Ideas on Naval and Strategic Warfare

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Ideas on Naval and Strategic Warfare

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 >> Ideas on Naval and Strategic Warfare

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Ideas on Naval and Strategic Warfare - 10/15/2005 10:59:02 PM

macgregor

Posts: 990
Joined: 2/10/2004
Status: offline

I'll do my best to describe my ideas for portraying naval and strategic warfare in TOAW. Starting with naval warfare:

1) implementation of naval interdiction missions for aircraft
2) implementation of an ASW (anti-submarine warfare) value for weapons sytems and submarine as a unit type (with the same stealthy characteristics of commandoes on land).
3) allow for the development of multi-hit naval units by adding to the weapons pool variable engine speeds from 1-60 ,flight decks and player designed weapons. I suggest the scenario designers have the ability to make their own weapons as the number of hits a naval unit can sustain (and thus it's survivability)are highly variable, requiring many different groupings of weapons to make up the targeted number of hits. I'd like the ability to 'model' everything from multi-hit battleships to single-hit PT boats,destroyers,submarines and aircraft . Escort vessels and submarines would be one hit units, though grouped as desrons and wolfpacks and modelled according to class. A modelled capital ship would look like :

Fuso/ Yamashiro

6/6 14" x 2 guns
1/1 Engine speed 36
7/7 6" x 2 guns
1/1 Engine speed 18
1/1 21" torpedoes
1/1 Engine speed 9
2/2 5" x 4 guns
1/1 25mm AA gun
1/1 Engine speed 5
6/6 25mm AA gun x 6
1/1 Engine speed 3

In addition, units being transported by sea should have their movement adjusted to match the realistic 12 knots these vessels would normally do.

And for strategic warfare:

1) On selected resource hexes the scenario designer would setup for the arrival of resource/ producrtion units as reinforcements. A typical unit would arrive as:

UK Petroleum(Mosul) March/April '41

15/50 Resource/Production points (Requires transport)
15/15 Trucks

This unit will enter the game out of supply. It's only source of supply will be in designated 'factory ' hexes. Once in supply ( and thus, in a factory hex) these units can be disbanded or 'cashed in' for replacements to the inventory pool. The player may either leave the unit in the 'factory' hex until it has accumulated all it's resource/production points or opt to disband this unit before it has filled out, thus sacrificing the production points it still lacks, but will get his replacement weapons faster.Meanwhile this unit can be attacked in transit on land or at sea, or while it's accumulating production points in the factory. I believe the game already bases it's resupply level by the number of objective points,this only requires that the trigger be adapted to base the resupply on disbanded resource/ production points.

I've been obsessed with the idea of taking naval and strategic warfare in TOAW to the same level as the land combat. Please feel free to tell me what you think, ask for clarification, or offer other suggestions. I'm not a programmer and have never designed a scenario, so I'd really like some input from both programmers and scenario designers. At this point any help would be welcome.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post #: 1

RE: Ideas on Naval and Strategic Warfare - 10/16/2005 1:24:32 AM

Jeremy Mac Donald

Posts: 765
Joined: 11/7/2000
From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Status: offline

I like the idea of being able to model ships by having some kind of easily tweaked ship module. I'm not sure how complex it should get however. It might be worth it to presume that a ship that has lost half its 'hits' has half its firepower and half its speed remaining. Obvously a simplification but I think simplifications are to some extent required.

Your suggestion of 'production points' strikes me as interesting but quite the can of worms to open. Some method of 'buying' and selling equipment would be required and there would have to be some way of restricting some equipment and allowing others (so I don't buy a B-2 Bomber for my 1940 French). Something that is similier and maybe easier to implement would be to have 'factory' icons. From a designers perspective I'm not even sure I want the players having the ability to 'buy' any equipment they want. The Germans (and Russians and pretty much everyone really), for example, pumped out lots of inferior tanks simply because thats the production lines they had. Its a bit of a cheat to allow players to only buy the good stuff and skip over the 'junk'.

So we know that the game system (that is to say the programming) can take the contents of a unit and dump all the equipment in a unit into the replacement pool. This happens when we disband a unit and it happens when the editor disbands a unit.

