Norfolk nChance

Quick question: What is Battle Rating in its current format...? Is the wiki correct in numbers? http://www.navalactionwiki.com/index.php?title=Ships What does it effect in game? PBs, 1v1, etc.? What doesn’t it effect? What are the current flaws with it and how @admin change will effect it for the better? @admin quote... Major BR rebalance We are gradually moving away from the static BR based on HP and DPS characteristics and will also consider several other factors including battle performance data. How it will work Ships with much lower performance statistics will have lower BR even if they are a higher class vessel. For example 2nd rate pavel having a much worse battle performance than 3rd rate Bellona will have a lower BR than Bellona. The changes will be applied gradually as full performance based BR is currently impossible as it will break old mission system. Once new mission system is added in September we will let battle performance influence the ship BR slightly more. This will mostly affect the port battles and will require captains to recalculate their battle plans for future conquests. Oh nearly forgot: How does BR differ from Tier rating of ships? Thanks guys for the help Norfolk nChance [ELITE]

@Banished Privateer I can’t comment on this particular thread with no involvement. Regarding banking or the economy, I would ask all players to think on this idea for a while... Cash (currently gold currency) needs to travel onboard a ship. If a ship is going to the same base Nation port then a “Letter of Credit” can be used (safety) as transfer otherwise cash is king. Think of how this impacts the game and in relation to the realistic teleportation systems!!! Magic Wallets eventually must be phased out. You can’t discuss economy with Magic wallets and Star Trek technologies with the age of sail... In my opinion anyway Norfolk nBanker

totally agree

@Wraith Thank you for the reply. Totally agree 100%, giving players the tools for creating their own stories. We’ve both had similar points of view on PORT ownership and inward development, Civil War mechanics and dislike of PC Nation alliances, for a long time pushing towards freeing up the lite sand box. The PC Reputation System... This is a nice solution and flexible fit. The PC has a Matrix of positive and negative marks against anyone Nation with cause and effect when entering those waters. I liked the idea of earning both +/- points at the same time like helping a Prussia squadron attack a French patrol frigate fleet even though I may favor a GB roleplay role. This has so much scope for PC Retention due to the Out of Game [OoG] Content. The [OoG] UI must be a high quality looking and a dynamic persistent link. https://worldofwarships.eu/en/community/accounts/554819715-NorfolknChance_UK/!/pvp/overview/ Not only Battle statistics but PORT and Division affiliates that builds up over time. The building of a PCs life History is what cements player retention or in NA-OW terms, a hardcore Junkie. The key for this to work properly is this [OoG] UI and not a jerry-rigged rip-off of the old alliance vote in game view. It needs the History Build up... I Will Meet You half way... First, start with the end goal in mind, EvE Online [EvE] it doesn’t get any better than this. I played a part in the Fountain Wars of 2013 between CFC and TEST. That quite simply was giving players the tools to create their own stories. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZQ4ejFq7BY&t=94s This Open Sandbox applied to NA-OW would destroy the game completely. I will meet you half way though. Open Panama Canal 100years early and the Pacific Region is total LOW-SEC. But that’s for a future Norfolk nIdea POST... History of PC Nation Policies... At every single point in NA-OW history when PC Nations apply policy via aggression or alliance it always ends up in a LESS dynamic boxed Universe. East v West, Care Bears or vote function Blah Blah Blah. PC Divisional Policies... Worked, [ELITE]/[RATA] GB/Spanish http://forum.game-labs.net/topic/22965-pvp-global-yucatan-basin-status-change/ Worked, [ELITE]/[VSCO] GB/Pirate Not for public display The problem here is when its same Nation clan/clan. The Civil War mechanic is so needed. Dynamic NPC Nation Overlays... There is no forced need to participate at all. However, the BLING offered at certain stages tugs at the whore inside. This like @Vernon Merrill states promotes less “salt’... Also, imagine the old [ARMED][VCO][ELITE] and [CKA] operate together taking chunks of the map away from the Campaign. This is absolutely fine. What do you think the next type of templates might come into play on the next cycle...? The templates are dynamic, and the Dev’s can manage them just like the w/e tournaments. The BLING offered as rewards forces the whores and ego rivals to come and work together against a dark rising or Cult leader... @Vernon Merrill Thank you for your review. Much appreciated. Norfolk nChance [ELITE] division RNGB

