Naval Game? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command WWII War in Europe



Message

kirk23 -> Naval Game? (10/13/2016 4:16:19 PM)

I'm hoping that the naval game has been improved with this new release, because in previous versions of the game, the AI reacts to any ship combat, in a way that is not possible in real life, see below!


Strategic Command Breakthrou 1939 Storm Over Europe ?


I have been modding this scenario, while waiting for its new incarnations release Strategic Command WWII War in Europe.

My main interest is all things naval, and I have been adding many more historical ships, the problem is this, after any naval contact one on one, the Ai Moves alot off ships, from who knows where,and they swarm around, the original one on one ship combat! If possible, I think the Naval Ai, should only be allowed to assist,the original combat, if any nearby ships are within say 6 hexes away, and even that I think is to close, for any ships to respond. How the game plays now, is that any friendly ship, can rush to the scene of the combat using its full action point movement allowance,this needs addressed to improve the naval game, and let the game be a much more cat and mouse challenge.


I'm now testing a new Naval game setup, where instead of Battleships etc, being individual ships, I'm now looking on them as being Squadrons of ships, so for example,the British Battleship Prince of Wales, would now be call the 1st Battle Squadron. I'm treating cruisers,destroyers and submarines in the same way. Individual named Cruisers, now become Cruiser Squadrons, and destroyers and submarines, will be Flotilla sized units! I hoping that having less individual units on the map, will make the AI play better.[;)]



Biker1984 -> RE: Naval Game? (10/13/2016 7:51:15 PM)

I'm very happy with the naval AI in this game. Just watched the UK attack the Italian which have been bombarding Malta. The UK fleet destroying 2 cruisers and damaging 2 battle ships (to 2 and 3 strength) of the Italians without exposing them to much IMO. source (last Para Dogs) upload from 30 to 31.20.



kirk23 -> RE: Naval Game? (10/15/2016 6:18:58 PM)

What is the point in game terms purchasing naval units,especially Battleships,when they are far to easily damaged?

I think most games try to simulate naval warfare,in the same way as what happens on land,Army v Army. On land virtually all combat is close range, of less than 2 or 3 miles. Where naval combat is more like 10 miles or more, with naval gunnery you would be classed as a marksman,if you hit the target 10% of the time,and that's being generous.

Another thing I don't understand is when you get things like Light Cruisers, attacking Battleships, and both take similar strength losses? On what planet would this actually happen? Because it certainly ain't this one! If a light cruiser attacked any Battleship, it might as well throw snow balls at it, because 6" shells won't hurt it that's for sure, and if you were thinking that the damage it could inflict would be by using its torpedoes against the battleships, how exactly is the Light cruiser going to get within torpedo range of a Battleship, when the cruiser, would have been crippled or even worse blown out the water,long before it ever got a chance to attack?



apec -> RE: Naval Game? (10/15/2016 7:38:52 PM)

The outcome of the naval battle can be easily modded with the editor by assigning an evade % to various ship classes, e.g. 50% evade chance to battleship, 30% to heavy cruiser, 15% to light cruiser and destroyers. In this case only half of the shots at a battleship will actually cause damage and even cruisers will have a chance to survive to superior forces.



Biker1984 -> RE: Naval Game? (10/15/2016 7:40:55 PM)

Let me say that I agree with you that the strength difference between ships wasn't very noticeable. There was a lot 3:3 chance when light cruisers/destroyers were attacking battleships.
I agree with you that battleships needs to be buffed (in taking damage) also when facing aircraft. Possible making them fire twice or with an additional range to really distinguished them from other naval units.

When I wrote my comments I was looking more how the naval AI was performing (moving and attacking) instead of looking at the strength difference. I noticed during a naval battle that AI was focusing on the weakest units and taking out the complete units in 1 turn, instead of attacking the first ship its encounters.
Also they hold the complete fleet together as much as possible so it is more difficult to encircle 1 unit.



kirk23 -> RE: Naval Game? (10/15/2016 8:00:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: apec

The outcome of the naval battle can be easily modded with the editor by assigning an evade % to various ship classes, e.g. 50% evade chance to battleship, 30% to heavy cruiser, 15% to light cruiser and destroyers. In this case only half of the shots at a battleship will actually cause damage and even cruisers will have a chance to survive to superior forces.


