Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Naval units

 
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] >> WW2: Time of Wrath >> Naval units Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Naval units - 8/19/2009 8:27:18 AM   
Michael the Pole


Posts: 680
Joined: 10/30/2004
From: Houston, Texas
Status: offline 		I'd like to open a thread for suggestions on ways to improve the naval game. While we cant do anything to the basic engine, I think that there are a number of changes we can make that would greatly improve the naval system. Here are three off the top of my head:
1)Assign an attack and "armor" (defense) value to each ship. Severian has most of this data at his fingertips, but for ease of calculation, you could give an attack vakue equal to the gun size in inches (i.e. County Class cruisers mount 8" guns -- its attack vakue is 8; Graf Spee mounted 11" guns so its attack value is 11, etc. Generally speaking a warships armor was usually designed to protect it from guns of the same calibre that it mounted itself, so the County Class mentioned above has armor valued at 8. There are obvious exceptions to this! But the present system, where a "Duetschland" is treated as equivelant to a Town Class light cruiser is pretty annoying.

2) We should assign a numerical value to all ports, from 1 for a wooden fishing pier in a smuggler's port to "10" for the Normandie Dock in Saint-Nazaire. This would allow us to regulate the amount of supply that could be brought in each turn and would recreate the importance of such events as the capture of Antwerp, etc. We could also limit ship repair to ports that had the capability for dry-docking (for example) a carrier or a destroyer. (See 3.) Currently you can you can bring a 35,000 ton line of battle ship into the harbor at Cagliari, pay your money, and hey presto, it rumbles out the next week, good as new.

3) We desperately need to do something about ship repair. Ships should be limited to which ports can repair them, and it should take time! Id suggest that no ship can repair in a port smaller than 5, say, ahd a capital ship should require a 9 or 10. It should take longer to repair a ship in a smaller port. And it should take months to repair major damage. The image of Tripitz, stuck like a grounded whale in Trondhiem Fjord comes to mind.

4) I've always wanted to do something to make the submarine war more exciting. (As those of you who are regulars here know, and are sick of me repeating it, I'm sure) Churchill said that the only times he ever had any doubts about the outcome of the war was when he had to think about the Battle of the Atlantic. I have made the suggestion before that at least half of Englands production points should come into the country every turn in convoys from the Commonwealth. Think how exciting it could be to have to fight to sink those convoys! The current system is workable, but not very exciting.

I'd be interested in any other suggestions the community might have for improving the naval system. Perhaps we could persuade Doom and Anraz to do a "Naval" Patch.

BTW, I really like the new naval counters that Swatter555 developed. I'd love to use them but like the old counter mix for my land uniits.

_____________________________

"One scoundrel is a disgrace, two is a law-firm, and three or more is a Congress." B. Franklin

Mike

A tribute to my heroes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fRU2tlE5m8
Post #: 1
RE: Naval units - 8/19/2009 9:48:05 AM   
Anraz

 

Posts: 785
Joined: 7/25/2008
Status: offline
quote:

Perhaps we could persuade Doom and Anraz to do a "Naval" Patch.


Who knows...

...but whatever will happane it will follow the rock-paper-scissors rule :)


_____________________________


(in reply to Michael the Pole)
Post #: 2
RE: Naval units - 8/19/2009 4:27:06 PM   
Mike Parker

 

Posts: 583
Joined: 12/30/2008
From: Houston TX
Status: offline 		First off I will say the Naval Game in ToW is leaps and bounds better than RtV.  I find myself being engaged in the naval war now.

Improvements - Some of these will be possible.. some perhaps not.

Building - there needs to be a delay between building a ship and deploying a ship, likely this will be impossible to impliment since there is no build que.  I thought about just increasing the cost for ships to some insane level so that nobody builds them straight away, and then doing an event level ship building sceme.  But I think being asked each week "Do you want to put 5pp towards building a sub" "Do you want to put 10pp towards a cruiser" "...15pp... Battleship" "...20pp... Carrier" would be quite annoying... and even each month might be too much, then there is the whole issue.. UK US and Italy might want to have more than one being built at a time.. so it becomes quite hard to do it with events.. maybe someone with more event experience has an idea here?

Repair - Taking a shot up battleship that got towed into harbour (1 of 8 hp left) and repairing it in a week is very unrealistic.  Ports likely need to be defined with a certain value as to how much they can repair in a given week, and perhaps even a threshold they can repair... by threshold I mean that they cannot repair a ship with 50% or more of its HP gone.. so you would have minor ports that could say at best repair 3 HP per week, and absolutely cannot repair a ship at all that is damaged to 50% or more.. so you would have your heavy repair bases and smaller ports to repair superstructure etc.

Factors/Tech - having every battleship be the same for example is wrong.  Some of the OOB battleships in game are WWI Dreadnaughts, but they are given the same basic stats as the 'R' class UK battleships or the Bismark.  Its also rather unrealistic that a ship upgrades automatically to the latest tech.  Ships for one should be locked to their tech just like ground/air units are.  In addition upgrading the tech level should either be impossible or VERY expensive.  In addition warship tech should be more difficult to research, but starting levels should be adjusted.  That way the Historical OOB's can properly put some ships at Tech 1 2 or 3 let's say, while new ships you produce are at your current tech level.  This would help ALOT I think.  Again it might be impossible as currently coded.

