Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Naval Game ?

 
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 I] >> Commander - The Great War >> RE: Naval Game ? Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Naval Game ? - 1/10/2013 2:29:25 PM   
kirk23


Posts: 2885
Joined: 10/15/2010
From: Fife Scotland
Status: offline 		Another small change I have implemented,is that cruiser units now have the ability to bombard,reduced in effect from that of battleships.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Make it so!

(in reply to JJKettunen)
Post #: 61
RE: Naval Game ? - 1/10/2013 3:44:36 PM   
catwhoorg


Posts: 686
Joined: 9/27/2012
From: Uk expat lving near Atlanta
Status: offline 		I do think cruisers should have bombard ability - though at much reduced effect.

(in reply to kirk23)
Post #: 62
RE: Naval Game ? - 1/10/2013 5:26:54 PM   
jwduquette1

 

Posts: 110
Joined: 3/5/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: kirk23

I really don't want to be so critical of the game as a whole,but loosing both the worlds main Battlefleets,all within 5 turns of war starting is absolutely nuts!


At the beginning of the Great War Winston Churchill made the following observation about Admiral John Jellicoe: 'He is the only man on either side that could lose the war in an afternoon'. Churchill’s inference being the rapidity with which Naval Combat is resolved – for good or bad. Moreover, why shouldn’t we think that – under the right circumstances and the unevitable friction of War (or call it luck) -- that the Grand Fleet couldn’t have been thoroughly crippled by the High Seas Fleet (along with heavy U-Boat support) over the course of five turns of CTGW? This was after all one of the High Seas Fleet hypothetical strategies -- i.e. get the Grand Fleet out of Scapa via a sortie from the High Seas Fleet. Than attrite the Grand Fleet by luring them cross a line of hungry U-Boats or mines.

Tsushima is a great example from this era of a fleet getting completely wrecked in far less time than represented by 5-turns of CTGW.

I'm not arguing that the GTGW Naval combat system is nervona. But I don't think it out of the realm of possible combat results that the Grand Fleet couldn't have been delt a crippling -- even war loosing -- blow by the German Navy.

< Message edited by jwduquette1 -- 1/10/2013 5:31:02 PM >

(in reply to kirk23)
Post #: 63
RE: Naval Game ? - 1/10/2013 7:08:38 PM   
kirk23


Posts: 2885
Joined: 10/15/2010
From: Fife Scotland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jwduquette1

quote:

ORIGINAL: kirk23

I really don't want to be so critical of the game as a whole,but loosing both the worlds main Battlefleets,all within 5 turns of war starting is absolutely nuts!


At the beginning of the Great War Winston Churchill made the following observation about Admiral John Jellicoe: 'He is the only man on either side that could lose the war in an afternoon'. Churchill’s inference being the rapidity with which Naval Combat is resolved – for good or bad. Moreover, why shouldn’t we think that – under the right circumstances and the unevitable friction of War (or call it luck) -- that the Grand Fleet couldn’t have been thoroughly crippled by the High Seas Fleet (along with heavy U-Boat support) over the course of five turns of CTGW? This was after all one of the High Seas Fleet hypothetical strategies -- i.e. get the Grand Fleet out of Scapa via a sortie from the High Seas Fleet. Than attrite the Grand Fleet by luring them cross a line of hungry U-Boats or mines.

The High Seas Fleet Strategy was to try and meet a portion of the Grand Fleet,so that they would be able to fight on equal terms.As history shows as soon as the High Seas Fleet met the Grand Fleet in its entirety it ran away,it stood absolutely no chance,zero chance of survival, in a straight on fight with the entire Grand Fleet.



Tsushima is a great example from this era of a fleet getting completely wrecked in far less time than represented by 5-turns of CTGW.

Tsushima was fought by old Pre-Dreadnoughts,and cruisers it does not compare with the two main battlefleets of the 1914- 1918 war,the battle fleet was made up off Dreadnoughts,which were at least twice as powerful as any old pre-Dreadnoughts.

