Units · Naval
Naval forces - the arm that controls trade
Naval forces decide who gets to use the oceans. In NationFall that's not flavor - it's economic warfare. Maritime trade routes are real. Blockades interrupt them. Strait control matters. A nation strangled at sea fights very differently than one whose imports flow.
Surface combatants project. Submarines deny. Carriers extend air power across the world. Amphibious assets make conquest possible across an ocean.
Vessel categories
What's available, what each is for.
Sea control
Surface Combatants
Cruisers, destroyers, frigates. The arm that escorts, blockades, and projects firepower against shore targets. WW2 battleships included; modern variants are missile-heavy with integrated AD.
Power projection
Carriers
Mobile airbases. Extends air force range across oceans. WW2 fleet carriers; modern supercarriers. Strategic asset of nations that intend to project - vulnerable target for nations that intend to deny.
Sea denial
Submarines
Strike trade routes, hunt warships, lay mines. WW2 diesel-electric (U-boats, fleet boats) → modern nuclear and AIP. The asymmetric advantage smaller naval powers use to threaten larger fleets.
Conquest enablement
Amphibious
Transports, landing ships, amphibious assault ships. Without these, taking territory across an ocean isn't possible. Costly to build, slow to deploy, decisive when committed.
Maritime trade routes are real
Every nation's economy depends on trade. NationFall models trade routes - including which are maritime, which are land-based, and which strategic chokepoints (Suez, Hormuz, Malacca, Panama) gate them.
A naval blockade interrupts maritime imports. A nation cut off from oil it imports by sea sees magazine production drop, mechanized formations stall, refining capacity decline. The blockade is not a cosmetic effect - it directly shapes what the target can do on land and in the air over the next several turns.
This is why naval power matters more for some nations than others. The UK, Japan, USA - heavily dependent on maritime trade - fight a blockade as a strategic crisis. Russia or China, with continental supply alternatives, can absorb maritime pressure longer.
Era progression
WW2 (1939)
Battleship era ending. Carrier doctrine ascending. The Pacific war demonstrates carrier supremacy; the Atlantic war demonstrates submarine warfare's economic impact. Surface fleets still relevant; neither obsolete.
Submarine warfare is high-impact and high-attrition - the U-boat campaign is decisive in shaping British supply, but counter-submarine tactics catch up by mid-war.
WW3 (modern)
Carriers project. Submarines deny. Surface combatants are missile platforms with integrated AD. Anti-ship missile threat means surface fleets fight in defended bubbles - not the line-of-battle of WW2.
Sea denial is cheap (small platforms, anti-ship missiles, mines). Sea control is expensive (carriers, escorts, integrated AD). The asymmetry favors denial - important for any nation that doesn't have a blue-water fleet.
Doctrine notes
Three patterns:
- →Sea control + amphibious projection. The expensive option. Carriers, escorts, transports. Lets you take territory across oceans. The American doctrine in both eras.
- →Sea denial via subs. Cheap, asymmetric. Doesn't take territory - but threatens trade and warships of any nation that comes too close. The German Atlantic strategy in WW2; the modern Russian / Chinese / Iranian model.
- →Blockade as economic warfare. Position naval forces along enemy trade routes. Cut imports. Watch their economy degrade - magazine production, refining, food. Slow, sustained, often decisive.