9.3 Naval Combat Wishlist Quesiton

[macgregor]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
That's in real life. I'm talking about the game system you're proposing. Under that system, they would be "fortified" (whether you call it "patrol" or not the effect will be the same). In fact, the sea will be filled with "fortified" ships. It will look like someone built the Maginot line at sea. Restricted sea lanes will be especially clogged with such. And it will all be nonsense.

I don't profess to have everything worked out. I was asked to come up with ideas and I'm doing that. I've proposed that there be a %50 chance for each side to see the other along with a chance no one sees anyone. Per enemy movement point spent in a patrol area, I'm not proposing more than a %10 chance of intercept. This doesn't sound like a 'can of worms' to me. If I've proposed too large of a patrol area potential then make the max area smaller. That offers the kind of uncertainty that is always present in naval warfare. Units on patrol would be allowed to move to intercept, but I'm not suggesting they get any advantage in combat. They will still occupy a physical location that can be attacked if spotted -again with the %50 rule. Newsflash; there were sea areas saturated with patrols. You can use the word 'fortified' all you want, but it's equally 'errant nonsense'. If a unit is supporting ground ops, it will be 'on station'. If it is 'on patrol' it won't be able to support ground ops.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
We already have recon in the game system. Ships will either be spotted or not as per the enemy's recon. In fact, we need recon planes as well, so carriers can scout as they move. That's another can of worms. Regardless, unspotted ships will have to be sought out. When searchers get close enough, they will interdict them (by air or gun) once Naval interdiction is implemented (suffering counterbattery/counterstrikes in the process). Or there could eventually be a "Naval Combat Procedure" triggered. There is no need to massively abstract everything. We want the game to become more realistic, not less.

Which is it? We have a recon system or we need recon planes? I'm not against having recon planes, but the current system takes aircraft and air superiority into account already. Your conclusion is however predictable. Not that it matters, but I mentioned naval interdiction for aircraft some 7 years ago. The game already has a complex combat model for land that takes into account ranged weapons. Why can't we simply inject naval weapons into that sequence?

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
So subs can't attack with torpedoes? If an ASW rating is necessary, so are torpedoes. And, since TOAW is equipment based, why shouldn't there be ASW equipment that forms that ASW rating? And, again, the subs can't be allowed to be detected by just moving a ship next to them. And they can't be allowed to chase down surface ships. They have to have special treatment separate from normal surface vessels.
And there's no real need for subs until we get sea supply.

No. They'll just ram their periscopes into ships, or drill holes in their hulls. This is ridiculous. An ASW value (anti-submarine warfare) will be what some surface vessels and planes will use to attack submarines, not the other way around. You can have depth charges, hedgehogs, whatever you want, as long as you give it an ASW value. Subs can attack with whatever weapons systems or torpedoes they have. These systems will have to be injected into the current combat sequence.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
Basically we have two choices: Massive detail, or errant nonsense. I don't want either one.

This is the false choice you offer, and it seems your mind is made up. There will be another game that beats the pants off this one eventually. I can play SC-GC until then if you prefer.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
And I haven't covered all the detail yet. There would have to be a suite of settings for the forces set to react, spelling out just what they would react to. You don't want the full fleet to react to a row boat - that would be a waste. Similarly, you don't want a tiny fleet to react to a powerful one - that would be suicide. And you don't want a BB fleet to react to a CV one either - that's also suicide (assuming the reaction method allows the CVs to interdict the BBs as they approach). Another can of worms - and it would still be easy for the enemy player to game.

Rowboats? One of us is certainly getting ridiculous. Let me elaborate. This %50 one side sees the other rule could occur with every round, with one result being a retreat. Isn't that what can happen with mismatches on land? Personally I would suggest not putting tiny fleets on patrol. I can lead you to how the game can work, but not how to play it.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
I think this could possibly be handled a different way. For one thing, if your scenario is about a contested amphibious landing, then use a short turn interval. That way, the players themselves can decide when, where, and how to react. If, on the other hand, you're doing a strategic scale scenario, there might be a way to use variable turn-intervals to effect reaction. So, if the normal turn-interval was one-week, then when a reaction would be triggered, the turn-interval would automatically shorten to, say, one-day, for a week (or whatever the designer specified). Again, this would allow the players to make reaction decisions – far better than the computer can do. The issue was sea supply. Again, we don't have it yet, and it will be very non-trivial to implement.