Yes, and assigning higher % evade damage, is something the game designers need to use more in naval actions,the function has been available in all their games for many years, the very first thing I do, when I purchase one of the Strategic Command games, is go to the editor and fix the naval game,by adjusting all the evade % etc.The game should come as standard,with realistic combat chance odds, not some far fetched fiction.[;)]

Maybe gamers would think twice before attacking heavier naval units, with lighter forces, if the combat odds were 1.4 or 1.5 In the heavier units favour.



kirk23 -> RE: Naval Game? (10/15/2016 8:09:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Biker1984

Let me say that I agree with you that the strength difference between ships wasn't very noticeable. There was a lot 3:3 chance when light cruisers/destroyers were attacking battleships.
I agree with you that battleships needs to be buffed (in taking damage) also when facing aircraft. Possible making them fire twice or with an additional range to really distinguished them from other naval units.

When I wrote my comments I was looking more how the naval AI was performing (moving and attacking) instead of looking at the strength difference. I noticed during a naval battle that AI was focusing on the weakest units and taking out the complete units in 1 turn, instead of attacking the first ship its encounters.
Also they hold the complete fleet together as much as possible so it is more difficult to encircle 1 unit.


Giving Battleships extended range in attack,and being able fire twice, only makes the naval combat that comes with Strategic Command games worse! I have been modding these games for years, and I have already tried that tactic. Its the amount of damage that is inflicted,that needs addressing, Battleships are built to withstand heavy punishment from other Battleships, so you tell me how the game can possibly come up with odds off 3.3 when up against Cruisers or destroyers?[:)]



BillRunacre -> RE: Naval Game? (10/15/2016 8:35:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kirk23
Battleships are built to withstand heavy punishment from other Battleships, so you tell me how the game can possibly come up with odds off 3.3 when up against Cruisers or destroyers?[:)]


All things being equal, such results would indeed be very odd, but there could be circumstances such as if the Battleship is at low Supply, Strength, Morale or Readiness.

Also bearing in mind the effect of naval upgrades. Alone upgrades wouldn't account for such a result, though it also depends on the type of Cruiser as this game has Battle, Heavy and Light Cruisers, with the former being closer to Battleships in their attack and defence values.



kirk23 -> RE: Naval Game? (10/15/2016 9:17:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bill Runacre

quote:

ORIGINAL: kirk23
Battleships are built to withstand heavy punishment from other Battleships, so you tell me how the game can possibly come up with odds off 3.3 when up against Cruisers or destroyers?[:)]


All things being equal, such results would indeed be very odd, but there could be circumstances such as if the Battleship is at low Supply, Strength, Morale or Readiness.

Also bearing in mind the effect of naval upgrades. Alone upgrades wouldn't account for such a result, though it also depends on the type of Cruiser as this game has Battle, Heavy and Light Cruisers, with the former being closer to Battleships in their attack and defence values.


Hi Bill, if you get the chance please watch this video AAR 30 mins into the video of naval battleship v battleship combat.

An upgraded AI British battleship level 10, attacks an Italian battleship at strength 9, and the Italian Battleship takes 6 strength points of damage,while the British attacking battleship takes 3 strength damage in return. This is followed by another battleship v battleship combat,where the Italian strength 9 suffers 7 points off damage,and the attacking British battleship takes 5 damage in return.If this was a heavyweight boxing match the fight would be stopped in the first round.Its my opinion that the game gives way to much value,to what the morale and readiness in naval battle plays a part.In battleship v battleship contest,the main things that count are the hitting power of the big guns, and the ships armour thickness protection. That said, I can only assume that the naval AI is stupid for attacking in the first place,because it cost itself,its own 2 battleships,as the player took out his revenge,by the way the player saved his 2 severely damaged battleships,returning them to port.So the score this turn was player 1 stupid AI nil.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSFu3QL8FmU&list=PLt96thROd3u9rcKn4dRlhHcpaFTGQ_o4e&index=10


PS: As a side note,maybe these world war 2 battleships,have been secretly armed with Nuclear shells,because the game damages ships more than the Bikini Atoll Nuclear test did.


The explosion took place at the Bikini Atoll lagoon, situated in the Marshall Islands in the Pacific Ocean.
Test Able was to be the first of a series of 67 tests in the atoll and the second U.S. nuclear test of over a thousand to follow.
The explosion of the fission bomb, largely identical to the weapon used in the attack on Nagasaki on 9 August 1945, occurred 158 metres above sea level and had a yield of 23kilotons.
The main aim was to test the effects of nuclear weapons on ships.
To that end, a fleet of 78 vessels, many of which had been captured during World War II, was anchored in the lagoon.
The blast sunk only five of them, leaving another 14 seriously damaged.


