Naval Engagements in this version? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command WWII: World at War



Message

GungaDin16 -> Naval Engagements in this version? (12/1/2018 12:39:31 AM)

I hope that they made some sort of change to the naval engagements. As it is there is very little in the way of naval tactics. The Pacific theater just can't be represented if that part of the war is too abstracted. Does anyone know yet?



GungHoGIJoe -> RE: Naval Engagements in this version? (12/2/2018 6:03:23 AM)

Looks like it will still be the same. [&:]



Raptor341 -> RE: Naval Engagements in this version? (12/3/2018 12:18:47 AM)

I wouldn't be so quick to judge it just yet. Keep in mind SC operates at a high level of command abstraction. The naval area is the most difficult to do correctly in a turn-based model I agree with you there but at the same time, the series does it quite well overall compared to other turn-based wargames of the past. Keeping TFs together and in operational condition is the key to winning. I look forward to this.



PvtBenjamin -> RE: Naval Engagements in this version? (12/3/2018 3:58:39 PM)

In my opinion the naval component needs to be improved considerably for this to be a buy.

Hopefully

1) Zero Supply Subs are addressed. Currently zero supply subs dive, block supply, defend & more. Completely unrealistic & in PBEM leads to very a-historic outcomes.

2)The imbalance between surface ships & subs needs to be greatly improved.

3) Long Range amphibious has to go or at least be greatly reduced.

4) These are just a few, there are many more.



Many in the SC3 forum have been complaining about these issues for quite a while hopefully they are addressed and SC3 World will be great fun.



Hubert Cater -> RE: Naval Engagements in this version? (12/4/2018 2:23:36 PM)

While not a complete overhaul, there have been quite a few changes, listed below, which have been reported as nice improvements to the overall game during testing.

- supply rule changes:
- subs can no longer dive at 0 supply.
- all raiders can no longer raid at 0 supply.
- defending units at 0 supply will receive 50% more damage from a successful attack against them.
- fighters and carriers cannot intercept/escort when at 0 supply.
- maximum reinforcement points is now 5 strength points per turn for all naval units except Motor Torpedo Boats.
- naval units positioned top of a small island sea enemy hex will no longer be fully revealed under FoW.
- neutral majors can no longer load units onto Amphibious Transports.
- defending subs at zero supply, or defending land units defending from ground attack at zero supply, will now have their morale fully recalculated after any defending strength losses are applied.
- subs will now have a 25% chance of receiving at least a single strength point loss when diving from attack.

We've also added a change to Special Forces, i.e. US Marines and Japanese SNLF which especially help with island hopping in the Pacific. A few other island hopping related changes are listed below here as well:

- Special Forces units, after amphibiously unloading, now maintain supply for up to 5 turns with a drop of 2 supply points per turn.
- minor nation Capitals, Fortresses with 3 or more adjacent enemy units will now have their supply reduced by one strength point per turn.
- Ports no longer provide supply to land units if there is an enemy land unit adjacent to the port.
- abandoned Ports adjacent an enemy City/Town will now switch to enemy control.



Raptor341 -> RE: Naval Engagements in this version? (12/4/2018 4:23:46 PM)

All good changes that will help a lot on the realism front. Thanks for the update! Will they be patched into SC3 Europe as well?



Hubert Cater -> RE: Naval Engagements in this version? (12/4/2018 4:34:03 PM)

The plan is yes and if all goes well hopefully soon enough too [:)]



PvtBenjamin -> RE: Naval Engagements in this version? (12/4/2018 8:50:08 PM)

Excellent improvements Hubert. Look forward to the game.



Kriegsspieler -> RE: Naval Engagements in this version? (12/6/2018 7:04:10 PM)

I just bought the game and am looking forward to playing. I am a great admirer of Hubert's work -- I almost signed in to help with the beta, but then decided I lacked time to do it justice.

The changes to the naval engine described above sound encouraging, but I would also urge that Hubert give some thought to a more comprehensive rethinking of the naval system. In particular, for a game played at this scale I wonder whether it might make sense to group ships into task forces of various kinds and then let those fight it out. Whether that's a good idea or not, I could foresee developing a new naval module as a separate dlc.



Elessar2 -> RE: Naval Engagements in this version? (12/7/2018 1:33:27 PM)

Still wish we could have admirals...



