SC3's Naval Model

[SeaMonkey]

I thought I would start a thread for the naval discussion. To me, this part of the game is paramount to producing an SC that will be playable for the rest of my life and one that following designers will look to for reference as the one that set the pace for all other global naval simulations.

I'm thinking that this part of the game will need its own map, something like the present "strategic map" but a little different. One that can represent perhaps an hemisphere and then scroll to the other showing all the seazones that a fleet unit could traverse in one SC turn. Just like the present SC configuration, the operational map will be projected above it with the greater detail of the centralized SZ(seazone)(s) of the strategic map.

In this manner a naval unit with an AP of say 40, could traverse four SZs in one turn, or one and have 30 APs left for actions limited by the rules.

[Robert24]

Hi SeaMonkey,
I use to play a board game called Fast Carriers, by SPI; I loved it. In the game are an operational map, one example is the whole of the Solomon Islands, and a tactical map. The fleets would maneuver and search on the operational map; and if an attach/combat was called for it would take place on the tactical map. How about this...?
-Robert

[Robert24]

Hi SeaMonkey,
Another idea [:'(] ...
What if we keep the sea map hexes, but have 3 to 4 sea phases (combat/movement) and only one land phase?
-Robert

[SeaMonkey]

Perhaps that may be the way to go Robert. Now you've catalyzed another idea in me, maybe we should have this hex filled zone effect all over the map. The zones would be considered the "strategic" layer, while the hexes fulfilled the operational aspects. No longer would we need to use "operate" to move units around as they would possess a strategic movement allowance able to traverse so many zones in a single turn to relocate.

That would do away with the ability of air units to move half way around the globe and jump across enemy held areas to "magically" appear on the enemy's doorstep. I could also see a progression of strategic assets of the layer based upon different research levels like "infrastructure", IT, LR, etc. Come to think of it, this might be the way to handle the LoC and supply projection capabilities of the combatants.

[Robert24]

Having the whole of the map with hex-filled zones would be ok if it helps solve the integration of sea and land.

Good point about air units moving around the Globe... just add a third movement factor - rebasing - should solve that issue.

[DSWargamer]

One thing that annoys me in Civilization, is the need to take a turn to move a unit one hex, and then one hex and then one hex and in the process it looks like it takes yeeeeeears to go a distance that in modern life, is something we do casually in days.

Now if you were a tribe migrating your entire people, well that would be like asking Toronto to just up and move to Vancouver. I would expect it to take more than 3 days. But, if I asked a friend to move from Toronto to Vancouver, they could be there in 3 days.

A military unit, if told go from England to Hong Kong, is not going to take forever, but, I don't really want to drive the unit the whole way there across the Atlantic and Canada and the Pacific and through Australia and up into Asia, or by boat down the Atlantic and around Africa and into the Indian Ocean. I just want to put the unit into a box on the map that says go from England to Hong Kong. And be told it will happen 3 turns later or however. And if the Axis have raiders in operation in the South Atlantic, they get a shot and trashing the convoy and it is an abstraction and there is never any counter to counter contest, as I am simply not interested in playing tactical for every last bloody German surface raider in a grand strategy game.

We need counters for somethings and for somethings having counters only makes the game a pain in the ass.

I don't need a hex for every portion of the South Atlantic, if the South Atlantic has only 3 places worth mention. It would also make the game map a lot smaller and thus a lot easy to scroll if the map was a combination of hexes for land and primarily hexes for coast with regions for all the waters. I don't need to know how many hexes it is from Canada to England. It's not even relevant. The convoy starts in Halifax and it either makes it or it doesn't and I don't want to waste effort wondering, do they find me? no, move a hex, do they find me? no, move a hex... it sucks the fun out of grand strategy to force it into tactical when it is not required. Frankly anyone that wants to tactical an entire war at the grand strategy level sounds like a person I would prefer to not meet.

What mystifies me, is why computer game makers can't think like board game makers.

[SeaMonkey]

Yep DSW moving all those counters around a vast blue map of hexes is a big PIA, just like the ones on the land areas. One of the reasons I'm advocating a DoD feature is that you can lump them all together and move the whole bunch.

[SeaMonkey]

Let's imagine some "zonal" naval features. Since naval engagements of WW2 lasted a few hours to perhaps two days any naval units from other zones would not be allowed to participate in the battle. They could move into the disputed zone for initiating combat in the next turn. Air units from adjacent zones could enter the fray but only with limited strike capability, assuming air units have multiple strike characteristics, perhaps they would only get one.

