The Naval War

[warspite1]

Lord Zimoa + Co

Just a question on the naval war aspect. I feel this is the only part of this great game that is really lacking. Are there any plans - however far in the future - to look at this?

It feels like all the effort has gone into the land war - and quite reasonably so - but that the naval side has been given little consideration.

There is much that could be done, but I think the first thing would be the need for smaller size, and more numerous, counters - thus giving more tactical opportunity to each side. At the moment its all or nothing.

I look forward to your thoughts on this.

[Empire101]

Indeed.

Warspite raises a valid point. Naval forces are more valuable in the game than in WWI in my opinion.

As stated it is all or nothing at the moment, where your cruiser units ( and they are SO expensive ), are tied up on perpetual convoy escort duty.

I know this was the case in WWI, but their expense is so extreme, and their loss so traumatic that they are rarely used in 'Naval Adventures'.

And don't get me started on German Subs.....they cost a fortune!!

[CarnageINC]

+1

[Lord Zimoa]

Just a question on the naval war aspect. I feel this is the only part of this great game that is really lacking. Are there any plans - however far in the future - to look at this?

Yes, the Naval AI will get more attention and be improved over the next few months. It was already on our own wishlist.

[vonRocko]

Yes, but in the war, navies were expensive, and almost to valuable to risk in a battle. Loss of a naval unit should have major consequences.

[Jestre]

I am more concerned with the impact of Strategic Bombing, you can devastate a nations economy with bombing that simply was not feasible in WWI.

[wodin]

ORIGINAL: Jestre

I am more concerned with the impact of Strategic Bombing, you can devastate a nations economy with bombing that simply was not feasible in WWI.

Bombing should really be aimed at railways and stations to cause disruption during WW1 rather than the bombing you see in WW2..it just wasn't anywhere near that scale.

[Empire101]

ORIGINAL: vonRocko

Yes, but in the war, navies were expensive, and almost to valuable to risk in a battle. Loss of a naval unit should have major consequences.

Of course they were, and the game does a good job of reflecting this.

Submarines though were a cheap alternative to challenging the naval supremacy of the Triple Entente, combined with the naval doctrine of Commerce Raiding.

It just seems so difficult for the CP to go from one Submarine Flotilla to two, let alone three or four, which is what is needed to try and stamp unrestricted submarine warfare in the game.

It is far easier for the British to float a couple of submarines in the Baltic, and do real damage to the German Economy, than for the Germans to do the same to GB and France.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Lord Zimoa

Just a question on the naval war aspect. I feel this is the only part of this great game that is really lacking. Are there any plans - however far in the future - to look at this?

Yes, the Naval AI will get more attention and be improved over the next few months. It was already on our own wishlist.

warspite1

Lord Zimoa, I am not talking about the AI I am talking about something more fundamental i.e. the composition, make-up and size of the naval units. Could you let me know if this is under consideration or is it just a question of tinkering with the AI and keeping existing units as they are?

Thank-you.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Jestre

I am more concerned with the impact of Strategic Bombing, you can devastate a nations economy with bombing that simply was not feasible in WWI.

warspite1

Right, but this thread is about the naval war.....

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: vonRocko

Yes, but in the war, navies were expensive, and almost to valuable to risk in a battle. Loss of a naval unit should have major consequences.

warspite1

Eh?

[vonRocko]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: vonRocko

Yes, but in the war, navies were expensive, and almost to valuable to risk in a battle. Loss of a naval unit should have major consequences.

warspite1

Eh?

Well, the "fleet in being" mentality, especially for Germany. They were pretty wary about an all out battle. The loss of a battleship should be a big deal.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: vonRocko

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: vonRocko

Yes, but in the war, navies were expensive, and almost to valuable to risk in a battle. Loss of a naval unit should have major consequences.

warspite1

Eh?

Well, the "fleet in being" mentality, especially for Germany. They were pretty wary about an all out battle. The loss of a battleship should be a big deal.

warspite1

But that concept is in the game already - and that is fine. What I am talking about is that the naval war, as currently drafted, is too abstract, does not allow players the freedom to explore fun avenues for their navy - and is totally unrealistic in terms of real life fleet sizes.

[vonRocko]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: vonRocko

ORIGINAL: warspite1


warspite1

Eh?

Well, the "fleet in being" mentality, especially for Germany. They were pretty wary about an all out battle. The loss of a battleship should be a big deal.

warspite1

But that concept is in the game already - and that is fine. What I am talking about is that the naval war, as currently drafted, is too abstract, does not allow players the freedom to explore fun avenues for their navy - and is totally unrealistic in terms of real life fleet sizes.

Oh yes, I do agree with you. I guess my post was in response to the costs of navies, I feel they should be very high, with losses being very hard to replace.(except subs).

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: vonRocko

ORIGINAL: warspite1


warspite1

Eh?

Well, the "fleet in being" mentality, especially for Germany. They were pretty wary about an all out battle. The loss of a battleship should be a big deal.

warspite1

But that concept is in the game already - and that is fine. What I am talking about is that the naval war, as currently drafted, is too abstract, does not allow players the freedom to explore fun avenues for their navy - and is totally unrealistic in terms of real life fleet sizes.

warspite1

Guys - any chance of an answer on this please?