Cheesehead -> RE: Naval Engagements in this version? (12/7/2018 6:58:34 PM)

I think the WWII grand strategy game that does the best job simulating naval combat, capturing the chance for surprise as well the hit and miss nature of trying to find an enemy fleet in a large ocean is the board game 'World in Flames.' This is a hex-based game but the oceans are divided up into sea zones. When opposing fleets are in the same sea zone, there is a chance for combat. The chances to find an enemy fleet depend on several factors including the presence of air, the speed of the ships, how far the ships traveled before entering the zone and random luck. This random luck element is what can sometimes lead to great surprise advantages such as were found at the Battle of Midway. I would imagine this shouldn't be too difficult to capture in a computer game.



Hairog -> RE: Naval Engagements in this version? (12/7/2018 11:29:14 PM)

World in Flames already is a computer game. It's very much a work in progress and there is no AI or net play but it is playable and does a good job of recreating the board game. It's by Matrix

It's the last forum in current games here
Product link here

And it's discounted big time right now!



Hairog -> RE: Naval Engagements in this version? (12/8/2018 12:27:39 AM)

I'm working on a Naval mod that tries to address some of the concerns mentioned. So far it's looking good in SCE.
1. Gave some naval units 6+ Zones of Control to cut down on ships zooming in attacking and then disappearing. It seems to be working and gives a purpose and a reason to put out pickets and screening forces. See picture...
2. Increased attack and defensive avoidance dramatically to simulate the hit or miss of meeting in the open ocean.
3. Gave capital ships 2 attacks per turn. Combined with high avoidance this seems to simulate actual damage reports and negates frustration.
4. Planes are deadly against ships as they were historically
5. Gave CV 2 intercepts and 2 escorts to simulate the frantic pace of air ops. They all use supply as well. If you have well supplied carriers you may survive an air attack.
6. Increased spotting zones of CV, CVL, CA and Maritime Bombers to simulate searches and float planes
7. Instituted strength limits...CV-10, BB-10, CC/BC-9, DN-8, CA-7, CL-6, DD-5, MT-5 to simulate how fragile the smaller ships were. Literally hundreds of DDs and CLs were lost in WWII while only dozens of Capital ships were.

I'll post a naval only mod soon for beta testing in SCE and later for SCWW

[image]local://upfiles/751/28DBD2FCD9014AEA80A3B0FCE46280EE.jpg[/image]



Hairog -> RE: Naval Engagements in this version? (12/8/2018 12:29:48 AM)

Oh, and CVLs are Hunter Killer TF and deadly against Subs.



Kriegsspieler -> RE: Naval Engagements in this version? (12/8/2018 12:21:35 PM)

Those are very encouraging reports & I look forward to trying the mod. :)
To me, the most significant weakness of the current game (and this is no mystery) is one connected with scale and stacking. On land, it makes sense to park a single corps or army in a hex. At sea, to do the same with a single ship leads to some very odd effects. For example, how can we realistically duplicate the crucial screening role of DD's and CL's on such a large-scale map?

EDIT: I should add, by the way, that of course the screenie posted by Hairog is one possible answer to how one could realistically use DD's and CL's as screens in the current game. That's an ok solution, given current constraints.



Tanaka -> RE: Naval Engagements in this version? (12/8/2018 4:45:43 PM)

Thanks for the tips going to try something similar.

Quick question other than combat data where else do you find some of these unit stats in the editor?



Dgold -> RE: Naval Engagements in this version? (12/9/2018 3:46:57 PM)

Glad to see that you are working on a naval mod, Hairog

I had some similar ideas - which I had posted recently in the beta forum. Here are the extracts:


There have been some concerns posted by new SC3 players in the regular SC3 WAW forum about the naval aspects of the game.