I'm not arguing that the GTGW Naval combat system is nervona. But I don't think it out of the realm of possible combat results that the Grand Fleet couldn't have been delt a crippling -- even war loosing -- blow by the German Navy.


On a full one on one with the Grand Fleet the German Navy I repeat stood no chance of acheiving a victory none!!

_____________________________

Make it so!

(in reply to jwduquette1)
Post #: 64
RE: Naval Game ? - 1/10/2013 7:16:35 PM   
stockwellpete

 

Posts: 582
Joined: 12/20/2012
Status: offline
quote:

the AI should scarper when it know its out numbered and can't win!


Yes, the Russian fleet commits suicide too when the AI controls it. It attacks the Swedish convoy and then is sunk.

(in reply to kirk23)
Post #: 65
RE: Naval Game ? - 1/10/2013 7:17:42 PM   
kirk23


Posts: 2885
Joined: 10/15/2010
From: Fife Scotland
Status: offline 		Why do you think the German navy, devised the plan of bombarding the English coast,and tweeking the lions tail by Hippers Battlecruiser squadron. It was in an attempt to get the British Admiralty, to move parts of the Grand Fleet further south. So that the German High Seas Fleet might then be able to out number the Smaller squadrons of Dreadnoughts,there by reducing the Grand Fleets strenght,especially if the excerise could be repeated,it would then be in a position to maybe challenge the Grand Fleet on better terms numerically.

_____________________________

Make it so!

(in reply to kirk23)
Post #: 66
RE: Naval Game ? - 1/10/2013 8:21:49 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: kirk23


quote:

ORIGINAL: jwduquette1

quote:

ORIGINAL: kirk23

I really don't want to be so critical of the game as a whole,but loosing both the worlds main Battlefleets,all within 5 turns of war starting is absolutely nuts!


At the beginning of the Great War Winston Churchill made the following observation about Admiral John Jellicoe: 'He is the only man on either side that could lose the war in an afternoon'. Churchill’s inference being the rapidity with which Naval Combat is resolved – for good or bad. Moreover, why shouldn’t we think that – under the right circumstances and the unevitable friction of War (or call it luck) -- that the Grand Fleet couldn’t have been thoroughly crippled by the High Seas Fleet (along with heavy U-Boat support) over the course of five turns of CTGW? This was after all one of the High Seas Fleet hypothetical strategies -- i.e. get the Grand Fleet out of Scapa via a sortie from the High Seas Fleet. Than attrite the Grand Fleet by luring them cross a line of hungry U-Boats or mines.

The High Seas Fleet Strategy was to try and meet a portion of the Grand Fleet,so that they would be able to fight on equal terms.As history shows as soon as the High Seas Fleet met the Grand Fleet in its entirety it ran away,it stood absolutely no chance,zero chance of survival, in a straight on fight with the entire Grand Fleet.



Tsushima is a great example from this era of a fleet getting completely wrecked in far less time than represented by 5-turns of CTGW.

Tsushima was fought by old Pre-Dreadnoughts,and cruisers it does not compare with the two main battlefleets of the 1914- 1918 war,the battle fleet was made up off Dreadnoughts,which were at least twice as powerful as any old pre-Dreadnoughts.

I'm not arguing that the GTGW Naval combat system is nervona. But I don't think it out of the realm of possible combat results that the Grand Fleet couldn't have been delt a crippling -- even war loosing -- blow by the German Navy.


On a full one on one with the Grand Fleet the German Navy I repeat stood no chance of acheiving a victory none!!
warspite1

Correct

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to kirk23)
Post #: 67
RE: Naval Game ? - 1/10/2013 10:18:33 PM   
Orm


Posts: 22154
Joined: 5/3/2008
From: Sweden
Status: offline 		Why is it that Admiral Fisher arrives so late in the war for Great Britain? That All or Nothing Armor needs to be researched for him to arrive seems just wrong to me.