I would like to point out that warships,especially large warships,are tougher to damage that the game at the present time would have you believe. The below list of decommissioned warships,survived 2 Nuclear bomb test,I will also like to highlight the fact,that no low morale,or battle readiness,or low supply played any part in these derelict ship test. So please stop using these gamey terms,as an excuse for ships not being able to take damage,manned or unmanned it makes know difference,they are just big lumps of steel when all things are considered.


Carriers
USS Saratoga (CV-32) Lexington-class aircraft carrier — She survived the Test Able blast, an air burst on 1 July 1946 at Bikini Atoll, with only minor damage, but was damaged beyond repair by the Test Baker blast on 25 July 1946, an underwater atom bomb blast which was detonated under LSM-60 500 metres (500 yards) from the carrier. Salvage efforts were prevented by radioactivity, and seven-and-one-half hours after the blast, with her funnel collapsed across her deck, Saratoga slipped, stern first, beneath the surface of Bikini Lagoon.
USS Independence (CVL-22) light aircraft carrier — Assigned as a target vessel for the Bikini atomic bomb tests, she was placed within one-half-mile of ground zero for the 1 July 1946 explosion. The veteran ship did not sink, however (though her funnels and island were crumpled by the blast), and after taking part in another explosion 25 July 1946 was taken to Kwajalein Atoll and decommissioned 28 August 1946. The highly radioactive hulk was later taken to Pearl Harbor and San Francisco for further tests and was finally scuttled off the coast of San Francisco, California, on 29 January 1951. Controversy has subsequently arisen about the sinking of the Independence, as it is claimed she was loaded with barrels of radioactive waste at the time of her sinking, and that the waste has subsequently contaminated the wildlife refuge and commercial fisheries associated with the Farallon Islands.

Battleships
USS Arkansas (BB-33) Wyoming-class dreadnought battleship — On 1 July 1946, the Arkansas was exposed to an air burst in the Test Able atomic test, but survived with extensive shock damage to her upperworks, while her hull and armored turrets were little damaged.
HIJMS Nagato Japanese battleship — In the atom bomb airburst Test Able on 1 July 1946 she was 1,640 yards from ground zero and was not severely damaged. In Test Baker, an underwater atom bomb explosion on 25 July 1946 she was severely damaged, eventually capsised and sank five days later.
USS Nevada (BB-36) Nevada-class battleship — Designated aim point for Test Able air-dropped atomic bomb, she was painted an "ugly" reddish-orange to help the bombardier's aim. However, even with the high visibility color scheme, the bomb fell about 1,600 metres (1,700 yd) off-target, exploding above the light carrier Independence instead. Nevada also survived Test Baker, but she was damaged and extremely radioactive. Nevada was then towed to Kwajalein Atoll by USS Preserver (ARS-8), decommissioned on 29 August 1946, and then towed to Pearl Harbor. After she was thoroughly examined at Pearl Harbor, her final sortie came on 31 July 1948 when Iowa and two other vessels used Nevada as a gunnery target for practice. The three ships did not sink Nevada, so she was given a coup de grace with an aerial torpedo hit amidships.
USS New York (BB-34) New York-class battleship — Surviving the Test Able surface blast on 1 July 1946 and the underwater Test Baker explosion on 25 July 1946, she was taken into Kwajalein Atoll and decommissioned there on 29 August 1946. Later towed to Pearl Harbor, she was studied during the next two years, and on 8 July 1948 was towed out to sea some 40 mi (35 nmi; 64 km) and there sunk after an 8-hour pounding by ships and planes carrying out full-scale battle maneuvers with new weapons.
USS Pennsylvania (BB-38) super-dreadnought battleship — After surviving the Operation Crossroads atomic bomb test at Bikini Atoll, she was then towed to Kwajalein Atoll where she decommissioned on 29 August 1946. She remained in Kwajalein Lagoon for radiological and structural studies until 10 February 1948, when she was sunk stern first off Kwajalein Atoll.