How about reducing the number of naval units by grouping the existing units into new naval groups?
• Initial Scenario forces would be based on historical ship numbers, ship combat capability and quality
• Scrap individual naval units and MTB units
• The maximum strength of each unit would vary as per historical values (eg Japanese or British Carrier Groups might have 8 maximum air strength as they had a smaller air complement)
• Less problems with stacking at existing ports
• Less problems with naval units accidentally bumping into each other in large sea hexes
• The new unit cost, movement allowance and combat ratings would need to be tweaked
• The AI would have an easier time playing its side, as it would have half or less the number of units to move
• Give certain Cruiser Groups (eg Japanese) a larger spotting range due to seaplanes
• You could give certain surface group units two strikes, so as to provide more decisive battle results (more sinkings)

Battle Group (BB/BC with some DD) – 2 BB/BC per unit
Cruiser Group (CA, CL mix with some DD) – 4 CA/CL per unit
ASW Group (DD/DE mix) – 8 DD/DE per unit
Carrier Group (CV with CL and DD mix) – 2 CV per unit
Escort Group (CVL/CVE with some DD) – 4 CVL/CVE per unit
Sub Group – 4 SS per group

This would not require a game code change - only some serious work with the editor.


Most surface naval combats in WWII happened near land or ports, not on the high seas.

I have been experimenting with the Editor to attempt to remove ZOCs from all naval units, As these hexes are so large, I am suggesting that there should not be an automatic sighting of friendly naval units by adjacent enemy naval units.

Is there any way, in the Editor, to remove the auto-surprise attack against a friendly naval unit when it moves adjacent to a previously hidden enemy naval unit?

What I would like to see is that an enemy naval unit is only revealed via friendly air recon of that hex, if it moves adjacent to a friendly port, or a friendly land unit (coast watchers), or if it attempts to enter a hex containing a friendly naval unit.

In all other cases, passage of friendly naval units would not reveal enemy units in adjacent hexes.
Or, how about the passage of an adjacent friendly naval unit having a percentage chance of discovering an enemy naval unit in a hex?

Bill had a concern that reducing the number of naval units would be result in less being available to protect unit transports.
A suggestion is that Long Range Amphib units, as they are very expensive, be given an increase in defence value, to simulate an intrinsic escort (CL, DD, DE).



seydlitz22513 -> RE: Naval Engagements in this version? (12/18/2018 5:05:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dgold

Glad to see that you are working on a naval mod, Hairog

I had some similar ideas - which I had posted recently in the beta forum. Here are the extracts:


There have been some concerns posted by new SC3 players in the regular SC3 WAW forum about the naval aspects of the game.

How about reducing the number of naval units by grouping the existing units into new naval groups?
• Initial Scenario forces would be based on historical ship numbers, ship combat capability and quality
• Scrap individual naval units and MTB units
• The maximum strength of each unit would vary as per historical values (eg Japanese or British Carrier Groups might have 8 maximum air strength as they had a smaller air complement)
• Less problems with stacking at existing ports
• Less problems with naval units accidentally bumping into each other in large sea hexes
• The new unit cost, movement allowance and combat ratings would need to be tweaked
• The AI would have an easier time playing its side, as it would have half or less the number of units to move
• Give certain Cruiser Groups (eg Japanese) a larger spotting range due to seaplanes
• You could give certain surface group units two strikes, so as to provide more decisive battle results (more sinkings)

Battle Group (BB/BC with some DD) – 2 BB/BC per unit
Cruiser Group (CA, CL mix with some DD) – 4 CA/CL per unit
ASW Group (DD/DE mix) – 8 DD/DE per unit
Carrier Group (CV with CL and DD mix) – 2 CV per unit
Escort Group (CVL/CVE with some DD) – 4 CVL/CVE per unit
Sub Group – 4 SS per group

This would not require a game code change - only some serious work with the editor.


Most surface naval combats in WWII happened near land or ports, not on the high seas.

I have been experimenting with the Editor to attempt to remove ZOCs from all naval units, As these hexes are so large, I am suggesting that there should not be an automatic sighting of friendly naval units by adjacent enemy naval units.

Is there any way, in the Editor, to remove the auto-surprise attack against a friendly naval unit when it moves adjacent to a previously hidden enemy naval unit?

What I would like to see is that an enemy naval unit is only revealed via friendly air recon of that hex, if it moves adjacent to a friendly port, or a friendly land unit (coast watchers), or if it attempts to enter a hex containing a friendly naval unit.

In all other cases, passage of friendly naval units would not reveal enemy units in adjacent hexes.
Or, how about the passage of an adjacent friendly naval unit having a percentage chance of discovering an enemy naval unit in a hex?

Bill had a concern that reducing the number of naval units would be result in less being available to protect unit transports.
A suggestion is that Long Range Amphib units, as they are very expensive, be given an increase in defence value, to simulate an intrinsic escort (CL, DD, DE).