Air Interaction - Currently land based air is WAY TOO EFFECTIVE.  This is a hard one, in the European Theatre in WWII land based air hitting naval units was VERY effective, so effective in fact that Naval units of the time almost always avoided operations when they were in range of enemy land based aircraft.  So while the fact that land based air pummels naval units is proper as its currently done.. there should be an option to set your fleet to 'Avoid Land Based Aircraft' or what have you.. that would severly lower the chance that land based aircraft could find something to attack.  This would be much more like it was in WWII in Europe.  Also the aircraft results need to be cleaned up, the fact that you can definatively know that no fleets are in existance in a zone with a single mission is improper, you should just get the 'No ships found' message.  Also Land based air should be able to attack enemy shipping directly.

Sea Transport of Land units - No way should a Unit embarked in Naples or Taranto be able to debark in Tripoli in a single turn without ever having to sit in the Central Med.  The allied fleets should have a shot at this transport, and it should be a hard decision for the Italians to send units to N. Africa once the way heats up.  Same is true of course in other places but to a lesser degree.  Moving a transport out of a port should prevent that transport entering a port on the same turn.. that would pretty much fix things on this regard I think.

Naval Escort - Transports, Amphibs, and Convoys should be escortable by Naval units.

Uber Stacks - Fleets should be limited in size.  Uber stacks of ships are way too powerful.

Naval Leaders - This would be nice to have

Naval Missions - Many More missions should be available other than Regular Fleet and Raider.  Things like escort, avoid land based air, naval bombardment, Search, etc should be added, and I think could be added pretty easily (but I could be wrong)


Edit - Oh and port attacks! We need air attacks on ports from both land based and Carrier units


< Message edited by Mike Parker -- 8/19/2009 4:34:01 PM >

(in reply to Anraz)
Post #: 3
RE: Naval units - 8/19/2009 5:41:39 PM   
Anraz

 

Posts: 785
Joined: 7/25/2008
Status: offline
quote:

Sea Transport of Land units - No way should a Unit embarked in Naples or Taranto be able to debark in Tripoli in a single turn without ever having to sit in the Central Med.  The allied fleets should have a shot at this transport, and it should be a hard decision for the Italians to send units to N. Africa once the way heats up.  Same is true of course in other places but to a lesser degree.  Moving a transport out of a port should prevent that transport entering a port on the same turn.. that would pretty much fix things on this regard I think.


Already done for the following patch.

quote:

Air Interaction - Currently land based air is WAY TOO EFFECTIVE.  This is a hard one, in the European Theatre in WWII land based air hitting naval units was VERY effective, so effective in fact that Naval units of the time almost always avoided operations when they were in range of enemy land based aircraft.  So while the fact that land based air pummels naval units is proper as its currently done.. there should be an option to set your fleet to 'Avoid Land Based Aircraft' or what have you.. that would severly lower the chance that land based aircraft could find something to attack.  This would be much more like it was in WWII in Europe.  Also the aircraft results need to be cleaned up, the fact that you can definatively know that no fleets are in existance in a zone with a single mission is improper, you should just get the 'No ships found' message.  Also Land based air should be able to attack enemy shipping directly.


Small part of this is also done for the following patch.



_____________________________


(in reply to Mike Parker)
Post #: 4
RE: Naval units - 8/19/2009 6:45:45 PM   
Joram

 

Posts: 3198
Joined: 7/15/2005
Status: offline 		FWIW, I disagree with anything making it too complicated. If I wanted a complicated game I'd have bought something else. I'm not saying these things to be contrary but since you opened the discussion, here are my viewpoints.

I don't think every battleship is the same, they have different tech levels. So having a generic battleship is quite ok by me. I don't care about the names, they could all be the USS Minnow if it served the job adequately. I like the flavor of the names but I'm not pressing for each battleship to be exactly as in real life.

I also don't agree that land air vs naval is way too effective. In fact, I would argue the opposite. It seems hard as hell to actually destroy anything and that's after many turns of trying. In my last game having 5 dedicated air units (3 'armies', 2 divisions) bombing the north atlantic for a year, I got maybe 2 kills. Both I believe to be patrol groups. A heck of a lot of damage to be sure but I suffered a fair amount damage too so not sure if I came out ahead or not. I would agree though that naval carriers seem a tad bit underpowered as far as preventing air attacks but that's a different argument than what you're making.

I disagree with the naval transport issue as well. Well sorta. The quickness is not the issue. I think the issue is there is no way of intercepting it and that is a problem with several parts of the naval game. There is no interception/escort mechanic. If there was one change I would want most it would be to add some kind of interception/escort mechanic. The naval transport is a symptom, not a cause of the issue you see.

I'm ok with 'uber' stacks too. I can't think of any realistic reason to limit it and any imposed restriction would feel gamey. I'm open to debate of course, just not seeing a reasonable alternative that isn't gamey.