What I am proposing is a 'factory' unit that disbands its contents into the replacement pool every turn - but the unit itself stays put so long as its not destroyed or withdrawn by the editor. This should not be all that hard to program since the basic mechanism is already in place (in the form of disbanding) and the basic mechanics simply need to be tweaked (so the unit itself stays put).

In this manner designers input what each 'factory' makes every turn during scenario creation. The designers have lots of latitude as well. They can withdraw 'factories' if they want them to stop producing or they can add new 'factories' both using the event editor. Furthermore they could use 'factories' to represent other things such as a large stockpile of weapons that might be overrun early in the game or have the 'factory' make lots of infantry squads to represent mobalization. One could even get more in depth and say have three 'factories' making infantry squads early in the war representing mobalization and then over a period of time remove one, then later on the next and finally the last one as the supply of young males in the area dries up. Maybe then they add back a very small one to represent continous recruiting potential from the area.

< Message edited by Jeremy Mac Donald -- 10/16/2005 1:28:29 AM >

_____________________________

Necesse est multos timeat quem multi timent

"He whom many fear, fears many"

(in reply to macgregor)

Post #: 2

RE: Ideas on Naval and Strategic Warfare - 10/16/2005 3:23:02 AM

macgregor

Posts: 990
Joined: 2/10/2004
Status: offline

quote:

Your suggestion of 'production points' strikes me as interesting but quite the can of worms to open. Some method of 'buying' and selling equipment would be required and there would have to be some way of restricting some equipment and allowing others (so I don't buy a B-2 Bomber for my 1940 French). Something that is similier and maybe easier to implement.

I think we're on the same page. I'm not proposing players select what they build. But to take the current system (that I believe already allows the set inventory to be resupplied based on controlled objective points)tweaked to 'cash in' these disbanded production points.(much like a disbanded unit would add it's weapons to the inventory). If the production point is to become the currency, a value will have to be asessed for all weapon types. The only choice the player need make is whether to disband production units before they have reached full strength. The inventory is setup by the scenario designer, so unless he places a
B-2 bomber in the inventory, no one can build one. Since these factories would function as one-hex supply for the production units, the only way I could see them moving is through a game event triggered by a theater option(ex-move Soviet factories east). Neither am I suggesting that factories be categorized, making only the stacking limit govern how many production units can be in a factory hex.(very juicy targets for strategic bombers though)

< Message edited by macgregor -- 10/16/2005 3:31:15 AM >

(in reply to Jeremy Mac Donald)

Post #: 3

RE: Ideas on Naval and Strategic Warfare - 10/16/2005 3:24:33 AM

Bombur

Posts: 3642
Joined: 7/2/2004
Status: offline

quote:

1) implementation of naval interdiction missions for aircraft

-Excellent idea, but don�t remember to change the way interception works or you will have your naval bombers headed for that wonderful British fleet near the Norway coast intercepted by Spitfires flying from the British Isles (a Pacific War scenario would result in even worse results)

quote:

2) implementation of an ASW (anti-submarine warfare) value for weapons sytems and submarine as a unit type (with the same stealthy characteristics of commandoes on land).

-Good, I would also add naval patrol missions

quote:

3) allow for the development of multi-hit naval units by adding to the weapons pool variable engine speeds from 1-60 ,flight decks and player designed weapons. I suggest the scenario designers have the ability to make their own weapons as the number of hits a naval unit can sustain (and thus it's survivability)are highly variable, requiring many different groupings of weapons to make up the targeted number of hits. I'd like the ability to 'model' everything from multi-hit battleships to single-hit PT boats,destroyers,submarines and aircraft . Escort vessels and submarines would be one hit units, though grouped as desrons and wolfpacks and modelled according to class. A modelled capital ship would look like :

Fuso/ Yamashiro

6/6 14" x 2 guns
1/1 Engine speed 36
7/7 6" x 2 guns
1/1 Engine speed 18
1/1 21" torpedoes
1/1 Engine speed 9
2/2 5" x 4 guns
1/1 25mm AA gun
1/1 Engine speed 5
6/6 25mm AA gun x 6
1/1 Engine speed 3

-Good idea, but I wouldn�t go to far. I think all ships could be rated for durability, antiship value (plus range), anti AA value, land bombardment and ASW value (carriers would also be rated for number of aircraft they could carry). They should be damaged (damage would be expressed in %) and damage should result in speed reduction. It should be possible to build TF�s from individual ships and to repair ships in shiypyards. Maybe it could be possible to create rules for naval surface interception based on distance and speed of the two fleets.

quote:

In addition, units being transported by sea should have their movement adjusted to match the realistic 12 knots these vessels would normally do.

