TOAW IV In-depth Analysis - NAVAL WARFARE

Share your gameplay tips, secret tactics and fabulous strategies with fellow gamers here
User avatar
Lobster
Posts: 5427
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 2:12 pm
Location: Third rock from the Sun.

RE: NAVAL WARFARE Standard Eqp/Nqp File ?

Post by Lobster »

ORIGINAL: John T_MatrixForum


Thanks

Re agility-
Both read and understand the original text - obviously too demanding for me right now.

Re SSM
- Cant you see a torpedo as a SSM with short range and bad hit probability?


Can't refrain from quoting an old Naval artillery officer I knew:
"There is something unpredictable about torpedoes and their advocate's"


Cheers

Depends on era. Currently they are highly accurate. But in a WW2 and earlier surface engagements their use is not only to sink but to also create chaos in the enemies battle line. Don't know how that can be modeled in TOAW.
ne nothi tere te deorsum (don't let the bastards grind you down)

If duct tape doesn't fix it then you are not using enough duct tape.

Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity and I’m not sure about the universe-Einstein.
User avatar
sPzAbt653
Posts: 10041
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 7:11 am
Location: east coast, usa

RE: NAVAL WARFARE Standard Eqp/Nqp File ?

Post by sPzAbt653 »

I'm no naval guy so this may be stupid, but until we have torpedo's and sub's can't subs be modeled as naval units in a normal fashion, such as give them the stats of a Gunboat, but subs can dive so give a little more on defense?
John T_MatrixForum
Posts: 83
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Stockholm Sweden

RE: NAVAL WARFARE Standard Eqp/Nqp File ?

Post by John T_MatrixForum »

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

I'm no naval guy so this may be stupid, but until we have torpedo's and sub's can't subs be modeled as naval units in a normal fashion, such as give them the stats of a Gunboat, but subs can dive so give a little more on defense?


That is the way I try it right now - problem is that they are always detected,
from the first post:
Within the limit of the horizon, subject to visibility, they should be detected.

My feeling it that Visibility isn't really affected by bad weather.

My gripe is that in the North sea 1940 there where a number cases where enemy ships came ridiculously close to each other without spotting each other.
Or lost contact with friendlies when moving in formations.
Me think bad weather should be worse, and preferably still somewhat randomized.
What about a visibility range modifier on the weather zone ?

Secondly if the agility factor are high enough to make them hard to damage from a distance.
that will also be the case when the sub attacks thus making them very strong.

Right now a group of surface ships with longer gunnery range than the sub simply finds and kills the sub from a distance.


The other thing to experiment with is naval interdiction air crafts with bad supply to mimic travel time to and from the operational area. but it will still be a workaround that can be abused by Elmer or players.

Cheers
/John T
User avatar
sPzAbt653
Posts: 10041
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 7:11 am
Location: east coast, usa

RE: NAVAL WARFARE Standard Eqp/Nqp File ?

Post by sPzAbt653 »

problem is that they are always detected,
Understood, because there is no third dimension here! But understanding that, what I'm saying is that rather than trying some sort of kluge using different icons or whatever else one can try to think up, can't the unit representing the sub be given different values to represent it's ability to evade, surprise, shoot less rounds, etc. ?
User avatar
sPzAbt653
Posts: 10041
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 7:11 am
Location: east coast, usa

RE: NAVAL WARFARE Standard Eqp/Nqp File ?

Post by sPzAbt653 »

The other thing to experiment with is naval interdiction air crafts with bad supply to mimic travel time to and from the operational area.
Distance to Target influences the possibility to fail the check to intercept, so not sure what Bad Supply would have to do with it. The bigger point is that this is not a naval game, which is why it was abstracted from its beginning. Even though changes were made for IV, it still isn't a WeGo Naval Game and it never will be, so trying to 'figure out' how to make it work is probably futile [to put it nicely!].
User avatar
Lobster
Posts: 5427
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 2:12 pm
Location: Third rock from the Sun.