Those are the points I disagree with now the points I do agree more or less:
Repair should be more difficult agreed. However, this opens a can of worms about needing a production schedule as well and that could apply to everything ala World in Flames. But I don't want World in Flames, I want ToW. So how to compromise? Not sure.

I like the idea of not being able to upgrade tech on ships though to be honest not quite sure how the tech mechanic works for ships as they seem auto-upgrade unlike every other units.

More missions? Yes, especially the escort mission. Something like that to protect convoys and troop transports. While escorting, they can't perform any offensive actions however.

Differentiated ports? I think so but nothing complex, maybe just 'Major' vs 'Minor'. If it can't repair or build a battleship or CV historically, then it's minor. I honestly have no idea though what that would mean in game terms. Maybe they are all already major ports to begin with?

Don't know if submarine warfare needs to be more 'exciting' but do agree that you need more information. I hate having to dig through the reports to figure out if they are actually doing anything or just sunning themselves out there. Need more feedback.

Port attacks seem like an interesting idea. Since they are a physical hex instead of an area, it makes sense that you would be able to specifically bomb one and hopefully catch some ships in it!

Other improvements:
I think CVs are a bit underpowered. They seem useless in defending against land-based air. Versus other CVs I think I can tell they limit the effectiveness but there's simply not enough info. In general, I would expect them to be deadlier versus other naval ships as well but again, maybe they are fine, but the feedback from the game is so nebulous it's hard to tell what's going on.

Hard to tell if pure patrol groups get a bonus vs subs. I'm ok with the explanation that all groups are really a mix of types and can attack subs but I would think dedicated patrol groups would be especially deadly. Maybe it's in the manual and i missed that? If not, a change that would make sense to me.

Patrol groups seem too expensive in relation to battleships and CV's. Or possibly, the others are just too cheap?

Ok, that's all for now. As I said, not discounting the ideas mentioned already, just offering an alternative viewpoint.

(in reply to Anraz)
Post #: 5
RE: Naval units - 8/19/2009 6:56:17 PM   
micheljq


Posts: 791
Joined: 3/31/2008
From: Quebec
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Joram

Other improvements:
I think CVs are a bit underpowered. They seem useless in defending against land-based air. Versus other CVs I think I can tell they limit the effectiveness but there's simply not enough info. In general, I would expect them to be deadlier versus other naval ships as well but again, maybe they are fine, but the feedback from the game is so nebulous it's hard to tell what's going on.



I think that naval based aircraft were generally at a disadvantage against land based ones. The reasons why I am not sure, I think it was easier to mobilize for example, a lot of aircraft from airfields than from carriers. Also, on land there were versions of aircraft which could not be put on an aircraft carrier. Long range naval bombers for example, or big seaplanes. Of course a lot of battleships had a seaplane, but limited to only one per battleship normally.

_____________________________

Michel Desjardins,
"Patriotism is a virtue of the vicious" - Oscar Wilde
"History is a set of lies agreed upon" - Napoleon Bonaparte after the battle of Waterloo, june 18th, 1815

(in reply to Joram)
Post #: 6
RE: Naval units - 8/19/2009 7:40:13 PM   
Mike Parker

 

Posts: 583
Joined: 12/30/2008
From: Houston TX
Status: offline 		It might just be me, but it seems when I use land based air to attack ships, I seem to get more hits on my airplanes when I am attacking a CV.. but as I say it just seems that way, I haven't analyzed it.  But I agree CV's should be much more important.

(in reply to micheljq)
Post #: 7
RE: Naval units - 8/19/2009 8:01:53 PM   
PDiFolco

 

Posts: 1200
Joined: 10/11/2004
Status: offline 		First make an interface where you can actually see what's you're doing ! Really the current UI makes me mad, you can't tell what forces are which, what you've moved, how are fleets composed..
Reasonable fleet building and repair times are also 1st priority, the instant build is always rather ludicrous but when we talk about ships even more so. That's not "complication", that's just the sort of thing you can't pass if the game is to be described as "WW2 wargame". If I want to play Risk I play it, that's not what I expect here. Else we could as well have 100 times less units, a 10x10 map, whatever .

Then we need "escort" ability to make fleets actually useful at preventing convoys losses rather than intercepting after damage is done.
Fleet size limitation is also a request, IRL fleets could be coordinated only to a certain degree, and noone ever massed everything at the same place at least in WW2. Maybe something like a 3-4 big ships and double that smaller ships.
Naval troops transport should be costly, and I agree they have to always be intercept-able, no instant moves should be allowed.
I don't really know if the game balance for land air vs ships is right, what I know is that during all of the war all navies were very reluctant to go into land-based air range, and the most famous accounts tell that ships were often thrashed when doing so. The problem may be that the game's sea zones are pretty big so most of them are in "land air range'" whereas only smaller areas were, and then you can't avoid getting in...



(in reply to Mike Parker)
Post #: 8
RE: Naval units - 8/19/2009 8:39:16 PM   
Joram

 

Posts: 3198
Joined: 7/15/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: PDiFolco
Fleet size limitation is also a request, IRL fleets could be coordinated only to a certain degree, and noone ever massed everything at the same place at least in WW2. Maybe something like a 3-4 big ships and double that smaller ships.