-The rules for naval movement are screwed anyway in TOAW. Depending on the time/space scale used , speed for naval units goes from 5km/h to 190km/h!!!!!

quote:

And for strategic warfare:

1) On selected resource hexes the scenario designer would setup for the arrival of resource/ producrtion units as reinforcements. A typical unit would arrive as:

UK Petroleum(Mosul) March/April '41

15/50 Resource/Production points (Requires transport)
15/15 Trucks

This unit will enter the game out of supply. It's only source of supply will be in designated 'factory ' hexes. Once in supply ( and thus, in a factory hex) these units can be disbanded or 'cashed in' for replacements to the inventory pool. The player may either leave the unit in the 'factory' hex until it has accumulated all it's resource/production points or opt to disband this unit before it has filled out, thus sacrificing the production points it still lacks, but will get his replacement weapons faster.Meanwhile this unit can be attacked in transit on land or at sea, or while it's accumulating production points in the factory. I believe the game already bases it's resupply level by the number of objective points,this only requires that the trigger be adapted to base the resupply on disbanded resource/ production points.

I've been obsessed with the idea of taking naval and strategic warfare in TOAW to the same level as the land combat. Please feel free to tell me what you think, ask for clarification, or offer other suggestions. I'm not a programmer and have never designed a scenario, so I'd really like some input from both programmers and scenario designers. At this point any help would be welcome.

-I think it should be better to create a system with on map/off map factories to replace equipment, while the player can�t control these factories production. I don�t know if we should add resources or work only with supplies.

(in reply to macgregor)

Post #: 4

RE: Ideas on Naval and Strategic Warfare - 10/16/2005 3:35:13 AM

Bombur

Posts: 3642
Joined: 7/2/2004
Status: offline

-Another important thing to be added is the antiship capability for air units. In TOAW we have an all or nothing model, with some units being useless on naval attack and other wiping out ships every time they attacked. Planes should be rated for antiship capacity that would involve two vaules (1) precision and (2) damage inflicted when a ship is hit. Planes carrying antiship missiles should also be rated for distance they deliver their weapons.

(in reply to macgregor)

Post #: 5

RE: Ideas on Naval and Strategic Warfare - 10/16/2005 3:57:42 AM

Jeremy Mac Donald

Posts: 765
Joined: 11/7/2000
From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: macgregor

quote:

Your suggestion of 'production points' strikes me as interesting but quite the can of worms to open. Some method of 'buying' and selling equipment would be required and there would have to be some way of restricting some equipment and allowing others (so I don't buy a B-2 Bomber for my 1940 French). Something that is similier and maybe easier to implement.

I think we're on the same page. I'm not proposing players select what they build. But to take the current system (that I believe already allows the set inventory to be resupplied based on controlled objective points)tweaked to 'cash in' these disbanded production points.(much like a disbanded unit would add it's weapons to the inventory).

I'm sorry - you have lost me. There is a replacement system in which certian amounts of equipment can be set to arrive every turn. But it has nothing to do with objective points. A designer can apply a percentage to the entire replacement system to increase or decrease it by some percentage but its got nothing to do with objective points unless the designer decides to to make say the loss of Paris be a hit to french production say -25% to everything the French get in replacements. The designer might also choose to make Paris an objective (that is tell an enemy formation that they want to try and move through Paris) and make could further decide to make it worth VPs if he wanted to I guess.

quote:

If the production point is to become the currency, a value will have to be asessed for all weapon types. The only choice the player need make is whether to disband production units before they have reached full strength.

