Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Ship Class Design

 
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 >> Scenario Design >> RE: Ship Class Design Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Ship Class Design - 10/18/2007 8:59:05 PM   
vahauser


Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline 		Okay, after rooting around in the attic I finally found that dusty old box of naval and air ratings I did back in the 1990s when I worked for Pacifica Games.  Heh.  I just discovered that I was using modified theoretical rates of fire as one of the core values needed to determine firepower.  That made me chuckle.

Anyway, Colin is correct.  TOAW almost never involves naval ship vs ship combat, so rating naval units for their primary TOAW role of ground support is probably the wisest course.

_____________________________


(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 91
RE: Ship Class Design - 10/19/2007 3:54:59 AM   
ColinWright

 

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

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 10/19/2007 3:58:32 AM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 92
RE: Ship Class Design - 11/4/2007 11:50:17 PM   
Erik2

 

Posts: 786
Joined: 11/2/2000
From: Oslo, Norway
Status: offline 		Some of us already use 2-3 aircraft carrier equipment to represent one CV unit depending on wether we want the CV to carry 2-3 squadrons. I've been toying with the idea to us this method on other warships (larger than destroyers).
This would allow ie the main guns to be destroyed while the secondary guns kept firing (at their own range and with their own shell weight).

In the example below I've split the battleship Warspite into 3 pieces of equipment representing the main, secondary and tertiary guns. The total AA factor of the pure AA guns is divided evenly on all 3 pieces, any AA rating of the 1st/2nd/3rd gun is added to the specific equipment.
Def for the 1st equipment = 'Def tot*5/8'
Def for the 2nd equipment = 'Def tot*2/8'
Def for the 3rd equipment = 'Def tot*1/8'
(These simple formulas are more or less qualified guesses, with a 2-equipment ship I'd use 5/8 and 3/8)

Comments?



Edit: The ranges are max ranges and should probably be reduced to get 'combat ranges'.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Erik Nygaard -- 11/4/2007 11:52:24 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 93
RE: Ship Class Design - 11/5/2007 1:02:45 AM   
ColinWright

 

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

ORIGINAL: Erik Nygaard

Comments?


The first problem I see is that one gets the phenomenon of a Warspite that has lost all her 'main guns' (that unit has been sunk) but is still bobbing around. In fact, 'she' is just fine. Now she's some sort of useful little escort and scout vessel. Of course, if you've got the events, you can make allowing the whole ship to be destroyed to be prohibitively expensive.

Second, I just ha' my doots when it comes to battleships and heavy cruisers being able to exert the same impact on combat thirty km inland that they had on combat near the coast. The German attacks on Sicily and at Anzio didn't collapse in the face of naval gunfire landing thirty km inland -- at least, that's not my impression. They collapsed as they were nearing the beach. That's when naval gunfire was able to exert a decisive effect.

Your solution addresses this issue to some extent -- but not completely. After all, the Warspite can still exert 75% of her full effect at a target that's well away from the coast. I suspect that while WW2 warships could lay down indirect fire, to get really effective they needed to see what they were shooting at, or at least have it pop up on their radar screens. It might even turn out that the best solution is simply to allow naval vessels to participate only in combat in which at least one of the contestants is in a coastal hex.


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Erik2)
Post #: 94
RE: Ship Class Design - 11/5/2007 1:44:26 AM   
vahauser


Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline 		Erik and Colin,

Wow, this is a cool concept.  Talk about thinking outside the box.  I think Erik is really onto something here.  In other words, scenario designers would be able to "compose" their naval units in much the same way as they do with ground units (i.e., by building their ground units equipment type by equipment type).

I'm gonna spend some time with this to see if I can make something useful out of it.  My first impression is that it is an idea worth exploring.

_____________________________


(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 95
RE: Ship Class Design - 11/5/2007 10:06:00 AM   
Erik2

 

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

ORIGINAL: ColinWright


quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Nygaard

Comments?


The first problem I see is that one gets the phenomenon of a Warspite that has lost all her 'main guns' (that unit has been sunk) but is still bobbing around. In fact, 'she' is just fine. Now she's some sort of useful little escort and scout vessel. Of course, if you've got the events, you can make allowing the whole ship to be destroyed to be prohibitively expensive.

