Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Are you going to update the Naval Model?

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> Are you going to update the Naval Model? Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Are you going to update the Naval Model? - 10/11/2005 12:34:04 AM   
Mike Carroll

 

Posts: 649
Joined: 10/21/2002
Status: offline 		A real weakness in TOAW in the big scenarios (those are the ones I like) is that the naval model does not work very well. Any plans on making this better? Add in subs? ect.

Post #: 1
RE: Are you going to update the Naval Model? - 10/11/2005 3:12:50 AM   
Bombur

 

Posts: 3642
Joined: 7/2/2004
Status: offline 		-Excellent question. I would also add the air model. Of course, we don´t want the level of detail of WiTP and UV, but damage to individual ships, across the sea supply rules, correction of the movement calculation bug, naval interdiction missions for aircraft, better modeling of air superiority missions and other changes would be wonderful.

(in reply to Mike Carroll)
Post #: 2
RE: Are you going to update the Naval Model? - 10/11/2005 6:05:14 AM   
Rob322

 

Posts: 578
Joined: 8/16/2004
Status: offline 		Personally I'd dump the naval model and deal with it through the event engine. This is a land war game after all, not Harpoon. The only time you need the navy is for amphibious assaults and really it's just shore bombardment. Few navies have sent their convoys of troop ships into seas known to contain enemy capital ships, the risk is too high. Therefore, I say dump the naval aspect of the game. Honestly I can't think of one scenario from TOAW where the naval ships were really useful save the occasional bombardment.

(in reply to Mike Carroll)
Post #: 3
RE: Are you going to update the Naval Model? - 10/11/2005 1:17:57 PM   
Erik2

 

Posts: 786
Joined: 11/2/2000
From: Oslo, Norway
Status: offline 		I disagree.
There are many examples of landbattles where the naval components were important and the outcome not a sure thing at all.
Two of my own scenarios; in Weserubung the invading Kriegsmarine could well have been intercepted by the Royal Navy.
In Crete the RN did intercept and sunk one German convoy and caused another to turn back.

(in reply to Rob322)
Post #: 4
RE: Are you going to update the Naval Model? - 10/11/2005 3:02:58 PM   
Mantis


Posts: 127
Joined: 9/10/2000
From: Edmonton, Canada
Status: offline 		Agreed. Crete is an excellent example. Also Europe Aflame - fight out the entirety of WWII, and there's going to be some good naval actions. The floating arty pieces that represent the warships are simply inadequate.

(in reply to Erik2)
Post #: 5
RE: Are you going to update the Naval Model? - 10/12/2005 1:29:34 PM   
steveh11Matrix


Posts: 944
Joined: 7/30/2004
Status: offline 		Not to mention Sealion, or The Solomons, for example!

Steve.

_____________________________

"Nature always obeys Her own laws" - Leonardo da Vinci

(in reply to Mantis)
Post #: 6
RE: Are you going to update the Naval Model? - 10/12/2005 4:45:00 PM   
DoubleDeuce


Posts: 1247
Joined: 6/23/2000
From: Crossville, TN
Status: offline 		I would say any scenario taking place in the Pacific would need some modelling of naval forces. If the naval aspect can be redesigned I say go for it.

_____________________________

My Combat Campaigns Blog

(in reply to steveh11Matrix)
Post #: 7
RE: Are you going to update the Naval Model? - 10/12/2005 5:31:39 PM   
Pippin


Posts: 1233
Joined: 11/9/2002
Status: offline 		I never used the navy much at all in TOAW. I also did not get the imprssion TOAW was supposed to have major naval support. Seemed to me to always be more of a corps engine.

_____________________________

Nelson stood on deck and observed as the last of the Spanish fleets sank below the waves…

(in reply to DoubleDeuce)
Post #: 8
RE: Are you going to update the Naval Model? - 10/12/2005 8:26:28 PM   
Vincenzo_Beretta


Posts: 440
Joined: 3/13/2001
From: Milan, Italy
Status: offline 		The first fix should be the ability for fleets and air squadrons to be put in a "naval interception" mode. I would be happy with even this single fix - no more Kriegsmarine streaking through Gibiltair while the RN watches from the Rock.

