marines or tanks for every battle ship. If naval commander was any good on land which it's presently at 6/4 for marines and tanks (which is about what MOS was at awhile back). As someone said there is no such thing as a super strategy that wins everywhere.

Except the amount of terratory you can control from the sea is minimal compared to how much you can hold on land. I've already offered a way to make it more viable without making it over powered. But as it is its weak, your land game is bad and theres just not much you can do from the sea currently. Sure no strategy is meant to be all encompassing, but for the most part most of them are effective over land, air, and sea, this one is not.

Written by Fgw_wolf, 30.01.2011 at 13:20

I've already offered a way to make it more viable without making it over powered.

Didn't see where this was. Earlier you said look at forum for strategy rework thread. I did a quick scan for this thread and couldn't find it. Maybe it got removed. Could you repost?

Oh btw i agree with you that it doesn't make since that you can't hold on land with naval. I just have a problem with a unit that is invulnerable. 10/9 and + against bombers. Maybe if u lowered some of the stats or made it vulnerable to bombers or some other unit it would become more practical and we could give a plus or two on tanks or infantry.

Written by specter, 30.01.2011 at 13:56

Written by Fgw_wolf, 30.01.2011 at 13:20

I've already offered a way to make it more viable without making it over powered.

Didn't see where this was. Earlier you said look at forum for strategy rework thread. I did a quick scan for this thread and couldn't find it. Maybe it got removed. Could you repost?

Oh btw i agree with you that it doesn't make since that you can't hold on land with naval. I just have a problem with a unit that is invulnerable. 10/9 and + against bombers. Maybe if u lowered some of the stats or made it vulnerable to bombers or some other unit it would become more practical and we could give a plus or two on tanks or infantry.

Yeah I agree if we change it battleships should be nerfed. Submarines seem to do a decent amount of damage to them currently though. Heres my suggestion:

Written by Fgw_wolf, 27.01.2011 at 10:11

I like this. But I have to say I've used the naval one a few times and its pretty bad except for the situation you've described and even then, god forbid you're trying to attack someone in russia with the tank commander strat. What might make it better for the naval one is perhaps introducing an aircraft carrier unit that can make bombers/stealth bombers for a cheaper price then city made ones and gets maybe say 5 reinforcements per month and goes down depending on the number of them you have. That way you could sail a fleet into a harbor and bomb the crap out of the nearby towns while your land units walk in to cap them. Also, and I just thought of this, maybe make the aircraft carrier only available if you're using naval commander.

One problem air craft carriers shouldn't be able to "build" but "carry" bombers. But maybe bombers would get an attack bonus if they launch from a carrier but less range. The effect of this would be that one could control a state on shore with bonuses but couldn't use the bonuses to push in land; one would have to use tanks and regular bombers.

Also the aircrafts couldn't be used specifically for naval command but they could be like sky menace where one has to buy the unit with sp to use it with other strategies. Also naval command could get price reduction or + defense because these would be low defense low attack units

Also because of how battle mechanics work if the bombers were in the same stack as the carriers they would have to be considered as within the carriers like transports.

Aircraft Carrier
Price: 500 or only obtainable by cards.
Description: Able to transport a lot of land units (30) and able to keep airplanes without the loss of fuel(?)
Features:
-(Stealth)Bombers +1 attack, +2 if naval is used, lasts for 1 turn.
-Infantry gives +1A and +1D for every man that's on the ship. (As opposed to transports, that are unable to use their men to attack on sea.)
(IDEA)-Able to refuel bombers, if fuel is implemented


Oh and, I think Naval Commanders should also be more focussed on Infantry on land. I think it suits the Naval Strategy very well (Artistically seen.)


Something like that?

I do think something needs to be done about naval commander. Last night I played against someone who spawned in taiwan using naval commander (I had the western hemisphere), and so he took japan and indonesia and south/east china. But despite taking my cities, he couldn't really do anything. So I just sat there staring at him as he held onto my coastal cities until eventually I bum-rushed him with a doomstack of around 500 tanks simply cuz I had way more territory since I wasn't bound to the ocean. Naval commanders will rape your face if you fight them at sea, but in the grand scheme of things that wont help you win, since 90% of this game takes place on land.

I think something like an aircraft carrier or a destroyer is needed. Something that's long-range and can hit cities farther inland. Obviously they wouldn't cap, and would instead act like bombers, killing everything inside the city. This way the naval commander can then send in land forces and take the city without having to fight using said land forces.

Colt thats pretty much what we have been talking about for a few days.

yahika y do u need a new fancy transport? should we get an air transport that does the same?
the only point to this new unit is to boost air attack around the shore.