Cruisers
IJN Sakawa Agano class light cruiser — The detonation of the Test Able atom bomb at Bikini Atoll occurred 450 metres (490 yards) above and slightly to starboard of IJN Sakawa's stern. The blast caused IJN Sakawa to burn fiercely for twenty-four hours before she eventually sank. The second atom bomb, Test Baker, was an underwater shot about 150 metres (500 feet) away from the sunken Sakawa.
Prinz Eugen Admiral Hipper-class heavy cruiser — The ship survived two atomic bomb blasts at Bikini Atoll, Test Able, on 1 July 1946, and Test Baker on 25 July 1946. Prinz Eugen was thoroughly contaminated with radioactive fallout, but suffered no structural damage from the explosions. The irradiated ship was towed to the Kwajalein Atoll in the central Pacific, where a small leak went unrepaired. By late December 1946, the ship was in very bad condition. On 21 December 1946, the ship began to list severely. A salvage team could not be brought to Kwajalein Atoll in time, so the US Navy attempted to beach the ship to prevent her from sinking, but on 22 December 1946, Prinz Eugen capsised and sank. Her main battery gun turrets fell out of their barbettes when the ship rolled over. The ship's stern, including her propeller assemblies, remain visible above the surface of the water.
USS Pensacola (CA-24) Pensacola-class heavy cruiser — She survived the atom bomb tests of 1 July and 25 July 1946. On 24 August 1946, she was taken in tow for Kwajalein Atoll where she decommissioned on 26 August. Her hulk was turned over to the custody of Joint Task Force One for radiological and structural studies. On completion of these studies, her hulk was sunk on 10 November 1948 off the Washington coast in 1,400 fathoms.
USS Salt Lake City (CA-25) Pensacola-class heavy cruiser — Surviving two atomic bomb blasts at Bikini Atoll, she was decommissioned on 29 August 1946 and laid up to await ultimate disposal. She was sunk by torpedoes as a target hull on 25 May 1948, 130 mi (110 nmi; 210 km) off San Diego southern California in 2,000 fathoms.







sPzAbt653 -> RE: Naval Game? (10/16/2016 8:41:19 AM)

quote:

the game damages ships more than the Bikini Atoll Nuclear test did.


Hello Mr. Kirk - I'd like to ask your opinion about something, but first I have to express my thoughts concerning Operation Crossroads, in that those tests were an indication of the effectiveness of Nuclear Weapons on surface ships, but in were not an indication of the effectiveness of Conventional Weapons. If I remember correctly, the findings were that the water mass greatly dampened the effects, and that 'blasts' were not as effective as conventional 'hits' on ships at sea. I'm not trying to contradict you, I'm just suggesting that using the Bikini Tests as a gauge of Naval Warfare might not be the best example. [;)]

... the very first thing I do, when I purchase one of the Strategic Command games, is go to the editor and fix the naval game ...

As you have great experience and knowledge in this area, my question is - Have you considered creating naval task forces for the naval units, as opposed to individual ships or individual ship classes ? In other words, naval counters that represent a mixed group of ship classes. There could surely be a naval unit named 'HMS Warspite' that would represent the BB itself, plus escorting cruisers and destroyers. Similarly for CV's. I suppose sub's would operate in their own groups, represented as one counter. Would that be more realistic at the strategic scale than having individual ships represented ?



kirk23 -> RE: Naval Game? (10/16/2016 9:16:00 AM)


... the very first thing I do, when I purchase one of the Strategic Command games, is go to the editor and fix the naval game ...

As you have great experience and knowledge in this area, my question is - Have you considered creating naval task forces for the naval units, as opposed to individual ships or individual ship classes ? In other words, naval counters that represent a mixed group of ship classes. There could surely be a naval unit named 'HMS Warspite' that would represent the BB itself, plus escorting cruisers and destroyers. Similarly for CV's. I suppose sub's would operate in their own groups, represented as one counter. Would that be more realistic at the strategic scale than having individual ships represented ?
[/quote]

If you read my first post at the top of this thread you will see that I'm trying to do just that,mod the game where 1 unit represents a squadron. As for the nuclear test, and the damage it caused or failed to cause against derelict ships,if you have read that also,you would have seen that even after the Nuclear test,the USA then used some ships as target practice,and the shelling failed to sink the derelict ships,and they were eventually sunk by torpedo.




Even the games strength loses in bomber v ship attacks are far out off what was possible,as was demostrated by this 1921 bomb test on an old German dreadnought,a ship that was dead in the water,only sunk after 5 or more bomb runs over a 2 day period.


In July 1921, the Army Air Service and the US Navy conducted a series of bombing tests off Cape Hatteras, led by General Billy Mitchell. The targets included demobilized American and former German warships, including the old battleship Iowa, the cruiser Frankfurt, and finally Ostfriesland on 20 July. At 13:30 ET, the first attack wave, armed with 230 lb (100 kg) bombs, struck the stationary ship. Eight of thirty-three bombs found their mark, after which the ship was inspected. The second wave was also armed with 230 lb bombs, and the third and fourth carried 600 lb (270 kg) bombs. Five 600 lb bombs found their mark, but little damage was done to the ship's topside. The bombs that nearly missed the ship, however, had done significant underwater damage to the hull, which allowed some flooding and created a list of five degrees to port and three additional feet of draft at the stern. The bombing schedule was interrupted by a storm in the late afternoon.


