A naval companion game? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III



Message

macgregor -> A naval companion game? (2/24/2006 1:16:24 AM)

I've encountered a certain amount of resistance to making an improved naval model a priority. Would it be feasible to have a companion game that could update the .pbl of TOAW? Many people seem to have no interest in naval ops for TOAW and as one who would really love to see as much improvement as possible, might this be the best way to make everyone happy? Matrix presents: TOAW -naval expansion. Matrix, of all companies, knows how to make a good naval game. This way, Matrix could use one of the fabulous naval game engines already in it's arsenal.



golden delicious -> RE: A naval companion game? (2/24/2006 2:52:59 AM)

That would be ideal. I recall once Norm refered to his naval game (now developed to the Russo-Japanese war thingy) as TOAW's evil twin. Together....



lok -> RE: A naval companion game? (2/24/2006 4:44:24 PM)

I'd buy any naval expansion/variant of TOAW as soon as it comes out. I know I may be in the minority here but that is one aspect of TOAW that always bothered me. It does not have to be perfect or nearly as detailed as the land combat model just enough to inject some realistic constraints into the game that are now usually done with the event engine.



Mike Carroll -> RE: A naval companion game? (2/24/2006 8:09:12 PM)

I would love the naval aspects to be better. I really enjoy the larger scenarios like "The Great War" and it really needs the naval aspect to be better.

Mike



pad152 -> RE: A naval companion game? (2/25/2006 7:44:35 AM)

I would really like to see an improved naval model for TAOW games, in fact my dream game would be WITP (naval, logistics, air power) type game married with TAOW land combat [:)] Or Harpoon naval combat and TAOW II land combat!



Ike99 -> RE: A naval companion game? (2/28/2006 10:28:52 PM)

I'm not sure you guys are in the minority. I'd love to see that too.



Chuck2 -> RE: A naval companion game? (2/28/2006 11:34:47 PM)

I'd like to see improvements in TOAW 3 naval warfare too.



Mad Cow -> RE: A naval companion game? (3/1/2006 6:05:46 AM)

of course.


DO IT!

[image]http://gowheresp.terra.com.br/46/colunistas/imgs/cinema-07.jpg[/image]



Dr. Foo -> RE: A naval companion game? (3/23/2006 3:19:49 AM)

I would love naval combat in TOAW to be more than just floating arty platforms.



Neepster -> RE: A naval companion game? (3/24/2006 3:13:21 AM)

Yeah, I think any sort of improved naval warfare would be very useful. It doesn't have to be incredibly detailed or anything, just better than the current model, which is relatively poor.



akdreemer -> RE: A naval companion game? (3/26/2006 11:05:18 PM)

I would like to see at least a more realistic amphibious model and some improvements in the oveall naval model would be welecome. If a seperate naval game was developed that would seamlessly integrate with TOAW I would like purchase it also.



Bombur -> RE: A naval companion game? (4/1/2006 3:06:18 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chuck2

I'd like to see improvements in TOAW 3 naval warfare too.


Add me to the list too



Pants -> RE: A naval companion game? (4/14/2006 7:31:58 AM)

I'm working on an semi-adaptation of Mark Herman's Gulf Strike, and the current naval modelling is nearly hopeless. I cannot put any of the Marine helicopters or Harriers on their respective carriers, much less model the vagaries of deploying from an ARG. I've currently got the ARGs as separate naval groups in anchorages next to "islands" that represent the carrier. Of course, since the islands don't move, it is going to be a bit hard to make it all work. Since I can't park the Tarawa in the middle of the gulf, my players lose a great many options.

Another problem, which I'm sure many people have had, is with the restriction of one air unit per carrier. This leads to awkward situations like sending attack aircraft on air superiority missions (e.g., the Korea 1951-1952 scenario, my personal favorite). To preserve operational flexibility, I have stooped to putting five (!) carriers in the CVBG; this is ok for my scenario, because I doubt anyone is really going to get near enough to take out the carriers, but it is irksome.

I have struggled over ways to model the need to eliminate the scores of small attack craft in Gulf navies before amphibious assaults can be conducted; I thought of using exclusion zones, the event engine, etc. I toyed with assigning river gunboats to a naval task force to simulate Iran's plethora of armed speedboats, etc (not to mention proper fast attack craft). However, they must then be assigned blue-water ships as well. Once the BW ships are sunk, all the brown water craft disappear (they are in invalid terrain). At least, that is what I think is happening. THey don't last long in naval combat anyway. Anyway, tying larger vessels down with babysitting duties compromises operational flexibility.

