Consultation: Patching the naval game

Commander - The Great War is the latest release in the popular and playable Commander series of historical strategy games. Gamers will enjoy a huge hex based campaign map that stretches from the USA in the west, Africa and Arabia to the south, Scandinavia to the north and the Urals to the east on a new engine that is more efficient and fully supports widescreen resolutions.
Commander – The Great War features a Grand Campaign covering the whole of World War I from the invasion of Belgium on August 5, 1914 to the Armistice on the 11th of November 1918 in addition to 16 different unit types including Infantry, Cavalry, Armoured Cars and Tanks, Artillery, Railroad Guns and Armoured Trains and more!

Moderators: Lord Zimoa, MOD_Commander_The_Great_War

User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 42130
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: Consultation: Patching the naval game

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: Keke

Keep it simple is all I'm saying.
warspite1

I completely agree - I am only proposing 4/5 concepts.

- More (but not an unmanageable number) of naval counters with different ship types
- Recognition that not all navies were the same (but ensuring that each has a role to play)
- More pain when operating ships in restricted waters
- A "search roll" to determine whether adjacent fleets actually find each other
- Loss of efficiency prompting a need to return to port (someone mentioned recently)
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
User avatar
Hellfirejet
Posts: 3040
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2010 1:19 pm
Location: Fife Scotland
Contact:

RE: Consultation: Patching the naval game

Post by Hellfirejet »

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Keke

Keep it simple is all I'm saying.
warspite1

I completely agree - I am only proposing 4/5 concepts.

- More (but not an unmanageable number) of naval counters with different ship types
- Recognition that not all navies were the same (but ensuring that each has a role to play)
- More pain when operating ships in restricted waters
- A "search roll" to determine whether adjacent fleets actually find each other
- Loss of efficiency prompting a need to return to port (someone mentioned recently)

I don't mind loss of efficiency,as long as it only impacts the attack strenght,and has no effect on the already fragile durability of ship units in game.[;)]
Make it so!
User avatar
Hellfirejet
Posts: 3040
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2010 1:19 pm
Location: Fife Scotland
Contact:

RE: Consultation: Patching the naval game

Post by Hellfirejet »

I have noted in my games at least,that the AI always attacks the weakest target in naval combat,this should not happen,in naval warfare Battleship's should attack the enemy Battleship unit as its first priority,and leave the cruisers to fight the cruisers etc where possible.[:)]

As for Destroyers being added to the game,this is a must have,Battleships can still be escorted as per normal,IE abstracted screening destroyers in company.but the new Destroyer flottilla units,should be the only ship type, allowed to have the ASW speciality upgrades,while Battleships & Cruisers have a minimal anti-submarine ability throughtout the entire game.[;)]
Make it so!
User avatar
Hellfirejet
Posts: 3040
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2010 1:19 pm
Location: Fife Scotland
Contact:

RE: Consultation: Patching the naval game

Post by Hellfirejet »

Well anything that makes the naval game better,has my backing.As for destroyers they are a must have,for the naval game,the Battleship & Cruiser units,with their abstracted destroyer screens are historical,the destroyers with these forces were there,to protect the bigger ships, from enemy destroyers attempting mass torpedo attacks,the Battleship and Cruiser fleets were also all moving to fast, for any submarines to get into firing positions.

To have a game with any sort of anti-submarine deterent,then only destroyers can do this job,they should be the only type of vessel, allowed to benefit from upgrade anti-submarine technology.[;)]


Whats the time scale of having the naval game improved via patches,will this be part of the next update?
Make it so!
Myrddraal
Posts: 335
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2012 7:41 am

RE: Consultation: Patching the naval game

Post by Myrddraal »

will this be part of the next update?
The new destroyer unit and escort function are unlikely to be in the next patch. The blockade events are much more likely.
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 42130
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: Consultation: Patching the naval game

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: Myrddraal
will this be part of the next update?
The new destroyer unit and escort function are unlikely to be in the next patch. The blockade events are much more likely.
warspite1

Any thoughts on what I have proposed previously please?
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
User avatar
Hellfirejet
Posts: 3040
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2010 1:19 pm
Location: Fife Scotland
Contact:

RE: Consultation: Patching the naval game

Post by Hellfirejet »

For the naval combat,is there some way the game can portrait the depletion of the ships magazines, when they are involved in a sea battle?

I mean for example,lets say a Battleship unit has a shell factor of 4,then for every attack it makes, its shell factor reduces by 1,so that when it has made 4 attacks,then it must return to port to rearm and replenishes its depleted magazines![;)]
Make it so!
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 42130
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: Consultation: Patching the naval game

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: kirk23

For the naval combat,is there some way the game can portrait the depletion of the ships magazines, when they are involved in a sea battle?