RE: NAVAL WARFARE Standard Eqp/Nqp File ?

Post by Lobster »

ORIGINAL: John T_MatrixForum

The other thing to experiment with is naval interdiction air crafts with bad supply to mimic travel time to and from the operational area. but it will still be a workaround that can be abused by Elmer or players.

Cheers

Elmer has never been taught to read so no house rules for him. [;)]
ne nothi tere te deorsum (don't let the bastards grind you down)

If duct tape doesn't fix it then you are not using enough duct tape.

Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity and I’m not sure about the universe-Einstein.
User avatar
Curtis Lemay
Posts: 14507
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX

RE: NAVAL WARFARE Standard Eqp/Nqp File ?

Post by Curtis Lemay »

ORIGINAL: John T_MatrixForum

from the first post:
Within the limit of the horizon, subject to visibility, they should be detected.

My feeling it that Visibility isn't really affected by bad weather.

From the bottom of post #1:

"Note that hazy and overcast locations affect the chances of spotting. If the weather is in the phasing unit’s hex, it affects all the unknown hexes in range of the unit. If in the target unit’s hex, it only affects the chances of detecting that specific hex. Hazy locations reduce spotting chances by 15%. Overcast locations reduce it by 30%. (Hazy locations are the flat clouds shown above, overcast are the puffy ones)."

The other issue with trying to model subs is that we don't have a way to model ship-board torpedoes. If you try to model them as guns, then they can bombard land targets with them.
My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site
John T_MatrixForum
Posts: 83
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Stockholm Sweden

RE: NAVAL WARFARE Standard Eqp/Nqp File ?

Post by John T_MatrixForum »

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: John T_MatrixForum

from the first post:
Within the limit of the horizon, subject to visibility, they should be detected.

My feeling it that Visibility isn't really affected by bad weather.

From the bottom of post #1:

"Note that hazy and overcast locations affect the chances of spotting. If the weather is in the phasing unit’s hex, it affects all the unknown hexes in range of the unit. If in the target unit’s hex, it only affects the chances of detecting that specific hex. Hazy locations reduce spotting chances by 15%. Overcast locations reduce it by 30%. (Hazy locations are the flat clouds shown above, overcast are the puffy ones)."
Exactly.
Your quote is from the Air recon section, I understands surface recon as either in a cloud and no visibility or full visibility.
25 000 meters at daytime and 10 000 meters night time.

the meteorological definitions of
fog is visibility < 1 000 meters and
haze between 1 000 and 10 000 meters
And meteorological visibility is how far away you see a easily distinguished object,
a camouflaged small vessel is another story.

So that why I say that Visibility isn't really affected by bad weather.

Kind regards
/John
/John T
User avatar
Lobster
Posts: 5427
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 2:12 pm
Location: Third rock from the Sun.

RE: NAVAL WARFARE Standard Eqp/Nqp File ?

Post by Lobster »

Shouldn't weather affect every hex between one unit and another? A squall will obscure visibility if it's between two locations. But in game terms it will be as if it isn't there at all. I don't think it can ever be made right.

It's a game about land battles and to attempt to make it about sea battles will leave much to be desired. I would rather the time be spent to do more to make the game function better for what it was intended. But from what I see huge amounts of time will have to be spent just to get the naval stuff to work in a somewhat real world manner.
ne nothi tere te deorsum (don't let the bastards grind you down)

If duct tape doesn't fix it then you are not using enough duct tape.

Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity and I’m not sure about the universe-Einstein.
User avatar
Curtis Lemay
Posts: 14507
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX

RE: NAVAL WARFARE Standard Eqp/Nqp File ?

Post by Curtis Lemay »

ORIGINAL: John T_MatrixForum

Exactly.
Your quote is from the Air recon section, I understands surface recon as either in a cloud and no visibility or full visibility.
25 000 meters at daytime and 10 000 meters night time.

the meteorological definitions of
fog is visibility < 1 000 meters and
haze between 1 000 and 10 000 meters
And meteorological visibility is how far away you see a easily distinguished object,
a camouflaged small vessel is another story.