(in reply to Pippin)
Post #: 9
RE: Are you going to update the Naval Model? - 10/12/2005 8:55:04 PM   
pad152

 

Posts: 2871
Joined: 4/23/2000
Status: offline 		Dream Game

TOAW - land combat, and UV/Witp supply and naval warfare!

Looks like Matrix now has the peices let's hope they can put them together.



(in reply to Mike Carroll)
Post #: 10
RE: Are you going to update the Naval Model? - 10/13/2005 5:48:17 AM   
Rob322

 

Posts: 578
Joined: 8/16/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Pippin

I never used the navy much at all in TOAW. I also did not get the imprssion TOAW was supposed to have major naval support. Seemed to me to always be more of a corps engine.



My point. I won't say naval has nothing to do with land combat but this game is a land game, the naval forces always felt like they were an afterthought. My feeling is you do them right or not at all.

For instance, you play the Korea 2000 scenario. It was always fun when the North Korean navy engaged say the US navy and while they were eliminated they did 50% casaulties sometimes. That's because there was simply a generic "missile frigate", nothing more. In all reality, there's a far difference between an American and a North Korean frigate and in all reality the North Korean navy would've been wiped clean pretty fast. That's just one of many issues with naval forces that generally caused me to ignore them in this game. Can the model be made to really handle them intelligently?

(in reply to DoubleDeuce)
Post #: 11
RE: Are you going to update the Naval Model? - 10/13/2005 1:56:29 PM   
coralsaw


Posts: 418
Joined: 10/29/2000
From: Zürich, CH
Status: offline 		Drop the naval system, abstract landing. There are tons of great suggestions already on the land system improvements that should have higher priority, IMHO.

/coralsaw

_____________________________

A soldier will fight long and hard for a bit of colored ribbon. - Napoleon Bonaparte, 15 July 1815, to the captain of HMS Bellerophon.

(in reply to Rob322)
Post #: 12
RE: Are you going to update the Naval Model? - 10/13/2005 4:07:53 PM   
Panama Red

 

Posts: 147
Joined: 9/14/2005
Status: offline 		Keep the naval and improve it to where it should be.

(in reply to coralsaw)
Post #: 13
RE: Are you going to update the Naval Model? - 10/14/2005 11:01:30 AM   
coralsaw


Posts: 418
Joined: 10/29/2000
From: Zürich, CH
Status: offline 		PR, obviously you're entitled to your opinion.

I just wonder though, would you rather see Matrix spend 1 man-week improving the naval model, or 1 man-week eg. improving the AI or supply system? There is a finite budget for improvements on TOAW, I can assure you, so every man-day counts.

/coralsaw

_____________________________

A soldier will fight long and hard for a bit of colored ribbon. - Napoleon Bonaparte, 15 July 1815, to the captain of HMS Bellerophon.

(in reply to Panama Red)
Post #: 14
RE: Are you going to update the Naval Model? - 10/14/2005 11:38:59 AM   
JMS2


Posts: 357
Joined: 10/11/2005
Status: offline 		I´ll rather see a better naval system than a better AI. A better AI has limited projection when compared to human vs human play, while a naval system increases the versatility of TOAW even more.

(in reply to coralsaw)
Post #: 15
RE: Are you going to update the Naval Model? - 10/14/2005 1:11:35 PM   
ydejin

 

Posts: 30
Joined: 6/24/2004
Status: offline 		I'd love to see both a naval system and a better AI. However, having to chose, I'd pick the AI. I don't play human-to-human so the AI quality is very important to me.

(in reply to JMS2)
Post #: 16
RE: Are you going to update the Naval Model? - 10/14/2005 1:36:38 PM   
JMS2


Posts: 357
Joined: 10/11/2005
Status: offline 		However, let me ask you a question, have you ever played against a human?

(in reply to ydejin)
Post #: 17
RE: Are you going to update the Naval Model? - 10/14/2005 2:30:07 PM   
ydejin

 

Posts: 30
Joined: 6/24/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JMS2

However, let me ask you a question, have you ever played against a human?


No, I prefer to play against the computer. The only computer games I've played against/with humans are RTS and CRPG. While I love Turn-Based Strategy, I don't think I have the patience to wait for another human and I think an PBEM game of TOAW would probably take to long to hold my interest.