Guys, please use this thread instead now

The Essex not as fast as the TRINC its TurnR is smaller 3.29 v 3.35 as well. If these numbers are not current apologies. With Bow chasers would bring her in line with the 30 less crew it sits well. Unfortunately, the L’Hermione becomes a distant poor third now. Not much speed better turnR but under powered. The Essex Bow and TurnR buff pulls her away... This is the problem Norfolk

@Slim McSauce Thank you for the kind words, I’ll pass along your compliments to the money pit from hell @Lovec1990 This is a big part of the problem understanding why it’s being nerfed. One ship sidelines its peer group (one above and the one below) then it influences the next +2 above and -2 below and so on. This depending on the Pro is migration creep... This is how we get to just 3 ships. The solution is the Peer group cross check. So, if one ship has a Pro above the other two, it needs to have con’s against. The original Santi, L’O and Vic I thought played nicely off each other and balanced. From a Heavy defensive Gun platform to the largest fire output of any ship, to the very maneuverable vehicle that still delivers a kick. The problem like @hachi points out is the lower end... what unique features are needed? Peer Group low to high L’Hermione - Essex - Tricomalee - What are the real differences between these three bearing in mind the position? More uniqueness needs building in. In Hindsight and going forward by doing the Pro’s and Con’s for each gives better game depth... In theory anyway... @HachiRoku You did a brilliant thread and I blame you for my relationship with Mrs. nChance. The only balance the F14 has or had over the F22 was its time in history. In 1974 the F-14 Tomcat was there ready, but otherwise no none. By building small sets of 3 peer groups up and down the rating system will allow that diversity to unfold. No new ship should be introduced otherwise. Using specific RvR missions or tasks is not the way. Maybe multiplier bonuses apply to the Essex when sailing with the Bellona. The Con side must be built it as well like repairs slower than the other two... again just clutching at straws here... But same weighted mechanics Rock Paper Scissors for L’Herione, Essex and Trinc… thanks for the feedback guys NnC