Second, I just ha' my doots when it comes to battleships and heavy cruisers being able to exert the same impact on combat thirty km inland that they had on combat near the coast. The German attacks on Sicily and at Anzio didn't collapse in the face of naval gunfire landing thirty km inland -- at least, that's not my impression. They collapsed as they were nearing the beach. That's when naval gunfire was able to exert a decisive effect.

Your solution addresses this issue to some extent -- but not completely. After all, the Warspite can still exert 75% of her full effect at a target that's well away from the coast. I suspect that while WW2 warships could lay down indirect fire, to get really effective they needed to see what they were shooting at, or at least have it pop up on their radar screens. It might even turn out that the best solution is simply to allow naval vessels to participate only in combat in which at least one of the contestants is in a coastal hex.



All my scenarios with naval vessels have events with VP penalties when ships above destroyers are sunk.
The range is a problem as you want a short range for bombardments and a longer one for ship combat.
But this is a general problem with the standard TOAW naval values.
Another thing, I wonder if its possible to add some anti-armor rating to the main guns (only). It would be nice to see tanks being disrupted/disabled by heavy naval bombardment.



_____________________________


(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 96
RE: Ship Class Design - 11/5/2007 10:09:56 AM   
vahauser


Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline 		Erik,

As somebody pointed out in another thread, approximately 10% of AP strength delivered to a hex is converted somehow into AT strength and applied against armored targets.  I interpret this to mean that since the big naval guns have a lot of AP strength, then armored targets will suffer some damage when fired on by large naval guns.  Medium and small naval guns not so much.

_____________________________


(in reply to Erik2)
Post #: 97
RE: Ship Class Design - 11/5/2007 4:51:50 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Nygaard

Some of us already use 2-3 aircraft carrier equipment to represent one CV unit depending on wether we want the CV to carry 2-3 squadrons. I've been toying with the idea to us this method on other warships (larger than destroyers).
This would allow ie the main guns to be destroyed while the secondary guns kept firing (at their own range and with their own shell weight).

In the example below I've split the battleship Warspite into 3 pieces of equipment representing the main, secondary and tertiary guns. The total AA factor of the pure AA guns is divided evenly on all 3 pieces, any AA rating of the 1st/2nd/3rd gun is added to the specific equipment.
Def for the 1st equipment = 'Def tot*5/8'
Def for the 2nd equipment = 'Def tot*2/8'
Def for the 3rd equipment = 'Def tot*1/8'
(These simple formulas are more or less qualified guesses, with a 2-equipment ship I'd use 5/8 and 3/8)

Comments?



Edit: The ranges are max ranges and should probably be reduced to get 'combat ranges'.


I do the same thing with Carriers in my Okinawa scenario. I just haven't done any human testing with it yet.

The thing I wonder about is whether the sum is truely equal to the whole? In other words, is it just as difficult to sink the three smaller pieces as it is to sink the one big piece? If that is the case, it's a good idea that solves some issues with secondary armament.

(in reply to Erik2)
Post #: 98
RE: Ship Class Design - 11/5/2007 4:54:32 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
Second, I just ha' my doots when it comes to battleships and heavy cruisers being able to exert the same impact on combat thirty km inland that they had on combat near the coast. The German attacks on Sicily and at Anzio didn't collapse in the face of naval gunfire landing thirty km inland -- at least, that's not my impression. They collapsed as they were nearing the beach. That's when naval gunfire was able to exert a decisive effect.

Your solution addresses this issue to some extent -- but not completely. After all, the Warspite can still exert 75% of her full effect at a target that's well away from the coast. I suspect that while WW2 warships could lay down indirect fire, to get really effective they needed to see what they were shooting at, or at least have it pop up on their radar screens. It might even turn out that the best solution is simply to allow naval vessels to participate only in combat in which at least one of the contestants is in a coastal hex.



I don't see why naval guns are any different than any other artillery in that regard. Spotters can direct their fire.