(in reply to JMS2)
Post #: 18
RE: Are you going to update the Naval Model? - 10/14/2005 2:50:59 PM   
JJKettunen


Posts: 3530
Joined: 3/12/2002
From: Finland
Status: offline 		If there's a choice between better AI, or better overall simulation, I'd go for the latter. People who have kept the game alive, ie PBEM-crowd, deserve it.

_____________________________

Jyri Kettunen

The eternal privilege of those who never act themselves: to interrogate, be dissatisfied, find fault.

- A. Solzhenitsyn

(in reply to ydejin)
Post #: 19
RE: Are you going to update the Naval Model? - 10/14/2005 2:57:31 PM   
Iñaki Harrizabalagatar


Posts: 825
Joined: 12/11/2001
Status: offline 		I think the naval model could be made similar to the current air model, in the sense in which we could have naval units stationed at a port, with a fight range

(in reply to JJKettunen)
Post #: 20
RE: Are you going to update the Naval Model? - 10/14/2005 3:22:29 PM   
Nemo69


Posts: 685
Joined: 2/18/2004
From: Nowhere to be seen
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Keke

If there's a choice between better AI, or better overall simulation, I'd go for the latter. People who have kept the game alive, ie PBEM-crowd, deserve it.
Hear, hear!

_____________________________

Fais ce que dois

(in reply to JJKettunen)
Post #: 21
RE: Are you going to update the Naval Model? - 10/14/2005 5:12:46 PM   
JMS2


Posts: 357
Joined: 10/11/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ydejin

quote:

ORIGINAL: JMS2

However, let me ask you a question, have you ever played against a human?


No, I prefer to play against the computer. The only computer games I've played against/with humans are RTS and CRPG. While I love Turn-Based Strategy, I don't think I have the patience to wait for another human and I think an PBEM game of TOAW would probably take to long to hold my interest.


I suspected that much, however note that you are limiting yourself by 2 factors: the time the designer devoted to putting together a decent programmed opponent and the actual capability of the AI. When playing a human you are likely to find a harder, more satisfying opponent, specially if you win. Yes, things tend to go slower, but then you can have multiple games going at the same time.

(in reply to ydejin)
Post #: 22
RE: Are you going to update the Naval Model? - 10/14/2005 6:27:43 PM   
Panama Red

 

Posts: 147
Joined: 9/14/2005
Status: offline 		What if you are like me, I do not have time to sit down every day and play PEBM. If I wanted to do that, I could go back to playing board games. I buy PC games so I can set down and play a game when I have the time and not wait for anybody else or hold them up waiting for me.

(in reply to JMS2)
Post #: 23
RE: Are you going to update the Naval Model? - 10/14/2005 6:56:50 PM   
JMS2


Posts: 357
Joined: 10/11/2005
Status: offline 		Who says I am not? I usually only have time for a turn a day in the best of cases, but I have no problem skipping one day if needs to be. I reckon I use other games for days that I have more time than that, but they are from the navalwarfare.com side.

(in reply to Panama Red)
Post #: 24
RE: Are you going to update the Naval Model? - 10/14/2005 9:52:04 PM   
steveh11Matrix


Posts: 944
Joined: 7/30/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Keke

If there's a choice between better AI, or better overall simulation, I'd go for the latter. People who have kept the game alive, ie PBEM-crowd, deserve it.

Well, I'd go for the AI, and let the database(s) go open-source. That way I strongly suspect we'd all get what we were really after!

Steve.

P.S. PBEMers deserve no more than any other who paid for the game, nor any less. Equal-Opportunity gaming, as it were...

P.P.S. this has what to do with the Naval Model, btw?

_____________________________

"Nature always obeys Her own laws" - Leonardo da Vinci

(in reply to JJKettunen)
Post #: 25
RE: Are you going to update the Naval Model? - 10/14/2005 10:05:17 PM   
JJKettunen


Posts: 3530
Joined: 3/12/2002
From: Finland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: steveh11Matrix


quote:

ORIGINAL: Keke

If there's a choice between better AI, or better overall simulation, I'd go for the latter. People who have kept the game alive, ie PBEM-crowd, deserve it.

Well, I'd go for the AI, and let the database(s) go open-source. That way I strongly suspect we'd all get what we were really after!

