Don't beat me up. The second mode for battleships again.

[torq]

I too want to 'right the wrong' with the absence of the second mode for the battleships. Don't beat me up if that has already been proposed.
Here's my idea.

As far as I could deduce, battleships in Defcon fire missiles both of ship-to-air and ship-to-ship types.
A real battleship is an oversized armored boat with big cannons. Battleship is an obsolete ship design, none were christened since the WW2 AFAIK, so every battleship has cannons. Not just cannons but CANNONS. Cannons of terrible destructive power capable of tearing almost any other ship apart with a single shot. A great weapon for naval battles. Missiles were equipped later. So I propose two modes for battleships:

- Missile mode - a battleship as it is now.
- Cannon mode - a battleship fire its cannons.
Advantages:
Great firepower - carriers are destroyed with a single hit, battleships take two. If used wisely and with a bit of luck two battleships can maul a whole fleet.

Additionally (but it's open for discussion), a battleship in this mode can bombard light armored targets like radars and airfields (if within range) - for example, three direct hits will take out a radar, six hits will destroy an airbase. Personally, I am against it, but still this may be interesting.


Balance:
Reduced fire rate (1 shot in 20-30 seconds).
Reduced accuracy (40-60%)
A battleship is unable to shoot at air targets while in this mode.

Further balance can be achieved by limiting the volleys count a battleship can make (10-20 shots). But personally, I too am against it.

What do you think of my idea?

[Xocrates]

You do know that naval units do not have hit points, but instead have a chance of being destroyed, right?

So, what's technically the difference between having a mode that is at the same time more likely to hit while being less accurate (less likely to hit) and what we have now?

[torq]

That's not too difficult to implement. Just raise the chances of being destroyed by a cannon shell to 100% in case of a direct hit.
Besides, we're not talking here about the implementation, we're talking about the idea. Let guys at Introversion think how to implement that
And one more point - if that what you're saying is true then why I have never saw a battleship being destroyed from a single hit? The 'dice' could favor me at least once, don't you think?

Well, I saw battleships being destroyed at one shot - when an armed nuke collides with them.

[Xocrates]

And one more point - if that what you're saying is true then why I have never saw a battleship being destroyed from a single hit? The 'dice' could favor me at least once, don't you think?

Probably because you've never paid enough attention.

The probabilities are not terribly high. The chance for a silo to take a fighter is 10%, which means that only about 1 in 10 will die at first hit. This is probably easier to notice in bomber vs sub, since while there is a good chance of the sub being destroyed at first hit, it isn't certain.

The chances also depend of the attacking and defending unit.

Back to your idea: While I must admit the idea is not without merit, I simply don't see it as a significant advantage since for the most part all you'll be doing is removing air defence to the battleships, since for the most part the battles will be Battleship on Battleship and that only means that the battles will end up faster and now you're battleships are even more vulnerable to fighters and bombers.

[torq]

...since while there is a good chance of the sub being destroyed at first hit, it isn't certain.

subs - yes, but battleships?

since for the most part the battles will be Battleship on Battleship

Most oftenly I see battles bombers vs battleships

and that only means that the battles will end up faster and now you're battleships are even more vulnerable to fighters and bombers.

Yes, but what stops you from organizing a 4 BS fleet where 2 would be in cannon mode and the other 2 - in missile mode?

And the main reason I thought of it is that after naval battles is over (usually at the middle of the game and towards the end) there are many unused battlehips roaming the seas having nothing more to do than go in circles shooting down an occasional bomber or two. Adding a bombardment feature will add to their value.
And more - you'll never know which mode is on until the first shot (that could be fatal to one of your ships or ground installations if the battle is near the coast).

[Xocrates]

...since while there is a good chance of the sub being destroyed at first hit, it isn't certain.

subs - yes, but battleships?

I'm currently spectating a game. In that game I just noticed one BS dying after 17 bomber hits and one dying after 3. Like I said, the chances are not amazingly high. If the chances of a bomber taking out a bomber is about 5%, you'll be lucky if one dies at first hit in the whole game.

Yes, but what stops you from organizing a 4 BS fleet where 2 would be in cannon mode and the other 2 - in missile mode?

The fact that the other guy has placed 4 BS in cannon mode and therefore kills your BS's a lot faster. In the meanwhile he keeps a bunch of fighters airborne and takes out your bombers through careful micromanaging.

Most oftenly I see battles bombers vs battleships

In many cases the bombers will not be within battleship range and/or radar. At least, if you're playing against good players.

[torq]

Yes, but what stops you from organizing a 4 BS fleet where 2 would be in cannon mode and the other 2 - in missile mode?

The fact that the other guy has placed 4 BS in cannon mode and therefore kills your BS's a lot faster. In the meanwhile he keeps a bunch of fighters airborne and takes out your bombers through careful micromanaging.

Oh, what about accuracy? All 4 BSs may miss, while your 2 may sink 2 carriers before they can launch any fighters. Just firing a cannon doesn't guarantee that you'll hit the target. Most probably you will miss Or even hit a target nearby

[Xocrates]

I think we have a misunderstanding. Currently Defcon does not have an accuracy setting. Accuracy is mixed with chance to destroy.

So, if I have a unit that has a better chance to destroy, but less accuracy, is basically the same as one with a poor chance to destroy and big accuracy.

So far you had never mentioned anything about area of effect.


Anyway, your point brings it back to mine. If I have less accuracy with cannon mode, then why should I even use Cannon mode? I have better, or equal, chances with regular mode and that still gives me air defence.

[xander]

There seems to be a misunderstanding on your end, torq, about how Defcon determines kills. It works like this:

Every shot fired has a specific probability of destroying the targeted unit. This is accuracy combined with damage. A shot either hits or it doesn't. If it hits, the unit dies. If it doesn't, the unit lives on. The probability of hitting varies, depending upon the attacking units, and the defending unit.

For instance, bombers have a very high probability of hitting naval units (about 25%). On average, over the long term, one out of every four shots fired by a bomber at a naval unit will sink that unit. The other three will cause no damage at all. Fighters have a pretty good chance of taking out a bomber (again, I believe the probability is in the neighborhood of 20-25%), but a poor chance of taking out a naval unit (<5%). Try having a fighter target a battleship, and see how long it takes to kill it.

With regards to battleships no longer being used in modern war, we are all aware of that. This particular factoid has been brought up quite a bit before. But you have to admit that "battleship" sounds cool.

xander

[Xocrates]

For instance, bombers have a very high probability of hitting naval units (about 25%).

Actually, I've been testing bomber vs Battleship, I got a probability of about 7% to destroy (based on 24 BS's). Which helps to explain why you seldom see a battleship dying at first hit.

It might be about 25% vs subs though.

[kb5zht]

I never assumed the "battleship" unit was literally battleships.... since there are no more actual battleships per se.... I just assumed that the "battleship" icon represented a tactical warfleet, perhaps of mixed ship types (corvettes, cruisers, battlecriusers, destroyers, etc).

The option of having missle/cannon modes is great but I think it would be out of scope with this game. I believe the game designers did an excellent job of including the minimum needed to keep this game on a strategic global scale in terms of the "world wide nuclear war" theater. That's what this game supposedly was suppose to simulate, with 99% of it's inspiration of course coming from the classic movie.

I think once you go down the slippery slope of tactical micro management, the game would lose it's spirit and also start to bog down... My personal opinion, for what it's worth, is that this game is suppose to put you in the highest ranking military seat of a nation's military (such as a general or chief of staff, etc)..... where you would make grand scale strategic decisions, but the details of a tactical level would be delegated to lower ranks or echelons.... such as mode this-and-that of 1 unit, etc.