CoW = Can of worms. To argue how ships/subs would affect supply, I'd have to better understand how supply across sea actually works. Personally I think supplies should first go to HQs that can act as beacheads. Perhaps equip certain HQs with 'supply ships' that can act like trucks do over land. I do know the game has supply interdiction now. I would hope there would be some way of applying this to sea supply.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
Different weapon systems hit different things. Bombs and guns hit the superstructure. Torpedoes and mines hit the hull. Different systems on the ship affect different things besides firepower (speed, C&C, damage control).

Every gun or weapon has to be considered a hit just like a hull. Didn't I just say that? There is an equipment editor. Whatever kind of hits makes you happy. Again you're adding trivial detail that's not necessary in order to make your 'can of worms'.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
I think it would be far better to have the ship design specify the fraction of the current naval speed that the ship could maintain at full repair. Damage would lessen that - till repaired.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
That's not how it works at all. A ship unit can evaporate just like a land unit. It's equipment (usually the entire ship itself) can then be sent to the "on hand" pools - even if it was in an impossible situation and should have been sunk. "On hand" equipment can then end up in another ship unit the very next turn.

Tell that to the crew of HMS Hood. What about isolated land units that are out of supply? You're making this hard.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
A simple version of this would be to just have two structures: Hull and Superstructure. Each would have its own damage value and armor value.
Here's the good news: There are some things we can do that are easy and should be effective:
First, Naval Interdiction. Air units set to NI and artillery (including the guns on Naval vessels and coastal artillery) will interdict sea movement that occurs in their range.
Ad hoc Task Forces: Naval units moving by group movement will defend against interdiction as a group. So, the lead unit triggers interdiction, but the interdiction attack is delayed until the entire group is in the hex.
Target Priority: Ability to target naval stuff in the hex, and the ships given target priorities that heavily favor CVs over others etc.
Spotting: Units on coastal hexes and naval units treated like peak hexes for purposes of spotting enemy naval/embarked units. Like peak hexes, it happens in real time. So, the Yamato spots those DDs and interdicts them long before they get close enough to fire at it. Same for coastal guns.Embarked units defense strengths: Treated like in transport vessels with naval strengths based upon weight (ground defense and armor values no longer used).

Here's even better news. YOU'RE ON THE DEVELOPMENT TEAM. You have the power to implement or not implement whatever your little heart desires, while I can tap my keyboard for another 7 years with no impact at all. I'm telling you right now; I won't do it. Which for you, is probably the best news of all.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay...Massive detail, or errant nonsense...

Arrant, not 'errant.' Knights are errant, not nonsense.

...think I'll stay clear for the moment otherwise.

[Oberst_Klink]

What kind of Kasperltheater is going on here? Why ain't he gonna collect his articles and publish them at 'Proceedings'?

kLiNk, Oberst

[macgregor]

The sophistry in this forum is overwhelming. So this is the new demographic. Honestly I thought the 'rubber-ducky' comment to require the most intellect, and that's saying something. I guess that's what Matrix wants and needs now. People like me have no place here, and I'm proud to say that. Well you asked Ralph, and I gave it to you. Not that it did any good.

[Oberst_Klink]

Mac,

your input and suggestions,valid or not; it simply creates answers the development team already pointed out and they've been quite helpful and patient, no? Is it so hard to accept that since the release of TOAW 1 back in 1998 there have been a lot of new features, upgrades and so on implemented?

I quote from http://normkoger.com/truth.html...

The game has an inadequate air and naval system, even after allowing for the fact that the game is primarily concerned with land combat. These are so overly simplified that they have little capability to portray the War In the Pacific in World War II...

Guilty as charged. We had no intention of modeling the Pacific War in any detail. Please see page 95 of your players' guide, under the heading "Make It Fit".

All ports/beaches have the same capacity to handle shipping or supply. I am sure the Western Allies wished that was the case on D-Day! If the game's model were accurate, they must have been confused about needing to take Cherbourg or Antwerp. How about weather, or damage from combat having an effect on any of these capacities? These real-world considerations were overlooked too.

Two words: Event Engine.

Your suggestions and your persistence are admirable, but as many of us, including the creator (Norm, not g*d) pointed out, it's not a simulation for a Halsey, Yamamoto or Doenitz; neither is it suited for Ira Eaker, Goering or Dowding.