I mean for example,lets say a Battleship unit has a shell factor of 4,then for every attack it makes, its shell factor reduces by 1,so that when it has made 4 attacks,then it must return to port to rearm and replenishes its depleted magazines![;)]
warspite1

I think the danger with this is that it would be taking the naval game into micro-management territory. The depletion of the magazines should be part of the loss of efficiency - isn't that how the land units are treated?
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
User avatar
Hellfirejet
Posts: 3040
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2010 1:19 pm
Location: Fife Scotland
Contact:

RE: Consultation: Patching the naval game

Post by Hellfirejet »

Well they will have to come up with something,because ships can't stay at sea indefinitely,not in world war 1.[:D]
Make it so!
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 42130
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: Consultation: Patching the naval game

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: kirk23

Well they will have to come up with something,because ships can't stay at sea indefinitely,not in world war 1.[:D]
warspite1

Which is why I suggested that every turn a ship stays at sea it loses an efficiency rating. This covers a whole manner of things - the need to replenish ammo, crew fatigue, wear and tear on machinery etc.
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
User avatar
Ralzakark
Posts: 225
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2012 2:22 pm

RE: Consultation: Patching the naval game

Post by Ralzakark »

ORIGINAL: Myrddraal
If entente naval power in the north sea then drops to less than half of German naval power, Germany’s convoys would be ‘re-activated’ and convoys would spawn for Germany.

Would this be accompanied by introducing a realistic balance of naval power between Great Britain and Germany?
Ossipago, Barbatus, and Famulimus
Myrddraal
Posts: 335
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2012 7:41 am

RE: Consultation: Patching the naval game

Post by Myrddraal »

We are adding more starting naval units, and hopefully the balance of power will be more realistic.

We'll release all our changes in open beta before before the patch gets finalised, so there will be time to comment and help us get it right.
User avatar
Hellfirejet
Posts: 3040
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2010 1:19 pm
Location: Fife Scotland
Contact:

RE: Consultation: Patching the naval game

Post by Hellfirejet »

ORIGINAL: Myrddraal

We are adding more starting naval units, and hopefully the balance of power will be more realistic.

We'll release all our changes in open beta before before the patch gets finalised, so there will be time to comment and help us get it right.

Thankyou,I really like this game and with a better naval feel to it will make it even better cheers![:)]
Make it so!
User avatar
jack54
Posts: 1447
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 8:25 pm
Location: East Tennessee

RE: Consultation: Patching the naval game

Post by jack54 »

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: kirk23

Well they will have to come up with something,because ships can't stay at sea indefinitely,not in world war 1.[:D]
warspite1

Which is why I suggested that every turn a ship stays at sea it loses an efficiency rating. This covers a whole manner of things - the need to replenish ammo, crew fatigue, wear and tear on machinery etc.

I like these ideas, A gamey 'naval' tactic that I have used against the AI... as the Entente when blocked by Ottoman forces at the Sinai I send an Amphibious garrison along the coast but never attempt a landing; this causes CP forces to follow while I move up and down the coast teasing them..

Maybe,Attrition strength hits on an amphibious force at sea for extended periods?
Avatar: Me borrowing Albert Ball's Nieuport 17

Counter from Bloody April by Terry Simo (GMT)
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 42130
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: Consultation: Patching the naval game

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: jack54
ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: kirk23

Well they will have to come up with something,because ships can't stay at sea indefinitely,not in world war 1.[:D]
warspite1

Which is why I suggested that every turn a ship stays at sea it loses an efficiency rating. This covers a whole manner of things - the need to replenish ammo, crew fatigue, wear and tear on machinery etc.

Maybe,Attrition strength hits on an amphibious force at sea for extended periods?
warspite1

I thought that was in the game already?
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
Aurelian
Posts: 4087
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 2:08 pm

RE: Consultation: Patching the naval game

Post by Aurelian »

Keep them at sea long enough they go yellow then red.
Building a new PC.
User avatar
catwhoorg
Posts: 686
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 3:47 pm
Location: Uk expat lving near Atlanta

RE: Consultation: Patching the naval game

Post by catwhoorg »

Amphib forces currently lose efficiency, not strength.

Maybe once the efficiency bottoms out, then a strength adjustment could occur ?
Image
FOARP
Posts: 712
Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2012 10:05 pm

RE: Consultation: Patching the naval game

Post by FOARP »

RE: German convoys - really, giving Germany convoys after they defeat the Entente at sea is just giving them extra power at the moment when they no longer need it. After all, if the Entente navy has been defeated, you hardly need convoys giving X00 PP every month since you can now just go ahead and win the game as you are.

I would much, much prefer the following:

1) A 1% morale malus to all CP countries for every 2-3 turns the Entente have a larger number of battleships than the Central Powers. Obviously starting fleets will have to be re-balanced to represent the superiority the Entente had in this regard.