_____________________________

Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb -- they're often students, for heaven's sake. - Terry Pratchett

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 68
RE: Naval Game ? - 1/10/2013 11:29:16 PM   
kirk23


Posts: 2885
Joined: 10/15/2010
From: Fife Scotland
Status: offline 		Admiral Fisher was nearly in his seventys I think at the outbreak of the war,he was in charge at the Admiralty.In game I think Admiral Jellicoe starts 1916 ? He should be available from the get go,along with Admiral David Beatty.

_____________________________

Make it so!

(in reply to Orm)
Post #: 69
RE: Naval Game ? - 1/11/2013 4:27:02 AM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: kirk23

Admiral Fisher was nearly in his seventys I think at the outbreak of the war,he was in charge at the Admiralty.In game I think Admiral Jellicoe starts 1916 ? He should be available from the get go,along with Admiral David Beatty.
warpite1

Fisher was not in charge at the start of the war. The First Sea Lord was Prince Louis of Battenberg (who was forced out because of his German connections). Fisher came back to the Admiralty in November 1914 to replace him.

As First Sea Lord I do not think there is a need for a Fisher counter. However I believe Orm is correct re the appearance of a British Admiral. If Britain's battlefleet has been dumbed down to a "10" - the same as Germany, Italy, Austria et al for game balance (which is bad enough) - then why on earth would the Royal Navy be disadvantaged further by allowing Russia and Germany an Admiral that the British don't get until very late in the war?

Admiral Jellicoe should have a counter early in the war just like Scheer. And yes, additional counters - Beatty and Spee for example - would add nicely to the mix.

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to kirk23)
Post #: 70
RE: Naval Game ? - 1/11/2013 6:07:07 AM   
JeffroK


Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jwduquette1

quote:

ORIGINAL: kirk23

I really don't want to be so critical of the game as a whole,but loosing both the worlds main Battlefleets,all within 5 turns of war starting is absolutely nuts!


At the beginning of the Great War Winston Churchill made the following observation about Admiral John Jellicoe: 'He is the only man on either side that could lose the war in an afternoon'. Churchill’s inference being the rapidity with which Naval Combat is resolved – for good or bad. Moreover, why shouldn’t we think that – under the right circumstances and the unevitable friction of War (or call it luck) -- that the Grand Fleet couldn’t have been thoroughly crippled by the High Seas Fleet (along with heavy U-Boat support) over the course of five turns of CTGW? This was after all one of the High Seas Fleet hypothetical strategies -- i.e. get the Grand Fleet out of Scapa via a sortie from the High Seas Fleet. Than attrite the Grand Fleet by luring them cross a line of hungry U-Boats or mines.

Tsushima is a great example from this era of a fleet getting completely wrecked in far less time than represented by 5-turns of CTGW.

I'm not arguing that the GTGW Naval combat system is nervona. But I don't think it out of the realm of possible combat results that the Grand Fleet couldn't have been delt a crippling -- even war loosing -- blow by the German Navy.

WSC is inclined to exagerate sometimes.

At Jutland, the RN deployed 28 battleships & 9 Battlecruisers
During WW1 the RN deployed some 50 Battleships and Battlecruisers & 41 pre Dreadnoughts.

Jellicoe might have lost half of the RN, but unless some miracle happened his replacement would have had a substantial force to combat what would have remained of the High Seas Fleet.

PS The Royal Navy was stronger 1 month after Jutland than it started the battle.

< Message edited by JeffK -- 1/11/2013 6:48:19 AM >

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to jwduquette1)
Post #: 71
RE: Naval Game ? - 1/11/2013 8:08:32 AM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwduquette1

quote:

ORIGINAL: kirk23

I really don't want to be so critical of the game as a whole,but loosing both the worlds main Battlefleets,all within 5 turns of war starting is absolutely nuts!


At the beginning of the Great War Winston Churchill made the following observation about Admiral John Jellicoe: 'He is the only man on either side that could lose the war in an afternoon'. Churchill’s inference being the rapidity with which Naval Combat is resolved – for good or bad. Moreover, why shouldn’t we think that – under the right circumstances and the unevitable friction of War (or call it luck) -- that the Grand Fleet couldn’t have been thoroughly crippled by the High Seas Fleet (along with heavy U-Boat support) over the course of five turns of CTGW? This was after all one of the High Seas Fleet hypothetical strategies -- i.e. get the Grand Fleet out of Scapa via a sortie from the High Seas Fleet. Than attrite the Grand Fleet by luring them cross a line of hungry U-Boats or mines.

Tsushima is a great example from this era of a fleet getting completely wrecked in far less time than represented by 5-turns of CTGW.

I'm not arguing that the GTGW Naval combat system is nervona. But I don't think it out of the realm of possible combat results that the Grand Fleet couldn't have been delt a crippling -- even war loosing -- blow by the German Navy.

WSC is inclined to exagerate sometimes.

At Jutland, the RN deployed 28 battleships & 9 Battlecruisers
During WW1 the RN deployed some 50 Battleships and Battlecruisers & 41 pre Dreadnoughts.

Jellicoe might have lost half of the RN, but unless some miracle happened his replacement would have had a substantial force to combat what would have remained of the High Seas Fleet.

PS The Royal Navy was stronger 1 month after Jutland than it started the battle.
warspite1

Quite so. And what the naval game needs to do is to provide the British and German player with the kind of options those sides really had. The only way you can achieve this is to create more ship counters (this does not have to be unmanageable numbers) and bring more uncertainty into naval engagements (to reflect the chance element of search, weather etc) - hence my suggestions in post 29.

Without the benefit of stacking, the RN will find it difficult to bring all its units to bear on one or two hexes (i.e. the High Seas Fleet) and in addition, even if it does, there may be a "duff" dice throw which means the British cannot attack (poor weather) and so miss on the attack bonus which the Germans may get the next turn.

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to JeffroK)
Post #: 72
RE: Naval Game ? - 1/11/2013 3:50:06 PM   
jwduquette1

 

Posts: 110
Joined: 3/5/2011
Status: offline 		I am talking about combat result probabilities and what is and isn’t within the realm of possible combat results. There’s nothing to corroborate the idea that it’s out of the realm of possible results for the RN to been dealt a crippling blow over the course of 4 or 5 turns – or whatever the original time figure put forth by Kirk in one of his above postings.

If you go back through some of my past postings on this forum regarding the Naval combat model in CTGW you’ll see that I have asked why the in-game Grand Fleet isn’t larger than what is currently portrayed. Moreover – acknowledging the abstract portrayal of navies and naval combat in CTGW – as I have stated in the past, the RN might better be represented in-game by at least two BB’s in the North Sea and probably an additional CA at the start of the war. As it is currently modeled in CTGW, the RN isn’t really much stronger than any other Nation’s Navy. That to me seems odd.

However, having said that, I still don’t buy into the idea that the numerical superiority of the RN over the High Seas Fleet in and of itself is any sort of indication as to it’s fighting capability. Nor does the RNs numeric superiority somehow remove it from possible combat results that include it being crippled or destroyed by the High Sea Fleet. Just about every post above delves into numerical superiority of the RN over the High Seas Fleet and because of these numbers, the High Seas Fleet stands no chance. Yet how often through the course of military history have numbers or size of an army or navy meant absolutely nothing to the outcome of a battle (or…the combat result of a battle). I assume no one here is advocating a Naval combat results table that entails only one possible combat result whenever a British Fleet is involved in combat – i.e. the RN auto win result. Do we use a one sided die for the Royal Navy?

As we already know, the High Seas Fleet real war strategy is actually far more easily represented “in-game” if the RN is represented by more than just one British BB unit and one or two CA units in Scapa at the start of the game. If the RN is represented by multiple units, AND, if the UK player – for whatever reason – splits up his fleet units, perhaps this gives the German player the opportunity to destroy the RN piecemeal. Precisely the strategy the actual German Navy was pursuing through much of the war.

The current CTGW Naval OoB is modeled such that there are two or three units representing the RN in the North Sea and two or so units representing the High Seas Fleet. This is a huge abstraction of naval unit strengths for both sides. Given this level of abstraction, how is the actual High Seas Fleet strategy of isolating numerically inferior units of the RN and destroying these piecemeal possible? Well in my mind it can only be represented within the games CRT and potential combat results. The CRT for this level of abstraction has to include the possibility that the High Seas Fleet (HSF) was somehow able to isolate and destroy inferior units of the RN piecemeal. Or the HSF is able to attrite the RN by luring it over a line of U-boats and or mines. Then the question becomes what level of probability is assigned to this particular combat Result. Probably not huge – but also not miniscule either. Thus the rather valid comment by Winston Churchill I posted above (again, see Tsushima and a Russian fleet being annihilated in the course of an afternoon). I’d argue that the HSF was well along the path of isolating and destroying a significant unit of the Grand Fleet during the opening phases of Jutland. Good Luck, bad luck, friction of war, bad die roll for the Germans, good die roll for the British – call it what you want – means that Beatty’s BCs and handful of accompanying Dreadnoughts are not all at the bottom of the North Sea. But a different die roll means how many British Battle Cruisers and how of Britain’s latest Super-Dreadnoughts are destroyed?

Possible Combat Results have to include a realm of possible results, AND they have to be tailored to game scale and the level of abstraction represented within the game model.

< Message edited by jwduquette1 -- 1/11/2013 4:00:41 PM >

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 73
RE: Naval Game ? - 1/11/2013 4:16:16 PM   
JJKettunen


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

ORIGINAL: jwduquette1

I am talking about combat result probabilities and what is and isn’t within the realm of possible combat results. There’s nothing to corroborate the idea that it’s out of the realm of possible results for the RN to been dealt a crippling blow over the course of 4 or 5 turns – or whatever the original time figure put forth by Kirk in one of his above postings.

If you go back through some of my past postings on this forum regarding the Naval combat model in CTGW you’ll see that I have asked why the in-game Grand Fleet isn’t larger than what is currently portrayed. Moreover – acknowledging the abstract portrayal of navies and naval combat in CTGW – as I have stated in the past, the RN might better be represented in-game by at least two BB’s in the North Sea and probably an additional CA at the start of the war. As it is currently modeled in CTGW, the RN isn’t really much stronger than any other Nation’s Navy. That to me seems odd.

However, having said that, I still don’t buy into the idea that the numerical superiority of the RN over the High Seas Fleet in and of itself is any sort of indication as to it’s fighting capability. Nor does the RNs numeric superiority somehow remove it from possible combat results that include it being crippled or destroyed by the High Sea Fleet. Just about every post above delves into numerical superiority of the RN over the High Seas Fleet and because of these numbers, the High Seas Fleet stands no chance. Yet how often through the course of military history have numbers or size of an army or navy meant absolutely nothing to the outcome of a battle (or…the combat result of a battle). I assume no one here is advocating a Naval combat results table that entails only one possible combat result whenever a British Fleet is involved in combat – i.e. the RN auto win result. Do we use a one sided die for the Royal Navy?

As we already know, the High Seas Fleet real war strategy is actually far more easily represented “in-game” if the RN is represented by more than just one British BB unit and one or two CA units in Scapa at the start of the game. If the RN is represented by multiple units, AND, if the UK player – for whatever reason – splits up his fleet units, perhaps this gives the German player the opportunity to destroy the RN piecemeal. Precisely the strategy the actual German Navy was pursuing through much of the war.

The current CTGW Naval OoB is modeled such that there are two or three units representing the RN in the North Sea and two or so units representing the High Seas Fleet. This is a huge abstraction of naval unit strengths for both sides. Given this level of abstraction, how is the actual High Seas Fleet strategy of isolating numerically inferior units of the RN and destroying these piecemeal possible? Well in my mind it can only be represented within the games CRT and potential combat results. The CRT for this level of abstraction has to include the possibility that the High Seas Fleet (HSF) was somehow able to isolate and destroy inferior units of the RN piecemeal. Or the HSF is able to attrite the RN by luring it over a line of U-boats and or mines. Then the question becomes what level of probability is assigned to this particular combat Result. Probably not huge – but also not miniscule either. Thus the rather valid comment by Winston Churchill I posted above (again, see Tsushima and a Russian fleet being annihilated in the course of an afternoon). I’d argue that the HSF was well along the path of isolating and destroying a significant unit of the Grand Fleet during the opening phases of Jutland. Good Luck, bad luck, friction of war, bad die roll for the Germans, good die roll for the British – call it what you want – means that Beatty’s BCs and handful of accompanying Dreadnoughts are not all at the bottom of the North Sea. But a different die roll means how many British Battle Cruisers and how of Britain’s latest Super-Dreadnoughts are destroyed?

Possible Combat Results have to include a realm of possible results, AND they have to be tailored to game scale and the level of abstraction represented within the game model.


Well said!


_____________________________

Jyri Kettunen

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

- A. Solzhenitsyn

(in reply to jwduquette1)
Post #: 74
RE: Naval Game ? - 1/11/2013 6:15:02 PM   
Ralzakark


Posts: 225
Joined: 4/24/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jwduquette1

However, having said that, I still don’t buy into the idea that the numerical superiority of the RN over the High Seas Fleet in and of itself is any sort of indication as to it’s fighting capability. Nor does the RNs numeric superiority somehow remove it from possible combat results that include it being crippled or destroyed by the High Sea Fleet. Just about every post above delves into numerical superiority of the RN over the High Seas Fleet and because of these numbers, the High Seas Fleet stands no chance. Yet how often through the course of military history have numbers or size of an army or navy meant absolutely nothing to the outcome of a battle (or…the combat result of a battle). I assume no one here is advocating a Naval combat results table that entails only one possible combat result whenever a British Fleet is involved in combat – i.e. the RN auto win result. Do we use a one sided die for the Royal Navy?



I have never read anything to suggest that the High Seas Fleet possessed a significant advantage in fighting capability over the Grand Fleet, hence the focus on numerical superiority.

(in reply to jwduquette1)
Post #: 75
RE: Naval Game ? - 1/11/2013 7:10:28 PM   
kirk23


Posts: 2885
Joined: 10/15/2010
From: Fife Scotland
Status: offline 		Ok let me put it another way then,Germany is a land power who's army or land forces have always been its strong suit,and its navy a new string to its bow.Great Britain on the other hand is a SEA POWER, who during this period in history,ruled at least a quarter of the globe,because of the Royal Navy,Britain is a global super power because of the navy,and as the saying goes Rule Britannia this because Britain's strenght was the sea,and its land forces were tiny in comparision.Now this game comes along, and at a stroke makes Britain the same strenght as Austria-Hungary,France & Germany except for the extra cruiser,but on land in this game Germany has the strongest force,because of its history as a land power!

Tell me why Germany is still given there status as a dominate land power,but Britain is denied there status as the dominate naval power of this era?

< Message edited by kirk23 -- 1/11/2013 7:20:38 PM >

_____________________________

Make it so!

(in reply to Ralzakark)
Post #: 76
RE: Naval Game ? - 1/11/2013 8:46:39 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline 		Gents can I ask you all to take a step back because I suspect that the way this argument is developing is just confusing the issue and not taking forward where the problem is.

It would be really helpful if the good gents at Lordz would let us know what they are thinking in respect of changes/tweeks to the Naval Game.

Let us be absolutely clear about this:

With one 10-strength battlefleet per country + a 10-strength cruiser counter for some, it is IMPOSSIBLE to get any kind of interesting naval aspect to the game - even for a strategic level game, this treatment is too abstract. What jwduquette1 suggests about having a CRT that effectively allows any range of results removes any skill, any tactical value - and indeed a load of fun from this otherwise excellent game. Its just an ahistorical crapshoot

Jellicoe does not go down in history the way of a Nelson or Cunningham etc. Why? Well the fact that he didn't win an overwhelming, Nelson style victory is the main reason. What did he do then? Was he an old duffer? Er well no, there is just the small matter of the fact that he did exactly what had to do to ensure success - which was arduous, boring and morale sapping for his men, but which he knew would mean the Grand Fleet could not be beaten - and they weren't. Jellicoe knew full well that the German ships had the upper hand in gun accuracy and defensive armour and he wasn't going to allow Scheer to take advantage.

So in answer to jwduquette1's question earlier - and I sincerely hope this was a rhetorical question - no, no one (hopefully!!) is suggesting that under no circumstances can the Royal Navy be beaten. What I am suggesting and some have agreed is that:
- sufficient counters are deployed in the game to allow tactical flexibility,
- a chance element is introduced in terms of who has the naval combat advantage and indeed whether there is a battle in the first place - or whether only some of the adjacent counters get to take part.

All this ensures that we have a proper historical framework for the naval game and allows the Germans to do what historically they tried to do.

The German navy must try and exploit any weakness in the British deployment to bring the Grand Fleet to battle piecemeal. So for just one example: one of the big weapons the Entente has at the start of the game is "ownership" of the Channel and the shore bombardment that allows. Well the ability to do that should come at a cost a) the dice roll requirement I've mentioned before for units operating in confined waters, and b) the Grand Fleet (even if they try and stay together) will be spread across a number of hexes - hence the chance for the Germans to isolate and attack elements of the British Fleet.

I think the absurdity of the naval game has been done to death - including the fact that the British are actually worse off as they do not get an Admiral until 1987 or something . We now need to know what is proposed to make this element of the game as interesting, skillful and as fun as the rest of the game.

This game is brilliant , with a bit of tweaking of the land and air rules, it can be even better. But with proper time and effort dedicated to the naval game - this could be the business

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to kirk23)
Post #: 77
RE: Naval Game ? - 1/11/2013 8:55:11 PM   
catwhoorg


Posts: 686
Joined: 9/27/2012
From: Uk expat lving near Atlanta
Status: offline 		Don't we get Sandy Woodward in 1982.
If he is postponed to 1987, that could be disastrous.

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 78
RE: Naval Game ? - 1/11/2013 9:01:08 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: catwhoorg

Don't we get Sandy Woodward in 1982.
If he is postponed to 1987, that could be disastrous.
warspite1

No - giving the British Woodward in 1982 gave the British too much of an advantage......

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to catwhoorg)
Post #: 79
RE: Naval Game ? - 1/12/2013 5:12:32 AM   
Hakmeister

 

Posts: 35
Joined: 8/5/2007
Status: offline 		Well said. This is a game, afterall, and it can't truly model the naval war given the single counter per hex restrictions. However, much like artillery units don't actually have that 50 mile range, placing them behind the lines works. Forcing some naval maneuvers in the North Sea or down in the Mediterranean would truly make the game much more interesting and add an extra dimension. Personally, I'm a learn while I burn type person, and I've finally learned what those damnable green dots are about. Don't attack the enemy fleet in the green dots!

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 80
RE: Naval Game ? - 1/14/2013 9:24:29 PM   
kirk23


Posts: 2885
Joined: 10/15/2010
From: Fife Scotland
Status: offline 		After endless trial runs, trying to get the Naval AI to retreat when its taking a hammering,today for the first time, the German AI finally decided that survival was the best option!

Now the reason why the AI has had a change of heart I know is this,and the solution is extremely simple,PORT DEFENCE yes that little green dot area,I have increased it to ( 30 ) and what happens is this,even Britain in my scenarios with three Battleship units,can't beat the German Battleship units in Wilhelmshaven,nope can't be done perfect just what should happen ya beauty success at last.

Now for the best bit,don't let Germany get there hands on the coastal ports in the English channel,as per the photo they are hard to shift when they move there ships into the port hex,finally a true naval game with high drama and excitment!!!

Please note the German Battleship unit defending itself in Antwerp,while further down the coast,a German Pre-Dreadnought is doing the same thing in Calalis,and the German Battleship unit back over at Wilhelmshaven,is there because that is the ship unit that was taking a beating in the English Channel just outside London,I followed it with the ships further out in the North sea and the French Pre-Dreadnought to the German coast at Wilhelmshaven,because of fog of war I had no idea where the German Battleship unit had gone,and it had retreated to Wilhelmshaven.Also note the cross hairs targeting it from the French pre-dreadnought,what the screen shot does not show is that the French pre-dreadnought would take round about 8 strenght points off damage if I attacked!

Ignore the fact that Germany has run amuck all over Belgium and France,remember this was a naval game trial run I was not interested on what was happening on land.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by kirk23 -- 1/14/2013 9:55:52 PM >

_____________________________

Make it so!

(in reply to Hakmeister)
Post #: 81
RE: Naval Game ? - 1/14/2013 9:46:25 PM   
JJKettunen


Posts: 3530
Joined: 3/12/2002
From: Finland
Status: offline 		That's useful info, thanks!

_____________________________

Jyri Kettunen

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

- A. Solzhenitsyn

(in reply to kirk23)
Post #: 82
RE: Naval Game ? - 1/14/2013 9:51:29 PM   
kirk23


Posts: 2885
Joined: 10/15/2010
From: Fife Scotland
Status: offline 		Increasing the Port defence to 30 makes your home ports extremely safe harbours now,anyone who trys to attack better be prepared to take a heavy beating!

Making the historical tactic of distant blockade the correct course of action,the naval game is now very much better and is a challenge to play!

The screen shot above fails to show,the fact that some of my British and French ships had to head for port to repair the battle damage,as none of them would have survived another round of combat.

< Message edited by kirk23 -- 1/14/2013 9:54:30 PM >

_____________________________

Make it so!

(in reply to JJKettunen)
Post #: 83
RE: Naval Game ? - 1/14/2013 11:57:54 PM   
kirk23


Posts: 2885
Joined: 10/15/2010
From: Fife Scotland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Keke

That's useful info, thanks!


Ok since I have upgraded the PORT DEFENCE TOO 30, I have changed my strategy from the previous game,I have been more defensive in the English Channel,I don't want Germany getting its hands on Antwerp or any of the French ports.

I have a protective defence line across from Britain - Belgium,I have naval units on standby down the English coast,I have French pre-dreadnoughts protecting their citys and ports,since this tactic has stopped the German fleet from attempting the same moves it accomplished in the other scenario,I went in search of the German units,I sent my submarine in close to Wilhelmshaven,and found one of the German Battleship units,please note the attack cross hairs,my Submarine would loose an estimated 9 strenght if it attacks the Battleship in port,so needless to say I did not attack.

I can only assume the German AI as sent the other Battleship unit plus the Battlecruiser fleet into the Baltic to counter the Russian presence there.At this time, I also don't know where the German Pre-Dreadnought units,the Cruiser Units or the Uboats are!




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by kirk23 -- 1/15/2013 12:02:28 AM >

_____________________________

Make it so!

(in reply to JJKettunen)
Post #: 84
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War I] >> Commander - The Great War >> RE: Naval Game ? Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
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

0.766