I agree with most of the above, as much as I like to see named historical battleships etc, for this game scale it just does not work. Naval units need to be in Battle Groups/ Task Forces only end off!

The biggest problem with the naval game is, individual ship attacks cause far to much damage per attack!

On land, the largest unit is an Army. It attacks another Army at a combat value of 2 since they are target type HARD! Added to this the combat effects are further modified by all kinds of terrain, entrenchment etc. At sea, you only have one terrain water. So when it comes to combat Battleship v Battleship they attack each other at a strength of 6! Which means in game battleships are pointless, they are virtually the most expensive unit type in the game and the take virtually the longest time to build, and yet the can leave port and be completely destroyed in one game turn, by an ever ending swarm of units coming from 20 or more hexes away, its nuts! Naval units need to have better spotting as most Capital ships and cruisers used aircraft for reconnaissance, naval units also need to have more value applied to ZOC in order to restrict the swarm attacks seen in the game which is ridiculous, and needs to be abolished from the game completely.



seydlitz22513 -> RE: Naval Engagements in this version? (12/18/2018 7:41:40 PM)

As an added idea regarding terrain bonuses that Land forces & Air forces benefit from, and that Naval forces are stuck with just water as terrain that as far as I'm aware does not bestow a defense bonus.

My idea is this: Maybe Naval units could have a new defense bonus similar to ENTRENCHMENT? For example an ARMOUR defense bonus?

Armour Defense:

Dreadnought = 7
Battleship = 8
Battlecruiser = 6
Heavy Cruiser = 4
Light Cruiser = 3
Destroyer = 1
Escort Carrier= 2
Fleet Carrier = 3
Submarine = 1
MTB = 0

NB: I have intentionally listed Dreadnoughts as a weaker value than Battleships because in my eyes Dreadnoughts are WW1 whereas Battleships are WW2.



xwormwood -> RE: Naval Engagements in this version? (12/18/2018 8:00:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kriegsspieler
At sea, to do the same with a single ship leads to some very odd effects.


The naval units of Strategic Command don't represent single ships. Maybe the unit names are a bit misguiding.



ivanov -> RE: Naval Engagements in this version? (12/18/2018 9:31:38 PM)

The changes go into the direction of tempering down the subs. My experience from SC EAW, is that with the amount of destroyers available to the Allies, it's very hard to conduct a meaningful sub campaign against the UK shipping. Usually after one attack they should run away to the base, because the destroyers will hunt them down. The good thing is, that it's still hard to sink the subs, but if they'll dive less often and start suffering higher loses, the attacks against the convoys will become too costly. I know that there are historical arguments pro and con, but I'm not referring to them. I look at it from the game balance POW. The Axis player should see the war against the shipping as beneficial and cost effective, while the Allied player should feel reasonably threatened by the subs, at least until 1943-44. Right now with the French Navy first and with the Canadians, the subs are the prey, not the other way around.



Numdydar -> RE: Naval Engagements in this version? (12/19/2018 3:17:06 AM)

Unfortunately what you describe seems pretty accurate.

The video below at 20:36 gives a pretty compelling look at how ineffective German subs were in WWII. The whole video is worth watching imho [:)]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WtFyl98SlM



xwormwood -> RE: Naval Engagements in this version? (12/19/2018 9:19:50 PM)

Sorry, but this video is not a great source to validate the effectinvess of German subs.
First of all, the late german subs (class XXI) would have changed the whole situation if they would have been introduced some years earlier. Which would have been possible.
Next thing: the Allies were reading the german secret code / communication. And with this they were able to lead the convoys around knonw Sub positions, while on the other hand they were able to hunt the subs down.
Last part: Radar. German subs were unaware about the Allied radar abilities.

Put all pieces together, throw them into a "what if" game like Strategic Command, and tell me again why german subs should be ineffective in Strategic Command, where the players, and not the historical timeline or counterpars, decide about the entire war.
:)



Numdydar -> RE: Naval Engagements in this version? (12/20/2018 4:27:08 AM)

Well I completely ignore the whole Battle of the Atlantic anyway [:)]. For both sides. So it does not matter to me.

Everything you describe above to me represents the different levels of capabilities for ASW and subs themselves. If you have a lv 4 sub against a lv 1 asw then you should be fine as the sub. If this was reversed then the sub is in big trouble. So you can get the Class XXI earlier if you research Advanced Subs heavily. The Allies can get a lot of their ASW assists using the same method.