I would think if an enemy sub(s) was spotted, that since subs possess unusually high evasion abilities, that only aircraft based in the same zone would get the opportunity to attack and only naval units set on "patrol" and "in range" could add themselves to the encounter.

For an example of how "the search" would be conducted, add all the zonal deployed units' search value and subtract the enemy's evasion value and if the randomized number is less than or equal to the difference, the enemy unit is spotted. There could be other modifiers due to weather and "radar" technology, etc.

[pzgndr]

I have been rather comfortable with the SC naval game, and the additon of more naval unit types has helped improve the flavor. I do kinda prefer the convoy system in CEAW with actual convoys that move along variable routes that can be attacked and defended. Adopting something like that might be good.

I foresee a couple of issues with the naval zone idea in SC. Combat is relatively simple between one attacking unit versus one defending unit, although the combat formulas get complicated. Players have control over how to orchestrate battles and the sequence of attacks. That control would be likely be lost to some code algorithm to resolve combat between multiple attackers and defenders in a naval box. Or possibly not and it may work ok if players can designate attacks. The other issue is if these naval zones get implemented, they should be editable. Most games hardwire this sort of thing, so I'd prefer to retain editability rather than make significant changes to the model. Besides, Hubert doesn't need to make SC3 too similar to what World in Flames is already doing. Better to keep doing what he has been doing well all these years; take the successful and enjoyable SC model and port it back to hexes. [8D]

[SeaMonkey]

It seems we are going to get a longer range movement system for naval units with the restriction of being unable to engage when using the full allowance. Also, there's some discussion about a more realistic amphibious model, with an inclusion of "Mulberry" like structures for establishing supply off invasion beaches. I believe I also noted that transports can unload across the structures.

It would be nice if someone in the know could comment, send us down the path of knowledge instead of speculations, Al?.....Bill?.........Hubert?

[Happycat]

ORIGINAL: SeaMonkey

It seems we are going to get a longer range movement system for naval units with the restriction of being unable to engage when using the full allowance. Also, there's some discussion about a more realistic amphibious model, with an inclusion of "Mulberry" like structures for establishing supply off invasion beaches. I believe I also noted that transports can unload across the structures.

It would be nice if someone in the know could comment, send us down the path of knowledge instead of speculations, Al?.....Bill?.........Hubert?

Bill's out, recovering from surgery and Hubert is just back from holidays. I'm sure he will weigh in as soon as he gets up to speed.

Meanwhile, I think this discussion is worth having, even if it's speculative. Now is the time to float (pun intended [:)] ) all ideas with regard to naval ops.

[Hubert Cater]

Hi SeaMonkey,

Those are some of the working ideas we have planned at the moment but of course nothing set in stone just yet so as Happycat mentioned, now is definitely the time to float any further ideas/suggestions

Hubert

[SeaMonkey]

Great to see you back HC, I hope Bill is recovering successfully, I've included him in some of my thoughts with the Almighty. Speaking of "inclusion", one thing that always bothered me is how naval vessels can remain at sea for extended periods without much consequence, as long as they don't raid or are involved in combat. I know that with sea supply they can virtually stay out forever, but there is the wear and tear on the men.

What I think would be more realistic is where after a certain period of game time, say 6 months, the morale and efficiency of these units would drop to zero until they have ported at a primary supply source(10 supply) for one turn, thereby restoring their combat efficiency. Call it shore leave!

Now one other thing for this post, we need a mechanism for training our naval forces just like what will be available for the land forces. Any thought of implementation?

[Hubert Cater]

If we include a training mechanism it should cover all unit types [:)]

[SeaMonkey]

All you "other" people out there looking in on this thread........you see THIS! That's right, an interactive developer soliciting ideas from the forum. It doesn't get any better than this. SC3 is here to mold, to sculpt, into what your dream wargame would be for this scale.

Thanks Hubert for your always .....well almost ..always... prompt response.[;)] It seems things will be better over here at Matrix.[:)]

Again, I'm assuming, does "dynamic" movement system mean that you can leave a unit that still has remaining APs and come back to it later for further actions?

[Hubert Cater]

Thanks SeaMonkey and that is the plan for the dynamic movement system but it is also planned to be optional so you can still play in "classic" mode if that is your preference.