Idea: Mrs. nChance wants to talk about relationships... Short version at the bottom... @admin You’ll need a drink for this I did, sorry... Summary A Platform that allows all ships to be analyzed with purpose. What is its Pro’s & Con’s within its near peer group. Using this as a cross check and balancer to stop migration into just three ships while the rest are wasted. Idea: The Platform Pre-Curser... The Outsider... I haven’t played seriously for months so please forgive my mistakes. Try to bear with me as I walk you through the idea. I think NA-OW needs a ship platform pre-curser. Something like a detailed wiki page before launch. From my view it looks like we are trying to solve the problem one ship at a time and in isolation. It’s only solving the symptom and not the route of the problem in my opinion. But a worrying thread started me thinking... http://forum.game-labs.net/topic/26731-ship-usefulness/?tab=comments#comment-575347 @HachiRoku has highlighted some real flaws, with many ships sidelined collecting dust. The L’O all powerful but why? Later Rediii comments... “Atm I have 2 ships in every outpost I have: A ocean (and some santis due to wrong order) and bellonas. All other ships are basically useless except DLC ships ofc” - @dark lord rediii I like @Intrepido comment with Santi Vic and Co is the heeling profile that makes them prone to leaks. This is quoted in Real Life by the Prof in my post below on Ship structures with these ships. Still the same thread... Then we come back to the REPAIR problems yet again. Having 5 repairs in battle on an L’O making her now unbeatable. If she remains at or below 10% speed she can’t leak. L’O takes an age to get going at the best of times. To slow down also I’d think she’s quite fast compared to her peers... Patch25 I assume the overlay works at the ships speed and not at the point the sails are totally down? Patch25... Changed the leaks/speed dependence (ships were sinking too slowly before) You only get the 50% leaks reduction if you are stationary From 10% speed up to 80% speed leaks works without bonuses or penalties (just like before the patch) From 80% speed and up to 100% they gradually rise to 150% To get full benefits of leaks reduction (to get a chance to repair the ship - you have to stop your vessel). The wind, and leeway am guessing may play against the Vic and Santi here over the L’O with inertia. To reacquaint myself I thought I’d have a look at the recent PB battle reports... http://forum.game-labs.net/topic/21607-caribbean-great-battle-results/?page=123 So, didn’t take long. Tanked out fleet L’Os with a speed Bellona and the rest a DLC LeRq as a BR top up filler that’s it. Just the screen shot images show this is the winning side every time. Mortar Brigs no good against L’Os? or too many to be effective? A Question is mod stacking an issue anymore or not really? Let’s start Solving the Problem not the Symptom... A Platform Pre-Curser... I don’t mean to be critical but it looks like we’ve gone backwards here. What’s needed is a proper way to look at all the ships not just the top three and analyze them. How do they all inter relate with one another? At the moment we have a total of 50 ships we can play in game. Next, we need to group them... Forum, Naval Action, new title thread called “Ships”. Subsections “1st Rate” to “7th Rate” maybe with the trader ships in a separate section. Then you guessed it with Ship name in its grouping. http://www.navalactionwiki.com/index.php?title=Ships http://www.navalactionwiki.com/index.php?title=L%27Ocean Ships 1st Rate L’Ocean Santisima Victory 2nd Rate Bucentaure St.Pavel Each Ship POST is started by a Dev with an opening profile, what the ship did in Real Life and why it is in the game. Speed profiles, repair times and ratios. Who is the ship’s immediate Peer Group, one above one below? TAGS How do they relate to each other? https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=640575000 You remember this little gem of a guide above. So, comparing just three ships against each other. Read through how he links the peer groups. Now look at this [WoWs] GB Leander Cruiser below. So, quick intro what does it do? Then the basic stats. “Player Opinion” is always written the same way... It gives the ships general purpose, then where does she sit within her peer group. Then the downside features and warning. How the ship best functions within the game. Next a Pro’s and Cons list in relation to a ship rating and peers. You get the idea. For NA then we’d may suggest build types mods, perks and captain skills http://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Ship:Leander Why is this important? Currently the Pro’s & Con’s for each ship no longer fit inside their peer groups. This means an accidental Super Pro can relegate all its peers. This left to fester, results in the majority of ships sidelined with only a Bespoke handful ever getting used. The Pro’s and Con’s need to be balanced against the other two Peer ships if this makes sense? Its not a case of just alliterating how the repairs work unless it balances out against the other ships. Summary The reason why we now only need three ships is because their Pro’s were never counter balanced against their individual peer group. Using an open forum platform will allow you the testers to fully break down the ships properly. Maybe starting with the L’O, Santi and Vic... The Buc and Pavel then, and so on... With new ship additions or mechanics then the Pro & Con needs to be checked and do they still balance against the near peer group? This will stop drift and help continuity going forward. @admin I believe prefers the PC to explore his Caribbean and through trial and error work out what a ship can and cannot do. This idea looks like we are giving too many secrets away. However, I slightly disagree with my beloved Essex sat in dry doc. Not all secrets need to be given, but why is the Frigate in the game, what’s its purpose? And who are her peers? What is its pro’s and con’s...? This will I believe have more ships used in NA-OW... Thank you for taking the time read my poorly worded script. If you think its rubbish let me know and if you can do better likewise... Norfolk nChance [ELITE] Short Version... Focusing on solving problems becomes an issue when they only turn out to be a symptom. A Forum for individual Ship lists broken down to include near Peer grouping. This then to test Pro’s & Con’s against the Peers. Why it’s in the game and purpose. Using the Peers as a cross check balancer will stop the isolationist migration into just two or three ships while the rest collect dust. Couldn’t think of any joke about relationships...

