Are you going to update the Naval Model?

Are you going to update the Naval Model? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III

Message

Mike Carroll -> Are you going to update the Naval Model? (10/11/2005 12:34:04 AM)
A real weakness in TOAW in the big scenarios (those are the ones I like) is that the naval model does not work very well. Any plans on making this better? Add in subs? ect.

Bombur -> RE: Are you going to update the Naval Model? (10/11/2005 3:12:50 AM)
-Excellent question. I would also add the air model. Of course, we don´t want the level of detail of WiTP and UV, but damage to individual ships, across the sea supply rules, correction of the movement calculation bug, naval interdiction missions for aircraft, better modeling of air superiority missions and other changes would be wonderful.

Rob322 -> RE: Are you going to update the Naval Model? (10/11/2005 6:05:14 AM)
Personally I'd dump the naval model and deal with it through the event engine. This is a land war game after all, not Harpoon. [:D] The only time you need the navy is for amphibious assaults and really it's just shore bombardment. Few navies have sent their convoys of troop ships into seas known to contain enemy capital ships, the risk is too high. Therefore, I say dump the naval aspect of the game. Honestly I can't think of one scenario from TOAW where the naval ships were really useful save the occasional bombardment.

Erik2 -> RE: Are you going to update the Naval Model? (10/11/2005 1:17:57 PM)
I disagree. There are many examples of landbattles where the naval components were important and the outcome not a sure thing at all. Two of my own scenarios; in Weserubung the invading Kriegsmarine could well have been intercepted by the Royal Navy. In Crete the RN did intercept and sunk one German convoy and caused another to turn back.

Mantis -> RE: Are you going to update the Naval Model? (10/11/2005 3:02:58 PM)
Agreed. Crete is an excellent example. Also Europe Aflame - fight out the entirety of WWII, and there's going to be some good naval actions. The floating arty pieces that represent the warships are simply inadequate.

steveh11Matrix -> RE: Are you going to update the Naval Model? (10/12/2005 1:29:34 PM)
Not to mention Sealion, or The Solomons, for example! Steve.

DoubleDeuce -> RE: Are you going to update the Naval Model? (10/12/2005 4:45:00 PM)
I would say any scenario taking place in the Pacific would need some modelling of naval forces. If the naval aspect can be redesigned I say go for it.

Pippin -> RE: Are you going to update the Naval Model? (10/12/2005 5:31:39 PM)
I never used the navy much at all in TOAW. I also did not get the imprssion TOAW was supposed to have major naval support. Seemed to me to always be more of a corps engine.

Vincenzo_Beretta -> RE: Are you going to update the Naval Model? (10/12/2005 8:26:28 PM)
The first fix should be the ability for fleets and air squadrons to be put in a "naval interception" mode. I would be happy with even this single fix - no more Kriegsmarine streaking through Gibiltair while the RN watches from the Rock.

pad152 -> RE: Are you going to update the Naval Model? (10/12/2005 8:55:04 PM)
Dream Game TOAW - land combat, and UV/Witp supply and naval warfare! Looks like Matrix now has the peices let's hope they can put them together.

Rob322 -> RE: Are you going to update the Naval Model? (10/13/2005 5:48:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Pippin I never used the navy much at all in TOAW. I also did not get the imprssion TOAW was supposed to have major naval support. Seemed to me to always be more of a corps engine. My point. I won't say naval has nothing to do with land combat but this game is a land game, the naval forces always felt like they were an afterthought. My feeling is you do them right or not at all. For instance, you play the Korea 2000 scenario. It was always fun when the North Korean navy engaged say the US navy and while they were eliminated they did 50% casaulties sometimes. That's because there was simply a generic "missile frigate", nothing more. In all reality, there's a far difference between an American and a North Korean frigate and in all reality the North Korean navy would've been wiped clean pretty fast. That's just one of many issues with naval forces that generally caused me to ignore them in this game. Can the model be made to really handle them intelligently?