If I do send out my subs, I do in in mass and keep them fairly close. So If a DD shows up, I swarm it and sink it. Even better if it is a CV. Sending subs out by ones and twos is typically not a good idea I have found. This method works for me at least so far.



ncc1701e -> RE: Naval Engagements in this version? (1/4/2019 7:37:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Cheesehead

I think the WWII grand strategy game that does the best job simulating naval combat, capturing the chance for surprise as well the hit and miss nature of trying to find an enemy fleet in a large ocean is the board game 'World in Flames.' This is a hex-based game but the oceans are divided up into sea zones. When opposing fleets are in the same sea zone, there is a chance for combat. The chances to find an enemy fleet depend on several factors including the presence of air, the speed of the ships, how far the ships traveled before entering the zone and random luck. This random luck element is what can sometimes lead to great surprise advantages such as were found at the Battle of Midway. I would imagine this shouldn't be too difficult to capture in a computer game.

+1000 not necessarily using sea zones.



elmo3 -> RE: Naval Engagements in this version? (1/9/2019 3:57:54 PM)

I love the game but the naval rules as they stand now are just bad IMHO. Can Hubert or Bill please comment on whether any improvements are planned? The whole whack a mole gameplay now makes no sense and feels very unrealistic. Three or four subs/ships come out of nowhere, sink a ship, and then disappear back into the void with no response from any nearby friendly ships or maritime bombers in range?! We're talking two week turns here so the rest of the navy and airforce sitting idle makes no sense. Also, one of my British ships retreated toward Germany while under attack instead of toward the rest of the Royal Navy right next to it?! It's probably wishful thinking but an AI controlled reaction during the enemy turn would add some realism.



Schokolokos -> RE: Naval Engagements in this version? (1/9/2019 4:25:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: elmo3

Also, one of my British ships retreated toward Germany while under attack instead of toward the rest of the Royal Navy right next to it?! It's probably wishful thinking but an AI controlled reaction during the enemy turn would add some realism.



you even realise that the Axis ship have a impact what direction that British ship flee? It depends from what side that Sub attacks.

your other point is allso rubbish, the 2 week idle is because it is a round based game not a RTS.
What do you want, a minute, a hour, a day or a week turn?



Toby42 -> RE: Naval Engagements in this version? (1/9/2019 4:46:34 PM)

I agree. I'm tired of playing whack-a-mole with subs!



elmo3 -> RE: Naval Engagements in this version? (1/9/2019 5:52:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Schokolokos


quote:

ORIGINAL: elmo3

Also, one of my British ships retreated toward Germany while under attack instead of toward the rest of the Royal Navy right next to it?! It's probably wishful thinking but an AI controlled reaction during the enemy turn would add some realism.



you even realise that the Axis ship have a impact what direction that British ship flee? It depends from what side that Sub attacks.

your other point is allso rubbish, the 2 week idle is because it is a round based game not a RTS.
What do you want, a minute, a hour, a day or a week turn?


So you think the Axis ship/sub attacked in the same direction for two weeks straight and my ship had no choice but to run toward Germany? I don't care what direction the enemy attacked from when the entire Royal Navy is only one or two hexes to the west that ship would not retreat toward Germany. It could have gone north or south or circled to the west but certainly not east.

I understand the turns are two weeks and I'm not asking for shorter turns. Never said I did so please stop the hyperbole. However just as friendly fighters can intercept enemy fighters/bombers during the enemy turn, I think friendly ships/maritime bombers/CV based aircraft should be able to intercept spotted enemy ships if they come within range and attack a friendly ship.

Edit - The code is already there for fighters to intercept in the enemy turn so just add to it for friendly ships etc. to intercept if within a given range of a spotted attacking enemy ship. The intercepting ships etc. don't need to move just as intercepting fighters don't move. I'm sure it's not that simple but it should be possible and would add a great deal to the naval side of the game that needs help, again IMHO.



Tanaka -> RE: Naval Engagements in this version? (1/9/2019 7:06:13 PM)

Balancing and reducing movement and spotting and giving Destroyers a zone of control among other things has really improved things for me. Also reduced Subs diving from 40% to 30%. Will post my mod soon.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.703125