[Lord Zimoa]

Naval units in the game represent not single ships but fleets or groups or squadrons, so a battleship is supposed to have all her support and protecting auxiliary vessels present, a transport group is a bunch of transport ships protected by support vessels, etc..., when in port or within home waters (green dotted hexes), they are supposed to be protected by extra minefields, torpedo boats, patrol ships... Submarine groups cannot operate deep into the Atlantic as technology in WW1 did allow it yet (red dotted hexes).

Outside improving the AI we of course try to improve naval combat rules, battle mechanics, balancing acts, etc... but no radical overhauling changes are planned.

To be honest if we wanted to simulate WW1 naval warfare better, we better would make a separate and complete new game around it.

No doubt we still have room for improving the WW1 naval aspect in our current CTGW game though.

[Orm]

Would it be possible to add an option that gives the countries a with more historical naval strength set up?

The counters do not have to start at full strength.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Orm

Would it be possible to add an option that gives the countries a with more historical naval strength set up?

The counters do not have to start at full strength.

warspite1

Orm - good find. I know there is a game balance issue to factor in but this is part and parcel of the need - imo - to more than tweak the naval game (and no I am not suggesting WITPAE treatment!).

Thanks to operational shortcomings, the RN lost a number of battlecruisers (at great human cost) during Jutland. Despite this, the naval balance was unaffected (such was the RN's numerical superiority) and the German fleet never put to sea again.

Giving the RN the same number of ships as Germany (apart from an extra cruiser counter) is not great.

[Lord Zimoa]

Guys, historical background is of course hugely important and we know the numbers, but if we go this route, basically GB will shoot everything out of the water with a breeze. We always let the gaming factor come first, from a game balancing point of view, decisions like not giving France a rail capacity at the start(as the AI would rail reinforcements to Brussel, and kill always your Schlieffen plan attempts), not giving German cities more PP in the Alsace and Ruhr areas, as if you as a player, would make rapid advantages along that front it would immediately knock Germany out of the war, now it will do so as well, but at least give the AI some more fighting spirit, not having the AH with full armies near the Russian border at game start, so you cannot kill Russia in a few turns and have to pay attention to the Serbian front as well as building a strategic reserve along AH`s front with Russia, etc, etc...

We know it is not completely historical, but we try to offer at least the change for any player to alter history and win the game in another way, this set in a WW1 historical environment with WW1 abstracted tactics... this makes the game fun and better.

I know for some purists it is hard, but I guarantee you making historical simulations make often very boring and predictable games!

Again, I agree we have some fine-tuning to do on the naval front, AI, balancing, some rule changes maybe, but we do it subtle, in steps and test it well before ruining very tricky things like, overall game balance and can introduce stupid and annoying bugs.

Believe me after years and years of experience we know that simple and easy changes on paper, often have a profound and undesired effect in reality on overall game balance, so we learned to proceed with care, thought and test a lot.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Lord Zimoa

Guys, historical background is of course hugely important and we know the numbers, but if we go this route, basically GB will shoot everything out of the water with a breeze. We always let the gaming factor come first, from a game balancing point of view, decisions like not giving France a rail capacity at the start(as the AI would rail reinforcements to Brussel, and kill always your Schlieffen plan attempts), not giving German cities more PP in the Alsace and Ruhr areas, as if you as a player, would make rapid advantages along that front it would immediately knock Germany out of the war, now it will do so as well, but at least give the AI some more fighting spirit, not having the AH with full armies near the Russian border at game start, so you cannot kill Russia in a few turns and have to pay attention to the Serbian front as well as building a strategic reserve along AH`s front with Russia, etc, etc...

We know it is not completely historical, but we try to offer at least the change for any player to alter history and win the game in another way, this set in a WW1 historical environment with WW1 abstracted tactics... this makes the game fun and better.

I know for some purists it is hard, but I guarantee you making historical simulations make often very boring and predictable games!

Again, I agree we have some fine-tuning to do on the naval front, AI, balancing, some rule changes maybe, but we do it subtle, in steps and test it well before ruining very tricky things like, overall game balance and can introduce stupid and annoying bugs.

Believe me after years and years of experience we know that simple and easy changes on paper, often have a profound and undesired effect in reality on overall game balance, so we learned to proceed with care, thought and test a lot.

warspite1

Lord Zimoa - thanks, it is enough to know that these things are under consideration. As you can tell from my AAR posts etc, none of this is affecting my wish to play the game - it is absolutely brilliant! and I am in about 8 or so PBEM's at the moment.

And just to re-emphasise I am not looking for some hugely detailed, historically accurate to the nth degree, OOB which becomes a simulation rather than a genuinely winnable game for either side. Playability, aesthetics (great map, colourful counters), FUN, while keeping a historical perspective, is what made World In Flames the best board game EVER. This game has many of those attributes and can only get better with the further work you are doing [&o]