coralsaw -> RE: Are you going to update the Naval Model? (10/13/2005 1:56:29 PM)
Drop the naval system, abstract landing. There are tons of great suggestions already on the land system improvements that should have higher priority, IMHO. /coralsaw

Panama Red -> RE: Are you going to update the Naval Model? (10/13/2005 4:07:53 PM)
Keep the naval and improve it to where it should be.

coralsaw -> RE: Are you going to update the Naval Model? (10/14/2005 11:01:30 AM)
PR, obviously you're entitled to your opinion. I just wonder though, would you rather see Matrix spend 1 man-week improving the naval model, or 1 man-week eg. improving the AI or supply system? There is a finite budget for improvements on TOAW, I can assure you, so every man-day counts. /coralsaw

JMS2 -> RE: Are you going to update the Naval Model? (10/14/2005 11:38:59 AM)
I´ll rather see a better naval system than a better AI. A better AI has limited projection when compared to human vs human play, while a naval system increases the versatility of TOAW even more.

ydejin -> RE: Are you going to update the Naval Model? (10/14/2005 1:11:35 PM)
I'd love to see both a naval system and a better AI. However, having to chose, I'd pick the AI. I don't play human-to-human so the AI quality is very important to me.

JMS2 -> RE: Are you going to update the Naval Model? (10/14/2005 1:36:38 PM)
However, let me ask you a question, have you ever played against a human?

ydejin -> RE: Are you going to update the Naval Model? (10/14/2005 2:30:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JMS2 However, let me ask you a question, have you ever played against a human? No, I prefer to play against the computer. The only computer games I've played against/with humans are RTS and CRPG. While I love Turn-Based Strategy, I don't think I have the patience to wait for another human and I think an PBEM game of TOAW would probably take to long to hold my interest.

JJKettunen -> RE: Are you going to update the Naval Model? (10/14/2005 2:50:59 PM)
If there's a choice between better AI, or better overall simulation, I'd go for the latter. People who have kept the game alive, ie PBEM-crowd, deserve it.

Iñaki Harrizabalagatar -> RE: Are you going to update the Naval Model? (10/14/2005 2:57:31 PM)
I think the naval model could be made similar to the current air model, in the sense in which we could have naval units stationed at a port, with a fight range

Nemo69 -> RE: Are you going to update the Naval Model? (10/14/2005 3:22:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Keke If there's a choice between better AI, or better overall simulation, I'd go for the latter. People who have kept the game alive, ie PBEM-crowd, deserve it. Hear, hear!

JMS2 -> RE: Are you going to update the Naval Model? (10/14/2005 5:12:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ydejin quote: ORIGINAL: JMS2 However, let me ask you a question, have you ever played against a human? No, I prefer to play against the computer. The only computer games I've played against/with humans are RTS and CRPG. While I love Turn-Based Strategy, I don't think I have the patience to wait for another human and I think an PBEM game of TOAW would probably take to long to hold my interest. I suspected that much, however note that you are limiting yourself by 2 factors: the time the designer devoted to putting together a decent programmed opponent and the actual capability of the AI. When playing a human you are likely to find a harder, more satisfying opponent, specially if you win. Yes, things tend to go slower, but then you can have multiple games going at the same time.

Panama Red -> RE: Are you going to update the Naval Model? (10/14/2005 6:27:43 PM)
What if you are like me, I do not have time to sit down every day and play PEBM. If I wanted to do that, I could go back to playing board games. I buy PC games so I can set down and play a game when I have the time and not wait for anybody else or hold them up waiting for me.