< Message edited by Curtis Lemay -- 11/5/2007 4:55:39 PM >

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 99
RE: Ship Class Design - 11/6/2007 1:15:44 AM   
vahauser


Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline 		Okay.  I've spent some time thinking about Erik's concept.  I'm still liking it.  For example, the database has most of the guns already in it.  Just take 9x 18" guns, add 6x 6.1" guns, add 125x 28mm AA guns, etc., to your "hull" (haven't figured this part out yet), then figure out a way to model late-war fire control and damage control (perhaps through artificially altered proficiency ratings? something else?), and voila, you have the Yamato in 1945.  [For instance, old primitive ships might have a proficiency range of 20%-40% representing poor compartmentalization and fire control, whereas warships launched late in the war (like the Iowa class) might have a proficiency range of 80%-100% representing advanced radar fire control and advanced damage control and compartmentalization.  Not sure about all this yet, though.]

I'm liking it even more since, by using Erik's concept, things like torpedoes can be added to a ship's armament (as anti-shipping only) without throwing everything out of whack.

I'm certain there's a downside to all this, but the upside looks pretty sweet to me as of today.

EDIT: Indeed, even submarines might be possible to model: figure out a way to give them a high "recon" value and ability to avoid detection and it might be possible to do.

< Message edited by vahauser -- 11/6/2007 1:20:05 AM >

_____________________________


(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 100
RE: Ship Class Design - 11/15/2007 11:24:17 AM   
vahauser


Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline 		Well, after spending some more time with it, I knew there would be a downside to Erik's concept.  The downside is that I can't make it work.  I really like his idea, but try as I might I just can't put his theory into practice.

If anybody else out there can see a way to turn Erik's idea into a TOAW reality, then please let me know.


_____________________________


(in reply to vahauser)
Post #: 101
RE: Ship Class Design - 11/15/2007 1:27:13 PM   
Erik2

 

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

ORIGINAL: vahauser

Well, after spending some more time with it, I knew there would be a downside to Erik's concept.  The downside is that I can't make it work.  I really like his idea, but try as I might I just can't put his theory into practice.

If anybody else out there can see a way to turn Erik's idea into a TOAW reality, then please let me know.


I know it won't work if you put in ie one ship-equipment and one artillery eqp.
In combat the ship eqp may be destroyed while the art survives.
What should work is putting ie 2 different ship-eqp in the unit with different AP, DF, range etc.

Edit: I've added an Excel-sheet (still under construction) with examples.
I plan to use this system for my Malta-scenario and run a PBEM-test soon.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Erik Nygaard -- 11/15/2007 2:10:05 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to vahauser)
Post #: 102
RE: Ship Class Design - 11/15/2007 1:57:18 PM   
vahauser


Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline 		Erik,

I'm not following you.  Can you post a screenshot of what you mean?

_____________________________


(in reply to Erik2)
Post #: 103
RE: Ship Class Design - 11/15/2007 3:06:35 PM   
Erik2

 

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

ORIGINAL: vahauser

Erik,

I'm not following you. Can you post a screenshot of what you mean?


Warspite has main/secondary and tertiary guns so I'll create 3 different ship equipments in BioEd using the values from the spreadsheet example. I've modifyed Bob's ('Curtis') original formulas so Warspite-1 only includes gun values for the main guns, Warspite-2 is using the values for the secondary guns etc. This gives me a ship with 3 gun components, each with its own AP-value, range and shell weight.
The total AA value of pure AA guns is divided evenly between the 3 ship equipments. The AA value of main/sec/tert guns are added to the corresponding equipment.
The total Defence Factor is divided between the 3 ship equipments thus: Warspite-1 = Def*5/8, Warspite-2 = Def*2/8 and Warspite-3 = Def*1/8. These fractions are my own educated guesses. The reasoning behind is that main guns are more difficult to destroy than tertiary guns. Please comment...
There are options in BioED to set 'Anti Shipping' and 'Anti Shipping only' flags (unchecked for default ship equipment in TOAW). I have no idea how these work, but maybe you could create one main gun platform with long-range 'Anti Shipping only' and one main gun short range for land bombardments.
The downside in creating all these details is of course that you use several equipment slots for one unit.
This doesn't bother me as I create scenario-specific equipment-files anyway.