Ostfriesland sinking by the stern
Early on the morning of 21 July, the fifth wave of bombers began their attack. At 08:52, the first Army bomber dropped a 1,000 lb (450 kg) bomb that hit the ship; four more bombers followed and scored two further hits. Inspectors again went aboard Ostfriesland following the fifth attack and noted that the hits had not seriously damaged the ship, though one had created a large hole on her starboard side that allowed further flooding. By noon, she was down five feet at the stern and one foot at the bow. At 12:19, the next attack wave, equipped with 2,000 lb (910 kg) bombs, struck. Six bombs were dropped, none of which hit, though three detonated very close to the hull. At 12:30, Ostfriesland began to sink rapidly by the stern and the list to port increased dramatically. At 12:40, the ship rolled over and sank. The results of the tests were widely publicized and Mitchell became both a national hero and the "infallible prophet of aviation".

The leadership of the US Navy, however, was outraged by Mitchell's handling of the tests; the 2,000 lb bombs had not been sanctioned by the Navy, which had set the rules for the engagement. Mitchell's bombers had also not allowed inspectors aboard the ship between bombing runs as stipulated by the Navy. The joint Army–Navy report on the tests, issued a month later and signed by General John Pershing, stated that "the battleship is still the backbone of the fleet." Mitchell wrote his own, contradictory account of the tests, which was then leaked to the press. The sinking of the battleship sparked great controversy in the American public sphere; Mitchell's supporters exaggerated the significance of the tests by falsely claiming Ostfriesland to be an unsinkable "super-battleship" and that "old sea dogs ... wept aloud." Senator William Borah argued that the tests had rendered battleships obsolete. Mitchell was widely supported in the press, though his increasingly combative tactics eventually resulted in a court-martial for insubordination that forced him to retire from the military.



sPzAbt653 -> RE: Naval Game? (10/16/2016 10:05:05 AM)

quote:

If you read my first post at the top of this thread you will see that I'm trying to do just that,mod the game where 1 unit represents a squadron.


I did read it, maybe I misunderstood but I thought you indicated that you were creating Squadrons of BB's, and Squadrons of Cruisers. I ask for your expert opinion as a long time modder because I agree that at this scale 'squadrons' or 'task forces' are more appropriate. Except however, I wonder about the Kriegsmarine, which would stray from groupments and send individual ships on tasks. Maybe for an exception there might be a few 'Pocket Battleship' naval units that represent only one ship ?

quote:

... after the Nuclear test,the USA then used some ships as target practice,and the shelling failed to sink the derelict ships,and they were eventually sunk by torpedo.


I was only suggesting to site some more modern WWII type naval combat reports instead of Operation Crossroads, and now you have brought up some tests from 1921, which don't help the argument either. If this is a WWII simulation, then don't we need to site examples such as the Prince of Wales, the Bismarck and the Ark Royal ?



kirk23 -> RE: Naval Game? (10/16/2016 11:03:46 AM)

I'm testing Germany with 1 battlefleet unit early war before Bismarck + Tirpitz join the fleet, which represents 5 individual ships,BCs Scharnhorst and Gneisenau plus the 3 pocketbattleships Admiral Graf Spee,Admiral Scheer and Deutschland/Lutzow.



sPzAbt653 -> RE: Naval Game? (10/16/2016 11:44:28 AM)

Please keep us posted how that works out [:)]



kirk23 -> RE: Naval Game? (10/16/2016 4:44:01 PM)

Will do busy testing radical solution to the naval issue.[:D]



AlbertN -> RE: Naval Game? (10/17/2016 12:32:58 AM)

No matter how much you upgrade a cruiser, it would go against a BB and be with fair chances to have success.
Even the most modern CAs in '39 were still keeping away from WW1 BBs in service.

The naval system should just be entirely reviewed and detatched from how the land system goes (in my eyes at least) but I think it's too late for the designers to change that.



Rasputitsa -> RE: Naval Game? (10/17/2016 4:48:43 AM)

I haven't seen much of this game and waiting in anticipation to give it a try, but apologies in advance if any of the following is already covered.

I would like to see a realistic naval component and not a just basic application of odds.

Naval warfare cannot be equated to land combat, as on land you don't have 2000 men crammed into a small space of a few hundred metres/yards, where they might all be killed by one shell striking at a critical point.