So that why I say that Visibility isn't really affected by bad weather.

But it is affected, just as you've described.

Presence of clouds doesn't mean that they extend all the way to the ground. So, the 15/30% figures allow for planes to somewhat fly under the ceiling. Furthermore, air spotting doesn't just spot the ships, it can spot the wakes of those ships as well, which extend multiple times the length of the ship. And a "small" vessel is still huge compared to ground targets, with no way to hide.
My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site
User avatar
sPzAbt653
Posts: 10041
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 7:11 am
Location: east coast, usa

RE: NAVAL WARFARE Standard Eqp/Nqp File ?

Post by sPzAbt653 »

The other issue with trying to model subs is that we don't have a way to model ship-board torpedoes. If you try to model them as guns, then they can bombard land targets with them.
Ah, right ... we don't want flying torpedoes with a range of 100km's hitting Washington, D.C.!

However, one of those Gun Icons will shoot at ships but won't shoot at land targets, so there is already something in TOAW that makes the distinction. Do you know what is is, or should I look into it and report back?
User avatar
Curtis Lemay
Posts: 14507
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX

RE: NAVAL WARFARE Standard Eqp/Nqp File ?

Post by Curtis Lemay »

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653
The other issue with trying to model subs is that we don't have a way to model ship-board torpedoes. If you try to model them as guns, then they can bombard land targets with them.
Ah, right ... we don't want flying torpedoes with a range of 100km's hitting Washington, D.C.!

However, one of those Gun Icons will shoot at ships but won't shoot at land targets, so there is already something in TOAW that makes the distinction. Do you know what is is, or should I look into it and report back?
It's the coastal artillery icon. I'm pretty sure that's not going to work with naval icons.

And there's also the issue that subs sometimes DO have guns, as well. Regardless, destroyers and cruisers have both guns and torpedoes.
My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site
User avatar
Zovs
Posts: 9171
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 11:02 pm
Location: United States

RE: NAVAL WARFARE Standard Eqp/Nqp File ?

Post by Zovs »

So will submariners be in the next patch?
Image
Beta Tester for: War in the East 1 & 2, WarPlan & WarPlan Pacific, Valor & Victory, Flashpoint Campaigns: Sudden Storm, Computer War In Europe 2
SPWW2 & SPMBT scenario creator
Tester for WDS games
User avatar
Lobster
Posts: 5427
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 2:12 pm
Location: Third rock from the Sun.

RE: NAVAL WARFARE Standard Eqp/Nqp File ?

Post by Lobster »

Before there are submarines fix 'interdiction opportunity'. And fix the Save unit/Open unit function. And some other stuff as well.
ne nothi tere te deorsum (don't let the bastards grind you down)

If duct tape doesn't fix it then you are not using enough duct tape.

Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity and I’m not sure about the universe-Einstein.
John T_MatrixForum
Posts: 83
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Stockholm Sweden

RE: NAVAL WARFARE Standard Eqp/Nqp File ?

Post by John T_MatrixForum »

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: John T_MatrixForum

Exactly.
Your quote is from the Air recon section, I understands surface recon as either in a cloud and no visibility or full visibility.
25 000 meters at daytime and 10 000 meters night time.

the meteorological definitions of
fog is visibility < 1 000 meters and
haze between 1 000 and 10 000 meters
And meteorological visibility is how far away you see a easily distinguished object,
a camouflaged small vessel is another story.

So that why I say that Visibility isn't really affected by bad weather.

But it is affected, just as you've described.

Presence of clouds doesn't mean that they extend all the way to the ground. So, the 15/30% figures allow for planes to somewhat fly under the ceiling. Furthermore, air spotting doesn't just spot the ships, it can spot the wakes of those ships as well, which extend multiple times the length of the ship. And a "small" vessel is still huge compared to ground targets, with no way to hide.