Attachment (1)

_____________________________


(in reply to vahauser)
Post #: 104
RE: Ship Class Design - 11/15/2007 3:43:44 PM   
vahauser


Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline 		Erik,

Thanks for the screenshot.  It explains a lot.  I was trying to tackle the problem from a different angle.

I didn't want to have to create more equipment slots, I wanted to use less (my WW2 database currently uses about 75 slots for naval units).  I wanted to use already existing equipment slots, namely the guns already listed in the standard TOAW .eqp file.  A "ship" would then consist of an empty hull (using a ship slot in the naval units section that has all weapons removed), and then add armament from the guns section.

For instance, the Iowa in 1945 would have a battleship hull, plus 9x 16" guns from the guns section, plus 20x 5" guns, plus 80x 40mm AA guns.  But this would require no new equipment slots since everything would come from existing equipment slots.  Oh well.  It was a nice dream.

I guess I'm back to using the concept I'd posted earlier in this thread for my WW2 database, even though it's not very optimal.  My method does get the job done, though, and only uses around 75 equipment slots for naval units.

Thanks again for the clarification.

_____________________________


(in reply to Erik2)
Post #: 105
RE: Ship Class Design - 11/16/2007 1:52:41 AM   
a white rabbit


Posts: 2366
Joined: 4/27/2002
From: ..under deconstruction..6N124E..
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser

Well, after spending some more time with it, I knew there would be a downside to Erik's concept.  The downside is that I can't make it work.  I really like his idea, but try as I might I just can't put his theory into practice.

If anybody else out there can see a way to turn Erik's idea into a TOAW reality, then please let me know.



..in a purely ship/ship scen it works by constructing a unit with the right bits in it and using a BioEd hull using inf/mtrised move rate. Just paint the sea green..

..the same might work by giving your guns and stuff naval move rates, then building a unit from there on a BioEd hull or hulls, but i have to admit i've not played a lot with naval move stuff


_____________________________

..toodA, irmAb moAs'lyB 'exper'mentin'..,..beàn'tus all..?,

(in reply to vahauser)
Post #: 106
RE: Ship Class Design - 11/16/2007 6:03:45 AM   
ColinWright

 

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

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
Second, I just ha' my doots when it comes to battleships and heavy cruisers being able to exert the same impact on combat thirty km inland that they had on combat near the coast. The German attacks on Sicily and at Anzio didn't collapse in the face of naval gunfire landing thirty km inland -- at least, that's not my impression. They collapsed as they were nearing the beach. That's when naval gunfire was able to exert a decisive effect.

Your solution addresses this issue to some extent -- but not completely. After all, the Warspite can still exert 75% of her full effect at a target that's well away from the coast. I suspect that while WW2 warships could lay down indirect fire, to get really effective they needed to see what they were shooting at, or at least have it pop up on their radar screens. It might even turn out that the best solution is simply to allow naval vessels to participate only in combat in which at least one of the contestants is in a coastal hex.



I don't see why naval guns are any different than any other artillery in that regard. Spotters can direct their fire.


Maybe they can, and perhaps in the Pacific they did. However, my impression is that at Anzio et al, while the heavy cruisers flattened German counterattacks that got to within a couple of kilometers of the beach, they weren't exerting the same effect 20 km inland -- although in OPART they would.

That's the point. Speaking generally, ships' guns seem to have been very effective right on the coast: this was true in Syria (in 1941), in Sicily, at Anzio, and at Normandy. However, and for whatever reason, they don't seem to have exerted a similar effect inland up to anything like their theoretical range -- or even their OPART range.

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 107
RE: Ship Class Design - 11/16/2007 6:25:44 AM   
vahauser


Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline 		Colin,

I guess we just have to chalk it up as being another one of the idiosyncracies of TOAW.  The best solution I can come up with is to shorten the ranges of naval guns.  I have no problem with making heavy guns 25km, medium guns 20km, and light guns 10km.

