Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hairog

Has anyone done a mod of the naval game? If so where can I look into it? I tried a search and nothing comes up...nothing ever comes up. I have the search engine in this forum.

Anyway, I want to see if modifying the war on the high seas is possible and or worth the effort.

quote:

The introduction of new research areas, the adaptation of existing research, the permanent reduction of unit strengths as well as a cautious optimization of combat strengths and damage avoidance were finally the trick.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hairog

Still trying to find a good list for the Japanese losses.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hairog

I would just like to see the naval phase of the game be as successful.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hairog

1. would be the swarming effect. Where ships or groups of ships,come from the far flung reaches of the world to attack a lone unit. Sometimes that unit retreat six time or more and ends up surrounded. I don't think I've ever read an account of a ship being surrounded at sea. Blockaded in port possibly but not surrounded in the ocean.

quote:


2. Individual ships steaming around was rare unless they were raiders. Most operations were performed by task forces. I guess it could be argued that each DD/CA/CL unit represents a task force of destroyers etc. or a flotilla. But again there were not many DD based task forces that I know of. I suppose the game could be said to represent the flotilla of screening DD, but they should have to stay with the ships they are screening.

quote:


3. Surface ships see and engage each other too often in the open sea. Historically surface fleets sans carriers or land based planes, met each other at choke points.

quote:


4. The carnage is too great during most naval battles in game. I suppose it could be argued that they are not sunk but limp back home to be never repaired or scuttled like so many actually were. So like land units being seemingly wiped out by tactical air...they aren't really destroyed but made inoperable for an extended period of time. If this is indeed the case there should be some way of making this fact better known.

quote:


5. Repair times are way...way too fast. A battleship limps home to a major port with one point remaining and is repaired in one turn. Whether it is a couple of weeks or even months. it still isn't kosher.

quote:


By the way I'm having some interesting results with using high avoidance...

quote:


Found another list of battleship losses. The author came to a number of different conclusions...

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheBattlefield

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hairog

1. would be the swarming effect. Where ships or groups of ships,come from the far flung reaches of the world to attack a lone unit. Sometimes that unit retreat six time or more and ends up surrounded. I don't think I've ever read an account of a ship being surrounded at sea. Blockaded in port possibly but not surrounded in the ocean.

quote:

Yep. But that's exactly what happened in real live. Remember the "Graf Spee". But I think I understand what you want to suggest. Therefore, during the beta phase I suggested that a extended "forced march" should be defined as the (defensive) preset movement for ships. At the same time, there should be an optional offensive "Search & Battle Mode" with very short range.

The Graf Spree was loose from Sept to Dec. and was caught by chance on a hunch by three cruisers. There were 8 Task Forces formed to find the GS but only one had any luck. Kind of shows how hard it was to initiate surface combat without planes. Even then she could have escaped the cruisers but chose to attack instead.. Now the Bismark was indeed swarmed. But that involved planes.

quote:


2. Individual ships steaming around was rare unless they were raiders. Most operations were performed by task forces. I guess it could be argued that each DD/CA/CL unit represents a task force of destroyers etc. or a flotilla. But again there were not many DD based task forces that I know of. I suppose the game could be said to represent the flotilla of screening DD, but they should have to stay with the ships they are screening.

quote:

Right, so far I have understood the smaller ship units up to the light cruiser as a symbol of a battle group. I would not want to change anything here, as the decision to split up or merge ship units should not be dictated by the game.

I would tend to agree but some consideration should be given to common sense. There was a reason that all navies chose task forces as the standard organizational structure. I would suggest that studies, experience and common sense dictated this choice. There must be some practical reason why this was the choice of many navies.

quote:


3. Surface ships see and engage each other too often in the open sea. Historically surface fleets sans carriers or land based planes, met each other at choke points.

quote:

On the one hand, this may be a desired effect of the strategy [quotechosen by both players, on the other hand, here I agree with you, this is somewhat unrealistically supported by a very large offensive "range of action", at least in relation to an "active" search. See Point 1.

Agreed

quote:


4. The carnage is too great during most naval battles in game. I suppose it could be argued that they are not sunk but limp back home to be never repaired or scuttled like so many actually were. So like land units being seemingly wiped out by tactical air...they aren't really destroyed but made inoperable for an extended period of time. If this is indeed the case there should be some way of making this fact better known.

quote:

Well, yes. A matter of taste. Here, too, the high level of abstraction of the game probably demands a small tribute. If all units have a strength of "10", the only differences between destroyer and battleship are the pure combat values. That is little and therefore of course difficult. If up to 20 strength points could be awarded, the damage model would look a bit different. From my point of view, this could also benefit the land units in order to make a better distinction of the troop units in terms of their size. (On this occasion, even these unfortunate "elite strength points" could be replaced by a more differentiated "green to veteran" experience system)

I like this idea...a lot! I'll try battleships at 10, CA 9, CL 8, DD 7 etc.and see what happens.

quote:


5. Repair times are way...way too fast. A battleship limps home to a major port with one point remaining and is repaired in one turn. Whether it is a couple of weeks or even months. it still isn't kosher.

quote:

This point will be fixed with the next edition of the game.

Very good news!

quote:


By the way I'm having some interesting results with using high avoidance...

quote:

I can confirm. In this way I have achieved very positive results in my "Elite Forces" mod with destroyers and submarines.

Excellent news.

quote:


Found another list of battleship losses. The author came to a number of different conclusions...

quote:

Basically, I would like to see strategic freedom, if possible, put above personal preferences and a tactical freedom of choice is not cut by overly restrictive gametechnical narrowing.

I agree with the exception that you have to take into account there were reasons for certain standard practices and the limitations of the equipment, physics etc.

_____________________________

WW III 1946 Books
SC3 EAW WW Three 1946 Mod and Naval Mods
WarPlan and WarPlan Pac Alpha and Be

(in reply to TheBattlefield)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hairog


I like this idea...a lot! I'll try battleships at 10, CA 9, CL 8, DD 7 etc.and see what happens.