Norfolk nChance o7

@Andre Bolkonsky Makes sense, and assume not that reliable spotting targets either. With Jutland I’ve two questions... Communications, how did this happen between fleet Dreadnaughts? Beatty and Jellicoe seem to have issues between command. Directing your own fleet was it still Flags, flashlight or Radio by then? The German Torpedo Boats, were these light destroyers like the V-25? I assume real submarines came much later on towards the end of the war? Norfolk

@Sir Lancelot Holland https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271644766_The_Influence_of_Alfred_Thayer_Mahan_upon_the_Imperial_Japanese_Navy The IJN adopted Mahan’s decisive battle theory only in my opinion. This without going for the vital choke points first. This is very over simplified but they built overly large ships rather than many more small cruisers destroyers or submarines. The Allied Forces had no other route than starting at the Coral Sea and working there way up. Too much ocean Central Pacific while going North would meet the might of the IJN Navy and air force. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Ocean_theater_of_World_War_II IJN could have tied down Allied forces through the many thousands of islands with the shallow ports. Just a view. Norfolk.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-45243908 August 22 2018 The NSA did highlight India as a threat but again terrifying scenarios can be imagined and not just regarding the Sub-continent. The UK stopped giving aid to India in 2016, it received GBP 150m (USD 200m roughly) the year before.... https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/From-Jan-1-UK-to-stop-financial-aid-to-India/articleshow/50388300.cms Norfolk nChance [ELITE]

@Andre Bolkonsky “One of my favorite eras ever, can't wait to start building my dream fleet!” Would love to see the USS Texas when next in Houston great looking ship. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NN_ThoXR9GQ [WoWs] Legend advert https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sjx0YFyekt8 Stats breakdown and gameplay at 16:50 or so. Are the stats close in accuracy? A Huge supporter of @admin and GLs hard core style but would say caution is needed regarding Aircraft and peripheral machines in the game. Read @Sir R. Calder of Southwick comment on aircraft at the time. World of Warships [WoWs] creates the USS Texas beautifully in the game. However, gameplay I find very weak indeed (the entire game). Major floors occur regarding the use of Aircraft carriers and spotting as a whole. The threat of introducing Torpedo boats, submarines not destroyers received a major backlash. Fleet mechanics is terrible on the Random game but better on a Campaign style mission which is Co-Op. When ready I’d like to hear a general game outline and a similar Me2 product. [WoWs] doesn’t do it justice in my opinion. With @Nick Thomadis on side maybe the MMO style is not the way to go? But I’m no games developer... Norfolk nChance [ELITE]

@Galt Makes some very good points here. For NA-OW it’s about Gameplay ability offset against a more historical realistic procedure. The tightrope balancing act... Questions: - what repairs where achievable at sea? [an awful lot] What repairs where achievable at sea under battle conditions? [not so many, and most were quick fixes that then needed additional work later] A heavily damaged ship in NA-OW can still remain 100% lethal. This needs changing. [these need balancing out, crew is a possible way or crew morale as an overlay dampener] Norfolk.

A big thank you for all your contributions. Whether an Action Admiral or Ultimate General the Task was not easy and with hindsight unavailable probably impossible to complete. The ownership lampooning of a President only muddies the waters blind siding a real threat that is just around the corner if not already upon us. That funny shaped building @modernknight1 talks about suffers continually with lack of hindsight and over/under political funding mis-leading well intended professional military thinkers into the “self-licking ice cream cone”. The Bradley Fighting Vehicle just one ice cream within the Pentagon Wars shows just what a hard job they have. The threats could also be more than Country wide which throughs up out sourcing as not the total cost solution either. The Task I’m only talking out to 2030, that believe it or not is not that far away. A Future History that will be History quicker than we all expect. Thank you all again, Norfolk nChance [ELITE]