Affected by an insignificant margin and all increments in what would be called good weather.

in TOAW visibility is in three steps
The Very best visibility possible - 25 000 meters
Very good visibility - 21 250 meters
Good visibility. - 17 500 meters


to quote wikipedia:
The international definition of fog is a visibility of less than 1 kilometre (3,300 ft); mist is a visibility of between 1 kilometre (0.62 mi) and 2 kilometres (1.2 mi) and haze from 2 kilometres (1.2 mi) to 5 kilometres (3.1 mi).


I think visibility should be reduced to 30% and 15% of the clear visibility.

(or have I misread the text above?)

cheers
/John
once up on a time
Conscript at the Met office
1. ASW Helo Division
Royal Swedish Navy.

/John T
User avatar
Curtis Lemay
Posts: 14507
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX

RE: NAVAL WARFARE Standard Eqp/Nqp File ?

Post by Curtis Lemay »

ORIGINAL: John T_MatrixForum

in TOAW visibility is in three steps
The Very best visibility possible - 25 000 meters
Very good visibility - 21 250 meters
Good visibility. - 17 500 meters

Not really correct. Visibility is 25km with a 15/30% chance of 0km.

to quote wikipedia:
The international definition of fog is a visibility of less than 1 kilometre (3,300 ft); mist is a visibility of between 1 kilometre (0.62 mi) and 2 kilometres (1.2 mi) and haze from 2 kilometres (1.2 mi) to 5 kilometres (3.1 mi).

I think visibility should be reduced to 30% and 15% of the clear visibility.

(or have I misread the text above?)

No. But you are misinterpreting what a "cloud" represents in game terms. They aren't always ground-level fog/mist. Their ceiling is probabilistic.
My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site
John T_MatrixForum
Posts: 83
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Stockholm Sweden

RE: NAVAL WARFARE Standard Eqp/Nqp File ?

Post by John T_MatrixForum »

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
ORIGINAL: John T_MatrixForum

in TOAW visibility is in three steps
The Very best visibility possible - 25 000 meters
Very good visibility - 21 250 meters
Good visibility. - 17 500 meters

Not really correct. Visibility is 25km with a 15/30% chance of 0km.

OK then I'm understands the mechanism, naval spotting range for air units are the air units airborne search range,
and if the opponents vessel comes into range it is spotted with a chance of 100% , 85% or 70% depending on weather.
and we only talk air units, surface units have 25km range unless they are under a cloud where they have 0 km.

then it might not be to bad.
And this check is done once per phase, once per hex moved per unit or once per each unit within range?


ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
to quote wikipedia:
The international definition of fog is a visibility of less than 1 kilometre (3,300 ft); mist is a visibility of between 1 kilometre (0.62 mi) and 2 kilometres (1.2 mi) and haze from 2 kilometres (1.2 mi) to 5 kilometres (3.1 mi).

I think visibility should be reduced to 30% and 15% of the clear visibility.

(or have I misread the text above?)

No. But you are misinterpreting what a "cloud" represents in game terms. They aren't always ground-level fog/mist. Their ceiling is probabilistic.
always ground-level fog if spotter are surface ship, but not always If the spotter are an air unit, I got it right?

The major problem in TOAW is to have a model that can simulate very different scales,
and understand what has to be in-hex activity and abstracted away from the model into a pure probability.

Cheers
/John
/John T
User avatar
Curtis Lemay
Posts: 14507
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX

RE: NAVAL WARFARE Standard Eqp/Nqp File ?

Post by Curtis Lemay »

ORIGINAL: John T_MatrixForum

And this check is done once per phase, once per hex moved per unit or once per each unit within range?

Each time the spotter moves.
always ground-level fog if spotter are surface ship, but not always If the spotter are an air unit, I got it right?

Well, conning tower level for surface ship, or coast level for ground unit.
My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site
Post Reply

Return to “The War Room”