Curtis is correct, the USMC had dedicated on-shore fire-control teams to coordinate naval gunfire support in the Pacific.  I don't know if the US Army (or any other army) had something analogous in Europe.

_____________________________


(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 108
RE: Ship Class Design - 11/16/2007 7:43:00 AM   
ColinWright

 

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

ORIGINAL: vahauser

Colin,

I guess we just have to chalk it up as being another one of the idiosyncracies of TOAW. The best solution I can come up with is to shorten the ranges of naval guns. I have no problem with making heavy guns 25km, medium guns 20km, and light guns 10km.

Curtis is correct, the USMC had dedicated on-shore fire-control teams to coordinate naval gunfire support in the Pacific. I don't know if the US Army (or any other army) had something analogous in Europe.


I'd be inclined to say that as a norm, we'd want poor cooperation levels between the navy and the army -- with the US in the Pacific being an exception. The problem with this is that ships are effective when the target is so close to the sea that it can be seen from there. 'Hmmm...those onrushing tanks. That must be what the army is talking about. Guns...'

Also, obviously ships do very well firing in support of amphibious assaults. So it'd be good if there was some way of distinguishing between fire support when the target hex is actually on the coast and fire support when the target is inland.

Like in Seelowe. Well, there's no problem with the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau doing a lot to help the Heer evict the British from Brighton. Quite realistic. The problem comes when they provide the same service in clearing Lewes (15 km or so inland). That's really quite unrealistic. Just didn't happen -- not with anything like the same effect.

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to vahauser)
Post #: 109
RE: Ship Class Design - 11/16/2007 11:47:33 AM   
golden delicious


Posts: 5575
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Like in Seelowe. Well, there's no problem with the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau doing a lot to help the Heer evict the British from Brighton. Quite realistic. The problem comes when they provide the same service in clearing Lewes (15 km or so inland). That's really quite unrealistic. Just didn't happen -- not with anything like the same effect.


In this particular example, slashing range won't cut it. You still want the big guns to be able to outrange the shore batteries. You'd need a house rule.

_____________________________

"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 110
RE: Ship Class Design - 11/16/2007 8:04:43 PM   
ColinWright

 

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

ORIGINAL: golden delicious


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Like in Seelowe. Well, there's no problem with the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau doing a lot to help the Heer evict the British from Brighton. Quite realistic. The problem comes when they provide the same service in clearing Lewes (15 km or so inland). That's really quite unrealistic. Just didn't happen -- not with anything like the same effect.


In this particular example, slashing range won't cut it. You still want the big guns to be able to outrange the shore batteries. You'd need a house rule.


Even a house rule would only be partially satisfactory. The ships would still provide automatic support at 50% strength simply by being within range. That'd be an improvement, of course.

Really, what would be best would be an editable modifier that could be set to between 0 and 100. It would determine the percentage of a ship's firepower that would actually be applied if the target hex was neither deep water nor adjacent to deep water.


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to golden delicious)
Post #: 111
RE: Ship Class Design - 11/16/2007 11:48:13 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
Maybe they can, and perhaps in the Pacific they did. However, my impression is that at Anzio et al, while the heavy cruisers flattened German counterattacks that got to within a couple of kilometers of the beach, they weren't exerting the same effect 20 km inland -- although in OPART they would.

That's the point. Speaking generally, ships' guns seem to have been very effective right on the coast: this was true in Syria (in 1941), in Sicily, at Anzio, and at Normandy. However, and for whatever reason, they don't seem to have exerted a similar effect inland up to anything like their theoretical range -- or even their OPART range.


I know we're all infallible historical gods here, but this amounts to taking absense of evidence as evidence of absense. And I'm not ready to make that leap. I want some hard proof that they couldn't support at their full ranges. Just because we in this group don't have an example of them doing so isn't enough for me.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 112
RE: Ship Class Design - 11/17/2007 12:15:35 AM   
ColinWright

 

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

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
Maybe they can, and perhaps in the Pacific they did. However, my impression is that at Anzio et al, while the heavy cruisers flattened German counterattacks that got to within a couple of kilometers of the beach, they weren't exerting the same effect 20 km inland -- although in OPART they would.