2) A 5% morale malus to a country every time it loses a complete convoy - this would motivate the CP to go out and sink Entente convoys.

3) Make subs easier to build. Right now submarine warfare just doesn't justify its cost.
American Front: a Work-in-progress CSA v USA Turtledove mod for SC:WW1 can be seen here.
User avatar
Templer_12
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 11:29 am
Location: Germany
Contact:

The U-boat warfare is terrible!

Post by Templer_12 »

ORIGINAL: Myrddraal

Dear friendly forum users! We (the LGS) are looking at ways we can improve the naval game in a patch. We've been watching the efforts of some modders on these forums with interest, and thinking of ways we could incorporate some of their ideas into an official patch. We’re trying to finalise a plan for what to change, and your input would be very much appreciated.

NB: Patching a game isn't the same as modding a game.
When you’re modding a game, anything goes. You can rip up the rule book and start again. When patching a game with an official you have to be a lot more careful. For example:
You might create a mod where any unit in the enemy red zone loses 1 hp per turn, to simulate losses due to mines. Anyone who downloads your mod will know exactly what their getting, no nasty surprises. But many more players will download a patch than a mod, and many of these won’t be forum posters. If we include something similar in a patch, we’d have to be very careful about how this new rule was introduced to the player, possibly with a new overlay on the map showing ‘mined’ hexes in such as way as the player is immediately aware that something has changed. Otherwise we’d be much more likely to be flooded with bug reports (My fleet hp is falling every turn, this game is borked!!!) than happy customers.

So what are we considering:
- A new ‘Destroyer’ unit type, as implemented by kirk and xris.
The reason this unit wasn't added originally is that naval units are meant to represent entire fleets (due to a lack of stacking in this game). Destroyer units by themselves don’t make much sense in that context.

- An ‘escort’ ability for all naval units.
This escort ability would be very similar to the air intercept/escort mechanic, where armed fighters automatically protect units which are attacked from the air. For naval vessels, the range of this ‘escort’ ability would be just 1 hex. This means that units adjacent to each other would support each other if attacked. A mechanic like this in a sense compensates for the lack of stacking, and allows for some sort of combined arms approach to naval defense. Three naval units can now sail together, support each other defensively and could be considered a ‘fleet’ (rather than the single unit counter model we had previously).
Different units could provide a different defensive bonus when escorting. Destroyers would provide a very large defensive bonus to ships they escort, but provide very little offensive impact, meaning that fleets without destroyer ‘screens’ would be much more vulnerable to taking casualties.

- Simulate the blockade of German ports
At the start of the game, Germany would have convoys, just like France & Britain. When Britain first attacks a German convoy (usually within the first few turns of the game), a historical event would appear saying ‘Germany’s ports blockaded!’ ‘Britain has intercepted merchant shipping heading for German ports. No more merchant convoys will sail for Germany until the British hold on the North Sea is weakened’.
If entente naval power in the north sea then drops to less than half of German naval power, Germany’s convoys would be ‘re-activated’ and convoys would spawn for Germany.

We’re hoping that these three changes would be enough to make the naval game more meaningful, as well as more tactical. Comments and ideas very much appreciated!
The U-boat warfare is terrible!
Absolutely awful - the worst thing I've ever seen in a strategy game.

Why can't submarines, which are attacked, do not submerge?
Submerge (visually on the map) with a % chance to escape without damage?
The ability to submarge is what characterizes a submarine!
Something important like this may never be abstracted!
The Strategic Command series shows a way to do this.

U-boats were and are dangerous and effective!
See yourself again the introductory video of Ypres - Artois scenario to listen carefully and listen closely ...
"... Submarins have Proved to be deadly. While difficult to catch and even harder to destroy ...".
Your submarine warfare design is embarrassment for the whole game! [:@]

A destroyer unit is not that important to me.
After you've explained now why you waive the destroyer, it's understandable and make sense (at least to me).

I really like how do you implement the convoy system in the game
Sometimes you can see through the fog of war only a short "wiper", which can then hunted in your next turn.
That's a mini-game for themselves.
I would, however find more fun to hunt (and escape) with functionale submarines.

And maybe you will also find better sound for the submarine movement and torpedo launching?
The vanilla ones are....well. [8|]
User avatar
freeboy
Posts: 8969
Joined: Sun May 16, 2004 9:33 am
Location: Colorado

RE: The U-boat warfare is terrible!

Post by freeboy »

I dissagree regardinghow easily it is to kill subs, If you move towards them I do not think you can even attack them, they are thus very hard to kill... perhaps they should do more damage to conveys though...
In regard to the abstraction of arming ships at sea, these are long turns...
the other way to do long turns is in a box in the middle of a sea, boring for a hex based game imo..

did these changes come forward in 1.3?
"Tanks forward"
Post Reply

Return to “Commander - The Great War”