Steve.

P.S. PBEMers deserve no more than any other who paid for the game, nor any less. Equal-Opportunity gaming, as it were...

P.P.S. this has what to do with the Naval Model, btw?


I don't see how an open database will turn gamers into Norm Kogers adding new features to the game.

To make any new feature to work well with the AI is helluva burden for the coder...

_____________________________

Jyri Kettunen

The eternal privilege of those who never act themselves: to interrogate, be dissatisfied, find fault.

- A. Solzhenitsyn

(in reply to steveh11Matrix)
Post #: 26
RE: Are you going to update the Naval Model? - 10/14/2005 10:31:29 PM   
steveh11Matrix


Posts: 944
Joined: 7/30/2004
Status: offline 		Well, the Open Database is, itself, one of the features that's been called for. In and of itself, it would require no 'extra' AI work.

TBH, I don't think there'll be much work on extra fatures, more likely a 'cleaning up' exercise. Precisely because there's not an infinite supply of Norm Kogers! But perhaps a scripted/scriptable AI, better formation control, one or two other bits...

I actually tend to agree with the view that the Naval model, while flawed, is something that could be left alone, while effort was put in elsewhere. If I want to play an Operational game in the Pacific, I've got WitP for that - and, in fact, that's what I'm doing right now!

Steve.

_____________________________

"Nature always obeys Her own laws" - Leonardo da Vinci

(in reply to JJKettunen)
Post #: 27
RE: Are you going to update the Naval Model? - 10/15/2005 12:49:31 AM   
Mike Carroll

 

Posts: 649
Joined: 10/21/2002
Status: offline 		I would like a better naval game. Some of the best grand strategic scenario's such as Europe Aflame, the Great War, etc. would be so much better if there was a naval simulation that worked well with the land combat. It does not have to be War in the Pacific, but the ability to intercept, subs, air interdiction would add alot to the game.

Personally on the AI side, I used to be in the camp where I just played the computer. But my first PBEM game, I was hooked. I will never go back to playing against the AI - it just is not challenging. The more complex the game the harder it is to create an AI that is effective.

(in reply to steveh11Matrix)
Post #: 28
RE: Are you going to update the Naval Model? - 10/15/2005 4:08:27 AM   
TSCofield

 

Posts: 223
Joined: 5/12/2001
From: Ft. Lewis Washington
Status: offline 		I agree on a better naval game. Lets face it, if we don't do that then it will simply be kept as a continental game with either the Allies against Germany/Italy or a China/Japan type scenerio. You could have very limited fighting with the Pacific simply because the entire conflict focused on naval operations. Norm's game was brilliant for its time but for me to truly call it a complete operational wargame naval modeling has to be included. I would love to see some of what has been done with UV/WitP put into a game like TOAW. WitP is weak in the land combat portions of the game and TOAW is weak in naval ops. Imagine a pairing of the two, what a wargame that would be.

Do, that, create a game that has WitP on the sea and TOAW on the ground and I would pay easily 100$ for it. I suspect most of us would here too.

_____________________________

Thomas S. Cofield
Feature Editor, SimHQ.com
t.co0field@comcast.net (stopped the SimHq mail since I get nothing but spam)

(in reply to Mike Carroll)
Post #: 29
RE: Are you going to update the Naval Model? - 10/15/2005 8:05:08 AM   
Chuck2


Posts: 830
Joined: 10/12/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SimHq Tom Cofield

I agree on a better naval game. Lets face it, if we don't do that then it will simply be kept as a continental game with either the Allies against Germany/Italy or a China/Japan type scenerio. You could have very limited fighting with the Pacific simply because the entire conflict focused on naval operations. Norm's game was brilliant for its time but for me to truly call it a complete operational wargame naval modeling has to be included. I would love to see some of what has been done with UV/WitP put into a game like TOAW. WitP is weak in the land combat portions of the game and TOAW is weak in naval ops. Imagine a pairing of the two, what a wargame that would be.


Yeah. I'd like to see an updated naval system as well. At least there should be semi-realistic results when the ships fire at each other! Also, naval interdiction is a must. I think we'll get that at least.

(in reply to TSCofield)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> Are you going to update the Naval Model? Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.469