I agree that sealift should also be modeled in more depth. It certainly isn't realistic for me to be able to just land the 24th Mech on a beach, when they aren't trained for amphibious assault, and they aren't even necessarily on proper amphibious vessels. Similar problems occur with airlift: Al Sandrik had to make some of his units "glider" units so they could be airlifted to the theater in his "Oil War 79" scenario. This is all well and good, but if you want to airlift mountain troops, you either lose their mountain abilities, or make them special forces and give them too many special abilities. For that matter, my Marine Battalion Landing Teams stationed on LPHs have to be "airmobile," or they can't get on shore.

Then there is the fact that I can't model cruise missile strikes at all. And using the generic ships, I have to accept a compromise that gives US carrier escorts an unreasonably strong anti-shipping capability... before Harpoons, their anti shipping capabilities were meager at best. However, if I had to model the Kirov, I'm not sure the given values would be even close to enough.

So, yeah, some more naval detail would be really cool.[8D]

Jon






golden delicious -> RE: A naval companion game? (4/14/2006 4:29:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pants

I cannot put any of the Marine helicopters or Harriers on their respective carriers,


Helicopters can't be placed on carriers in TOAW (not sure why) but if you can't put the harriers on, its because you're using the wrong ones. You need Sea Harriers.

quote:

Another problem, which I'm sure many people have had, is with the restriction of one air unit per carrier. This leads to awkward situations like sending attack aircraft on air superiority missions (e.g., the Korea 1951-1952 scenario, my personal favorite). To preserve operational flexibility, I have stooped to putting five (!) carriers in the CVBG; this is ok for my scenario, because I doubt anyone is really going to get near enough to take out the carriers, but it is irksome.


You can reduce the defence strength of the carriers using the BioEd if this is a problem.

quote:

I have struggled over ways to model the need to eliminate the scores of small attack craft in Gulf navies before amphibious assaults can be conducted; I thought of using exclusion zones, the event engine, etc. I toyed with assigning river gunboats to a naval task force to simulate Iran's plethora of armed speedboats, etc (not to mention proper fast attack craft). However, they must then be assigned blue-water ships as well. Once the BW ships are sunk, all the brown water craft disappear (they are in invalid terrain). At least, that is what I think is happening. THey don't last long in naval combat anyway. Anyway, tying larger vessels down with babysitting duties compromises operational flexibility.


Do these small vessels have much significance at TOAW scale? Wouldn't the USN wipe them out in fairly short order and for nil losses? Anyway, you can create smaller seagoing ship types using the BioEd, or else lay rivers underneath the relevant deep water hexes. This will allow riverine units to pass, with the added bonus of preventing small vessels wandering off into the Indian Ocean.

quote:

It certainly isn't realistic for me to be able to just land the 24th Mech on a beach, when they aren't trained for amphibious assault,


You could deal with this using house rules. Only units of certain formations (perhaps a certain colour scheme) can land in most locations.

quote:

Then there is the fact that I can't model cruise missile strikes at all.


You coould use BioEd to add ship-based cruise missiles, and to expand the range of ship types available.



Pants -> RE: A naval companion game? (4/14/2006 8:33:17 PM)

GD - Thank you very much for your helpful reply! I will be looking at all of your suggestions as options.

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

Helicopters can't be placed on carriers in TOAW (not sure why) but if you can't put the harriers on, its because you're using the wrong ones. You need Sea Harriers.


Unfortunately, Sea Harriers have different characteristics, and don't seem to reflect the AV-8A in USMC use. If I were inclined to use BioEd, I could certainly make the AV-8A "naval," though.


quote:

quote:

Another problem, which I'm sure many people have had, is with the restriction of one air unit per carrier. [...] I have stooped to putting five (!) carriers in the CVBG; [...]


You can reduce the defence strength of the carriers using the BioEd if this is a problem.


Very true. I guess maybe I'm a purist, but I'm not keen on requiring players to modify their game in order to play my scenario. [8|] Regardless, though, a fix for this in TOAW III would be pretty keen.


quote:

Do these small vessels have much significance at TOAW scale? Wouldn't the USN wipe them out in fairly short order and for nil losses?