@Sento de Benimaclet I agree, they the United States needs to be ahead of the curve. Yet they feel and look like they’re playing catch up. NASA saying Mars unlikely in the 2030s. The Moon staging post late 2020s. We should have been there by now. Private Corporations racing ahead or taking the lead could become very problematic. Imagine SpaceX in 2035 mines the first near Earth asteroid [ERO] with a low DeltaV? Horror show with history repeating itself. Like the East India Company growing to dwarf the Crown’s asset, and becoming uncontrollable and totally corrupt. United States needs stay ahead of this competitive game. The threats might be more than just country wide as jurisdiction in Outer Space is not under US Law. The problem as always COST both current plus a sizeable allocation to R&D. This might sound far fetched but history time and time again proves otherwise. From oil and Rockefeller, Carnegie and steel, to Apple Inc becoming the first Trillion-dollar Company in history. Its Market Cap makes it larger than the GDP of each of 183 out of the 199 countries of which the World Bank monitors GDP Data. In other words, if it was a Country it would be the 16th Largest. SpaceX mines an ERO in 2035 could quite literal destabilizes economies around the world... Another book: The East India Company by Brian Gardner https://www.amazon.co.uk/East-India-Company-Dorset-Reprints/dp/0880295309/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1534604756&sr=8-1&keywords=the+east+india+company%2C+brian+gardner Norfolk

@Captain Jean-Luc Picard The UK should be ok. With the Turkey wobble, watch Portugal, Italy, Greece and Iceland. This all falls back onto just Germany...

Being an Englishman I’ve no room to talk. Now more of a well-trained bespoke Armed Force, we are more commercially active with BAe Systems. https://www.satellitetoday.com/government-military/2018/06/01/uk-to-debut-first-defense-space-strategy-this-summer/ I just hope we don’t roll out the Royal Space Force post Brexit Norfolk.

Satellite Quick Facts (includes launches through 4/30/18) Total number of operating satellites: 1,886 United States: 859 Russia: 146 China: 250 Other: 631 LEO: 1,186 MEO: 112 Elliptical: 40 GEO: 548 Total number of US satellites: 859 Civil: 20 Commercial: 495 Government: 178 Military: 166 https://www.space.com/41511-weird-russian-satellite-not-so-abnormal.html That’s the working SATS breakdown, look at China. I seem to struggle from the offensive point of view. How do I effectively attack from Space another or multiple Space objects with efficiency? How do I attack from Space to a ground target accurately? Without the use of ICBMs it seems a lot harder than it first looks. SPY or Surveillance gathering seems to be the best role by a long way.

I get you, the minute it wakes up it becomes very visible.

@HachiRoku Interesting YouTube channel and will watch more. I agree with your thesis on space warfare to be an unlikely if not an unusual affaire up to 2030. Up to 2030 the valuable assets are the satellites for communications, GPS and so on. USAF with 170 satellites to look after its highly unlikely China would try to shoot them all out of the sky. More likely is to attack their ground receiver stations spread across the globe with servers and databases that were retroactively woven to together. This leaves countless weak spots. China-based hacker groups have already targeted defense manufacturing firms and satellites are surprisingly easy to hack. US Space Force’s first role would be Cyber Security of its primary SATS. As an offensive role, the X-37B unmanned mini shuttle spent 2 years in space and before that 270 days. That’s very good reliability as you state the cold is no good for avionics over that length of time. Usage could deliver a small “First-Strike” orbital bombardment using kinetic energy not violating the Outer Space Treaty. But that’s really it. Space Force probably will see more action down the gravity well than orbit. https://www.amazon.com/Dauntless-Lost-Fleet-Book-1/dp/0441014186 If you like more realistic sci-fi battles try this guy. The series gets tired but battles are good with distance time and visibility issues. The author is a retired Naval Officer so you get good feel how a warship might run. Norfolk