I'm sorry - I'm not sure what you mean by a 'production unit'. Are you saying that some mechanism creates units out of whole cloth? How does the system know what the TO&E of the unit is supposed to be? Actually how does the program know what the name of the unit is? Also what happens if we modify the stats of the equipment? Would that not make the price fixes for the equipment go off? Or does this idea pre-empt the idea of having an equipment database editor?

quote:

The inventory is setup by the scenario designer, so unless he places a B-2 bomber in the inventory, no one can build one. Since these factories would function as one-hex supply for the production units, the only way I could see them moving is through a game event triggered by a theater option(ex-move Soviet factories east). Neither am I suggesting that factories be categorized, making only the stacking limit govern how many production units can be in a factory hex.(very juicy targets for strategic bombers though)

I'm still not sure what these factories are - what is a 'one-hex supply'? Are they kind of like supply points but they make new units that players buy through some mechanism?

Truthfully I don't think we are all that close to each other in terms of our ideas except that they are both methods of creating a production element. I'm really just saying that I want another unit - one that disbands itself every turn but does not vanish. You seem to have an idea that - so far as I can tell - involves new units being constantly added to the game, players design their own TO&E for these units every turn, and they buy equipment for these new units every turn.

< Message edited by Jeremy Mac Donald -- 10/16/2005 4:00:42 AM >

_____________________________

Necesse est multos timeat quem multi timent

"He whom many fear, fears many"

(in reply to macgregor)

Post #: 6

RE: Ideas on Naval and Strategic Warfare - 10/16/2005 11:33:03 AM

macgregor

Posts: 990
Joined: 2/10/2004
Status: offline

quote:

There is a replacement system in which certian amounts of equipment can be set to arrive every turn. But it has nothing to do with objective points. A designer can apply a percentage to the entire replacement system to increase or decrease it by some percentage but its got nothing to do with objective points unless the designer decides to to make say the loss of Paris be a hit to french production say -25% to...

Thank you for explaining this to me.

quote:

I'm sorry - I'm not sure what you mean by a 'production unit'. Are you saying that some mechanism creates units out of whole cloth? How does the system know what the TO&E of the unit is supposed to be? Actually how does the program know what the name of the unit is? Also what happens if we modify the stats of the equipment? Would that not make the price fixes for the equipment go off? Or does this idea pre-empt the idea of having an equipment database editor?

Production units are like air and land units, except that they represent resources(and ultimately weapons in production). They arrive as reinforcements on selected resource hexes and must move to factory hexes to recieve the remainder of their production points(see my original post). These factory hexes are the only hexes where these 'units' can recieve more production points (just like supply, in fact if they remain out of the factory, they will begin to lose production points -just like out of supply units would lose weapons). Once in a factory hex, these units can be disbanded. These disbanded 'production points' would allow a percentage of the replacements to be recieved. Have enough production points and you would recieve 100% of your scheduled replacements. With more you'd get more and less, likewise. TO&E and OOB would not be affected. Reinforcements could arrive understrength to give this production scheme more of an impact.

quote:

You seem to have an idea that - so far as I can tell - involves new units being constantly added to the game, players design their own TO&E for these units every turn, and they buy equipment for these new units every turn.

Only production units(and not every turn). Players do not design their own TO&E. It's already in the scenario. This 'production' merely acts to 'fuel' the replacements. Except for perhaps theater options, a player has no control over what he gets, only how much of it. I hope I explained it a little better.

quote:

I think all ships could be rated for durability, antiship value (plus range), anti AA value, land bombardment and ASW value (carriers would also be rated for number of aircraft they could carry). They should be damaged (damage would be expressed in %) and damage should result in speed reduction.

More drastic than what I offerred however perhaps simpler to understand. My method is more informative though, I think. Are you thinking of pacwar style naval units? All I ask is for numbers 1,2, and 4( not listed- naval reserve movement ) from my naval wishlist. The rest would all be added to the weapons database.

quote:

-Good, I would also add naval patrol missions

I forgot to add this. Though I think having naval reserve movement would be easier to implement as it's already in use on land. I'm trying to make these improvements as minimal as possible. My idea of naval interdiction air missions is to slow down(or better yet) stop moving enemy naval units and it should be the key to sinking them. Patrolling should be doable by placing units at sea while having units behind in reserve(to protect the patrol). I feel this is more realistic. Place a naval unit in every third hex and you have a picket.

I'm tired and must go to bed now.