Just my thoughts about a thread that tails through the forum like the barbaric hordes' invasion of the Roman empire.

kLiNk, Oberst

[macgregor]

Forgive me. My field is in the creative arts. I'm not a mathematician. Perhaps it's totally ego-maniacal of me to think that I might be more creative than you, Ralph, and Norm Koger. It just seems to me that if you have a product like this, where a development team is going to continue to improve it. That the naval combat model has to be addressed at some point, or else you are simply making superficial improvements. Ralph has this 'wishlist' as it were. If he cannot achieve what I (though many people wanted, now i feel quite alone)wanted, perhaps he could admit; 'no can do' on this, and officially list this idea as 'scrubbed'. Perhaps it's my destiny to work with a company like Matrix in developing a game that offers the creativity and detail of TOAW, yet with a tolerable naval combat model. OTOH games are coming out every month. Perhaps all I have to do is wait. Whatever the outcome eventually is, I do not regret trying to get this done with TOAW, though perhaps coming up as short as I did.

[macgregor]

Any improvement that requires a disable function. or has a thread started on how to disable it, has to be challenged as to whether it is an improvement at all.

[larryfulkerson]

The TOAW naval combat model as it is now is the strategic abstraction of what happens tactically.  The time scale of each turn is compressing all the tactical things that happen into one event so that what has happened during that turn tactically is represented by only one "result" ( whether the ship is sunk or survives ).  And the can of worms that has been refered to is trying to un-abstract the strategic "result" into something that players can do tactically during only one turn of game time.

I think Norm had the right idea when he told us that TOAW doesn't model naval combat very well simply because during each game turn ( 1/2 week or monthly or however long each turn is ) tactical things happen that can't be modeled in an operational sort of way. To do an accurate model of naval combat ( or aerial combat for that matter ) you'd have to descend into a more tactical sort of model and that just can't be done in an operational game. Victory games had a game called Vietnam which used the level of abstraction of an operation instead of a time constraint for each turn. Which you can do easily in a board game where the player controls how long each turn is whether it's a day or a week or however long each operation lasts. But TOAW uses the constraint of "time" for the length of each turn so that whatever happens during that amount of time has to be modeled somehow. And some things are modeled accurately and some things aren't. Land combat happens relatively slowly so that inacurrencies in the model are effectively ignored. But naval and air combats happen so much faster that the inaccurencies make a difference and show up immediately.

Let's face the facts here folks. Some things can't be modeled at all except as an abstraction given the constraint of a game turn being a certain length of time.

[macgregor]

Hi Larry. It's easy to cite Vietnam because the North had no navy to mention. What was the Falklands I might ask? You can say the game can't do it. I'll accept that(or at least that this devteam can't). But to emphasize 'operation' as if by definition it doesn't include naval combat is pure sophistry.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: macgregor

Hi Larry. It's easy to cite Vietnam because the North had no navy to mention. What was the Falklands I might ask? You can say the game can't do it. I'll accept that(or at least that his devteam can't). But to emphasize 'operation' as if it doesn't include naval combat is pure sophistry.

Indeed. Really, thinking about it, the naval model in TOAW is hopeless -- without qualification.

Even simply treated as floating artillery, it doesn't work. The ships' guns can fire enormous distances inland in close coordination with ground troops -- which, historically, most forces were unable to do.

Think about it. Take North Africa. Fine big British navy, and its battleships can fire up to 35 km inland. So why not use it to bust up the Axis front in Crusader?

Because -- with the sole exception of the USN in the modern era -- ships were just never used that way. They seem to have confined themselves to line-of-sight. At any rate, almost all the examples I can think of involve the ships opening up when the enemy is a kilometer or two from the shore. Like, take Anzio. American ships guns break up the Axis attack -- once it gets to within about that range. They're not tearing apart German formations 20 km inland.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

As a scenario designer,

If some parts of 9.3 were implemented in some fashion in a future patch, what controls would you need to be able to make a fun scenario.

My big concern is that the PO would not have a clue and would quickly be dogfood...

I think you worry too much about the AI. I, for one, never play against it.

Obviously, a matter of priorities. However, the inadequacies of the AI shouldn't become a stumbling block to coming up with a decent naval model.

Come up with something that works for PBEM and then do what you can for the AI. That would be the approach I'd advocate. Otherwise, we're winding up with the AI tail wagging the whole OPART dog.