That's the point. Speaking generally, ships' guns seem to have been very effective right on the coast: this was true in Syria (in 1941), in Sicily, at Anzio, and at Normandy. However, and for whatever reason, they don't seem to have exerted a similar effect inland up to anything like their theoretical range -- or even their OPART range.


I know we're all infallible historical gods here, but this amounts to taking absense of evidence as evidence of absense. And I'm not ready to make that leap. I want some hard proof that they couldn't support at their full ranges. Just because we in this group don't have an example of them doing so isn't enough for me.


Well, look at Anzio. The Allies were unable to make progress inland, and the great German counterattack rolled them back quite nicely -- until the Germans advanced to within a couple of kilometers of the beach. Then -- and only then -- ships' guns blew the attacking columns apart, and the situation was reversed. Same thing in Sicily. In Normandy as well -- why didn't Montgomery just use ships' guns to take Caen?

You talk about an 'absence of evidence' -- but what evidence could we find to prove a negative? How can there be attacks where ships' guns played a major role inland if there never were any such attacks?

The only logical inference is that most times and places, the effectiveness of naval firepower was greatly attentuated as one moved inland. On the other hand, no such effect exists in OPART. Pending further data, the conclusion is not that everything is just fine: the conclusion is that there is a flaw.

Put it this way. Suppose the system did attentuate ships' firepower inland. Is there anything to suggest such an effect would be incorrect and should be eliminated?



< Message edited by ColinWright -- 11/17/2007 12:17:27 AM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 113
RE: Ship Class Design - 11/17/2007 5:24:40 AM   
vahauser


Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline 		Colin,

The issue here is spotters.  I have no idea how US Army spotter teams operated in Europe in regards to naval liason.  Perhaps they only operated near the beaches and not farther inland.  Coordinating naval gunfire is more complicated than coordinating field artillery.

Here is my concern.  This is a really big issue for you.  For me, however, this is not a very big issue on the priority scale of "things that need to be fixed".  AEDs, aircraft ratings, AFV ratings, antiaircraft fire, movement rates, etc., are way higher to me on the priority list.

I realize that you see a very real need to 'fix' naval gunfire support.  But compared to the other problems regarding naval units in TOAW (like the absence of torpedoes and the inability to 'customize' individual ships), I just don't see this as a very big deal.  To me, in the overall scheme of TOAW "idiosyncracies" naval gunfire support doesn't rate very high on the list.

The only practical solution (as of today) to this issue is to create a house rule for your scenario prohibiting players from firing more than 1 hex inland with their naval units.  Indeed, this might be the best long-term solution as well.

_____________________________


(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 114
RE: Ship Class Design - 11/17/2007 8:10:24 AM   
ColinWright

 

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

ORIGINAL: vahauser

Colin,

The issue here is spotters. I have no idea how US Army spotter teams operated in Europe in regards to naval liason. Perhaps they only operated near the beaches and not farther inland. Coordinating naval gunfire is more complicated than coordinating field artillery.

Here is my concern. This is a really big issue for you. For me, however, this is not a very big issue on the priority scale of "things that need to be fixed". AEDs, aircraft ratings, AFV ratings, antiaircraft fire, movement rates, etc., are way higher to me on the priority list.

I realize that you see a very real need to 'fix' naval gunfire support. But compared to the other problems regarding naval units in TOAW (like the absence of torpedoes and the inability to 'customize' individual ships), I just don't see this as a very big deal. To me, in the overall scheme of TOAW "idiosyncracies" naval gunfire support doesn't rate very high on the list.

The only practical solution (as of today) to this issue is to create a house rule for your scenario prohibiting players from firing more than 1 hex inland with their naval units. Indeed, this might be the best long-term solution as well.


It's not the biggest problem in the world. In fact, it's not even big enough for me to want a house rule. However, it is a rather provocative inaccuracy. The historical record is really quite clear. Naval gunfire imposed its impressive effects along the coast -- not 25 km inland. No doubt it was used at such ranges -- but I doubt if it was anything like as effective.


