Surviving Merchants

[leoneroer]

Wanted to ask what you guys feeling about the surviving merchant points are?

I find them a little too high at 1000 a ship, because especially in the early years where because of missing recon u often don't find the enemy fleet, it can mean that you are around, in bad cases, 2000VP behind, because of an engagement where nothing happened. Also if you for example kill the escorts but miss the convoy, which should mean stronger trade warfare for you because less TP for the enemy, you can never make up the difference in trade warfare because of the in comparison minuscule amounts of points u make there.

Because what this all leads to is that i don't want to send my ships into an enemy seazones, because one bad convoy mission could undo a ****ton of work.

Edit: Wanted to say that I've actually changed my mind on the topic, and now agree its perfectly fine the way it is. It was more my stupid mismanagement of a war i should have won plus a small sample size and a string of bad luck. Just wanted to say this, because this I thought this thread was dead but it popped back up again so yeah...

[dorn]

May 18, 2019 7:30:03 GMT -6 leoneroer said:

Wanted to ask what you guys feeling about the surviving merchant points are?

I find them a little too high at 1000 a ship, because especially in the early years where because of missing recon u often don't find the enemy fleet, it can mean that you are around, in bad cases, 2000VP behind, because of an engagement where nothing happened. Also if you for example kill the escorts but miss the convoy, which should mean stronger trade warfare for you because less TP for the enemy, you can never make up the difference in trade warfare because of the in comparison minuscule amounts of points u make there.

Because what this all leads to is that i don't want to send my ships into an enemy seazones, because one bad convoy mission could undo a ****ton of work.

If you miss a convoy and sink escort and still making less VP, than escort did their job well.

If you cannot find target, it is pitty but think about as this convoy is do much important and has that value.

[Blothorn]

Yeah. I see VPs as primarily a measure of mission effectiveness--warships aren't directly helpful to the war effort, so the primary benefit to killing warships is making future battles easier. If killing warships reliably gave more points than achieving mission goals, both benefits would align and killing warships would be the obvious choice (except when you are outmatched but can still slip through for the objective).

[klavohunter]

I find it completely fair, since I can skunk the AI right back by turning my escort ships around, in the hopes that our fleets never make contact.


Giving transport ships and important land targets high point values is good, in my opinion: Navies operate to achieve objectives, and the objectives are often something other than "blast the enemy fleet into a giant coral reef and oil slick" like you've sailed into the Thunderdome, or booted up a match of [insert online multiplayer Navy game here].

[leoneroer]

Same as the edit of the main post, so just ignore if you read that.

Wanted to say that I've actually changed my mind on the topic, and now agree its perfectly fine the way it is. It was more my stupid mismanagement of a war i should have won plus a small sample size and a string of bad luck. Just wanted to say this, because this I thought this thread was dead but it popped back up again so yeah...