If light cruisers were to come over a clear blue horizon to confront battleships then the result would be predictable, but this is a strategic game, with each turn covering several days of day/night, possibly fog and rain and in naval warfare the results are often unpredictable.

The 'critical hit' plays a big role in naval combat, in the Denmark Strait 1941 'HMS Hood' went from strength 10 to strength zero in a matter of minutes, with not enough time to hit back. The 'Prince of Wales' was probably not at strength 10 to begin with, having construction workers still aboard and was reduced to a very low strength by a critical hit on the bridge and mechanical failures to new unproven equipment, but survived, was this a 'critical' escape. 'Prinz Eugen', a CA mixing it with battleships, suffered no damage at all.

The continuing 'Bismarck' combat, took place over what could be seen as a full game turn, with this battleship now down to say strength 9 after hits from PoW, until one 'stringbag' and one torpedo provides another critical hit, no further significant flotation damage, armour not compromised, firepower intact, yet in the final combat 'Bismarck' is unable to inflict any hits on the two attacking battleships (KGV and Rodney), with supporting CAs.

Prior to final the round of big gun combat is the destroyer attack, but surely puny destroyers attacking a battleship will be wiped out, except that they attack at night. The results are not determined in the confusion of those last hours aboard 'Bismarck', but large ships become vulnerable in poor weather, or at night.

It is probable that 'Bismarck' had damaged radar range-ranging equipment from the vibration of its own guns, but the optical systems were available, however crew and command morale was devastated, they knew there was no escape (critical hit). The damage from previous combat rounds was minimal, but the effects were catastrophic, what strength was the 'Bismarck' in the final round ? Not much it seems.

Basic odds calculations will not cover these situations which often occur in naval combat.

Where cruisers did come over a clear blue horizon, at the River Plate, the result can still be unpredictable. The initial combat was as expected, one cruiser put out of action the other two damaged, maybe left at strength 5, with 'Graf Spee' slightly damaged, left at strength 8/9. What happens in the historical next round, a critical hit 'Graf Spee' destroyed, the cruisers no further damage. The critical hit being the captain's psychology, not wanting to risk the lives of 1000 new young crewmen.

Hans Langsdorff deserves more consideration, but this is not the time.

Battleships have big guns and thick armour, but combat odds need to show more than this, if the naval game is to be realistic. Ships, including battleships, can go from full strength to destruction in one combat round, for a whole series of reasons and against all types of opposition.

There is also the movement cost of damage, 'Bismarck' still had fighting power, but was unable to move in game terms, so can critical hits also be expressed as reduced movement points, or return to port within X number of turns, or elimination.

It is only with a recent publication that it became clear how bad the weather was during the Bismarck 'chase', which has a big effect on naval combat odds. Will be interested to see how the game handles weather in different sea areas.

The unpredictable application of combat odds and movement restrictions needs to be in the game, or we just get big ship beats little ship, although at this strategic scale ship units should represent groups of ships. Either major vessels with escorts, or squadrons/divisions of similar types of ship.

Looking forward to the game release. [:)]



kirk23 -> RE: Naval Game? (10/17/2016 10:22:44 AM)

Well maybe a solution might be to abstract in something like land unit entrenchment,and it could simulate battleship resistance to damage,as it stands battleships in the game are far too weak defensively.



Rasputitsa -> RE: Naval Game? (10/17/2016 1:32:51 PM)

I don't know enough about the game, but with factors for morale, supply and readiness, there must be a 'sweet spot' to get the required effects.

For instance a major action will have ships firing off a large proportion of the magazine outfit and you can't do that too many times, which should limit combat rounds, but need to see how the game works to judge.

I can't argue about defensive qualities, except to suggest some allowance for critical hits if naval units represent single ships, except that if units are groups of ships, critical hits are not so important as it is unlikely that all ships in a group will be destroyed, unless they are too slow to flee.

At 'The Battle of Matapan 1941' the Italian cruisers were destroyed without having the chance to fire back, having been taken by surprise, at night, by radar equipped British battleships, so here we have a technical advantage affecting the combat odds.

Similarly, at the 'North Cape' battle 1943 the 'Duke of York' with the help of several cruisers, dealt with the 'Scharnhorst' in bad weather and failing light, with the use of radar, whilst 'Scharnhorst' was able to score few hits in return. The British cruisers and destroyers, initially acting alone, were able to contain and damage the 'Scharnhorst', protecting their convoy and slowing the enemy with a torpedo hit until DoY arrived. 'Scharnhorst' lost her radar early in the action with the cruisers, making it difficult to strike back - critical hit.