I would disagree. Just because they weren't massed in the same place was as much a function of the need to cover millions of square miles of ocean, not necessarily because they couldn't do it. This isn't something that's really provable either way because it wasn't done. I would argue it wasn't mainly a logistical issue. In any case, I'd prefer to see some need to spread the navy out, not some artificial limit per sea zone.


quote:

ORIGINAL: PDiFolco
I don't really know if the game balance for land air vs ships is right, what I know is that during all of the war all navies were very reluctant to go into land-based air range, and the most famous accounts tell that ships were often thrashed when doing so. The problem may be that the game's sea zones are pretty big so most of them are in "land air range'" whereas only smaller areas were, and then you can't avoid getting in...


Yes, I was going to say something similar. Land based air should be very potent against the navy. The biggest issue was finding them in the first place but once done, they should be murdered unless having some kind of air defence themselves. That's why I think land-based air is underpowered in the game. Maybe the chance of hit should be decreased but the damage per hit should be increased?

(in reply to PDiFolco)
Post #: 9
RE: Naval units - 8/19/2009 9:40:37 PM   
PDiFolco

 

Posts: 1200
Joined: 10/11/2004
Status: offline 		There are plenty of reasons why ships didn't get massed, most of them irrelevant in game terms (such as detection of enemies, prevent being surprised..)   ... Ships even in the same fleet travel up to several miles away. Not significant strategically, but when battle occurs you can have engaged ships, and other too far, trying to join but then the enemy moves too !
What' doesn't work in game is that when combat occurs ALL ships get to fire, then you just have to mass them, whereas it didn't work like this. The limitation we can get on fleet is stg representing what number of ships can be close enough to act together. An set number will work better than complicated rules which will eventually give the same result.

(in reply to Joram)
Post #: 10
RE: Naval units - 8/20/2009 8:08:36 AM   
Anraz

 

Posts: 785
Joined: 7/25/2008
Status: offline
quote:

Original: Joram

If I wanted a complicated game I'd have bought something else


Indeed, it is a valid point. The game has never been meant to be too complicated. I understand players expectations  as we, I mean the developers,  are players too :) We do monitor the forum and  notice various interesting ideas. Many of them  fit perfectly to the game. Some other would fit better to a more complicated game. I assure you we choose changes carefully after taking them into consideration.



< Message edited by Anraz -- 8/20/2009 8:09:57 AM >

_____________________________


(in reply to PDiFolco)
Post #: 11
RE: Naval units - 8/21/2009 10:06:39 PM   
Ras Tshubai

 

Posts: 11
Joined: 3/3/2009
Status: offline 		I believe the existing engine is too abstract and does not allow to properly play the naval war on a scale as TOW allows to play the land warfare. Every patch introducing new and better modeling of the existing system might improve the results but as it is all done in calculations it will be still abstract. The only way of getting a real feel for moving naval units around is if you model the naval system like the land based one.

I believe an add-on for the naval system could be developed that is closely modeled after the land based system. It could be implemented as a selection under the options for players that like to move every ship or fleet around. For others the abstract system can stay in place.

The new naval system could on clicking on fleets bring you to a new map that shows you the world oceans in a hex format (same as done for the continents). You can now model the naval units with same parameters as the land units and give them strength and movement points. The player will now be able play the naval system the same way as the army units on the continents.

(in reply to Michael the Pole)
Post #: 12
RE: Naval units - 8/22/2009 5:21:49 AM   
Michael the Pole


Posts: 680
Joined: 10/30/2004
From: Houston, Texas
Status: offline 		Tech Levels -- there is no reason that ships cant be handled in exactly the same way as aircraft as far as tech levels are concerned. Currently, all ships are the same tech level and are all magically and instantainiously increased when you gain a new naval tech level. They should be built at a certain tech level which remains with the unit unless it is retrofitted. If we can work out a way to add time to repairing ships, we should be able to do the same for refits.

We need to have some basic differentiation between ship types, particularly if we are going to start seperating aircraft by mission type. It is just too absurd to equate a "Graf Spee" to a "Town" Class light cruiser as the game currently does.

Personally, I dont object to the instant creation of ships nearly as much as the instant repair of ships. Given the extremely long build times for a capital ship, I just suspend disbelief and tell myself that it's really nice to have a naval staff with the inteligence to have begun the production of the ship I needed two years before I knew that I would need it. Doom's events help in this way, as well. I dont think that we should impose construction delays on ships when we have decided that its not possible to do it for land and air units.

I also agree that land based air is not powerfull enough! I have seen the French navy "sunning" itself in the North Sea for week after week, taking one or two hits here and there, but suffering no significant losses. The battles off Crete are particularly instructive. Being damaged was the inevitable kiss of death! The possibility of being hit seems to be about right. What needs to be strongly increased is the number of hits suffered from a successfull attack. Ships should be sinking, and it shouldnt take more than a single turn to sink one. Remember that we are working with one week turns here. If your cruiser suffered a bomb hit or two, the chances that it would survive another 4 or 5 days were nill.

