amphibious assault - don't try this at home, either

[gwgardner]

More lessons learned the hard way.

Apparently if one attempts an amphibious invasion in a sea zone, ALL enemy naval forces take part in intercepting. Quite a different animule indeed from regular naval combat, wherein only a fraction of fleet units take part.

point to learn from this lesson: no overwhelming naval superiority, no amphibious assault.

[Chocolino]

It is sometimes better to use paratroopers (after naval bombardment if available and air assault) to secure an initial port. Then you can use regular sea transport into this port which is fully independent from naval interference (as confirmed by Mike D. a few posts earlier). This way you avoid to have a huge fleet.

I actually think the sea transport should be subject to naval interference. But that is another story.

[Mike Dubost]

ORIGINAL: Chocolino

It is sometimes better to use paratroopers (after naval bombardment if available and air assault) to secure an initial port. Then you can use regular sea transport into this port which is fully independent from naval interference (as confirmed by Mike D. a few posts earlier). This way you avoid to have a huge fleet.

I actually think the sea transport should be subject to naval interference. But that is another story.

Yeah, the interception is one of the major things I would change if possible. Some time ago, I suggested a % chance for each ship to intercept an invasion. My (at the time unspoken) thought was that it could even be set to vary by sea zone, since the Baltic, for example, is much smaller than the North Atlantic. I am not sure how easy it would be to program this.

I do agree that there should be some chance to intercept normal transport.

[gwgardner]

Dittos to both of you. Good points, and I hope the developers are listening.


I'm going to have to request another game against the diabolical Chuck after the current one ends.

Now, mind you, I'm not making these posts to (merely?) provide excuses as to why I'm losing. No doubt about it that Chuck is a master of the game. Just wish I was giving him a better run at it. He's going to have to fight across the breadth of Russia to take me out, though. Zhukov doesn't give in.

[Chocolino]

Now, mind you, I'm not making these posts to (merely?) provide excuses as to why I'm losing.

Not misunderstood at all.

After all, it is easy for us bystanders with hindsight (works always very well) to comment.

Zhukov doesn't give in.

Will be an interesting fight to watch despite of your very modest remarks.

Good luck.

[cpdeyoung]

I get such a kick out of player perceptions during a game.  I see this as a desperate struggle against a far superior foe, and I must hold out for three more years.  In my AAR I have been pessimistic.  One of the "funny" things is that a player, and I suspect a real officer, must learn that this perception is the case and allow boldness to play its part.  It is so easy for me to see all the bad things that you can, and are doing to me.  The fog of war plays such a role here. You could be building strategic bombers, more freaking aircraft carriers, sending immense convoys to the Soviets.  I imagine if the AAR readers could critique us they would say : "What are you guys afraid of?"[/align] [/align]I went into this game terrified by what I saw in RtW, and have been spooked by it since I started.  I love these games!
[/align]
Chuck[/align]

[James Ward]

I don't like the naval interception rules at all. It is so odd that you can put the same fleets at sea for months on ends and not get a full fleet naval battle yet you float out a few landing craft and they become ship magnets. Interception should only be done with a portion of your fleet not every ship that can reach the area.

[cpdeyoung]

So, Sealion, the Royal Navy has positioned the various fleets to enact the precept : "They may come, just not by sea", and over a period ranging from a week to a month you think they might get a "portion of [their] fleet " to engage?
 
Yep, that sounds likely.
 
What else would they be doing?
 
Chuck

[James Ward]

ORIGINAL: cpdeyoung

So, Sealion, the Royal Navy has positioned the various fleets to enact the precept : "They may come, just not by sea", and over a period ranging from a week to a month you think they might get a "portion of [their] fleet " to engage?

Yep, that sounds likely.

What else would they be doing?

Chuck

I think a portion would have made it in time I doubt if the entire fleet would have arrive at the same time especially if they came from diffeent locations! I think it makes sense that invasions can be intercetped by units from a port as an invasion is on the coast. To have them intercept from a sea zone is a bit much as they are huge areas. I think if the portion that intercepts was based on you naval level then it makes even more sense as better training means quicker sailings from port and better preperation.
Also to assume the German Navy could sail through the Channel from Kiel, Rotterdam or Le Harve untouched and in formation is a bit much. London should act like Gilbralter in that respect, controlling movement through the Channel. One more sea zone may be necessary but England presented a big block to Axis fleet movement.

[cpdeyoung]

Perhaps the answer would be to allow a mission for "Defense against invasion" which would result in a higher percentage of available vessels to be allocated to the battle.  I was interested to see that the battle ended when Gary's amphibs were sunk.
 
Remember that a turn is a week, two weeks, or a month in version 1.3.  I agree with much of your point, but when a huge priority of your fleet is to defend your shores, which it probably would be if there were an invasion flotilla in the low countries, as obtained in 1940-early 1941 then I think drawing from a sea zone is a reasonable compromise in this game.
 
The Channel and the position of England was a huge problem for the KM and I think it could be modeled.
 
Given the current rule set the naval subsystem does make for a lot of tension when invasions are in prospect, and presents a real challenge to attacker and defender alike.
 
