Effectiveness, cost and useage
-
- Posts: 5024
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 8:34 pm
- Location: Novatainia
- Contact:
Re: Effectiveness, cost and useage
In terms of offensive missiles, note that missiles (beyond a base amount) have been costed in the latest version of the charter.
Andreas
"He showed up three or four years ago and accidentally took over the micronational world by being way more competent and enthusiastic than everyone else. Now he sort of rules us all, but it's a benevolent sort of thing, as far as we know."
~Scott Alexander
"He showed up three or four years ago and accidentally took over the micronational world by being way more competent and enthusiastic than everyone else. Now he sort of rules us all, but it's a benevolent sort of thing, as far as we know."
~Scott Alexander
-
- Posts: 537
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:26 pm
Re: Effectiveness, cost and useage
are you kidding me? dont cost missiles like harpoons and the likes.. cruise missiles i agree. anything that has a massive range, yes.. by massive range, anything over 150 to 200 kms.
everything else should be available for free use.
if you start costing things for missiles, then you gotta increase the 25,000 points allocation system.
also, what happens when the missiles run out? one could always "get more" from their logistical supply chains etc... and therein, your whole system will fall.. infact, why are you not costing bullets as well? or the tank (sabot, heat) rounds etc? surely you used cost those as well...
an aircraft is a major platform for launching missiles. and in modern warfare, you need missiles to damage the enemy... how do you expect an aircraft to go up against a tank, say for instance without any missiles? the guns on board against a heavily armored tank?
everything else should be available for free use.
if you start costing things for missiles, then you gotta increase the 25,000 points allocation system.
also, what happens when the missiles run out? one could always "get more" from their logistical supply chains etc... and therein, your whole system will fall.. infact, why are you not costing bullets as well? or the tank (sabot, heat) rounds etc? surely you used cost those as well...
an aircraft is a major platform for launching missiles. and in modern warfare, you need missiles to damage the enemy... how do you expect an aircraft to go up against a tank, say for instance without any missiles? the guns on board against a heavily armored tank?
- chrimigules
- Posts: 1102
- Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 7:04 am
Re: Effectiveness, cost and useage
Indeed. Modern warfare relies quite a bit on missiles.
A missile strike is no more different in strategy than a land-based one. A very basic but massive missile barrage is akin to a human wave attack, while a properly thought out missile strike, done in combination with other weaponry, is akin to a combined-arms attack. It's not as widely different as people seem to suggest, but rather how modern aerial and naval warfare is done.
Sure, dogfights aren't as sexy when you have fighters firing missiles at each other from outside of visual range, but that's how things are going. Hell, missiles are so integral to modern aerial warfare that there was a point when they considered not even including a gun. The importance of missiles for modern naval warfare is also why when they last refitted the Iowa-class battleships, they added missile launchers on them. Naval artillery these days, especially the big stuff, is only important for stuff like fire support.
A missile strike is no more different in strategy than a land-based one. A very basic but massive missile barrage is akin to a human wave attack, while a properly thought out missile strike, done in combination with other weaponry, is akin to a combined-arms attack. It's not as widely different as people seem to suggest, but rather how modern aerial and naval warfare is done.
Sure, dogfights aren't as sexy when you have fighters firing missiles at each other from outside of visual range, but that's how things are going. Hell, missiles are so integral to modern aerial warfare that there was a point when they considered not even including a gun. The importance of missiles for modern naval warfare is also why when they last refitted the Iowa-class battleships, they added missile launchers on them. Naval artillery these days, especially the big stuff, is only important for stuff like fire support.
Коля лает «гав-гав».
-
- Posts: 5024
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 8:34 pm
- Location: Novatainia
- Contact:
Re: Effectiveness, cost and useage
Extreme, did you read the section about missiles or are you just going off my statement "offensive missiles"?
I ask that because if you had, you'd have noticed that the only missiles costed are cruise missiles - both long and short range. I actually checked Wikipedia myself to provide an example of long and short range and work out what was appropriate for "short" range (I put under 1000 km). Costing missiles is completely different to costing bullets, and I hope you're aware of that. A single bullet probably costs a couple dollars to produce, if that, and at maximum effectiveness can kill a single person (ignoring the possibility of igniting a petrol tank or something). A Harpoon Missile, one of the "short range ones", costs $720 000 US. The Tomahawk $600 000. Anunia doesn't worry about cost too much, but Chrimigules for example pointed out that despite that people shouldn't be able to act as if their nation has bottomless pockets and several thousand missiles. Anunia certainly does worry about strength, and considering the way cruise missiles have been used, I see no good argument to not to give them some cost.
In this, do note the addition of section IV.G allowing an uncosted number of cruise missiles. It is ones beyond that which must be costed. The other option would be to redo the cost of all units that carry missiles to come with nothing but that was far beyond my skill and not discussed (where as the costing of missiles was discussed various times) and so I didn't feel able to make that change. If we did the suggestion of costing units by abilities that would also resolve this matter.
Your comment about supply chains giving you more missiles may be valid real world, but is irrelevant to Anunia. If we were doing things realistically, our CITRA troops would have pounced on you, for example (they're troops we have recorded as existing, we've bought them in an economic sense etc), but it's unfair to do that in Anunia. Anunia works on what is required in-game, to make the war function, with the in-war participants. If you want strict realism, why not make a serious attempt to revive ADB? There's nothing stopping you but finding other nations who are interested. Of course, the only problem with that was it did things by real-world dollar cost and then the amount of missiles you had would probably be dramatically reduced anyway. Oh well. As for increasing points above 25000 - theoretically at the start of the war people could agree to have more or less points. But 25000 works well for standard purposes and I don't think it's necessary to change that in the charter. That's just my opinion.