JMS2 -> RE: Are you going to update the Naval Model? (10/14/2005 6:56:50 PM)
Who says I am not? I usually only have time for a turn a day in the best of cases, but I have no problem skipping one day if needs to be. I reckon I use other games for days that I have more time than that, but they are from the navalwarfare.com side.

steveh11Matrix -> RE: Are you going to update the Naval Model? (10/14/2005 9:52:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Keke If there's a choice between better AI, or better overall simulation, I'd go for the latter. People who have kept the game alive, ie PBEM-crowd, deserve it. Well, I'd go for the AI, and let the database(s) go open-source. That way I strongly suspect we'd all get what we were really after! [:)] Steve. P.S. PBEMers deserve no more than any other who paid for the game, nor any less. Equal-Opportunity gaming, as it were... [sm=00000289.gif][sm=00000436.gif] P.P.S. this has what to do with the Naval Model, btw? [;)]

JJKettunen -> RE: Are you going to update the Naval Model? (10/14/2005 10:05:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: steveh11Matrix quote: ORIGINAL: Keke If there's a choice between better AI, or better overall simulation, I'd go for the latter. People who have kept the game alive, ie PBEM-crowd, deserve it. Well, I'd go for the AI, and let the database(s) go open-source. That way I strongly suspect we'd all get what we were really after! [:)] Steve. P.S. PBEMers deserve no more than any other who paid for the game, nor any less. Equal-Opportunity gaming, as it were... [sm=00000289.gif][sm=00000436.gif] P.P.S. this has what to do with the Naval Model, btw? [;)] I don't see how an open database will turn gamers into Norm Kogers adding new features to the game. To make any new feature to work well with the AI is helluva burden for the coder...

steveh11Matrix -> RE: Are you going to update the Naval Model? (10/14/2005 10:31:29 PM)
Well, the Open Database is, itself, one of the features that's been called for. In and of itself, it would require no 'extra' AI work. TBH, I don't think there'll be much work on extra fatures, more likely a 'cleaning up' exercise. Precisely because there's not an infinite supply of Norm Kogers! [:'(] But perhaps a scripted/scriptable AI, better formation control, one or two other bits... I actually tend to agree with the view that the Naval model, while flawed, is something that could be left alone, while effort was put in elsewhere. If I want to play an Operational game in the Pacific, I've got WitP for that - and, in fact, that's what I'm doing right now! [:)] Steve.

Mike Carroll -> RE: Are you going to update the Naval Model? (10/15/2005 12:49:31 AM)
I would like a better naval game. Some of the best grand strategic scenario's such as Europe Aflame, the Great War, etc. would be so much better if there was a naval simulation that worked well with the land combat. It does not have to be War in the Pacific, but the ability to intercept, subs, air interdiction would add alot to the game. Personally on the AI side, I used to be in the camp where I just played the computer. But my first PBEM game, I was hooked. I will never go back to playing against the AI - it just is not challenging. The more complex the game the harder it is to create an AI that is effective.

TSCofield -> RE: Are you going to update the Naval Model? (10/15/2005 4:08:27 AM)
I agree on a better naval game. Lets face it, if we don't do that then it will simply be kept as a continental game with either the Allies against Germany/Italy or a China/Japan type scenerio. You could have very limited fighting with the Pacific simply because the entire conflict focused on naval operations. Norm's game was brilliant for its time but for me to truly call it a complete operational wargame naval modeling has to be included. I would love to see some of what has been done with UV/WitP put into a game like TOAW. WitP is weak in the land combat portions of the game and TOAW is weak in naval ops. Imagine a pairing of the two, what a wargame that would be. Do, that, create a game that has WitP on the sea and TOAW on the ground and I would pay easily 100$ for it. I suspect most of us would here too.

Chuck2 -> RE: Are you going to update the Naval Model? (10/15/2005 8:05:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SimHq Tom Cofield I agree on a better naval game. Lets face it, if we don't do that then it will simply be kept as a continental game with either the Allies against Germany/Italy or a China/Japan type scenerio. You could have very limited fighting with the Pacific simply because the entire conflict focused on naval operations. Norm's game was brilliant for its time but for me to truly call it a complete operational wargame naval modeling has to be included. I would love to see some of what has been done with UV/WitP put into a game like TOAW. WitP is weak in the land combat portions of the game and TOAW is weak in naval ops. Imagine a pairing of the two, what a wargame that would be. Yeah. I'd like to see an updated naval system as well. At least there should be semi-realistic results when the ships fire at each other! Also, naval interdiction is a must. I think we'll get that at least.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.28125