Chuck

[James Ward]

ORIGINAL: cpdeyoung

Perhaps the answer would be to allow a mission for "Defense against invasion" which would result in a higher percentage of available vessels to be allocated to the battle.  I was interested to see that the battle ended when Gary's amphibs were sunk.

Remember that a turn is a week, two weeks, or a month in version 1.3.  I agree with much of your point, but when a huge priority of your fleet is to defend your shores, which it probably would be if there were an invasion flotilla in the low countries, as obtained in 1940-early 1941 then I think drawing from a sea zone is a reasonable compromise in this game.

The Channel and the position of England was a huge problem for the KM and I think it could be modeled.

Given the current rule set the naval subsystem does make for a lot of tension when invasions are in prospect, and presents a real challenge to attacker and defender alike.

Chuck

One of the biggest faults with the naval system is that regardless of how you send out your fleet, raider or not, you are not assured of your whole fleet staying together and fighting as a fleet. A task force or fleet tended to stay together when deployed. I have seen many battles where my fleet had only a tiny portion, sometimes only 1 ship, engage the entire enemy fleet.
I also don't see as big a differance between naval levels as say armor levels. There is a noticable differance between a level 1 tank corp and a level 3 tank corp yet all ships are the same value regardless of level. I don't see what advantage you get by researching naval levels.

[cpdeyoung]

I have never, well hardly ever, had the luxury of such research, and I do not know the benefit either.
 
There were so few naval engagements of consequence in WW One and WW Two in the European theater.  The Med was the most common battleground.  Gary and I have had a lot of fleet engagements, but I agree doing things on a task force level rather than fleet level appeals to me too.  I think my affection for naval combat is evident, and I might wish for more, but I do enjoy the simulation we are presented with here, and sparring across the seas with Gary is fun.
 
Chuck

[James Ward]

ORIGINAL: cpdeyoung

I have never, well hardly ever, had the luxury of such research, and I do not know the benefit either.

There were so few naval engagements of consequence in WW One and WW Two in the European theater.  The Med was the most common battleground.  Gary and I have had a lot of fleet engagements, but I agree doing things on a task force level rather than fleet level appeals to me too.  I think my affection for naval combat is evident, and I might wish for more, but I do enjoy the simulation we are presented with here, and sparring across the seas with Gary is fun.

Chuck

I think the UK starts at level 3 so you'd think they 'd have a big advantage over the Axis early on. I never see it. The Naval portion just confuses the crap out of me [:)]

[gwgardner]

More troubling than research level, in naval battles, is mere numbers of ships. I think in our naval battles, I have had superior fleets in terms of quality and ship types - many more carriers, for instance - but Chuch has had the numbers. Invariably his fleets do more damage to mine than mine to his.

Where's my advantage for having carriers? There's really no standoff benefit, or it's not actually implemented.

[James Ward]

ORIGINAL: gwgardner

More troubling than research level, in naval battles, is mere numbers of ships. I think in our naval battles, I have had superior fleets in terms of quality and ship types - many more carriers, for instance - but Chuch has had the numbers. Invariably his fleets do more damage to mine than mine to his.

Where's my advantage for having carriers? There's really no standoff benefit, or it's not actually implemented.

I haven't figured out if all ships have the same attack/defense factor but can take a different number of hits or if the attack and defense factors is the number listed on the counter.

[cpdeyoung]

Hey I have some pretty high quality ships too!  I have spent a ton on my proud fleet, and in our big battle you lost 20 warships and three attack transports, and I lost 20 warships.  We were very even!  I have had to do quite a bit of research for naming all my ships.  "Quality and quantity", the motto of the Axis Combined Fleet!
 
Chuck

[gwgardner]

But did you see my carrier christened 'The Royal Chuck?'

[cpdeyoung]

That's very cool, what sea zone is it in?
 
Chuck

[gwgardner]

Uh ... you killed it.

[Mike Dubost]

ORIGINAL: gwgardner

More troubling than research level, in naval battles, is mere numbers of ships. I think in our naval battles, I have had superior fleets in terms of quality and ship types - many more carriers, for instance - but Chuch has had the numbers. Invariably his fleets do more damage to mine than mine to his.

Where's my advantage for having carriers? There's really no standoff benefit, or it's not actually implemented.

Actually, there is a benefit to both carriers and subs. I have done much research in games versus the AI, and I find that research does have an impact too.

The carriers and subs get a "first strike" chance. Basically, each unit has a chance to find and attack 1 enemy ship before any surface battle. This attack often fails (does no damage), but it can damage ships to soften them up. The unit must be in a "regular fleet" rather than a "raiders group" (set per fleet in the fleet screen), I think. Did you have your ships sent out as raiders groups, maybe? Or you may just have not gotten lucky.

The chances of getting off a first strike and of the attack damaging your enemy go up as your tech level increases. My experience indicates that the chance of finding the enemy for a first strike is low and the chance of damaging a found ship is only moderate, but it does exist.

It is also the case that higher tech levels increase the probability of your fleets finding the enemy. It also appears to increase your chance of hitting the enemy ships. The number on the ship counter is the number of remaining hits it can take without sinking, and does not change with tech level.

I am not sure if higher tech levels are harder to damage or if it all goes into offense. I am also uncertain if the chance to find is impacted by the difference in tech levels, or it is solely based on your level.