@William Wade The Opening Point is not about President Donald Trump. He didn’t come up with the idea, just the ridiculous name. The USAF core missions are air, space, global strike and command & control. They have over 5,000 aircraft, 400 ICBMs and 170 Military Satellites and a nearly new space shuttle Atlantis in the Smithsonian. The Air Force was becoming swamped and reporting lines unclear. The Air Force Space Command [AFSPC] a subsidiary of the USAF mission was to “Provide resilient and affordable Space and Cyberspace capabilities for the Joint Force and the Nation” and this is where the reporting lines crossed or become unclear. It needed spinning of as Cyber and Satellites became more important. The USAF needed cleaning up and the catalyst came in 2007 when China shot down a defunct weather satellite. The process started however the armed forces already in a war and within a year we saw a global financial meltdown. Had funding issues. With the economic recovery underway and set to continue The Republican Party and Donald Trump took advantage or Hijacked the reform by allocating more funding (remember his campaign to the armed forces?) to this project... This is why he gets to call it his idea... If you don’t think there is any Space threat out to 2030 then fine, but please it is not about a President. Fake News will get him into trouble soon enough. This was a very brief summary of course. Norfolk.

A Strategy & Tactical Build for the US Space Force (USSF) This is a tad left field, a sort of future History... The Naval Action community once again amazes me at the depth of knowledge and passion you carry for military theory from all ages covering Land sea or air. We look back with the advantage of hindsight (or God Mode) citing ways Generals, Admirals or Countries used someone’s strategic theory to win or lose. With this in mind and following @admin lead “only hardcore will do”. Let’s take Hindsight or God Mode away to see if we can still solve a military challenge. Task. YOU as a Military Strategist tell me Why the United States needs a Space Force by 2020? How will it be able to achieve tactically its (USSF) objectives over the coming 10 years 2030? What are its Objectives? Battle Strategy ideas and thoughts. I’ll write my thoughts over the weekend, I would love to hear yours. War domains now cover Land, Sea, Air and Cyber with Outer Space just 60 miles straight up to be the next theater... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LaSnwTjnhQE Mike Pence outlines plans to create the USSF https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Space_Force https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militarisation_of_space https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theater_(warfare) (part of the war series) Outer Space as been under funded by the United States for decades allowing other countries and Private Corporations to catch up. The US losing its cold war dominance now sees potential future threats from Russia, China, and India. This from an NSA report to the Pentagon in 2017. Private Businesses with launch vehicles from SpaceX, Boeing, Orbital ATK are cutting out NASA from the lucrative Satellite business just through its years of underfunding now needing to play catch up also. How will @Sir R. Calder of Southwick a real-life professional Navy man's knowledge tackle this unknown future threat. Will @Sento de Benimaclet use his knowledge of Vo Nguyen to solve the complex problem? Am sure @Louis Garneray will fall back on the popular On-War theory... Maybe @Sir Hethwill the RedDuke comes up with a simple Logistics operation using the ordinary man behind the machine? Without hindsight, let me know what you’d do to protect effectively America’s interests in Outer Space over the next 10 years. Norfolk nRocketman

@admin Let’s see how looks. I would ask this... why would any noob enter or average player if they’ll be up against an [ELITE] ego with all the books, toys, whistles and bells... no Chance... I’m no whiney b/tch, that’s the wife. Even so what incentive would the average player have? http://forum.game-labs.net/topic/26505-we-duel-tournament-a-doubled-edged-sword-or-the-birth-of-a-legend/ Norfolk

This is left field and not sure how to approach it. Also a tad off topic... I want to do a STRATEGY post tomorrow regarding the US Space Force. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkU8kjgaCZY We look with the advantage of hindsight in most of our posts like the wars set in the Napoleonic era or up to modern times. Even the late Thomas Schelling can’t help us here. Without hindsight this becomes an issue with space rivals such as Russia, China and even India. Relying on Sun Tzu or Jomini or whoever what theoretical plan should the US be looking at and why and at what costs? Norfolk nClue