proposed house rule for navies (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> WW2: Road to Victory



Message

gwgardner -> proposed house rule for navies (4/10/2009 6:57:17 PM)

Here's an idea to consider:

Problem: naval action and organization is now rather silly. There are variables, but all other things like luck being equal, whoever accumulates the largest fleet in a given area is generally successful. That tends to push players to pool all their regular ships into one fleet. There's little in the way of strategy there. Just accounting.

Proposal: Limit the size of fleets, based upon flagship. Flagship is the largest ship in the fleet. Max size of any fleet is the strength of the flagship. Example, a fleet containing an aircraft carrier could be 12 ships in size, of any makeup.

Thoughts?



Mike Dubost -> RE: proposed house rule for navies (4/11/2009 2:23:30 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: gwgardner

Here's an idea to consider:

Problem: naval action and organization is now rather silly. There are variables, but all other things like luck being equal, whoever accumulates the largest fleet in a given area is generally successful. That tends to push players to pool all their regular ships into one fleet. There's little in the way of strategy there. Just accounting.

Proposal: Limit the size of fleets, based upon flagship. Flagship is the largest ship in the fleet. Max size of any fleet is the strength of the flagship. Example, a fleet containing an aircraft carrier could be 12 ships in size, of any makeup.

Thoughts?


As I understand it, you want to limit the individual fleets in size, not the total in a sea zone, correct?

The fleets definitely don't fight as a unit, and ships in different fleets will fight as a group. This is the case even for units in fleets with the "regular fleet" mission. As a result, altering the size of individual fleets will not change the outcome of battles. I therefore usually leave my ships in more small fleets because it lets me be flexible with re-deployment, and because I like it as "flavor".

It is great that the system rewards concentration of force into a sea zone, but I wish it took the organization into fleets into consideration. There is a reason the historical WWII navies split up fleets into task forces, but it does not show in this system.



cpdeyoung -> RE: proposed house rule for navies (4/11/2009 2:57:38 AM)

There is no way the Royal Navy would let any consideration prohibit them from defending the British Isles. From the time of Drake and the Armada there was an answer for Admirals who neglected this duty, court martial, and death. If you pay the price for a navy you get to direct it to the tasks that need to be done. If you have an opponent who has concentrated his fleet to your disadvantage then threaten him elsewhere. In "HalfAgain" JJ is raiding my convoys from multiple sea zones, forcing me to split my fleets, or leave the convoys unprotected in one or more zones.

Navies are very expensive, and the aircraft carrier is available to the Allies from the start, but a rare build for the Axis. I think players with a naval bent would have issues with this rule.



James Ward -> RE: proposed house rule for navies (4/11/2009 7:39:10 PM)

Fleets teneded to stay together. In this game it seems that it is all randon which ships engage and which don't. I think the best way to handle fleets is if any ship of the fleet engages they all do. Each fleet would check as a whole to see if it engaged. If each fleet had an individual 'engagement' factor based on tech level and historical naval experiance then I think fleet actions would work better.
For example if each UK fleet had an engagement factor of 80% and each Italian fleet had an engagement factor of 30% (level 3 + high experiance and level 1 + no experiance respectively) it would be hard for all Italian fleets in the area to engage. Then you would have to choose, more chances to engage with smaller fleets of less chance but with a large fleet. Combine this with fleet size limits based on capital ships as suggested above and I think the naval warfare would work a little better.  



Michael the Pole -> RE: proposed house rule for navies (4/12/2009 2:21:11 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: cpdeyoung

There is no way the Royal Navy would let any consideration prohibit them from defending the British Isles. From the time of Drake and the Armada there was an answer for Admirals who neglected this duty, court martial, and death. If you pay the price for a navy you get to direct it to the tasks that need to be done. If you have an opponent who has concentrated his fleet to your disadvantage then threaten him elsewhere. In "HalfAgain" JJ is raiding my convoys from multiple sea zones, forcing me to split my fleets, or leave the convoys unprotected in one or more zones.

Navies are very expensive, and the aircraft carrier is available to the Allies from the start, but a rare build for the Axis. I think players with a naval bent would have issues with this rule.


Shirley you're not implying that I'm bent? [:-]
Just as a note to the community, I have been thrilled about the improvements to the naval game in Time of Wrath. Ya'll are going to be amazed![:D]



gwgardner -> RE: proposed house rule for navies (4/12/2009 3:13:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael the Pole



Just as a note to the community, I have been thrilled about the improvements to the naval game in Time of Wrath. Ya'll are going to be amazed![:D]



Oh? And what are those improvements?



dennisb55 -> RE: proposed house rule for navies (4/13/2009 9:02:02 PM)

Real information would be very helpful.  And will Time of Wrath be a stand alone purchase or an upgrade to WWII:RTV? 



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.640625