Probably, but I wanted the US player to have to take the time to do it, or risk the consequences. There is always the possibility that some of the FACs might be able to make a run at the 'phibs. This is especially possible in TOAW: COW, where there is no "Sea Superiority" mission for naval vessels, so you can conceivably thread your way through the USN and attack your preferred target without interception (but with possible interdiction).


quote:

Anyway, you can create smaller seagoing ship types using the BioEd, or else lay rivers underneath the relevant deep water hexes. This will allow riverine units to pass, with the added bonus of preventing small vessels wandering off into the Indian Ocean.


That is a very interesting option! Thank you very much! [&o]


quote:

quote:

It certainly isn't realistic for me to be able to just land the 24th Mech on a beach, when they aren't trained for amphibious assault,


You could deal with this using house rules. Only units of certain formations (perhaps a certain colour scheme) can land in most locations.


Sadly, programmed opponents don't respect house rules. [:(]

Also, I should be fair: I bet the 24th could land on a beach, and with some training and lots of support they could probably conduct a reasonable assault. The real problem I have is the equipment.

Simply put, the US has limited sealift, and only a fraction of it is capable of conducting true amphibious assaults. None of this is modelled. Say my true amphibious force is limited to landing a brigade, but I can transport two more brigades using civilian bulk, break-bulk, container, LASH, and RO/RO vessels. Is it realistic for my ships to pick up the 7th MAB from Diego Garcia on Turn Two and land them in Oman, then on Turn Three pick up the 24th from Japan and land them in Qatar on Turn Five? This would involve my 'phibs being instantly transported from Oman to Japan between turns. Then, two turns later, all of my merchant vessels miraculously transform into true military 'phibs and land my force in Qatar!

I will probably find some way to "average" this out, or I use the event engine to constrain how sealift is used, or I could set up house rules. However, as long as we are wishing for things for TOAW III... [;)]


quote:

You coould use BioEd to add ship-based cruise missiles, and to expand the range of ship types available.


I must confess I am entirely ignorant of the details of equipment programming, apart from the stats given in the equipment list. Is it possible to alter ship stats so they can accomplish a 1,000 km bombardment mission once and only once? That would be pretty helpful!

Thanks for all your help, GD!

Sincerely,

Jon




golden delicious -> RE: A naval companion game? (4/14/2006 9:11:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Pants
Very true. I guess maybe I'm a purist, but I'm not keen on requiring players to modify their game in order to play my scenario.


It's not really a matter of having to modify their game. You send along the modified .exe, which then co-exists quite harmoniously with the original version of TOAW.

As to being a purist- well, you've just called for the game to be changed to allow you to model things better. That would be great- but what's wrong with doing it yourself in the meantime?

quote:

Sadly, programmed opponents don't respect house rules. [:(]


The PO can be told to land the non-amphibious forces only at ports. You can even give the formation an orders type which freezes it for the PO but not for human players, then have those orders change by event when the port is captured. That prevents them assaulting a defending port.

quote:

Also, I should be fair: I bet the 24th could land on a beach, and with some training and lots of support they could probably conduct a reasonable assault. The real problem I have is the equipment.


Hm. You could strip the heavy equipment out of the unit (leaving the authorised slots for it so that it can be recovered from replacements later) at the beginning of the scenario. Alternatively, have a first turn TO where the player picks between receiving those stripped-down units or having the fully equipped units appear at a captured port.

quote:

However, as long as we are wishing for things for TOAW III... [;)]


That's all very well, but remember the axiom to 'hope for the best but prepare for the worst'.

quote:

I must confess I am entirely ignorant of the details of equipment programming, apart from the stats given in the equipment list. Is it possible to alter ship stats so they can accomplish a 1,000 km bombardment mission once and only once?


Ah, no, not really. If the range is that great, though, you could just give the player one of the existing long-range missile units and then withdraw it after one turn, representing all the cruise missile assets being fired off. Alternatively, you could give the player a TO (or set of TOs) to release this unit(s) for one turn only. Of course, getting early turn ending whilst this unit is on the map would be a major downer, but there's not much that can be done about that.



Pants -> RE: A naval companion game? (4/14/2006 10:21:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

The PO can be told to land the non-amphibious forces only at ports.