An escort mission that precludes offensive actions is another excellent idea. This should apply to capital ships as well as transports. Many of the old timers here will remember the story of the Graf Zeppelin, (my first German carrier, built at great cost and sacrifice) which put to sea with my carefully hoarded Kriegsmarine, and was promptly cut out and sunk by two Allied patrol groups. Not a German vessel in sight. Lots of screaming and hair tearing over that one!

For those who object to high density naval stacks, take a quick look at the invasion scene from "The Longest Day." You could almost have walked from Portsmouth to Calais on June 6, 1944.

I'm willing to compromise on the levels for ports. Perhaps levels 1 through 4, or perhaps 5 would be better than 1 - 9 or 10. 1 would be just shelter or minimal supply, 2 would allow moderate supply; 3 could repair patrol units and provide moderate supply, 4 could build patrol units, repair capital units and provide maximum supply, and level 5 could repair and build anything and provide maximum supply.

Port attacks are certainly an interesting idea, but remember that Taranto and Pearl Harbor were the exception and not the rule. It was just too easy to defend ships in ports. Look at the effort that the RAF had to put into damaging Tripitz and the "Twin Sisters" in port attacks that were only marginally successfull, at best. Something that would be far more important and historically accurate would be to allow air attacks on submarines, which are currently immune. (On the Gripping Hand, however, the current immunity does make for some interesting tactical uses for subs, so perhaps we should leave it alone -- what do ya'll think?)

I have maintained from the start that Carriers should be reduced to a ST of 2, but should be given an air divison. This would recreate the "eggshells armed with hammers" that they were during this period.

I think that we are getting some interesting ideas here. I'm starting to hope that the designers might consider a naval patch as their next step forward.



_____________________________

"One scoundrel is a disgrace, two is a law-firm, and three or more is a Congress." B. Franklin

Mike

A tribute to my heroes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fRU2tlE5m8

(in reply to Joram)
Post #: 13
RE: Naval units - 8/26/2009 2:42:44 AM   
Michael the Pole


Posts: 680
Joined: 10/30/2004
From: Houston, Texas
Status: offline 		I've been thinking about how we could change naval nbattles but still keep things REALLY simple. It seems to me that there is basicly only one decision that a naval commander makes in a ship to ship situation: do you open or close the range between you and the enemy. If you have a speed advantage you have the ability to alter the range and that seems decisive.
Most (all?) of the ship to ship and fleet engagements of the modern era (1914 to 1945) were decided by the ability to control range. We could give ships a simple speed ratiung of say, -1, 0 or +1. Compare the speed ratings and give the higher valued ship the choice of opening or closing the range. Have 3 ranges, long, medium and short. Guns larger than 8 inch can fire at long range; 6" and 8" can fire at medium and smaller than 6" can oinly fire at short range. Torpedos fire at short range. If you open the range at long range you disengage and the battle ends.
So, to show you how easy this is, here's the Battle of the River Plate.

Graf Spee (11"guns but only armored against 6 to 8 inch guns -- Severian has all this data at his fingertips) is spotted off the coast of Montevideo by HMS Exeter, Ajax and HMNZS Achillies. Exeter was a County Class heavy cruiser (8" guns, armored against 8" guns.) The other two were Town Class light cruisers (6"guns and 6" armor.) The Royal Navy had a very slight speed advantage, but not enough to give them a plus or minus on speed, so all ships are speed zero. The battle opens at long range where only the Graf Spee's guns could fire, but for some reason which has never been explained, Captain Langsdorff decided to close the range. The RN also selects "close range" so the range goes to medium and both sides open fire. Exeter is hit repeatedly by Graf Spee's 11" guns and heavily damaged while the lighter guns of the cruisers caused moderate damage to the Graf Spee (we could put in a system where there is a 75% chance that a hit reduces gun strength, 25% chance reduces speed. Torpedo hits would do the opposite.) After smashing Exeter, Graf Spee, which could have easily sunk at least two of the RN ships, turned to run for the nuetral harbor. By choosing "open range" as the cruisers did, the battle moved to long range and then disengaged.
As you can see, this would be relatively easy to implement and certainly doesnt present anything groundbreaking in gaming.

< Message edited by Michael the Pole -- 8/26/2009 2:48:16 AM >

_____________________________

"One scoundrel is a disgrace, two is a law-firm, and three or more is a Congress." B. Franklin

Mike

A tribute to my heroes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fRU2tlE5m8

(in reply to Michael the Pole)
Post #: 14
RE: Naval units - 8/26/2009 1:43:18 PM   
Mike Parker

 

Posts: 583
Joined: 12/30/2008
From: Houston TX
Status: offline 		As currently implimented I am not sure how it can be reasonably said that Land Based air is underpowered against Naval units.

Currently park your air within range of a sea zone and attack it.  I have recorded the results of literally hundreds of attacks, you will see that you will score a hit on an opposing naval unit a little over 90% of the time.  You will also see that you will suffer a hit on one of your attacking air units once for every 4.4 naval hits you score.

These numbers mean that economically its a HUGE advantage for Land Based Air.  As Michael points out, you cannot sink a ship usually, since you only do 1 hit per attacking air unit at most.  You will however force it to port for repairs, and you will be causing 4 or 5 to 1 PP losses on your opponent.

