Share your thoughts... Contribute to the ultimate A&A game design.
At least as large a factor is that it is control of territories, not sea zones, that gives you income and naval units can not capture territories.
While naval units can help you achieve such an end, land units are required and land units can often do the job without naval units (air units help both but generally are better used supporting the capture of enemy controlled territory).
Even if naval unit variety increases and naval units are less expensive, I will only build the minimum number of naval units needed to do the job.
Of course, if the other side buys more naval units, "the minimum number of naval units needed to do the job" may be higher than if they hadn't bought those naval units.
On an historical note, all major participants had limited shipbuilding capability which, in general, they used about as much of as they could.
All major combatants somewhat increased their shipbuilding capability during the war, with the US having largest increase (at the end of the war, the US fleet was as large as everyone elses combined).
On a similar historical note, with the possible exception of the Alaska class ships the US built, once at war, major combatants did not start construction of new battleships - they only completed the ones they had started before they went to war (and not all of those so started were completed).
Modeling such historical realities is problematic.
Different production cost for different nations reflect well, without adding new details may be a good solution. If these things have been already covered completely, then please forgive a old soldier.
subs, destroyers, battleship fighter
infantry, artillery, tank fighter
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests