Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa

quote:

ORIGINAL: kirk23

quote:

ORIGINAL: CC1

I just started watching Paradogs gamer episode 16 video and it certainly appears that it is way too easy to decimate the British navy not only in the Med but also in the North Sea.

I can't help but feel like the ability to recon with air units and subs (the way Paradogs gamer has been doing) to reveal the British ships, games the system too much in that ships or subs that are quite far away at the time the target is discovered, are able to move over great distances and still find the target waiting in the same place it was discovered in. I can understand that air reconnaissance to reveal ship locations and course for subsequent air attack is realistic, but to discover a ship and have it stay in the same location long enough for ships that were far away (around 250 Km in the case of the first sub attack on the discovered Hood - see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpO44EWsBIA&index=16&list=PLt96thROd3u9rcKn4dRlhHcpaFTGQ_o4e from 0:17 to 0:57), has me wondering. I understand that the AI operates this way too, so it can be considered fair enough, but this is also a consequence of the inherent weaknesses in any IGOUGO game system (with the exception of TOAW). I also noticed that subs (and any ship for that matter) can move along incrementally hex by hex (instead of having to end their movement the first time they stop) until they either run out of movement points or run into something. This also seems a little gamey in that it may not necessarily reflect or model a realistic search pattern/approach such that more time would be needed to be spent in each hex searching resulting in less net distance travelled in a more or less straight line.

Don't get me wrong, I am still very anxious about getting this game and will do so as soon as it is released. I also understand that certain abstractions need to be made for the sake of playability, but I wonder if some tweaking may be in order for the sake of balance against the AI...

Maybe something like a chance for discovered ships to evade (like subs do) based on how far away and how quickly an attacking unit can be brought to bear.

C

I completely agree with you,if you read this thread: Video Preview (UPDATED WITH PART V) I questioned the logic behind it.

Perhaps naval units can be given an aggression setting to select, whether you want them to engage, or evade. If it's 'engage' than you assume both sides are trying to find each other and there is no impediment to them being discovered. If unit are set to 'evade', then they should have odds to avoid combat, depending on recon ability, whether a CV is present on either side. Transports would find it difficult to evade, because of low speed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kirk23

quote:

ORIGINAL: CC1

I just started watching Paradogs gamer episode 16 video and it certainly appears that it is way too easy to decimate the British navy not only in the Med but also in the North Sea.

I can't help but feel like the ability to recon with air units and subs (the way Paradogs gamer has been doing) to reveal the British ships, games the system too much in that ships or subs that are quite far away at the time the target is discovered, are able to move over great distances and still find the target waiting in the same place it was discovered in. I can understand that air reconnaissance to reveal ship locations and course for subsequent air attack is realistic, but to discover a ship and have it stay in the same location long enough for ships that were far away (around 250 Km in the case of the first sub attack on the discovered Hood - see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpO44EWsBIA&index=16&list=PLt96thROd3u9rcKn4dRlhHcpaFTGQ_o4e from 0:17 to 0:57), has me wondering. I understand that the AI operates this way too, so it can be considered fair enough, but this is also a consequence of the inherent weaknesses in any IGOUGO game system (with the exception of TOAW). I also noticed that subs (and any ship for that matter) can move along incrementally hex by hex (instead of having to end their movement the first time they stop) until they either run out of movement points or run into something. This also seems a little gamey in that it may not necessarily reflect or model a realistic search pattern/approach such that more time would be needed to be spent in each hex searching resulting in less net distance travelled in a more or less straight line.

Don't get me wrong, I am still very anxious about getting this game and will do so as soon as it is released. I also understand that certain abstractions need to be made for the sake of playability, but I wonder if some tweaking may be in order for the sake of balance against the AI...

Maybe something like a chance for discovered ships to evade (like subs do) based on how far away and how quickly an attacking unit can be brought to bear.

C

I completely agree with you,if you read this thread: Video Preview (UPDATED WITH PART V) I questioned the logic behind it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Biker1984

quote:

ORIGINAL: CC1

I just started watching Paradogs gamer episode 16 video and it certainly appears that it is way too easy to decimate the British navy not only in the Med but also in the North Sea.

I can't help but feel like the ability to recon with air units and subs (the way Paradogs gamer has been doing) to reveal the British ships, games the system too much in that ships or subs that are quite far away at the time the target is discovered, are able to move over great distances and still find the target waiting in the same place it was discovered in. I can understand that air reconnaissance to reveal ship locations and course for subsequent air attack is realistic, but to discover a ship and have it stay in the same location long enough for ships that were far away (around 250 Km in the case of the first sub attack on the discovered Hood has me wondering. I understand that the AI operates this way too, so it can be considered fair enough, but this is also a consequence of the inherent weaknesses in any IGOUGO game system (with the exception of TOAW). I also noticed that subs (and any ship for that matter) can move along incrementally hex by hex (instead of having to end their movement the first time they stop) until they either run out of movement points or run into something. This also seems a little gamey in that it may not necessarily reflect or model a realistic search pattern/approach such that more time would be needed to be spent in each hex searching resulting in less net distance travelled in a more or less straight line.

Don't get me wrong, I am still very anxious about getting this game and will do so as soon as it is released. I also understand that certain abstractions need to be made for the sake of playability, but I wonder if some tweaking may be in order for the sake of balance against the AI...

Maybe something like a chance for discovered ships to evade (like subs do) based on how far away and how quickly an attacking unit can be brought to bear.

C

I also completely agree with this comment. Also the subs are way too strong. They have a high chance of diving and dealing up to 3 damage to a complete healthy battle ship. I would make the defense penalty when they are being hunted by destroyers higher.
The Atlantic sea war could be won with the tactics that have been applied in the Meds. In the second World War the Germans had no idea how strong the British navy and airforce was. If in this case the AI withholds the ships in western and north England (into the fog of war) it could send the complete navy as the German fleet was near the UK and pick them out one by one. This would make the Germans think twice about sealion. I think the British navy has enough vessels but is using them in a to spread way.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ironclad

I have just watched another episode of the Paradogs game which seemed to show the weakness of the AI in respect of naval activity in both attack and defence:

There were the examples of British carriers being left exposed in Southern England cities and Malta to continual (turn after turn) attacks and eventual elimination by massed enemies air fleets within range (supplemented by surface naval identification/attacks for the latter). Yet the AI made no attempt to withdraw them - admittedly there were enemy fleets off Southern Italy and the N.Sea but withdrawal routes seemed available.

In the N.Sea a large number of British destroyers sallied out to attack enemy subs - or a weakened one in particular - despite the presence of a large mixed enemy fleet being present. They were joined by heavy units cruisers/battleship and a carrier launching air attacks from afar, without any real screening units - given all the light units had joined in the melee.

This was a beta game so its possible that some further improvements may have already been made or are planned but it would be nice to see the AI reducing avoidable risks particularly to high value units.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NightPhoenix

The main way for me to stop any kind of naval/amphibious invasion would be to rail units from the Soviet Union to Western Europe. As any kind of landing does only allow you to move a limited amount this should give you sufficient time to contain the allies and then eventually throw them into the ocean. Although air units will not help you that much there, i think air units are indispensable when on the offensive. I personally feel that many times i would not be able to break through a certain area or city without air units, especially choke points such as Kerch or in North Africa would be almost impossible to grab without air support. They also help in lowering morale and efficiency.

Although i would say that air based power is very much needed on land, i think indeed on sea, they seem less useful, or i haven't found the optimal way to use them yet. As it is with regards to the naval game, i understand that this is not the way normal naval engagements go. Fair enough, but we are playing a game, railing armies from Moscow to Madrid in 1 week is also fairly unrealistic, so are many things in the game. This game is most likely not created with the goal to be as realistic as possible, but to give a presentation which comes close to that, while trying to provide a experience which is as enjoyable as possible to the player.

I don't know personally what made the developers decide why naval warfare was supposed to be done like this, but they might have thought that people would get frustrated seeing how their naval engagements would fail time and time again, where they would spend 20 minutes every turn on just trying to get the navy right and/or start save/reloading frantically. There is a game which models naval warfare very realistically i think, or comes at least close to. It's Gary Grigsby's war in the Pacific. You are going to spend hours on just playing 1 turn (which is 1 day in game-time), but it is realistic. This game doesn't mean to do that and consequently playing through the war doesn't take you 1+ year in real life to complete.

All in all i think that people haven't seen enough of the game, and depend on Paradogs Gamer, my and other peoples videos a little too much. By no stretch are we playing optimally, and would probably do many things different if we started over. Besides we as humans can exploit the predictability of the AI which never makes for a fair game, especially in the water it seems. I personally feel that individual aspects of the game (even in beta) work out very well, and looking at the big picture combines into a great game. So for me at least its a big thumbs up for the developers.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bill Runacre

Great discussion everyone and I just want to add that we have made a change since the videos started up, and this is to increase the chance of a naval unit retreating when attacked.

This now has a 50% chance of occurring if the attacked unit's predicted strength after combat is 5 or less. So they will not be sitting still and taking punishment quite as much in future as you may have seen in the videos.

In terms of defending coastlines, Fighters to intercept enemy bombers will help because an amphibious invasion without air support is going to struggle to take key objectives if they are heavily defended.

Secondly, having mobile armoured reserves slightly inland will be useful to counterattack an invader... think of what could have happened in Normandy if the Allies hadn't had such aerial supremacy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kirk23

because Britains air defence against Paradogs Gamer successful invasion was ineffective.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Biker1984

I think that anti-air and anti-tank units need to inflict heavier damage when facing units which they are meant to repel. I would say that AA is triggered they deal always between 1-3 damage to an enemy aircraft. I have seen them miss a lot of times or just doing 1 damage to an aircarft that the loss are neglectable. Considering 1 stack of planes would represent 200 planes, this would equal 20 to 60 planes when hit by AA.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kirk23

quote:

ORIGINAL: Biker1984

I think that anti-air and anti-tank units need to inflict heavier damage when facing units which they are meant to repel. I would say that AA is triggered they deal always between 1-3 damage to an enemy aircraft. I have seen them miss a lot of times or just doing 1 damage to an aircarft that the loss are neglectable. Considering 1 stack of planes would represent 200 planes, this would equal 20 to 60 planes when hit by AA.

I agree the AA units are not effective enough.


Anti-aircraft fire terrified military pilots and crews. Few aircraft could fly above the range of large-caliber anti-aircraft guns, and aircraft were not fast or maneuverable enough to evade anti-aircraft barrage fire. As the war progressed, improved fire control methods and equipment plus increased numbers of AAA weapons made defensive fire more fearsome.


Anti-aircraft guns surrounding Moscow were one of the best of the war since German bomber losses over the USSR capital were so high that bombing missions targeting Moscow were called off, relatively early into the German Soviet war.