Hubert

[SeaMonkey]

Uhhhh, optional? I'm dumbfounded, way above my expectations, I'm feeling humbled by your exceptional attention to detail.....really..optional?[&:] Just common sense dictates some questionable conclusions of how the AI will manage something like this. OK, who am I to question the Master Programmer, I desist......I think I'll withdraw into a silence mode for a moment while I digest this tidbit....optional???[8|]

It has been awhile since I've been surprised![8D]

[Robert24]

ORIGINAL: Hubert Cater

Thanks SeaMonkey and that is the plan for the dynamic movement system but it is also planned to be optional so you can still play in "classic" mode if that is your preference.

Hubert

This is why I have been so engaged with SC for so many years!!![:)]

[mcaryf]

Hi SeaMonkey

You suggested I posted on your SC 3 thread so here goes.

I am currently testing ways round an anomaly I have identified in the combat resolution calculation in SC 2, I hope that by posting here the anomaly will be addressed in SC 3.

The anomaly became apparent to me when division sized land units were introduced alongside army sized units in the AOD and AOC variants of the SC series. SC combat resolution only seems to take account of the broad category of a unit rather than any size characteristic. Thus if a unit is categorised as a ship (BB, CA, DD) then it will cause or suffer the same damage regardless of which of those 3 different unit types it actually is. So a BB attacking another ship might be calculated as causing, for example, damage 2. This will then be applied as a strength point loss to its victim whether it is another BB or a DD or a CA. This seems to me to be both unrealistic and unfair in game terms. Plainly a strength loss of 2 will cost that much more to repair on a BB than it would on a DD. Thus a BB unit finding itself alongside both another BB and a DD would do best in economic terms to attack the BB.

The situation is not quite so clear cut as this because there is also the issue of return fire. The same situation occurs in that the damage caused is based entirely on the combat target values of the type of defending unit rather than the unit it is defending against. Thus a defending DD might cause damage 2 and this will be applied to its attacker where the attacker was a BB, a CA or another DD.

Naval warfare in WW2 was actually subject to a fairly high degree of chance with the possibility that a flotilla of DDs could do serious damage to a BB TF with a lucky salvo of torpedoes. The anomaly is more obvious in land warfare where it would have been highly unlikely that a single attacking division might cause significant damage in terms of percentage of strength to an army consisting of, say, eight divisions.

I am currently experimenting by using the SC facility for applying percentage chances for combat damage evasion to unit types to address this anomaly. I had previously typically used 20 percentage points of evasion spread between attack and defence for naval units both to add a more realistic degree of randomness to naval warfare and some national characteristics. Thus my Italian units had higher defensive evasion to reflect their typically greater speed than equivalent RN ships. I am now experimenting with evasion factors of around 40% for BBs, 20% for CAs and 10% for DDs.

My current opinion is that use of these levels of damage evasion for naval combat is an improvement on the standard game but it is not an ideal solution. I should say that I also give BB units two strikes so there is still a reasonable chance that some combat damage will be inflicted by them. That does highlight another SC anomaly which is that units under attack can return fire any number of times but I will leave discussion of that issue to another post.

I have also applied evasion to land combat (my armies get 40% and 2 strikes like BBs) and I find that the evasion only seems to apply to damage as units that have evaded damage can still be forced to retreat. Personally I think retreating is a good thing in this situation. Retreat does not apply to naval combat (perhaps it should?).

Unfortunately using damage evasion does not address an annoying anomaly in SC which is that a naval unit encountering another is stuck in situ. I would really like to see a true evasion capability in SC 3 where naval units can pass each other in the night and combat does not automatically occur. I will post separately about my experiments with creating Seaways using Loops to facilitate naval units moving between the oceans travelling realistically long distances between elapsed turns. In this implementation units will not encounter each other in mid-ocean and to me this is a better compromise as unintended mid-ocean encounters were very rare in WW2.


Regards

Mike

[BillRunacre]

ORIGINAL: SeaMonkey

Great to see you back HC, I hope Bill is recovering successfully, I've included him in some of my thoughts with the Almighty.

I am recovering well thanks SeaMonkey, and this week I'm starting a gradual return to work.

Just catching up with all three forums after four weeks off has taken ages!!

Lots of interesting discussions and food for thought to keep my brain ticking over, with so many ideas to consider. It's great to be back!! [:)]

Bill