Ranged Naval Combat

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Ranged Naval Combat

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Advanced Tactics Series >> Advanced Tactics Support >> Ranged Naval Combat

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Ranged Naval Combat - 3/25/2010 6:31:52 AM

AndyH

Posts: 8
Joined: 3/25/2010
Status: offline

I just got AT and I'm getting to know the features. One thing I can't figure out is this:

Some naval sub-formations (only cruisers and battleships I think) have an artillery range. However this range seems ineffective against other ships. In other words the only way I can attack another ship with one of my naval units is to move into an adjacent hex and attack from there. This doesn't seem to make sense; the heavier naval units should be able to attack from a greater range. The problem doesn't exist if I attack a naval unit from the shore, or if I attack a land based unit with a ship (i.e. I can use the weapon's specified ranges in these situations). It only seems to be a problem when I attempt ship to ship combat.

Does anyone know what I'm doing wrong and how I get ranged naval combat to work?

Thanks

Andrew

Post #: 1

RE: Ranged Naval Combat - 3/25/2010 7:36:02 AM

Tufkal2

Posts: 834
Joined: 12/31/2008
From: Germany
Status: offline

Actually what you describe is exactly the way AT operates. Ships attack enemy ships in neighbouring hexes and they bombard land (and air units) within their artillery range.
So you are actually formulating a wish as to a new feature towards Vic I think. I agree it might be nice to have this, too....

Depending on scenario a ship attacking a ship across several hexes might make sense or not of course.

_____________________________

(in reply to AndyH)

Post #: 2

RE: Ranged Naval Combat - 3/25/2010 11:07:48 AM

Vic

Posts: 8262
Joined: 5/17/2004
Status: offline

Hi Andy,

This was a concious design decision. Remember that a round emulates a certain time period. On land there is no way the land troops could avoid the artillery bombardment. They have orders to sit in their trenches right? and endure... But on the high seas once an enemy vessel gives the first shots the ships under fire will fire back or close range when neccessary. The effect of the bigger guns of cruisers and again for battleships is already taken into account in the combat odds. So destroyers stand little chance against battleships. All in all i was quite happy with how this decision turned out. Hope this enlightens things a bit.

best regards,
Vic

(in reply to Tufkal2)

Post #: 3

RE: Ranged Naval Combat - 3/25/2010 8:48:13 PM

AndyH

Posts: 8
Joined: 3/25/2010
Status: offline

Thanks Vic and Lunaticus for your explanations (albeit - from my perspective - disappointing ones!)

Vic: I appreciate that any system of wargame rules is going to involve some degree of simplification and abstraction and I also realize that the turn-based system is going to impose some artificiality on the model, but I did have a couple of questions and thoughts on this:

1. What's the logic for treating land-based and sea-based artillery differently when they are both firing at a ship? If I understand your argument correctly, you're saying that a ship at sea has a lot more freedom of movement than a land based unit, and so can escape an artillery barrage more easily. But if that's so, wouldn't it apply equally well to a ship under attack from shore-based artillery? I can't see why a shore-based artillery unit would be more able to engage a ship at sea than another ship would.

2. More generally, I can't quite follow the rationale for these rules. I think your argument is that ships can disengage from a naval attack relatively easily (this is broadly true, provided the ship under attack is faster). However, I don't think the current rules support this model. Let's say I have a cruiser that encounters an enemy destroyer at sea. The current rules do not permit the (faster) destroyer to escape, they simply force me to close to a 1 hex range in order to attack. The result is a close range engagement and the probable loss of the destroyer . This is the exact opposite of what probably would have happened in real life: a brief long-range engagement with the destroyer either being sunk by the cruiser's first shells, or - more likely - disengaging and escaping. If you want to model that type of engagement, isn't the answer to give the destroyer a higher chance of retreating when attacked? Obviously warfare creates many different scenarios, but in general it seems unrealistic to allow a larger, slower ship to close with a smaller faster one. Furthermore, even if the destroyer allowed my cruiser to close (let's say it's protecting some cargo ships and can't just run away), it would still be in my interest to engage the destroyer at range, because there's always the risk (albeit remote) that a lucky torpedo shot would sink me, it's always going to be in my interest to engage the enemy from outside his range if that's feasible.

...anyway, I'm getting a bit naval warfare geeky here, but perhaps this provides a little food for thought. This issue aside, I'm very impressed by AT and I particularly love its flexibility.

Andrew

(in reply to Vic)

Post #: 4