(in reply to Jeremy Mac Donald)

Post #: 7

RE: Ideas on Naval and Strategic Warfare - 10/16/2005 9:07:45 PM

golden delicious

Posts: 5575
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeremy Mac Donald

From a designers perspective I'm not even sure I want the players having the ability to 'buy' any equipment they want. The Germans (and Russians and pretty much everyone really), for example, pumped out lots of inferior tanks simply because thats the production lines they had. Its a bit of a cheat to allow players to only buy the good stuff and skip over the 'junk'.

Worst is weapons systems which seemed like a good idea at the time but turned out not to be so hot. The Defiant fighter is one I've heard in this context in the past.

_____________________________

"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."

(in reply to Jeremy Mac Donald)

Post #: 8

RE: Ideas on Naval and Strategic Warfare - 10/17/2005 9:25:57 PM

lok

Posts: 22
Joined: 10/17/2005
Status: offline

Please...whatever you do give us a naval module that it is somewhat realistic. It's the reason I stopped playing TOAW and would be the reason to come back. I'd be happy with something simple (like the way the air war works right?)...of course, if you want to make it more sophisticated don't let me stop you

(in reply to golden delicious)

Post #: 9

RE: Ideas on Naval and Strategic Warfare - 10/17/2005 11:55:39 PM

lancerunolfsson

Posts: 257
Joined: 2/7/2005
Status: offline

Even though the TOAW Naval model stinks. I woud give it close to the absoloute lowest priority for repair. Most scenarios don't need it and and of those that do it is pretty trivial in the great majority. Yeah fix it, someday but don't worry a lot about it for now.

(in reply to lok)

Post #: 10

RE: Ideas on Naval and Strategic Warfare - 10/18/2005 1:27:48 AM

golden delicious

Posts: 5575
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: lancerunolfsson

Even though the TOAW Naval model stinks. I woud give it close to the absoloute lowest priority for repair. Most scenarios don't need it and and of those that do it is pretty trivial in the great majority. Yeah fix it, someday but don't worry a lot about it for now.

Part of the reason relatively few scenarios use naval units is because those campaigns where naval units feature heavily cannot be modelled easily in TOAW as it stands.

_____________________________

"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."

(in reply to lancerunolfsson)

Post #: 11

RE: Ideas on Naval and Strategic Warfare - 10/18/2005 1:40:00 AM

Bombur

Posts: 3642
Joined: 7/2/2004
Status: offline

quote:

Part of the reason relatively few scenarios use naval units is because those campaigns where naval units feature heavily cannot be modelled easily in TOAW as it stands.

-Correct, the attempts to simulate Norway invasion, Guadalcanal and even the Pacific war prove your point. And with a better naval engine it could be possible to simulate Soviet vs. NATO naval operations in the North Atlantic and Mediterranean, Falklands war and lots of other historical and hypothetical scenarios.

(in reply to golden delicious)

Post #: 12

RE: Ideas on Naval and Strategic Warfare - 10/18/2005 7:48:07 AM

Jeremy Mac Donald

Posts: 765
Joined: 11/7/2000
From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeremy Mac Donald

From a designers perspective I'm not even sure I want the players having the ability to 'buy' any equipment they want. The Germans (and Russians and pretty much everyone really), for example, pumped out lots of inferior tanks simply because thats the production lines they had. Its a bit of a cheat to allow players to only buy the good stuff and skip over the 'junk'.

Worst is weapons systems which seemed like a good idea at the time but turned out not to be so hot. The Defiant fighter is one I've heard in this context in the past.

That German M-110 was a big disapointment as well.

_____________________________

Necesse est multos timeat quem multi timent

"He whom many fear, fears many"

(in reply to golden delicious)

Post #: 13

RE: Ideas on Naval and Strategic Warfare - 10/18/2005 7:50:02 AM

Jeremy Mac Donald

Posts: 765
Joined: 11/7/2000
From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

quote:

ORIGINAL: lancerunolfsson

Even though the TOAW Naval model stinks. I woud give it close to the absoloute lowest priority for repair. Most scenarios don't need it and and of those that do it is pretty trivial in the great majority. Yeah fix it, someday but don't worry a lot about it for now.

Part of the reason relatively few scenarios use naval units is because those campaigns where naval units feature heavily cannot be modelled easily in TOAW as it stands.

