The Naval War

The Naval War (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War I] >> Commander - The Great War

Message

warspite1 -> The Naval War (12/13/2012 9:54:50 PM)
Lord Zimoa + Co Just a question on the naval war aspect. I feel this is the only part of this great game that is really lacking. Are there any plans - however far in the future - to look at this? It feels like all the effort has gone into the land war - and quite reasonably so - but that the naval side has been given little consideration. There is much that could be done, but I think the first thing would be the need for smaller size, and more numerous, counters - thus giving more tactical opportunity to each side. At the moment its all or nothing. I look forward to your thoughts on this.

Empire101 -> RE: The Naval War (12/13/2012 10:09:09 PM)
Indeed. Warspite raises a valid point. Naval forces are more valuable in the game than in WWI in my opinion. As stated it is all or nothing at the moment, where your cruiser units ( and they are SO expensive ), are tied up on perpetual convoy escort duty. I know this was the case in WWI, but their expense is so extreme, and their loss so traumatic that they are rarely used in 'Naval Adventures'. And don't get me started on German Subs.....they cost a fortune!!

CarnageINC -> RE: The Naval War (12/14/2012 12:17:26 AM)
+1

Lord Zimoa -> RE: The Naval War (12/14/2012 8:13:12 AM)
quote: Just a question on the naval war aspect. I feel this is the only part of this great game that is really lacking. Are there any plans - however far in the future - to look at this? Yes, the Naval AI will get more attention and be improved over the next few months. It was already on our own wishlist.

vonRocko -> RE: The Naval War (12/14/2012 1:27:28 PM)
Yes, but in the war, navies were expensive, and almost to valuable to risk in a battle. Loss of a naval unit should have major consequences.

Jestre -> RE: The Naval War (12/14/2012 2:52:25 PM)
I am more concerned with the impact of Strategic Bombing, you can devastate a nations economy with bombing that simply was not feasible in WWI.

wodin -> RE: The Naval War (12/14/2012 5:34:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jestre I am more concerned with the impact of Strategic Bombing, you can devastate a nations economy with bombing that simply was not feasible in WWI. Bombing should really be aimed at railways and stations to cause disruption during WW1 rather than the bombing you see in WW2..it just wasn't anywhere near that scale.

Empire101 -> RE: The Naval War (12/14/2012 6:31:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vonRocko Yes, but in the war, navies were expensive, and almost to valuable to risk in a battle. Loss of a naval unit should have major consequences. Of course they were, and the game does a good job of reflecting this. Submarines though were a cheap alternative to challenging the naval supremacy of the Triple Entente, combined with the naval doctrine of Commerce Raiding. It just seems so difficult for the CP to go from one Submarine Flotilla to two, let alone three or four, which is what is needed to try and stamp unrestricted submarine warfare in the game. It is far easier for the British to float a couple of submarines in the Baltic, and do real damage to the German Economy, than for the Germans to do the same to GB and France.

warspite1 -> RE: The Naval War (12/14/2012 6:58:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lord Zimoa quote: Just a question on the naval war aspect. I feel this is the only part of this great game that is really lacking. Are there any plans - however far in the future - to look at this? Yes, the Naval AI will get more attention and be improved over the next few months. It was already on our own wishlist. warspite1 Lord Zimoa, I am not talking about the AI I am talking about something more fundamental i.e. the composition, make-up and size of the naval units. Could you let me know if this is under consideration or is it just a question of tinkering with the AI and keeping existing units as they are? Thank-you.

warspite1 -> RE: The Naval War (12/14/2012 6:59:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jestre I am more concerned with the impact of Strategic Bombing, you can devastate a nations economy with bombing that simply was not feasible in WWI. warspite1 Right, but this thread is about the naval war.....

warspite1 -> RE: The Naval War (12/14/2012 6:59:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vonRocko Yes, but in the war, navies were expensive, and almost to valuable to risk in a battle. Loss of a naval unit should have major consequences. warspite1 Eh?

vonRocko -> RE: The Naval War (12/14/2012 7:23:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: vonRocko Yes, but in the war, navies were expensive, and almost to valuable to risk in a battle. Loss of a naval unit should have major consequences. warspite1 Eh? Well, the "fleet in being" mentality, especially for Germany. They were pretty wary about an all out battle. The loss of a battleship should be a big deal.