[macgregor]

deleted

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: macgregor

I don't profess to have everything worked out. I was asked to come up with ideas and I'm doing that. I've proposed that there be a %50 chance for each side to see the other along with a chance no one sees anyone. Per enemy movement point spent in a patrol area, I'm not proposing more than a %10 chance of intercept. This doesn't sound like a 'can of worms' to me. If I've proposed too large of a patrol area potential then make the max area smaller. That offers the kind of uncertainty that is always present in naval warfare. Units on patrol would be allowed to move to intercept, but I'm not suggesting they get any advantage in combat. They will still occupy a physical location that can be attacked if spotted -again with the %50 rule. Newsflash; there were sea areas saturated with patrols. You can use the word 'fortified' all you want, but it's equally 'errant nonsense'. If a unit is supporting ground ops, it will be 'on station'. If it is 'on patrol' it won't be able to support ground ops.

This is becoming close to incomprehensible. However, if you drop the nonsense about increasing naval unit strengths, and the unit counter is not shown on the map, the a Patrol area is just what we would require for Subs. They really are independent of the normal Theater Recon, since they tend to be under water or can get there in a hurry.

Surface vessels, on the other hand, are not independent of it. In contrast, those vessels are probably more vulnerable to recon than land units are. Land units can use camo and take cover. Naval vessels can't. They're exposed on the sea. Being mobile doesn't change that, either.

So, here's what we have: Ships will be revealed by the Theater Recon or other recon methods. When that happens, there is no issue about where they are. That's a known. Other ships, however, will not be revealed. They will be invisible to the enemy player and he will only find them by doing more recon. If and when fleets bump into each other, there will be Naval Combat Resolution procedure that determines firing order, based upon a number of factors. That system will be adequate. There's no need for a Patrol feature for those surface vessels. We do need to find a solution to the "scour the seas with a DD" trick I mentioned at the start, though.

Which is it? We have a recon system or we need recon planes? I'm not against having recon planes, but the current system takes aircraft and air superiority into account already.

If we're going to do Carrier clashes, we'll need actual recon aircraft. Otherwise, the carriers would move blind - only able to see to the horizon. Whether that replaces or just augments Theater Recon would be up to the designer.

No. They'll just ram their periscopes into ships, or drill holes in their hulls. This is ridiculous. An ASW value (anti-submarine warfare) will be what some surface vessels and planes will use to attack submarines, not the other way around. You can have depth charges, hedgehogs, whatever you want, as long as you give it an ASW value. Subs can attack with whatever weapons systems or torpedoes they have. These systems will have to be injected into the current combat sequence.

So we agree - torpedoes, not just ASW, would also be needed. You're the one who said otherwise: "A single ASW value should be all that's necessary."

Personally I would suggest not putting tiny fleets on patrol. I can lead you to how the game can work, but not how to play it.

But that's just what players will do to game the enemy force into reacting in the wrong direction - unless we inject a lot of complex sophistication into the Artificial Stupidity - oops, I mean Artificial Intelligence. Just as they do now with Local Reserve.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
I think this could possibly be handled a different way. For one thing, if your scenario is about a contested amphibious landing, then use a short turn interval. That way, the players themselves can decide when, where, and how to react. If, on the other hand, you're doing a strategic scale scenario, there might be a way to use variable turn-intervals to effect reaction. So, if the normal turn-interval was one-week, then when a reaction would be triggered, the turn-interval would automatically shorten to, say, one-day, for a week (or whatever the designer specified). Again, this would allow the players to make reaction decisions – far better than the computer can do.

The more I think about this, the more I like it. It may be the solution to the Reaction problem. Since I've got the bit in my mouth, I'll run with it.

Let's say the designer sets a "Reaction" turn interval that's some fraction of the normal turn interval. The enemy player places some of his naval forces on Reaction and specifies their reaction zone (limited by designer choices). In the friendly turn, those zones are represented by something like Exclusion Zones - they can't be entered under a normal turn interval. But, if the friendly player decides that he will want to enter them this turn, then he opts for the Reaction Turn Interval - the turn is then immediately adjusted to it, and the Reaction Zones can now be entered, but the turn interval is now shorter - allowing time for reactions by the enemy player in his turns.

