Naval losses

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Naval losses

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

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

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Naval losses - 7/23/2006 8:21:45 PM

Erik2

Posts: 786
Joined: 11/2/2000
From: Oslo, Norway
Status: offline

In combat between pure naval units losses seems to be very high on a regular basis, 80-100% not uncommon.
Often all ships on both sides are sunk as well, this is unrealistic.
I propose that losses are toned down quite a bit and that the losing side tries to disengage and retreat more often.

Erik

_____________________________

Post #: 1

RE: Naval losses - 7/23/2006 10:23:24 PM

Dr. Foo

Posts: 666
Joined: 8/31/2004
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Nygaard

In combat between pure naval units losses seems to be very high on a regular basis, 80-100% not uncommon.
Often all ships on both sides are sunk as well, this is unrealistic.
I propose that losses are toned down quite a bit and that the losing side tries to disengage and retreat more often.

Erik

I have said it before naval units in TOAW are nothing more than floating artillery used to support ground combat, ship-to-ship combat is just too abstract. Also, you have to consider the game turn time, if you are playing week long turns then ship-to-ship combat lasting a week (as unlkely as that is) would result is very high losses, over Am/PM turns. I think that the losses reflect some ships sinking and others going back to port for refit and repair rather than 80-100% of the fleet has been sunk. Ships tend to reconstitute quickly in TOAW.

_____________________________

*Warning: Dr. Foo is not an actual doctor.
Do not accept or follow any medical advice*

(in reply to Erik2)

Post #: 2

RE: Naval losses - 7/23/2006 11:55:03 PM

JAMiAM

Posts: 6165
Joined: 2/8/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Nygaard

In combat between pure naval units losses seems to be very high on a regular basis, 80-100% not uncommon.
Often all ships on both sides are sunk as well, this is unrealistic.
I propose that losses are toned down quite a bit and that the losing side tries to disengage and retreat more often.

Erik

The disabled results are not all destroyed. For naval and air units, the percentage of disabled results that go back into on hand inventory is proportional to the unit's proficiency. Thus, for a naval or air unit with 80% proficiency, an average of 4 out of 5 disabled will go back into on hand inventory and only be "temporarily" disabled.

(in reply to Erik2)

Post #: 3

RE: Naval losses - 7/24/2006 12:07:57 PM

Erik2

Posts: 786
Joined: 11/2/2000
From: Oslo, Norway
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Nygaard

In combat between pure naval units losses seems to be very high on a regular basis, 80-100% not uncommon.
Often all ships on both sides are sunk as well, this is unrealistic.
I propose that losses are toned down quite a bit and that the losing side tries to disengage and retreat more often.

Erik

The disabled results are not all destroyed. For naval and air units, the percentage of disabled results that go back into on hand inventory is proportional to the unit's proficiency. Thus, for a naval or air unit with 80% proficiency, an average of 4 out of 5 disabled will go back into on hand inventory and only be "temporarily" disabled.

I deal with one-ship units in my scenarios and I've not seen any disabled results. Its swim-or sink, the ships either survive or are sunk. i haven't tested units with more than one ship.

_____________________________

(in reply to JAMiAM)

Post #: 4

RE: Naval losses - 7/24/2006 12:10:06 PM

Erik2

Posts: 786
Joined: 11/2/2000
From: Oslo, Norway
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dr. Foo

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Nygaard

In combat between pure naval units losses seems to be very high on a regular basis, 80-100% not uncommon.
Often all ships on both sides are sunk as well, this is unrealistic.
I propose that losses are toned down quite a bit and that the losing side tries to disengage and retreat more often.

Erik

I have said it before naval units in TOAW are nothing more than floating artillery used to support ground combat, ship-to-ship combat is just too abstract. Also, you have to consider the game turn time, if you are playing week long turns then ship-to-ship combat lasting a week (as unlkely as that is) would result is very high losses, over Am/PM turns. I think that the losses reflect some ships sinking and others going back to port for refit and repair rather than 80-100% of the fleet has been sunk. Ships tend to reconstitute quickly in TOAW.