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to vahauser)
Post #: 115
Subs! - 11/19/2007 3:12:26 PM   
Erik2

 

Posts: 786
Joined: 11/2/2000
From: Oslo, Norway
Status: offline 		Here's an idea that may have potential.

I have created a sub unit using a (graphically modified) Guerilla icon and checking various additional equipment flags (63.Torpedo, 25.Anti Shipping, 29.Anti Shipping only) in BioEd in addition to the normal naval flags. The sub-unit has a high anti-shipping value and fairly low defence and unit/formation supply values to simulate a one-shot attack before it will have to return to port. I've also used an icon colour combination that is unique and set the formation cooperation level to internal.

Using the Guerilla icon for the sub unit allow it to be hidden (submerged), it will be 'discovered' if an enemy ship try to pass through the same location. The enemy ship can then attack the invisible sub-unit. Please see screenshot where one sub is revealed while the battleship targets the submerged one.
I've noticed that the equipment apparently need to have a range greater than 4 for the anti-shipping capability to show in the unit report.

Marc Custer and I will test this in my Malta scenario.

Comments?




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Erik Nygaard -- 11/19/2007 3:14:00 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to Erik2)
Post #: 116
RE: Subs! - 11/19/2007 4:08:27 PM   
vahauser


Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline 		Erik,

I hope it works.  The trade-off seems to be that you lose guerillas to gain submarines.

_____________________________


(in reply to Erik2)
Post #: 117
RE: Subs! - 11/19/2007 5:26:43 PM   
Veers


Posts: 1324
Joined: 6/6/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Nygaard

Here's an idea that may have potential.

I have created a sub unit using a (graphically modified) Guerilla icon and checking various additional equipment flags (63.Torpedo, 25.Anti Shipping, 29.Anti Shipping only) in BioEd in addition to the normal naval flags. The sub-unit has a high anti-shipping value and fairly low defence and unit/formation supply values to simulate a one-shot attack before it will have to return to port. I've also used an icon colour combination that is unique and set the formation cooperation level to internal.

Using the Guerilla icon for the sub unit allow it to be hidden (submerged), it will be 'discovered' if an enemy ship try to pass through the same location. The enemy ship can then attack the invisible sub-unit. Please see screenshot where one sub is revealed while the battleship targets the submerged one.
I've noticed that the equipment apparently need to have a range greater than 4 for the anti-shipping capability to show in the unit report.

Marc Custer and I will test this in my Malta scenario.

Comments?




That would be awesome if it works out as intended. And Vahauser seems to have pegged the main trade-off.

_____________________________

To repeat history in a game is to be predictable.
If you wish to learn more about EA, feel free to pop over to the EA forums Europe Aflame Forums.

(in reply to Erik2)
Post #: 118
RE: Subs! - 11/19/2007 7:59:15 PM   
ColinWright

 

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

ORIGINAL: Erik Nygaard

Here's an idea that may have potential.

I have created a sub unit using a (graphically modified) Guerilla icon and checking various additional equipment flags (63.Torpedo, 25.Anti Shipping, 29.Anti Shipping only) in BioEd in addition to the normal naval flags. The sub-unit has a high anti-shipping value and fairly low defence and unit/formation supply values to simulate a one-shot attack before it will have to return to port....


Naval units don't need to return to port to recover supply. If this thing is functioning as a naval unit, it won't need to do that. Of course, if it's functioning as a guerilla unit...


< Message edited by ColinWright -- 11/19/2007 8:05:37 PM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Erik2)
Post #: 119
RE: Subs! - 11/19/2007 8:04:18 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline 		I'll also note that against naval units, submarines really couldn't be directed to engage particular targets. Too slow and too blind. The Royal Oak is about the only major warship I can think of that was sunk as a result of a specific plan. All the others -- Ark Royal, Yorktown, Barham, Indianapolis, that late-war Japanese carrier -- were more or less good (or bad,depending on how you look at it) luck.

So there is at least one argument against having submarines as player-controlled, on map units. It implies an ability to direct planned attacks against specific vessels -- and such an ability doesn't seem to have existed.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 11/19/2007 8:06:24 PM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 120
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> Scenario Design >> RE: Ship Class Design Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.938