So, you design a WWI scenario at whole-week turns. The Allied player places the Grand Fleet on Reaction with a zone that covers the North Sea. Things proceed normally at one-week intervals until, one turn, the Central player decides to sortie the High Seas Fleet. To do so, he first must exercise the option to use the Reaction turn interval. Seven one-day turns are inserted for the current turn. Now, he can move into the North Sea, but then the Grand Fleet can react as well.

In this method, the player, not the computer makes the reaction decisions. There is some loss of FOW, since the zones are revealed, but that could be compensated for by allowing a designer-specified number of dummy zones.

Every gun or weapon has to be considered a hit just like a hull. Didn't I just say that?

Maybe. What does it mean? Regardless, try to understand, when the hull is damaged, the ship sinks, no matter how undamaged the superstructure stuff is. That doesn't happen with the kluge. It would have to be coded in. Furthermore, a torpedo only hits the hull, not the superstructure. That would have to be coded in. Gunnery primarily hits the superstructure, not the hull. That would have to be coded in. Armor is not represented at all, making BBs vulnerable to DDs - if there's enough of them.

Tell that to the crew of HMS Hood.

That was exactly my point! The Hood was sunk. It's various component parts didn't magically turn up in the British Naval Yard, ready to pop onto some other BB out at sea the next turn. That's just what the current system does.

Here's even better news. YOU'RE ON THE DEVELOPMENT TEAM. You have the power to implement or not implement whatever your little heart desires, while I can tap my keyboard for another 7 years with no impact at all.

Only Ralph has any implementation power. And he has human limits.

I'm telling you right now; I won't do it. Which for you, is probably the best news of all.

Stop questioning everyone's motives.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

As a scenario designer,

If some parts of 9.3 were implemented in some fashion in a future patch, what controls would you need to be able to make a fun scenario.

My big concern is that the PO would not have a clue and would quickly be dogfood...

I think you worry too much about the AI. I, for one, never play against it.

Obviously, a matter of priorities. However, the inadequacies of the AI shouldn't become a stumbling block to coming up with a decent naval model.

Come up with something that works for PBEM and then do what you can for the AI. That would be the approach I'd advocate. Otherwise, we're winding up with the AI tail wagging the whole OPART dog.

We agree, Colin. (Alert the media!)

[Telumar]

We agree, Colin. <- Did he really just say that? Gotta make a screenshot before he edits his post..[:D]

[macgregor]

Assume ...and assault! So Curtis, you've created this little scenario assuming 2 things. one that single DDs would be represented and two, that this intercept would force a stack into the combat hex. Wrong!

Do you even know what ASW means? Because according to what you've posted, you don't. Is there not already a naval value and did i NOT already state that naval weapons would be injected into the combat sequence?

The only thing you apparently agree with is your own bollocks! The only pertinent thing you posted was that only Ralph can decide to implement. Thank GOD for small favors! From here on in I will only discuss this only with Ralph and perhaps other members, since your admitted inability to comprehend what I've proposed renders you incapable of having this debate. If not insignificant as well.

[ColinWright]

...

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Telumar

We agree, Colin. <- Did he really just say that? Gotta make a screenshot before he edits his post..[:D]

I'm posting it elsewhere even as we speak.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: macgregor

Has anyone noticed how with every one of Matrix's games, they've catered to this demographic that wants to spend 6 months to a year playing a single game against a computer? These 'mildly autistic' types are also the most gullible, and will believe whatever sophistry is heaped upon them. Of course they may be a little quicker at counting things and thus may take less time than us 'social creatures'. I'm going to make a suggestion for a little truth in advertising here. 'Matrix: Games for Savants'.

There is the minor detail that it's hard to make money selling 37 copies of each title.

I can also think of a couple of games that I play vs. AI but am not interested in playing PBEM. If someone wants to do that with TOAW, fine with me. It's just not my interest.

Finally, a lot of people are going to want to start out versus the AI. It wouldn't be much fun getting your ass handed to you on a plate the first few times out. I didn't buy this thing and then go out looking for a PBEM match. Long time ago, but I'm sure of that.

[ColinWright]

I don't want to wade into the Curtis/McGregor furball, and I don't even want to rehash my own theories on how naval warfare should be simulated in detail, but I will make two observations (both of which I have expanded on previously).

1. The current naval model is grossly inadequate. We don't need perfect simulation -- but we do need something that works well enough for a subsidiary aspect of the game. The air war model, for example, works well enough for a game whose primary focus is land warfare. Something like that would be good.

2. Trying to simulate subs is stupid.