Playing the UK vrs. and AI Axis I find it nearly impossible to keep a fleet in being in the North Sea, the Axis Aircraft in occupied France Pummel me to the point I cannot afford to keep them repaired.  I either port them or move them elsewhere.  Thankfully the Axis AI will fritter away its surface fleet in raids well before I am forced to abandon the North Sea, but if they didn't they could with relative impunity project power into the North Sea, something that is both ahistorical and very bad for this game.

As I have said before in the European theatre land based air was devestatingly effective against ships.  So much so in fact that in practical terms Naval Forces did NOT operate in areas where the enemy had significant land based air cover, and when they did such operations almost always strictly enforced stealth to remain unoticed, and they were also frequently just transit missions to quickly get through this area.  You didn't see DD patrols off the U-Boat pens in occupied France because the Luftwaffe would have pummeled the Commonwealth fleet.  During the Bismark campaign BOTH sides predicated the success of the battle to be the Bismark getting close enough to France to fall within the umbrella of Axis air cover.  Both the Germans and the British knew that once the Bismark got there she would reach Brest and the British Navy would have to retire, likewise they both knew without said air cover the German battleship was lost.

The problem with the air-naval rules as they currently exist is twofold.  Firstly they miss the mark in being powerful, as Michael points out, land based air should be blowing stuff up!  They should be causing multiple hits when they hit for certain.  However on the other side of that, they are way too good at actually finding the enemy fleet to attack.  Land based air ran maritime interdiction patrols that typically found nothing... because *drumroll* because the opposing navy dang well knew to keep out of range.  Currently there is no way to keep out of range, so therefore the Commonwealth cannot keep a fleet in being in the North Sea because the repair bill from land based air will suck their treasury dry.  This is ridiculous, and if we increase the effectiveness of these air units we will just exacerbate this problem.

We likely need something to be done quite differently to correct these problems.  Ideas about fleet missions that require the fleet to get in close to the coast (such as invasion and/or bombardment) that would allow land based air to strike, but the typical regular or raider fleets should be almost immune to land based air, in the sense the land based air should have a VERY small chance of finding anything... however when it does hit the jackpot it should have a good chance of seriously damaging or sinking this unit.

Not sure if we will get these sorts of changes, its a huge improvement that we have air-naval interaction at all, but with the game as it currently exists what we need is for land based air to be LESS effective not more.  By less effective I mean balancing the losses, so that while I do not mind the fact that about 90% of the time the air gets a hit, the air SHOULD take hits proportional to the hits delivered.  That way its not an economic surety to use your air to bomb naval units.  So keep the 90% of hitting, but for every 5 naval hits, I would like to see 3 air hits on the attacker.  This would still give air an advantage, but not so much as exists now where an investment of 100PP into Air units will need me about 500-600PP of enemy naval repairs (and even more if he doesn't repair and lets me sink some stuff).


(in reply to Michael the Pole)
Post #: 15
RE: Naval units - 8/26/2009 10:41:42 PM   
PDiFolco

 

Posts: 1200
Joined: 10/11/2004
Status: offline 		Agree with Mike. A solution could be to split the huge naval zones in "coastal" and "deep-sea" separate zones, only the coasts being reachable by land air, and increase the hit chance of land air to make the attacks on the coastal zones more effective. Yet we'd still have a problem with small zones like the Channel, reachable by Axis land air in France, but that should be able to be protected by Allied land air ! For that we'd need "CAP" missions or such to oppose enemy air...

(in reply to Mike Parker)
Post #: 16
RE: Naval units - 8/27/2009 3:16:42 PM   
Andrew Loveridge


Posts: 606
Joined: 7/20/2009
Status: offline 		Personally, I like this game because it is not too complex. To make these changes and not make it significantly more complex I would recommend doing the following;
1) Add missions, beyond Regular and Raider, like Bombardment, Escort, etc.
2) Make it very difficult for Land based air to find Fleets that are not on missions that bring it close to land, but increase the damage they deal significantly.
3) Limit repair on groups to 1 or 2 points a turn, and have it so they can't move and repair in the same turn.
4) Don't allow the building of Battle Groups and Carrier Groups, but add a few more events that let you build these if you choose.
5) Limit sea battles to a certain number of groups, but increase damage slightly.

_____________________________


(in reply to PDiFolco)
Post #: 17
RE: Naval units - 8/27/2009 3:20:51 PM   
micheljq


Posts: 791
Joined: 3/31/2008
From: Quebec
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Loveridge

4) Don't allow the building of Battle Groups and Carrier Groups, but add a few more events that let you build these if you choose.



Why?

_____________________________

Michel Desjardins,
"Patriotism is a virtue of the vicious" - Oscar Wilde
"History is a set of lies agreed upon" - Napoleon Bonaparte after the battle of Waterloo, june 18th, 1815

(in reply to Andrew Loveridge)
Post #: 18
RE: Naval units - 8/27/2009 4:36:38 PM   
Andrew Loveridge


Posts: 606
Joined: 7/20/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: micheljq

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Loveridge

4) Don't allow the building of Battle Groups and Carrier Groups, but add a few more events that let you build these if you choose.



