two oddities re. ports and naval units (Full Version)

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



Message

Leadwieght -> two oddities re. ports and naval units (5/3/2017 10:06:54 AM)

Two things I've noticed that might need adjusting:

1. Subs in Sleep mode in port seem completely immune to damage from air attack.
I think that air attack vs. naval units in port is penalized, and it should be--to represent inherent anti-aircraft defenses.
But it looks like the combo of greater defense strength while in sleep mode and being in port makes subs untouchable.
Apart from being unrealistic (how does a sub "hide" in port?), it makes for a pretty gamey tactic.
I know that the Germans made great efforts to construct untouchable sub pens in St. Nazaire, but I assume that is covered by the game mechanism of increasing the AA defense of a port.
Not the same thing as just parking your U-boat in Sleep mode and laughing while the Allies throw a dozen air units at it.

2. On the converse side, having the possibility that ships retreat OUT of a port into the open sea when under naval or air attack attack seems strange.
I like the unpredictability of the Retreat mechanism and I'd even be willing to have it be a possibility for naval units to be routed out of a port (certainly land attack should be able to chase a ship out of port, at least sometimes), but perhaps that could be moved a hex or two further away than the current mechanism calls for, so that the enemy has to commit significant naval or air assets to tracking them down.

Just some thoughts



Jim D Burns -> RE: two oddities re. ports and naval units (5/5/2017 3:03:22 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Leadwieght

Two things I've noticed that might need adjusting:

1. Subs in Sleep mode in port seem completely immune to damage from air attack.


German sub pens were all but invulnerable to air attack, so it's historical. Though I'd like to see each port treated differently on a case by case basis as sub pens did not exist in every port.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_pen

Jim



Leadwieght -> RE: two oddities re. ports and naval units (5/5/2017 2:05:46 PM)

Hi Jim,

As I said in my first post, I know that the German sub pens in Brittany became virtually invulnerable. But that was the result of heavy investment in flak and hardened shelters. It seems to me that should happen as a result of the Axis player investing in AA defenses, not just be a benefit they (or the British on the other side of the Channel for that matter) get automatically. And it would create the historical differentiation that you are looking for.

As it stands now, ANY sub in ANY port in Sleep mode has virtually no chance of being damaged, much less sunk, by air attack. That's what I object to.



Hubert Cater -> RE: two oddities re. ports and naval units (5/19/2017 3:22:29 PM)

Hi Leadwieght,

I've fixed #1 and for #2 I am having a hard time repeating this, is this a dive from the port, or just a simple retreat after being attacked by an enemy unit?

Hubert



Leadwieght -> RE: two oddities re. ports and naval units (5/20/2017 2:54:19 PM)

Hi Hubert,
I was talking about retreats out of Ports by ANY type of naval unit after attacks by nnaval or air units. I'm sure it's WAD, I just don't think it makes sense.[:D]
LW



Leadwieght -> RE: two oddities re. ports and naval units (5/20/2017 3:28:56 PM)

Just to clarify, I mean it doesn't make sense from a tactical standpoint. A ship that is nearly sunk is probably safer staying in port than making a suicide dash for the open sea, unless it's being attacking by land units.

Was the intent to allow heavily damaged ships a slight chance of survival, as a way to up the randomness of combat? I have no problem with that in principle. In practice, though, whenever a ship flees a port for the open sea, it only goes a hex or two away and is visible to the opposing player, who can almost always destroy it.

Or perhaps you had the opposite intent? Having the possibility of ships being routed out of a port by naval attacks means that naval units can't count on the protection of ports 100% of the time.

And it makes no sense for TRANSPORTS to flee ports in response to air or naval attacks. No naval commander would make that decision, I think.



Hubert Cater -> RE: two oddities re. ports and naval units (5/21/2017 9:59:27 PM)

Thanks Leadwieght and I agree with your commetns and from what I can tell this is an oversight in my code (finally found this) where naval units could possibly retreat from Ports.

Just to confirm, this is behaviour you have noticed where a naval unit is attacked in Port and on the turn of the attack it retreats during the combat results phase, correct?

I just want to make sure this is not an observation of AI retreat from port during the AI turn as that is something else in the code.

Thanks,
Hubert



Leadwieght -> RE: two oddities re. ports and naval units (5/21/2017 10:15:56 PM)

Hi Hubert,

Yes I am talking about a situation where a naval unit in port is attacked (either by naval or air units) and then is forced to retreat out of the port in the attacker's turn, not as a result of a subsequent turn's regular movement.

By the way, it might actually make sense at this time- and map- scale for naval units to have a chance to retreat from a purely LAND attack. In that situation--it may make sense to flee a port that has come under sustained attack by land-based weaponry.

Continuing to have lots of fun. Thanks again to you, Bill and the whole team!

LW



Hubert Cater -> RE: two oddities re. ports and naval units (5/22/2017 1:19:18 AM)

Thanks again and I've adjusted the code to not have naval units automatically retreat from Port when attacked unless by Land units as I agree that seems to be a good fit as well [:)]



Leadwieght -> RE: two oddities re. ports and naval units (5/23/2017 12:04:18 PM)

Thanks Hubert!



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.703125