warspite1 -> RE: The Naval War (12/14/2012 7:27:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vonRocko quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: vonRocko Yes, but in the war, navies were expensive, and almost to valuable to risk in a battle. Loss of a naval unit should have major consequences. warspite1 Eh? Well, the "fleet in being" mentality, especially for Germany. They were pretty wary about an all out battle. The loss of a battleship should be a big deal. warspite1 But that concept is in the game already - and that is fine. What I am talking about is that the naval war, as currently drafted, is too abstract, does not allow players the freedom to explore fun avenues for their navy - and is totally unrealistic in terms of real life fleet sizes.

vonRocko -> RE: The Naval War (12/14/2012 7:57:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: vonRocko quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: vonRocko Yes, but in the war, navies were expensive, and almost to valuable to risk in a battle. Loss of a naval unit should have major consequences. warspite1 Eh? Well, the "fleet in being" mentality, especially for Germany. They were pretty wary about an all out battle. The loss of a battleship should be a big deal. warspite1 But that concept is in the game already - and that is fine. What I am talking about is that the naval war, as currently drafted, is too abstract, does not allow players the freedom to explore fun avenues for their navy - and is totally unrealistic in terms of real life fleet sizes. Oh yes, I do agree with you. I guess my post was in response to the costs of navies, I feel they should be very high, with losses being very hard to replace.(except subs).

warspite1 -> RE: The Naval War (12/15/2012 6:57:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: vonRocko quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: vonRocko Yes, but in the war, navies were expensive, and almost to valuable to risk in a battle. Loss of a naval unit should have major consequences. warspite1 Eh? Well, the "fleet in being" mentality, especially for Germany. They were pretty wary about an all out battle. The loss of a battleship should be a big deal. warspite1 But that concept is in the game already - and that is fine. What I am talking about is that the naval war, as currently drafted, is too abstract, does not allow players the freedom to explore fun avenues for their navy - and is totally unrealistic in terms of real life fleet sizes. warspite1 Guys - any chance of an answer on this please?

Lord Zimoa -> RE: The Naval War (12/15/2012 11:21:01 AM)
Naval units in the game represent not single ships but fleets or groups or squadrons, so a battleship is supposed to have all her support and protecting auxiliary vessels present, a transport group is a bunch of transport ships protected by support vessels, etc..., when in port or within home waters (green dotted hexes), they are supposed to be protected by extra minefields, torpedo boats, patrol ships... Submarine groups cannot operate deep into the Atlantic as technology in WW1 did allow it yet (red dotted hexes). Outside improving the AI we of course try to improve naval combat rules, battle mechanics, balancing acts, etc... but no radical overhauling changes are planned. To be honest if we wanted to simulate WW1 naval warfare better, we better would make a separate and complete new game around it. No doubt we still have room for improving the WW1 naval aspect in our current CTGW game though.

Orm -> RE: The Naval War (12/18/2012 10:13:33 PM)
Would it be possible to add an option that gives the countries a with more historical naval strength set up? The counters do not have to start at full strength. [image]local://upfiles/29130/40D2E3FDA008455C96E194B00CCBBC74.jpg[/image]

warspite1 -> RE: The Naval War (12/19/2012 10:19:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Orm Would it be possible to add an option that gives the countries a with more historical naval strength set up? The counters do not have to start at full strength. [image]local://upfiles/29130/40D2E3FDA008455C96E194B00CCBBC74.jpg[/image] warspite1 Orm - good find. I know there is a game balance issue to factor in but this is part and parcel of the need - imo - to more than tweak the naval game (and no I am not suggesting WITPAE treatment!). Thanks to operational shortcomings, the RN lost a number of battlecruisers (at great human cost) during Jutland. Despite this, the naval balance was unaffected (such was the RN's numerical superiority) and the German fleet never put to sea again. Giving the RN the same number of ships as Germany (apart from an extra cruiser counter) is not great.