I ask that because if you had, you'd have noticed that the only missiles costed are cruise missiles - both long and short range. I actually checked Wikipedia myself to provide an example of long and short range and work out what was appropriate for "short" range (I put under 1000 km). Costing missiles is completely different to costing bullets, and I hope you're aware of that. A single bullet probably costs a couple dollars to produce, if that, and at maximum effectiveness can kill a single person (ignoring the possibility of igniting a petrol tank or something). A Harpoon Missile, one of the "short range ones", costs $720 000 US. The Tomahawk $600 000. Anunia doesn't worry about cost too much, but Chrimigules for example pointed out that despite that people shouldn't be able to act as if their nation has bottomless pockets and several thousand missiles. Anunia certainly does worry about strength, and considering the way cruise missiles have been used, I see no good argument to not to give them some cost.
In this, do note the addition of section IV.G allowing an uncosted number of cruise missiles. It is ones beyond that which must be costed. The other option would be to redo the cost of all units that carry missiles to come with nothing but that was far beyond my skill and not discussed (where as the costing of missiles was discussed various times) and so I didn't feel able to make that change. If we did the suggestion of costing units by abilities that would also resolve this matter.
Your comment about supply chains giving you more missiles may be valid real world, but is irrelevant to Anunia. If we were doing things realistically, our CITRA troops would have pounced on you, for example (they're troops we have recorded as existing, we've bought them in an economic sense etc), but it's unfair to do that in Anunia. Anunia works on what is required in-game, to make the war function, with the in-war participants. If you want strict realism, why not make a serious attempt to revive ADB? There's nothing stopping you but finding other nations who are interested. Of course, the only problem with that was it did things by real-world dollar cost and then the amount of missiles you had would probably be dramatically reduced anyway. Oh well. As for increasing points above 25000 - theoretically at the start of the war people could agree to have more or less points. But 25000 works well for standard purposes and I don't think it's necessary to change that in the charter. That's just my opinion.
Andreas
"He showed up three or four years ago and accidentally took over the micronational world by being way more competent and enthusiastic than everyone else. Now he sort of rules us all, but it's a benevolent sort of thing, as far as we know."
~Scott Alexander
"He showed up three or four years ago and accidentally took over the micronational world by being way more competent and enthusiastic than everyone else. Now he sort of rules us all, but it's a benevolent sort of thing, as far as we know."
~Scott Alexander
- chrimigules
- Posts: 1102
- Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 7:04 am
Re: Effectiveness, cost and useage
My concern had been that Montague had fired more missiles than his ships had had room for according to the information he had provided, and that he had listed no tenders within his fleet. The complain was that Montague had given no explanation on how he had reloaded his VLS tubes.
If anything, we should require that OrBats include uncosted support units, and that the unit commander should explicitly mention reloading and repair actions, because such things would change the defensive/offensive status of their unit. A ship in a replenishment operation would not as easily defend itself, and would not be able to engage offensively until the operation is properly aborted. Plus, such an operation would take time to complete, slowing that particular unit down.
If anything, we should require that OrBats include uncosted support units, and that the unit commander should explicitly mention reloading and repair actions, because such things would change the defensive/offensive status of their unit. A ship in a replenishment operation would not as easily defend itself, and would not be able to engage offensively until the operation is properly aborted. Plus, such an operation would take time to complete, slowing that particular unit down.
Коля лает «гав-гав».
- Lord_Montague
- Posts: 913
- Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 2:39 pm
Re: Effectiveness, cost and useage
I agree with Chrimigules on this.
Also, Andreas' NCM model (I don't know what NCM is) is so complicated that it puts me off and will deter many from recwarring I think.
Also, Andreas' NCM model (I don't know what NCM is) is so complicated that it puts me off and will deter many from recwarring I think.
In Battle; Unbeatable.
In Victory; Unbearable.
In Victory; Unbearable.
-
- Posts: 5024
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 8:34 pm
- Location: Novatainia
- Contact:
Re: Effectiveness, cost and useage
Well, it was just a suggestion if you wanted to go with abilities and not go down the path "points determine a unit's strength."
Personally, though, I'd say that resupplying actions would seem far too complicated and turn most people off recwars, unless you merely mean they have to nominate a base they can return to and just "resupply". If they have to control supply units and move them through the recwar and get the right quantities of bullets and fuel and missiles and everything - that's just far too complicated.
Personally, though, I'd say that resupplying actions would seem far too complicated and turn most people off recwars, unless you merely mean they have to nominate a base they can return to and just "resupply". If they have to control supply units and move them through the recwar and get the right quantities of bullets and fuel and missiles and everything - that's just far too complicated.
Andreas
"He showed up three or four years ago and accidentally took over the micronational world by being way more competent and enthusiastic than everyone else. Now he sort of rules us all, but it's a benevolent sort of thing, as far as we know."
~Scott Alexander
"He showed up three or four years ago and accidentally took over the micronational world by being way more competent and enthusiastic than everyone else. Now he sort of rules us all, but it's a benevolent sort of thing, as far as we know."
~Scott Alexander