Another case of combat odds modified by technology and bad weather, also showing the vulnerability of large ships in certain conditions.

I am sure there is enough talent here to get a good balance. [:)]



Rasputitsa -> RE: Naval Game? (10/18/2016 7:00:36 AM)

Thinking more on this - the problem is not the battleships resistance to damage, as during WW2 there were no Jutland type slugging matches in the European Theatre. Battleships had other vulnerabilities, mainly that captains and admirals stayed on the unprotected bridge of their ship rather than move to the armoured conning tower that all battleships had available. At the Denmark Strait battle the command staffs of all ships were in unprotected bridges, the 'Prince of Wales' was effectively disabled as a fighting unit when a shell passed through the bridge killing, or wounding, everyone except Captain Leach.

In 'Bismarck's' final battle Admiral Lutjens and probably Captain Lindemann died in the unprotected bridge, taken with the vulnerability of gun director positions and radar installations, battleships can be disabled as fighting units long before the armour is breached.

Looking at battleship losses, armour is not the vulnerable spot. 'Royal Oak' and 'Barham' sunk by U-boat torpedo, 'Queen Elizabeth' and 'Valiant' effectively sunk in Alexandria harbour by Italian frogmen. Both ships settled onto the shallow harbour bottom, with the crews maintaining normal routine to hide the fact that both ships were out of action for months. 'Scharnhorst' effectively disabled with a hit on the radar installation whilst in combat during poor weather and failing light, effectively blinding the ship, armour no help in that situation.

After aerial torpedo attack at Taranto, 'Littorio' took about five months to repair, to 'Caio Duilio' six months; 'Conte di Cavour' never returned to service. 'Roma' sunk by German aerial guided bomb after the Italian surrender. 'Tirpitz' was effectively neutralised by underwater damage from midget submarines and, although repaired, was never able to reach full service levels with continued aircraft attacks. The rest of the German heavy units suffered damage in harbour of varying extent from air attack.

Even the successful 'Channel Dash' left both 'Scharnhorst' and 'Gneisenau' damaged by mines laid in their path by aircraft. The point of all this is that battleships suffered losses and damage, but armoured protection against gun duels was rarely a significant factor, it was other vulnerabilities which decided the issue.

Armour was not the deciding factor in most capital ship losses, the 'Hood' being the exception, as a mainly unmodified WW1 design.

I know that it should not be the intention of the game to exactly replicate all the actions of WW2, as players will want to use various strategies and the historical evidence is sparse, but battleship gun duels just didn't happen that much, whilst what evidence there is indicates that battleships were lost, or severely damaged, despite their armoured protection by critical hits in other vital areas.

Using the 'Denmark Strait' as an example, of the three capital ships engaged, one was lost by breach of armoured protection (Hood), one was rendered ineffective by mechanical failures and critical hit (Prince of Wales) and the last was unable to continue the mission and forced to risk interception in a run for home port, after a hit to an unarmoured area caused fuel contamination (Bismarck), however, without that one torpedo hit 'Bismarck' might have come home to a heroes welcome.

Three ships all failed in their missions, not so tough, use with care and the game should reflect this.

I strongly support the effort to modify the game and improve the naval aspects, but if battleships are to have the full benefit of their armoured protection, they must also have a random risk of critical damage, to truly reflect the strategic realities of WW2. [:)]



Rasputitsa -> RE: Naval Game? (10/18/2016 8:20:49 AM)

I forgot one other gun duel, 'Renown' against 'Scharnhorst' and 'Gneisenau' during Operation Weserubung, off Norway in 1940. Both German ships disengaged early in the engagement, hits on 'Renown' were minor with one shell failing to detonate, whilst 'Gneisenau' was hit twice, with one shell passing through the director tower, without exploding, but doing damage, and a second disabling the rear main gun turret.

'Renown' was exceptionally lucky, to achieve two significant hits, but naval combat can result in unpredictable results. 'Scharnhorst' and 'Gneisenau' should have been able to deal with one old battlecruiser, even though 'Renown' had been updated from its WW1 condition, but the German ships could not risk a critical hit and 'Renown's' lucky hits sped them on their way, to the extent that they suffered substantial flooding taking water over the bows at high speed.

The strategic reality is that the British could afford to lose 'Renown', but in 1940 the Germans had nothing to replace 'Scharnhorst' and 'Gneisenau' and the game needs to reflect these realities.

There were several inconclusive gun duels in the Mediterranean, but fought at extreme range as the Italians were reluctant to close the range and the British battleships too slow to force the issue. However, at Calabria, 'Warspite' did manage to hit 'Giulio Cesare' at 26,000 yards, but still an inconclusive result.