Why?


It eliminates the need for a build delay. To keeps it both simple and realistic, you need an opportunity to add more Groups without adding extra steps to building them.

< Message edited by Andrew Loveridge -- 8/28/2009 1:26:12 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to micheljq)
Post #: 19
RE: Naval units - 8/27/2009 8:15:53 PM   
Uxbridge


Posts: 1505
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: Uppsala, Sweden
Status: offline 		This is good. It also eliminates the possibility for non-naval nations to make unrealistic builds. Apart from this it will make the players far more careful with the few units they have.

(in reply to Andrew Loveridge)
Post #: 20
RE: Naval units - 8/27/2009 8:27:50 PM   
PDiFolco

 

Posts: 1200
Joined: 10/11/2004
Status: offline 		Very good suggestions Andrew !
BBs and CVs took years to build, the only nation that was able to significantly build some during the course of the war are the USA, but as the game is about Europe... events will do it quite well! And it'll be much better than "expresso ships" built in a couple days !
The other ideas are just great.

(in reply to Uxbridge)
Post #: 21
RE: Naval units - 8/27/2009 8:45:48 PM   
micheljq


Posts: 791
Joined: 3/31/2008
From: Quebec
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: PDiFolco

Very good suggestions Andrew !
BBs and CVs took years to build, the only nation that was able to significantly build some during the course of the war are the USA, but as the game is about Europe... events will do it quite well! And it'll be much better than "expresso ships" built in a couple days !
The other ideas are just great.



Commonwealth had many carriers on the european theater. And it would be interesting that major powers like Germany and Italy have events allowing them to build some too. France had the CV Bearn.

Germany had plans for one carrier, the Graf Zeppelin, construction had begun but was soon abandoned, I would say it was half built.

Italy had plans for some carriers though those carriers remained on paper.

_____________________________

Michel Desjardins,
"Patriotism is a virtue of the vicious" - Oscar Wilde
"History is a set of lies agreed upon" - Napoleon Bonaparte after the battle of Waterloo, june 18th, 1815

(in reply to PDiFolco)
Post #: 22
RE: Naval units - 8/27/2009 8:54:17 PM   
doomtrader


Posts: 5321
Joined: 7/22/2008
From: Poland
Status: offline 		In all campaigns you will have a possibility to pay for finishing all naval units that the build up was started before scenario begins.

_____________________________


(in reply to micheljq)
Post #: 23
RE: Naval units - 9/12/2009 5:18:54 PM   
Michael the Pole


Posts: 680
Joined: 10/30/2004
From: Houston, Texas
Status: offline 		There have been some interesting suggestions regarding the ability of aircraft to find and attack naval units in non-narrow sea sea zones. The problem with some of the suggested solutions (making more and smaller sea zones, adding coastal and open water zones to exsisting sea zones, etc.) is primarily one of scale -- and this is also the problem that we're seeing in ships surviving air attacks. You have to remember that we're talking about 1 week turns. In seven days, a modern (post WWI) warship could easily sail from New York to London. Another problem that we have from allowing ships to move two sea zones/turn is that it allows ships to pass through sea zones without incurring interdictory attacks (by either sea or land forces.)

However, I think that we could do the following: the problem seems to be restricted to the Atlantic sea zones. The Med zones, the Baltic and the North Sea zones are all small enough and restricted enough to simulate the death traps that they were for warships attacked by unopposed enemy aircraft. We should add the following sea zones -- Arctic Sea zone, limiting the Norwegian Sea zone to the Norwegian coast out to 200 miles offshore; Western Approaches (from the north of Scotland to the Channel and extending aprox 200 miles to the west of the shoreline;) Bay of Biscay (from the Channel to Cape Finisterre;) Straits of Gibraltar (from Cape Finisterre to the Canaries.) All of these sea zones would be subject to air attack. The major Atlantic sea zones would then be out of range of air attacks.

_____________________________

"One scoundrel is a disgrace, two is a law-firm, and three or more is a Congress." B. Franklin

Mike

A tribute to my heroes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fRU2tlE5m8

(in reply to doomtrader)
Post #: 24
RE: Naval units - 9/12/2009 6:25:20 PM   
willgamer


Posts: 902
Joined: 6/2/2002
From: Huntsville, Alabama
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael the Pole

There have been some interesting suggestions regarding the ability of aircraft to find and attack naval units in non-narrow sea sea zones. The problem with some of the suggested solutions (making more and smaller sea zones, adding coastal and open water zones to exsisting sea zones, etc.) is primarily one of scale -- and this is also the problem that we're seeing in ships surviving air attacks. You have to remember that we're talking about 1 week turns. In seven days, a modern (post WWI) warship could easily sail from New York to London. Another problem that we have from allowing ships to move two sea zones/turn is that it allows ships to pass through sea zones without incurring interdictory attacks (by either sea or land forces.)