Lord Zimoa -> RE: The Naval War (12/19/2012 11:01:32 AM)
Guys, historical background is of course hugely important and we know the numbers, but if we go this route, basically GB will shoot everything out of the water with a breeze. We always let the gaming factor come first, from a game balancing point of view, decisions like not giving France a rail capacity at the start(as the AI would rail reinforcements to Brussel, and kill always your Schlieffen plan attempts), not giving German cities more PP in the Alsace and Ruhr areas, as if you as a player, would make rapid advantages along that front it would immediately knock Germany out of the war, now it will do so as well, but at least give the AI some more fighting spirit, not having the AH with full armies near the Russian border at game start, so you cannot kill Russia in a few turns and have to pay attention to the Serbian front as well as building a strategic reserve along AH`s front with Russia, etc, etc... We know it is not completely historical, but we try to offer at least the change for any player to alter history and win the game in another way, this set in a WW1 historical environment with WW1 abstracted tactics... this makes the game fun and better. I know for some purists it is hard, but I guarantee you making historical simulations make often very boring and predictable games! Again, I agree we have some fine-tuning to do on the naval front, AI, balancing, some rule changes maybe, but we do it subtle, in steps and test it well before ruining very tricky things like, overall game balance and can introduce stupid and annoying bugs. Believe me after years and years of experience we know that simple and easy changes on paper, often have a profound and undesired effect in reality on overall game balance, so we learned to proceed with care, thought and test a lot.

warspite1 -> RE: The Naval War (12/19/2012 11:27:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lord Zimoa Guys, historical background is of course hugely important and we know the numbers, but if we go this route, basically GB will shoot everything out of the water with a breeze. We always let the gaming factor come first, from a game balancing point of view, decisions like not giving France a rail capacity at the start(as the AI would rail reinforcements to Brussel, and kill always your Schlieffen plan attempts), not giving German cities more PP in the Alsace and Ruhr areas, as if you as a player, would make rapid advantages along that front it would immediately knock Germany out of the war, now it will do so as well, but at least give the AI some more fighting spirit, not having the AH with full armies near the Russian border at game start, so you cannot kill Russia in a few turns and have to pay attention to the Serbian front as well as building a strategic reserve along AH`s front with Russia, etc, etc... We know it is not completely historical, but we try to offer at least the change for any player to alter history and win the game in another way, this set in a WW1 historical environment with WW1 abstracted tactics... this makes the game fun and better. I know for some purists it is hard, but I guarantee you making historical simulations make often very boring and predictable games! Again, I agree we have some fine-tuning to do on the naval front, AI, balancing, some rule changes maybe, but we do it subtle, in steps and test it well before ruining very tricky things like, overall game balance and can introduce stupid and annoying bugs. Believe me after years and years of experience we know that simple and easy changes on paper, often have a profound and undesired effect in reality on overall game balance, so we learned to proceed with care, thought and test a lot. warspite1 Lord Zimoa - thanks, it is enough to know that these things are under consideration. As you can tell from my AAR posts etc, none of this is affecting my wish to play the game - it is absolutely brilliant! and I am in about 8 or so PBEM's at the moment. And just to re-emphasise I am not looking for some hugely detailed, historically accurate to the nth degree, OOB which becomes a simulation rather than a genuinely winnable game for either side. Playability, aesthetics (great map, colourful counters), FUN, while keeping a historical perspective, is what made World In Flames the best board game EVER. This game has many of those attributes and can only get better with the further work you are doing [&o]

Mike Parker -> RE: The Naval War (12/20/2012 4:35:42 PM)
I have to say, there is a reason in WWI the British Fleet didn't just sweep away the German Fleet on day 1. They actually really were spoiling to engage the German Fleet but could not get them to engage (until Jutland). You could easily give the British an additional BB counter (perhaps not full, put it at an 8 or 7) to start, but seriously upgrade the port defense bonus so that it is foolhardy to try and attack the German High Seas fleet in port. Then it seems you could have a more historic OOB without the problem of the British being able to force a decisive naval engagement.

jscott991 -> RE: The Naval War (12/20/2012 7:21:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lord Zimoa Guys, historical background is of course hugely important and we know the numbers, but if we go this route, basically GB will shoot everything out of the water with a breeze. We always let the gaming factor come first, from a game balancing point of view, decisions like not giving France a rail capacity at the start(as the AI would rail reinforcements to Brussel, and kill always your Schlieffen plan attempts), not giving German cities more PP in the Alsace and Ruhr areas, as if you as a player, would make rapid advantages along that front it would immediately knock Germany out of the war, now it will do so as well, but at least give the AI some more fighting spirit, not having the AH with full armies near the Russian border at game start, so you cannot kill Russia in a few turns and have to pay attention to the Serbian front as well as building a strategic reserve along AH`s front with Russia, etc, etc... We know it is not completely historical, but we try to offer at least the change for any player to alter history and win the game in another way, this set in a WW1 historical environment with WW1 abstracted tactics... this makes the game fun and better. And this is why I won't ever buy this game. I'm glad I wandered into this random thread. I was getting hammered in another thread for saying this very stuff about the game and being told it wasn't true. Thanks!