I agree with this - its not that designers would not like to simulate many of these interesting and exciting campaigns - its often that attempts to do so fall foul of the damn naval module.

_____________________________

Necesse est multos timeat quem multi timent

"He whom many fear, fears many"

(in reply to golden delicious)

Post #: 14

RE: Ideas on Naval and Strategic Warfare - 10/18/2005 4:05:07 PM

lok

Posts: 22
Joined: 10/17/2005
Status: offline

I really do think that making at least a minimum effort to fix the naval aspect of the game would make many scenarios much more interesting and much better.
Virtually any, non land-locked scenario, from a NATO-USSR conflict, to a Pacific WWII campaign, etc. could benefit from a more realistic naval module.

A minimal effort could be, simply to have the ability to limit the movement of naval units to allow the opponent a chance for intercepting an amphibious assault or sea transport. This change could be implemented in the event engine or the unit editor or both.

A better, but still relatively small effort would be to use the present air model with the addition of a submarine unit (akin to the stealth fighter presently in the game) for naval combat and movement. Not exactly Harpoon but much better than what we have now.

(in reply to Jeremy Mac Donald)

Post #: 15

RE: Ideas on Naval and Strategic Warfare - 10/18/2005 4:22:54 PM

golden delicious

Posts: 5575
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeremy Mac Donald
That German M-110 was a big disapointment as well.

Yeah, it's not great as a heavy fighter, its intended role, but players do need it in TOAW because it is the nearest thing the Germans had to a long-range fighter. So it does get built in GS3, for example.

_____________________________

"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."

(in reply to Jeremy Mac Donald)

Post #: 16

RE: Ideas on Naval and Strategic Warfare - 10/18/2005 4:35:41 PM

golden delicious

Posts: 5575
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: lok

A better, but still relatively small effort would be to use the present air model with the addition of a submarine unit (akin to the stealth fighter presently in the game) for naval combat and movement. Not exactly Harpoon but much better than what we have now.

What I want is a system which produces historically plausible results without the scenario designer or player having to invest a serious effort in understanding naval warfare.

_____________________________

"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."

(in reply to lok)

Post #: 17

RE: Ideas on Naval and Strategic Warfare - 10/18/2005 6:09:34 PM

macgregor

Posts: 990
Joined: 2/10/2004
Status: offline

I'd prefer the present system over something like the air system. All I want is the same features the land combat offers -air interdiction, reserve movement, subs(which we agree on) and the ability to model multi hit naval units. I don't think I'm asking for too much. For all I know, you can copy and paste code that's already written. While I'm not opposed to designating operations areas for ships(and planes) I realize that there's nothing in the game like this so it would have to be programmed from scratch.

(in reply to golden delicious)

Post #: 18

RE: Ideas on Naval and Strategic Warfare - 10/18/2005 8:16:22 PM

lok

Posts: 22
Joined: 10/17/2005
Status: offline

quote:

What I want is a system which produces historically plausible results without the scenario designer or player having to invest a serious effort in understanding naval warfare.

I agree. That would be ideal.

quote:

I'd prefer the present system over something like the air system.

I was merely trying to suggest what I thought would be relatively small change (in terms of code implementation). For all I know, it could be much simpler to just add new code for the naval module. It all depends how the game engine works and how it is implemented in code.

What I would like to see (at minimum) is the ability to intercept/interdict sea transport and amphibious assaults by enemy air/naval units and the addition of submarines. Then perhaps we can move on to supply issues etc. How these features are best implemented in code is a question for Norm...

(in reply to macgregor)

Post #: 19

RE: Ideas on Naval and Strategic Warfare - 10/18/2005 9:42:44 PM

macgregor

Posts: 990
Joined: 2/10/2004
Status: offline

quote:

What I would like to see (at minimum) is the ability to intercept/interdict sea transport and amphibious assaults by enemy air/naval units and the addition of submarines. Then perhaps we can move on to supply issues etc. How these features are best implemented in code is a question for Norm...

I understand what you're saying and I agree with what needs to be represented. First, they should make it imposssible to cheat by reopening the pbl file if any representation is to work 100% if it's possible. I agree that sea supply also has to be represented. Perhaps operation areas are necesary.