However, I think that we could do the following: the problem seems to be restricted to the Atlantic sea zones. The Med zones, the Baltic and the North Sea zones are all small enough and restricted enough to simulate the death traps that they were for warships attacked by unopposed enemy aircraft. We should add the following sea zones -- Arctic Sea zone, limiting the Norwegian Sea zone to the Norwegian coast out to 200 miles offshore; Western Approaches (from the north of Scotland to the Channel and extending aprox 200 miles to the west of the shoreline;) Bay of Biscay (from the Channel to Cape Finisterre;) Straits of Gibraltar (from Cape Finisterre to the Canaries.) All of these sea zones would be subject to air attack. The major Atlantic sea zones would then be out of range of air attacks.


Simply Brilliant!

I nominate this as feature request #1 for the next patch.

_____________________________

Rex Lex or Lex Rex?

(in reply to Michael the Pole)
Post #: 25
RE: Naval units - 9/13/2009 3:20:24 PM   
jack54


Posts: 1402
Joined: 7/18/2007
From: East Tennessee
Status: offline 		hi all

Lots of good stuff here,thanks for starting this tread. Here's my take.

Michael the pole's idea of added sea zones --great!!!

major and minor ports--numerical values are ok but not nessessary for me. (Minor ports- repair only;Major ports- repair,upgrade refit and deployment.)

no more auto upgrade,must dock in major port (I don't care if there is a delay, if there is fine, if not that's ok with me also.)

fleet pop-up window,please, no more scrolling.

semi historical naval 'option' with 'event' driven capital ships.(game start option only-- not manditory for those that prefer a pp driven naval system.)

I'm not sure what can be done without making it too crazy ,these are just my ideas, thanks!

(in reply to willgamer)
Post #: 26
RE: Naval units - 9/13/2009 11:06:46 PM   
Tomokatu


Posts: 488
Joined: 2/27/2006
Status: offline 		I'm another supporter of Michael the Pole's added sea zones to make land-based air attacks more realistic. I also like the idea of major and minor port status with certain tasks not available to minor ports - maybe repairs of CAs and SSs at minor ports but not BBs or CVs?

The rest, I could take or leave because I know that every implemented suggestion makes extra work and added complication. Extra complication increases the chances of failure.

You can have it quick.
You can have it good.
You can have it cheap.
Pick any two.

_____________________________

For every action, there is an equal and opposite malfunction

(in reply to jack54)
Post #: 27
RE: Naval units - 9/13/2009 11:48:45 PM   
Michael the Pole


Posts: 680
Joined: 10/30/2004
From: Houston, Texas
Status: offline 		The idea behind having numerical values on ports is to allow them to be degraded and repaired by air or ground attack. There are countless historical examples of this from the War, noteably the amount of time that ports like Cherbourg were useless to the Allies following Overlord. Additionally, it allows a little more differentiation for supply capabilities of the really large ports such as Antwerp.

_____________________________

"One scoundrel is a disgrace, two is a law-firm, and three or more is a Congress." B. Franklin

Mike

A tribute to my heroes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fRU2tlE5m8

(in reply to Tomokatu)
Post #: 28
RE: Naval units - 9/14/2009 5:14:00 PM   
AH4Ever


Posts: 628
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: NU JOYZ
Status: offline 		A wise man once told me "I want to play a good realistic game but I don't want to have to button their tunics." He was speaking about Axis & Allies (the board game).

Ship repair - 1) The more damaged the ship the more costly the repair per hit point.
                2) Limit repair to 1 or 2 hit points per turn
                3) A port is a port is a port. That said Air Recon of ports to locate ships to bomb would be nice.

Ship production should be at least 5 times more expensive than it is now, so that you would have to bank your production points in order to expand your naval power. This became obvious to me while playing the USSR and having eliminated the Axis without going to war with the Allies. The Russian fleet was still blocked from entering the MED. I was able to float 3 nine group fleets through Italian ports in about 4 turns.

Naval Tech should not involve Upgrades, it should just lower the cost of production for new groups.

You might want to limit ship deployment to major ports but it is not absolutely necessary.






_____________________________

JJMC

The next best thing to being clever is being able to quote someone who is.

You weren't there Thursday... You MISSED it!

(in reply to Michael the Pole)
Post #: 29
RE: Naval units - 9/14/2009 9:50:02 PM   
Michael the Pole


Posts: 680
Joined: 10/30/2004
From: Houston, Texas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: AH4Ever

                3) A port is a port is a port. That said Air Recon of ports to locate ships to bomb would be nice.


You might try telling that to the Allies in Normandy. The ENTIRE history of Overlord was predicated on finding a port that was
a)large enough, and
b)intact enough to provide supply to the forces they were pouring into France. The absolute strategic reasoning behind giving priority to Montgomery's drive into Belgium was because the only available port in North-West Europe that was large enough was Antwerp.
The Allikes were being strangled by having to depend on the French channel ports and because the west coast ports were either still in German hands or had been leveled to the beach by German demolition.

< Message edited by Michael the Pole -- 9/14/2009 9:56:26 PM >

_____________________________

"One scoundrel is a disgrace, two is a law-firm, and three or more is a Congress." B. Franklin

Mike

A tribute to my heroes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fRU2tlE5m8

(in reply to AH4Ever)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> WW2: Time of Wrath >> Naval units 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

0.938