warspite1 -> RE: The Naval War (12/20/2012 7:26:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jscott991 quote: ORIGINAL: Lord Zimoa Guys, historical background is of course hugely important and we know the numbers, but if we go this route, basically GB will shoot everything out of the water with a breeze. We always let the gaming factor come first, from a game balancing point of view, decisions like not giving France a rail capacity at the start(as the AI would rail reinforcements to Brussel, and kill always your Schlieffen plan attempts), not giving German cities more PP in the Alsace and Ruhr areas, as if you as a player, would make rapid advantages along that front it would immediately knock Germany out of the war, now it will do so as well, but at least give the AI some more fighting spirit, not having the AH with full armies near the Russian border at game start, so you cannot kill Russia in a few turns and have to pay attention to the Serbian front as well as building a strategic reserve along AH`s front with Russia, etc, etc... We know it is not completely historical, but we try to offer at least the change for any player to alter history and win the game in another way, this set in a WW1 historical environment with WW1 abstracted tactics... this makes the game fun and better. And this is why I won't ever buy this game. I'm glad I wandered into this random thread. I was getting hammered in another thread for saying this very stuff about the game and being told it wasn't true. Thanks! warspite1 I don't understand, you don't like the game (fair enough), you won't buy it (again, fair enough) but with that said, why do you hang around telling everyone why you don't like it and will never buy it?? Do you get some perverse pleasure from it? I like cars, but I don't like Nissan. However I do not feel the need to hang around my local Nissan garage telling everyone how much I don't like their product. We get it, its your choice....... move on.

jscott991 -> RE: The Naval War (12/20/2012 7:32:00 PM)
I am a World War I buff and followed the development of this game for months. When it was released, I read quite a few initial impressions and reviews. Based on those, and prior experience with WWI games (GoA in particular), I posted some questions and comments in a few threads. I was immediately told that my concerns were not valid and that the impressions I had read (and thus, my own impressions) were false. That's why I keep posting. If someone had said "Austria-Hungary has no army to speak of so the war can be abstracted in a more fun way for many players" in my initial questions, I'd have just said, "Thanks" and moved on. But that isn't what I was told. I was told that the game didn't rely heavily on abstraction, didn't short change the Central Powers, etc. All of that appears false. But I'm sorry for taking perverse pleasure in posting on the forum while researching TGW.

warspite1 -> RE: The Naval War (12/20/2012 7:43:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jscott991 I am a World War I buff and followed the development of this game for months. When it was released, I read quite a few initial impressions and reviews. Based on those, and prior experience with WWI games (GoA in particular), I posted some questions and comments in a few threads. I was immediately told that my concerns were not valid and that the impressions I had read (and thus, my own impressions) were false. That's why I keep posting. If someone had said "Austria-Hungary has no army to speak of so the war can be abstracted in a more fun way for many players" in my initial questions, I'd have just said, "Thanks" and moved on. But that isn't what I was told. I was told that the game didn't rely heavily on abstraction, didn't short change the Central Powers, etc. All of that appears false. But I'm sorry for taking perverse pleasure in posting on the forum while researching TGW. warspite1 Well I'm sorry if I appeared rude, but I am genuinely baffled. I guess from what you are saying you have a sense of disappointment that - as a WWI buff (and no doubt looking forward to the game coming out) the game is not what you had hoped. But as I say, it is what it is and there is nothing that can be done to change that. The guys have said they are to continue tweaking and modifying, but I guess the game is so far from what you were hoping for, it will never satisfy you.

jscott991 -> RE: The Naval War (12/20/2012 7:52:01 PM)
You are right. The game is not what I hoped, and I'm severely disappointed. I felt that I was going to be disappointed as soon as the initial impressions and first trickle of reviews came out. I lingered around the forum because so many people told me those impressions were wrong, but there is now a ton of evidence that they are not, including a very informative post from Zimoa, which basically confirms every single one of my criticisms and fears. How can you make a WWI game without an Austrian army on the Russian front? Without allowing players to try the Schlieffen plan? Without a historical balance of forces at the outbreak of the war (seriously, Russia isn't in the war from the start to make it easier on players? That's like a WWII game without France). People would never tolerate this kind of thing in a WWII game, so I'm baffled at some of the ahistorical abstraction in the three big WWI games. Oh well. Until Paradox makes a Hearts of Iron: 1914, I guess I'll just accept the fact that WWI is likely to never get its wargaming due.