- I've read the new developer's post (http://www.strategyzoneonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=33232)and, regardless of which way the naval representation gets handled(he mentions both our ideas) I'm confident that it'll be a huge improvement. How long it takes to be released is another question.

< Message edited by macgregor -- 10/19/2005 4:57:03 PM >

(in reply to lok)

Post #: 20

RE: Ideas on Naval and Strategic Warfare - 11/5/2005 5:20:37 PM

macgregor

Posts: 990
Joined: 2/10/2004
Status: offline

I was wondering how to best represent submarines. I figure they would be one-hit units with a database big enough to include every class.(Perhaps modern submarines could be multiple hit units -I'm not sure). Realistically, with the exception of losses incurred by interdicting air units, subs should probably only be vulnerable to attack at their own discretion. My suggestion would be that on the turn a sub is involved in combat, it becomes 'spotted'. Afterwards, unless it moves, it should be invulnerable to attack. Of course subs should only suffer losses from units with an ASW strength. I like the idea of one-hit escort ships thus allowing the scen designer to 'stack' multiple-hit capital ship units with an escort.

(in reply to macgregor)

Post #: 21

RE: Ideas on Naval and Strategic Warfare - 11/5/2005 6:11:01 PM

golden delicious

Posts: 5575
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: macgregor

I was wondering how to best represent submarines.

Since they don't directly impact on the land side at all, they can be heavily abstracted. I don't think a unit would be needed at all. Probably best to have them as a moveable hazard effect which attrites any enemy naval units moving through their area of operations.

_____________________________

"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."

(in reply to macgregor)

Post #: 22

RE: Ideas on Naval and Strategic Warfare - 11/5/2005 6:20:20 PM

macgregor

Posts: 990
Joined: 2/10/2004
Status: offline

I regret that this opinion is probably shared with many others. The fact is; that this wonderful game already has the building blocks of a great naval simulator. Their are a multitude of games that only cover land warfare. This game (IMO) was intended to be versatile enough to represent naval warfare. Do you really want to relegate this to abstraction?

(in reply to golden delicious)

Post #: 23

RE: Ideas on Naval and Strategic Warfare - 11/5/2005 7:32:21 PM

golden delicious

Posts: 5575
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: macgregor

I regret that this opinion is probably shared with many others. The fact is; that this wonderful game already has the building blocks of a great naval simulator. Their are a multitude of games that only cover land warfare. This game (IMO) was intended to be versatile enough to represent naval warfare. Do you really want to relegate this to abstraction?

The trouble is I, along with most other TOAW players, have no interest in figuring out whether HMS Sibyl would be better deployed in the open sea or right outside Tripoli harbour.

It might be possible to have TOAW simulate naval warfare to the extent you're discussing. However a) I don't really want to have to really get into the ins-and-outs naval warfare and b) I would prefer the developers to perfect the land simulation first.

If you can provide this element to the game whilst both allowing the player to largely ignore it without seriously hindering his play and without taking away from the effort to improve the land warfare simulation, then that's all very well. I just don't think that's likely.

< Message edited by golden delicious -- 11/5/2005 7:34:08 PM >

_____________________________

"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."

(in reply to macgregor)

Post #: 24

RE: Ideas on Naval and Strategic Warfare - 11/5/2005 7:54:04 PM

macgregor

Posts: 990
Joined: 2/10/2004
Status: offline

Those who have no interest in naval warfare should probably restrict their play to non-naval scenarios. I was once stymied by Matrix's decision to add AI to World in Flames, thus considerably delaying it's release. So I understand not wanting them to get started on too ambitious of a project. However, next to that I believe this is small potatoes. If killing the bugs wasn't already accomplished by Norm's patch, I believe it's pretty close to being finished. I would suspect a Matrix version of TOAW probably isn't too far off. Perhaps the idea of a naval warfare patch could be kept alive. I know I'll keep trying -if not with Matrix then with Larry Fulkerson. Though I'll admit that so far, I haven't run into many takers.

-BTW IMO HMS Sibyl would be best deployed outside Tripoli where it's sure to find the most action. Open sea is more dicey. Now we're making the same decisions as the sub commander. Though I wouldn't have individual sub counters. They would be grouped into squadrons or wolfpacks.