I'm not that experienced with the PO. Do you mean giving it ports as objectives?


quote:

You can even give the formation an orders type which freezes it for the PO but not for human players, then have those orders change by event when the port is captured. That prevents them assaulting a defending port.


Many thanks for the suggestion! I'll have to think this out to make it work right, but it should fly! [&o]


quote:

Hm. You could strip the heavy equipment out of the unit (leaving the authorised slots for it so that it can be recovered from replacements later) at the beginning of the scenario. Alternatively, have a first turn TO where the player picks between receiving those stripped-down units or having the fully equipped units appear at a captured port.


I like this. One problem is that this is a VERY fluid scenario, and I don't want to have to set up a contingency for each of the several dozen valid possible ports (damned Persian Gulf!).

I adopted a similar approach for prepositions. I had two units, a "stripped" unit, and an "inverse stripped" unit. The latter had all the stripped equipment, and was dumped directly into the reinforcement pool when the prepositions were activated. Incidentally, this is also how my MAUs work: they are airmobile units, and if you airlift them ashore, the game automatically dumps their tanks and heavy arty in the replacement pool. Not the ideal solution to the problem, but adequate.




quote:

That's all very well, but remember the axiom to 'hope for the best but prepare for the worst'.


Too true! [:)]

quote:

Ah, no, not really. If the range is that great, though, you could just give the player one of the existing long-range missile units and then withdraw it after one turn, representing all the cruise missile assets being fired off. Alternatively, you could give the player a TO (or set of TOs) to release this unit(s) for one turn only. Of course, getting early turn ending whilst this unit is on the map would be a major downer, but there's not much that can be done about that.


Very nice! Thank you . I like the TO idea. I already have TOs planned to solve a number of similar problems. For example: sealift and airlift "surges," to compensate for the low average SL and AL values. You get several times the SL or AL, but you have reduced values for several turns afterwards.

Thanks again![:)]

Jon



golden delicious -> RE: A naval companion game? (4/14/2006 11:08:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Pants

I'm not that experienced with the PO. Do you mean giving it ports as objectives?


Yeah. AFAIK, the PO will only make amphibious landings if its first objective is an anchorage which is accessible from its starting hex.

quote:

Very nice! Thank you . I like the TO idea. I already have TOs planned to solve a number of similar problems. For example: sealift and airlift "surges," to compensate for the low average SL and AL values. You get several times the SL or AL, but you have reduced values for several turns afterwards.


Yeah, that's good.

Fortunately, extra events is one of the things that's more or less guaranteed to show up in the first Matrix release.



DanNeely -> RE: A naval companion game? (4/15/2006 6:43:31 AM)

I'm 95% sure I've seen mixed air/helo units onboard carriers. Either that or the helos in the fleet unit itself. I know it was one or the other.



ralphtricky -> RE: A naval companion game? (4/15/2006 7:19:10 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious


quote:

ORIGINAL: Pants

I'm not that experienced with the PO. Do you mean giving it ports as objectives?


Yeah. AFAIK, the PO will only make amphibious landings if its first objective is an anchorage which is accessible from its starting hex.

You may need to put in intermediate hexes to bend it around a coastline. It's a bit flaky, unfortunately. The whole pathfinding routine needs to be rewritten using some newer algorithms for speed.



Pants -> RE: A naval companion game? (4/15/2006 6:55:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DanNeely

I'm 95% sure I've seen mixed air/helo units onboard carriers. Either that or the helos in the fleet unit itself. I know it was one or the other.


THANK YOU!!!!!!! This does indeed work. Many thanks to everyone for their help in resolving this issue.

FYI: the final resolution is: divide the ARG into two groups: one with a couple small escorts and the atk choppers, one with the carrier, large escorts, and transport helos (so you don't lose Sea Knights in an attack). I'm using Sea Harriers for AV-8As; the differences are actually quite modest, and the anti-shipping capability seems reasonable, since they are most likely to come up against smaller vessels. There will be a Theater Option to "land the airgroup," wherein the ARG withdraws/ disbands, and the individual helicopter units enter as reinforcements. It is a kludge, but not a big one. I'm still deciding if you get the ARG back.

It does appear that, when the choppers are embedded in a naval unit, they do not automatically perform supporting fire... in fact, I can't really get them to do so when I commit them 100% to the battle. However, they will attack if ordered to do so separately. Weird.

Thanks again,

Jon



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.90625