As I've noted in another post, these are one-ship units. I meant that 80-100% of all combat results in one or the other side being sunk. I've only tested two of my own 6-hour scenarios.

_____________________________

(in reply to Dr. Foo)

Post #: 5

RE: Naval losses - 7/24/2006 7:14:34 PM

Dr. Foo

Posts: 666
Joined: 8/31/2004
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

I just do not think you are going to get the kind of naval combat experience you are looking for with TOAW. Have you played War in the Pacific from Matrix, this is a game brimming with ships and naval combat even 1:1 naval combat.

_____________________________

*Warning: Dr. Foo is not an actual doctor.
Do not accept or follow any medical advice*

(in reply to Erik2)

Post #: 6

RE: Naval losses - 7/24/2006 7:32:41 PM

JAMiAM

Posts: 6165
Joined: 2/8/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Nygaard

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dr. Foo

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Nygaard

In combat between pure naval units losses seems to be very high on a regular basis, 80-100% not uncommon.
Often all ships on both sides are sunk as well, this is unrealistic.
I propose that losses are toned down quite a bit and that the losing side tries to disengage and retreat more often.

Erik

I have said it before naval units in TOAW are nothing more than floating artillery used to support ground combat, ship-to-ship combat is just too abstract. Also, you have to consider the game turn time, if you are playing week long turns then ship-to-ship combat lasting a week (as unlkely as that is) would result is very high losses, over Am/PM turns. I think that the losses reflect some ships sinking and others going back to port for refit and repair rather than 80-100% of the fleet has been sunk. Ships tend to reconstitute quickly in TOAW.

As I've noted in another post, these are one-ship units. I meant that 80-100% of all combat results in one or the other side being sunk. I've only tested two of my own 6-hour scenarios.

(in reply to Erik2)

Post #: 7

RE: Naval losses - 7/25/2006 3:18:38 PM

Erik2

Posts: 786
Joined: 11/2/2000
From: Oslo, Norway
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

Well...then you're making a design decision that the engine can't overcome, since I think that you need at least 3 pieces authorized in the first line of equipment in order for the unit to be eligible for reconstitution (the 2/3rd's threshold).

Interesting, does this mean that there must be say 3 battleships in a unit to enable a retreat?
I guess I could use the number of ships in a unit to represent the relative strength of an individual ship.

I'm not looking for ship units to reconstitute as in reappearing later in the game.
In fact, I specifically design scenarios with naval assets so that ship units are permanently lost when destroyed.

_____________________________

(in reply to JAMiAM)

Post #: 8

RE: Naval losses - 7/25/2006 3:21:04 PM

Erik2

Posts: 786
Joined: 11/2/2000
From: Oslo, Norway
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dr. Foo

I just do not think you are going to get the kind of naval combat experience you are looking for with TOAW. Have you played War in the Pacific from Matrix, this is a game brimming with ships and naval combat even 1:1 naval combat.

I know, I'm just trying to make the most of what is already in place, point to matters that appear wrong etc.

I've got War in the Pacific and think its a good detailed game, but its too much micromanagement for me.

_____________________________

(in reply to Dr. Foo)

Post #: 9

RE: Naval losses - 7/25/2006 11:37:56 PM

Dr. Foo

Posts: 666
Joined: 8/31/2004
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Nygaard

I know, I'm just trying to make the most of what is already in place, point to matters that appear wrong etc.

I've got War in the Pacific and think its a good detailed game, but its too much micromanagement for me.

I understand I also have WitP and while I think it is a great game, when it takes one actual day to play one game day that is too much for me.