< Message edited by macgregor -- 11/5/2005 8:07:47 PM >

(in reply to golden delicious)

Post #: 25

RE: Ideas on Naval and Strategic Warfare - 11/6/2005 4:47:09 PM

golden delicious

Posts: 5575
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: macgregor

Those who have no interest in naval warfare should probably restrict their play to non-naval scenarios.

The classic example is Seelowe. I've been periodically involved in playtesting a very good scenario on the subject. I worry that if you're able to get your excellent naval model that I will no longer be able to play the fascinating land campaign because I don't know the ins-and-outs of naval warfare.

quote:

If killing the bugs wasn't already accomplished by Norm's patch, I believe it's pretty close to being finished. I would suspect a Matrix version of TOAW probably isn't too far off.

Version 1.07 will probably come out in a couple of months or so. An actual updated game? Maybe a year to eighteen months. It's all pure speculation, of course.

quote:

-BTW IMO HMS Sibyl would be best deployed outside Tripoli where it's sure to find the most action.

On the one hand, it's a more target rich environment. On the other, it's also much closer to Axis shore-based airpower and coastal patrol vessels. That's just it- I don't want to have to worry about how to make this trade-off. As the Italians, I don't want to have to worry about what my squadron of Z.506s is doing today.

quote:

Now we're making the same decisions as the sub commander.

That's even worse. How does the submarine commander out on the open ocean get instructions from the player in his central location? Doesn't he have to maintain radio silence?

_____________________________

"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."

(in reply to macgregor)

Post #: 26

RE: Ideas on Naval and Strategic Warfare - 11/6/2005 6:13:45 PM

macgregor

Posts: 990
Joined: 2/10/2004
Status: offline

quote:

quote:

quote:

Now we're making the same decisions as the sub commander.

That's even worse. How does the submarine commander out on the open ocean get instructions from the player in his central location? Doesn't he have to maintain radio silence?

It's a good point. But I think that in the context of a scenario with 1 week or 1/2 week turns, it's not inconcievable. Even subs make contact once a week. I do understand the argument that sea supply would be easier portrayed in the abstract. My idea would have players outline operations areas that would cut supply. Naturally, where these operations areas overlap with the opponent's there would be sea battles. If they're going to enlarge the event engine, perhaps a scenario designer would have a choice as to how to portray the naval ops.

(in reply to golden delicious)

Post #: 27

Defense strengths - 11/13/2005 9:39:16 PM

macgregor

Posts: 990
Joined: 2/10/2004
Status: offline

I've been doing some more thinking about this. It's much more difficult to determine defense strength than attack strength. My thought is that this should factor in:
a) Speed b)armor(integrity) c) weapon range d)tonnage e) profile and f) crush depth(subs). I don't feel that combining these factors into one overall defense strength is the way to go(exception:subs and escorts). I feel that once a defense strength is determined , it should be represented in the number of hits via weapons groupings and speed hits. Each hit should have a similar defensive value.

It would be nice if torpedo combat could have a special representation. Say, based on number of tubes, relative proficiency and readiness, after the initial round of combat(exception: subs), torpedo attacks could be 'awarded'. These attack would have a 50% succcess check but if successful, should do substantial damage.Subs would not have to endure a first round of combat. However, in addition to proficiency and readiness, number of tubes,relative speed and ASW value of targeted ships would also get factored.

If reserve status is to be available for naval units, then too perhaps should be the standing order to disengage(run like hell) if attacked.

Any comments by the development team on the feasability(or desirability) of any of these ideas would be greatly appreciated,

(in reply to macgregor)

Post #: 28

reconaissance - 11/14/2005 7:25:29 PM

macgregor

Posts: 990
Joined: 2/10/2004
Status: offline

Certainly nothing determines 'victory at sea' more than reconaissance. Radar and spotter planes(or helos) should be given weapon status and in this way affect the recon ability of naval units. It would be nice if the player could select his carrier planes to serve this function. However, it would probably be best for the scenario designer to add the spotter planes to the carrier's own weapons. Aircraft on naval interdiction would augment this by not only spotting enemy units, but by reducing their movement, thus denying them the ability to evade engagement .

(in reply to macgregor)

Post #: 29

Page: [1]

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> Ideas on Naval and Strategic Warfare

Page: [1]