Rasputitsa -> RE: Naval Game? (10/18/2016 8:39:37 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kirk23
Well maybe a solution might be to abstract in something like land unit entrenchment,and it could simulate battleship resistance to damage,as it stands battleships in the game are far too weak defensively.


If you make them stronger, there should be a random critical hit effect to restore a realistic balance for all the reasons I have laid out in the posts above.

Recognising that it's probably too late to build new features into the game, maybe something can be done with Readiness, Morale, or Supply, to introduce some unpredictability, but difficult to say without seeing the game.



CAHouston -> RE: Naval Game? (10/19/2016 11:41:13 AM)

I have been watching Paradogs video. in number 16 he has defeated the British navy in the Med. and yet Malta is still interfering with supply to North Africa. Italian ships have bombarded Malta to little effect. the convoy line in the Med. is gone. Malta for the British should not be getting any supplies in this game and thus not interfering with axis supply.

1. redefine when Malta can interfere with axis supply.
2. allow ships to bombard twice if they are next to a land unit, have not moved and have good supply.



Rasputitsa -> RE: Naval Game? (10/19/2016 7:01:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CAHouston
I have been watching Paradogs video. in number 16 he has defeated the British navy in the Med. and yet Malta is still interfering with supply to North Africa. Italian ships have bombarded Malta to little effect. the convoy line in the Med. is gone. Malta for the British should not be getting any supplies in this game and thus not interfering with axis supply.

1. redefine when Malta can interfere with axis supply.
2. allow ships to bombard twice if they are next to a land unit, have not moved and have good supply.


RN surface vessels were driven out of Malta at the height of the siege, except 'Abdiel' class fast minelayer cruisers (40 Kts) were used to bring in supplies operating in and out at night

Malta interdicted Axis North African supply mainly by submarine and aircraft attack. Having broken the Italian codes the convoy sailing times and routes of Italian convoys were often known and a recon aircraft would be sent out, just to show itself and convince the Italians that the convoy had been spotted by conventional means, but the Malta submarines were sent out on patrol into areas where convoys were expected.

Just now reading about the RN 'U' class submarines - Unbeaten, Upholder etc., a smaller class of boat which was more successful in the clear Mediterranean waters where it was difficult to hide, but still dangerous waters even for small submarines. However Malta based bombers and torpedo aircraft were very effective at destroying transport ships.

Ultra/Enigma information was a very effective force multiplier and it is difficult to see how the historical balance can be reflected in the game, when comparatively few aircraft can have a big effect, if they know where to hit.



Christolos -> RE: Naval Game? (10/19/2016 9:33:36 PM)

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



kirk23 -> RE: Naval Game? (10/20/2016 10:18:07 AM)


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.




Rasputitsa -> RE: Naval Game? (10/20/2016 10:30:33 AM)

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.



kirk23 -> RE: Naval Game? (10/20/2016 10:42:17 AM)

This is where the naval game is completely different from the land combat.On land its feasible to assume, that a unit will defend one hex,be that a Town,City whatever. At sea,naval units don't have that,when naval units get attacked,they are both aggressive and defensive, they are moving targets,at 20 Knots or more in most cases,firing at a target thousands of yards away,while at the same time always changing course to evade being hit by the enemy.If they are undamaged and winning nothing changes,but when they start to take serious damage,then the revert to all out defence,by using a smoke screen to hide their position,while at the same time repeatedly altering course,in an all out effort to escape.



Rasputitsa -> RE: Naval Game? (10/20/2016 3:05:33 PM)

It is difficult to comment without playing the game, but is seems very unrealistic to see naval units fighting over hexes, especially in a game where turns are spread over several days. It would be more appropriate to be fighting for control, or supremacy over sea zones. Alternatively, are there possibilities for extended 'zones of control' for naval operations rather than hex-to-hex combat ?

If you wanted to evade combat you could not enter a ZOC, or you would set 'engage' and be prepared to fight for it. The opposition would either be on 'engage' and combat would take place, or on 'evade' where there would have to be a retreat.

If we have to stay with hex combat, then when two opposing units become adjacent, if the opposition has been set to 'engage' than the combat could proceed, but if set at 'evade', then depending on a odds check the defender would be bumped out of the way. If there is no empty hexes, due to land areas, or other units occupying surrounding hexes then combat could not be avoided.



Biker1984 -> RE: Naval Game? (10/20/2016 7:31:17 PM)


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.



Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.7773438