_____________________________

*Warning: Dr. Foo is not an actual doctor.
Do not accept or follow any medical advice*

(in reply to Erik2)

Post #: 10

RE: Naval losses - 10/23/2006 8:23:20 PM

buchanan17

Posts: 3
Joined: 10/23/2006
Status: offline

Naval losses from a piece or two of onshore artillery are insane - just try leaving your battleships within range of an old napoleonic cannon that the germans have found buried in Normandy and your battleship goes "poof".

Simple answer to make losses in naval battles and to losses from artillery is to increase the defence of the naval units?

Also, as they never retreat, are they effectively "surrounded" and much more likely to evaporate as are units on land that you attack from all siz sides. Nudge them and they evaporate - is this what naval units do?

So increase defence by x5 and allow them to retreat (which they would) and that should solve losses in all naval battles and when attacked by artillery??

(in reply to Erik2)

Post #: 11

RE: Naval losses - 10/24/2006 9:09:24 PM

Justascratch

Posts: 321
Joined: 2/7/2006
Status: offline

I know this is not a forum for Witp but I just wanted to point out that the time spent per turn in the game drops off tremedously as your experience improves. Of course nothing can cut into the time it takes to plot moves in the first 10 turns!

(in reply to buchanan17)

Post #: 12

RE: Naval losses - 10/25/2006 5:33:18 PM

Erik2

Posts: 786
Joined: 11/2/2000
From: Oslo, Norway
Status: offline

Naval units did retreat in COAW, but I haven't seen this in TOAW-3 (yet).
In my own scenarios I've increased equipment to 3 for naval units,
this makes naval engagements a bit more realistic IMO.
But this also makes it harder for ship-killing airplanes like Stukas to sink vessels.
So it's hard to get the right balance.

_____________________________

(in reply to buchanan17)

Post #: 13

RE: Naval losses - 10/25/2006 7:39:29 PM

JAMiAM

Posts: 6165
Joined: 2/8/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Nygaard

Naval units did retreat in COAW, but I haven't seen this in TOAW-3 (yet).

I've only seen naval units retreat when they are adjacent to a hex that could be entered into, by land movement, i.e., a sea road, or an anchorage hex. Come to think of it, I'm wondering if this aspect of the retreat logic is what causes so many unit evaporations in naval combat. I'll have to see if Ralph can figure out a way to get naval units to retreat "at sea" without us screwing up the rest of the game.

(in reply to Erik2)

Post #: 14

RE: Naval losses - 11/14/2006 3:23:37 AM

RevRick

Posts: 2617
Joined: 9/16/2000
From: Thomasville, GA
Status: offline

HI. I just installed TOAW3, and found that the same bug that ran me off the last version I had, COW, is still there - the aforementioned problem with coastal artillery being able to slaughter surface ships which they usually could not even hit, let alone hurt, IRL. I'm talking about BBs and CAs, not just DDs and small craft. I would hate to regret spending the money for a game that will be shelved because of such a mess.

_____________________________

"Action springs not from thought, but from a readiness for responsibility.� ― Dietrich Bonhoeffer

(in reply to JAMiAM)

Post #: 15

RE: Naval losses - 11/14/2006 4:56:56 PM

FaneFlugt

Posts: 188
Joined: 7/27/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

Lets hope they fix it for the next patch. In the mean time play some landlocked scenario.

(in reply to RevRick)

Post #: 16

RE: Naval losses - 11/14/2006 8:40:56 PM

ColinWright

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Nygaard

quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

Well...then you're making a design decision that the engine can't overcome, since I think that you need at least 3 pieces authorized in the first line of equipment in order for the unit to be eligible for reconstitution (the 2/3rd's threshold).

If true, that's a bummer. In Operation Exporter, the British appeared to replace veesels that were damaged so as to keep the strength of the supporting flotilla at more or less three cruisers and eight destroyers -- so I'd happily just provided a pool that about reflected what I figured the British tolerance for losses would have been and set the British ships to promptly reconstitute if sunk.