warspite1 -> RE: The Naval War (12/20/2012 8:00:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jscott991 You are right. The game is not what I hoped, and I'm severely disappointed. I felt that I was going to be disappointed as soon as the initial impressions and first trickle of reviews came out. I lingered around the forum because so many people told me those impressions were wrong, but there is now a ton of evidence that they are not, including a very informative post from Zimoa, which basically confirms every single one of my criticisms and fears. How can you make a WWI game without an Austrian army on the Russian front? Without allowing players to try the Schlieffen plan? Without a historical balance of forces at the outbreak of the war (seriously, Russia isn't in the war from the start to make it easier on players? That's like a WWII game without France). People would never tolerate this kind of thing in a WWII game, so I'm baffled at some of the ahistorical abstraction in the three big WWI games. Oh well. Until Paradox makes a Hearts of Iron: 1914, I guess I'll just accept the fact that WWI is likely to never get its wargaming due. warspite1 Re the sentence in bold - this is where you spoil any valid criticisms (spelling??) you may have. It has been pointed out to you before that the Schlieffen plan IS do-able. Hell its been done to me so often its embarrassing. So please, if you are to stick around (your choice) and voice your opinions (as you are entitled to do) I would ASK you to PLEASE refrain from stating as fact, that which has been proven not to be so. Edit: atrocious English [8\|]

Randomizer -> RE: The Naval War (12/20/2012 8:08:46 PM)
Wargame designers and developers get to be masters of their game realities. The Lordz Studio team certainly seems satisfied with the level of abstraction in CTGW but I agree with JScott991 that for some potential customers, the compromises are unacceptable and it's unlikely that I will purchase the game in the foreseeable future. I see nothing untoward or insulting in any of his posts and most certainly am not intending to hurt anybody's feeling myself but this is a public forum and respectable comments should be treated with respect rather than indulging in messenger-shooting and false equivalencies. Having read everything that I can about CTGW it appears to me that this is more WW1 as a game rather than being an attempt to simulate the nature of the conflict. These were conscious design decisions that the publishers are (rightly) standing behind even as they try and spin the results towards the historical. They doubtless knew they would never please everybody and decided not to try, probably a wise business decision. I wish them success even though there is little chance of them getting my money. In the meantime there's WW1G and the TGW Mod for HOI1.

JJKettunen -> RE: The Naval War (12/20/2012 8:24:10 PM)
Some of the criticism is really embarassing. Reminds me of the false Metacritic reviews.

Myrddraal -> RE: The Naval War (12/20/2012 9:05:22 PM)
quote: I pointed out that this game short changed AH in another thread and was hammered. I'm glad to be proven right. You pointed out something different, and you didn't get hammered, people disagreed with you. Forget the fact that only one person (who doesn't have the game) agreed with you, your point has obviously been proven. IIRC, you asked if AH was treated as a minor power in the game, and whether or not the Schlieffen plan was achievable. Myself and others went to some lengths to reassure on both these points, and I stand by those things. In this the issues thread, a different poster pointed out that the distribution of AH starting armies was incorrect. The OP is correct, but it's a different point. What annoys me about these threads is that people form entrenched opinions based on the first few posts they read. Sometimes they even arrive at the forum with preconceptions which stem from completely different games!. They then exclusively read only what conforms to that opinion, and skip over the reasonable posts which try to explain what is and isn't true about the game. The fact that you still won't accept that the Schiefflen plan is achievable is particularly frustrating. There is a wealth of evidence showing that it is possible, but I'm repeating myself from the other thread. quote: How can you make a WWI game without an Austrian army on the Russian front? There are Austrian armies on the Russian front, and you can quickly reinforce them by rail. Yes, I accept that we didn't match the historical deployments here Without allowing players to try the Schlieffen plan? You're just dead wrong. See above. Without a historical balance of forces at the outbreak of the war Where did you get this from?(seriously, Russia isn't in the war from the start to make it easier on players? Only AH and Serbia are 'at war' at the start of the game. The other nations join in the first few turns. Russia's entry date is delayed by a few weeks. That's like a WWII game without France). Comments like "That's like a WWII game without France", really wind me up. I'm not sure what context to take that in, or how you can justify it. @Randomizer, I'd recommend reading the AARs. They're a much better way to form an independent opinion about the game than this thread.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

3.25