Time for Plan B. I don't want massive destroyer flotillas, so I'll have to create the specific replacements and have them triggered by specific losses. Fortunately, plenty of spare events...

quote:

Interesting, does this mean that there must be say 3 battleships in a unit to enable a retreat?
I guess I could use the number of ships in a unit to represent the relative strength of an individual ship.

I'm not looking for ship units to reconstitute as in reappearing later in the game.
In fact, I specifically design scenarios with naval assets so that ship units are permanently lost when destroyed.

I think you are missing one point, that ships destroyed in the game aren't 'sunk.' Try looking at the results in an imaginary Mediterranean scenario. Only eight destroyers and two cruisers or something were actually sunk off Crete -- but about three times that number were so seriously damaged as to be destroyed in OPART terms.

So you launch your Stuka strikes and they achieve what appears to be totally ahistorical success. Actually, the results are about right. Of those twenty destroyers and ten cruiser 'sunk,' ten and five will go to the pool. These can be taken to represent those ships that sustained damage so minor as to only put them out of service for a few weeks. The remaining ten destroyers and five cruisers more or less accord with the eight destroyers actually sunk, the two cruisers actually sunk, and the two destroyers and three cruisers so seriously damaged that they would not return to service within the time window of the scenario.

This is not to say that naval warfare doesn't badly need improvement in OPART: it's one of the most glaring deficiencies in the game. However, I'm not convinced the losses are really part of the problem.

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Erik2)

Post #: 17

RE: Naval losses - 11/14/2006 8:44:12 PM

ColinWright

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Nygaard

quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

Well...then you're making a design decision that the engine can't overcome, since I think that you need at least 3 pieces authorized in the first line of equipment in order for the unit to be eligible for reconstitution (the 2/3rd's threshold).

If true, that's a bummer. In Operation Exporter, the British appeared to replace veesels that were damaged so as to keep the strength of the supporting flotilla at more or less three cruisers and eight destroyers -- so I'd happily just provided a pool that about reflected what I figured the British tolerance for losses would have been and set the British ships to promptly reconstitute if sunk.

Time for Plan B. I don't want massive destroyer flotillas, so I'll have to create the specific replacements and have them triggered by specific losses. Fortunately, plenty of spare events...
quote:

Interesting, does this mean that there must be say 3 battleships in a unit to enable a retreat?
I guess I could use the number of ships in a unit to represent the relative strength of an individual ship.

I'm not looking for ship units to reconstitute as in reappearing later in the game.
In fact, I specifically design scenarios with naval assets so that ship units are permanently lost when destroyed.

I think you are missing one point, that ships destroyed in the game aren't 'sunk.' Try looking at the results in an imaginary Mediterranean scenario. Only eight destroyers and two cruisers or something were actually sunk off Crete -- but about three times that number were so seriously damaged as to be destroyed in OPART terms.

So you launch your Stuka strikes and they achieve what appears to be totally ahistorical success. Actually, the results are about right. Of those twenty destroyers and ten cruiser 'sunk,' ten and five will go to the pool. These can be taken to represent those ships that sustained damage so minor as to only put them out of service for a few weeks. The remaining ten destroyers and five cruisers more or less accord with the eight destroyers actually sunk, the two cruisers actually sunk, and the two destroyers and three cruisers so seriously damaged that they would not return to service within the time window of the scenario.

This is not to say that naval warfare doesn't badly need improvement in OPART: it's one of the most glaring deficiencies in the game. However, I'm not convinced the losses are really part of the problem.

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to ColinWright)

Post #: 18

RE: Naval losses - 11/14/2006 10:11:56 PM

ColinWright

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

Actually, it would seem that it's untrue that single-ship units can't reconstitute. According to Ben, he's had numerous such units set to reconstitute in Seelowe -- and I seem to recall the same thing. Of course, if I'm wrong -- the units never actually appear or whatever -- tell me. I'd like to know.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 11/14/2006 10:16:14 PM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to ColinWright)

Post #: 19