Naval Game?

[Hellfirejet]

There is a very good reason why I give naval units an EVADE advantage in combat,and the reason is this,unlike land and air units who can be reinforced virtually anywhere as long as they are in supply,naval units can only reinforce or repair in a friendly port,in my eyes that places naval units at a huge disadvantage,so I counter this disadvantage,by giving them an evade bonus during any combat.

Also has radar been added to the game in any shape or form as part of one of the new research options maybe?Radar if added to naval units for example could double the spotting range from 1 hex to 2?

[ILCK]

One thing i am thinking is that the time scale that works well with land units isnt as good with naval units. Naval units cover massive amounts of territory in a turn.

I was watching the NightPhoenix game and wonderinghow he could stop an allied invasion of Spain/France where he is super thin in troops because everything is east. I thought he might want to buy bombers to use to patrol the area BUT from what i can tell i could mosey an amphibious force up outside the range of the bombers on turn 1 but inside my ships move range. Turn 2 they make a dash for the coast and blammo all that airpower would actually never be able to do ANYTHING to those naval forces. In fact, land based air power is pretty much irrelevant in both the Paradogs and NightPheonix videos because naval ships can hit and run from outside air range to attack a target near the coast and then flee back outside range rather easily. Carriers also feel like big fat targets because i can dash surface units in and attack them from vast distances without ever being hit by the air assets. Am i missing some sort of reaction attacks from air units other than escorts and interceptors?

[Hellfirejet]

I think I'm in the minority when it comes to the naval game,I have given up trying to convince people that the naval game can't work like the land game they are completely different.I also don't play the game like the vast majority do,I play all these games using daily turns,not weekly or monthly to simulate winter months.I buy the game and then go straight into the editor to fix everything I don't like,usually starting with the game turns and naval combat etc.If you play the standard game,Submarines are in fact the best naval units by far,while battleships and cruisers are pointless due to the damage they take per attack,its far to easy to have a swarm of units attack a Battleship etc,and before you know it they are sunk,its even worse when you think that a Battleship is supposed to represent more than one ship its nuts,just like when Submarines are attacked they can avoid damage by diving to evade,battleships and cruisers should also benefit from a percentage chance of evading damage,instead of taking damage nearly every time they are attacked.

Plus all combat is not Attack v Defence it's handle more like Attack v Counter Attack.

[NightPhoenix]

The main way for me to stop any kind of naval/amphibious invasion would be to rail units from the Soviet Union to Western Europe. As any kind of landing does only allow you to move a limited amount this should give you sufficient time to contain the allies and then eventually throw them into the ocean. Although air units will not help you that much there, i think air units are indispensable when on the offensive. I personally feel that many times i would not be able to break through a certain area or city without air units, especially choke points such as Kerch or in North Africa would be almost impossible to grab without air support. They also help in lowering morale and efficiency.

Although i would say that air based power is very much needed on land, i think indeed on sea, they seem less useful, or i haven't found the optimal way to use them yet. As it is with regards to the naval game, i understand that this is not the way normal naval engagements go. Fair enough, but we are playing a game, railing armies from Moscow to Madrid in 1 week is also fairly unrealistic, so are many things in the game. This game is most likely not created with the goal to be as realistic as possible, but to give a presentation which comes close to that, while trying to provide a experience which is as enjoyable as possible to the player.

I don't know personally what made the developers decide why naval warfare was supposed to be done like this, but they might have thought that people would get frustrated seeing how their naval engagements would fail time and time again, where they would spend 20 minutes every turn on just trying to get the navy right and/or start save/reloading frantically. There is a game which models naval warfare very realistically i think, or comes at least close to. It's Gary Grigsby's war in the Pacific. You are going to spend hours on just playing 1 turn (which is 1 day in game-time), but it is realistic. This game doesn't mean to do that and consequently playing through the war doesn't take you 1+ year in real life to complete.

All in all i think that people haven't seen enough of the game, and depend on Paradogs Gamer, my and other peoples videos a little too much. By no stretch are we playing optimally, and would probably do many things different if we started over. Besides we as humans can exploit the predictability of the AI which never makes for a fair game, especially in the water it seems. I personally feel that individual aspects of the game (even in beta) work out very well, and looking at the big picture combines into a great game. So for me at least its a big thumbs up for the developers.

[Hellfirejet]

Hi NightPhoenix,I have been following your excellent video AAR thank you for taking the time to create them, I have all the Strategic Command games and I do really enjoy playing them,but with the addition of the new unit movement into the game,this has had a serious detrimental effect on the naval game.For land combat its easy because for example,if you attack a City which is defended by whatever unit,it is fixed in place,I meaning the City ain't going anywhere it's a static target.But at sea everything is a moving target,now as soon as a ship is located,it gets attacked by many other units,as long a their movement allows,I mean you can get submarines moving from 20 hexes away,and the target ship is just treated as if it were a City fixed in position? when its a target moving at 20 knots or more,hence the reason I give ships an evade damage percentage chance.[;)]

Plus land units get an entrenchment bonus allowance,ships have no such allowance,because you can't entrench at sea can you hehehehe[:D]

[apec]

As others have pointed out, it is harder to balance the naval part of a grand strategy game vs the land/air part, Strategic Command is no different in this aspect compared to other similar games.
While not perfect, the naval warfare in SC3 is well integrated with the rest of the game and the developers have done a great job expanding the rules of the naval warfare in SC3.

However, from what I have seen so far, I wonder if the new movement rules, allowing ships to move, strike and retreat, is the cause of the high losses. Previously, the strikes on an individual ship were limited by the free hexes aroud the ship therefore, under lucky circumstances, the ship could survive and retreat,
instead the new rules allow the player to focus all the strikes on the most valuable target until it is sunk.
Just to explain better with an example, if I spot a carrier with 4 DD around it I can ignore the escorting DDs and launch as many strikes I have available at the carrier with good chances to sunk it if I have 4 or 5 ships at range (under the previous rules I could only strike the carrier from the 2 free hexes around it).

To be clear, I am not criticizing the current naval rules, I like them, I am just wondering if they open the way for some gamey tactics.

Just for sake of discussion, I wonder if limiting at 2 per turn the naval attacks on a single ship would give the capital ships a higher chance to survive; however I would not limit the air strikes to simulate the importance of the fleet carriers and of the ground based air power.

regards,

[ILCK]

ORIGINAL: NightPhoenix

The main way for me to stop any kind of naval/amphibious invasion would be to rail units from the Soviet Union to Western Europe. As any kind of landing does only allow you to move a limited amount this should give you sufficient time to contain the allies and then eventually throw them into the ocean. Although air units will not help you that much there, i think air units are indispensable when on the offensive. I personally feel that many times i would not be able to break through a certain area or city without air units, especially choke points such as Kerch or in North Africa would be almost impossible to grab without air support. They also help in lowering morale and efficiency.

Although i would say that air based power is very much needed on land, i think indeed on sea, they seem less useful, or i haven't found the optimal way to use them yet. As it is with regards to the naval game, i understand that this is not the way normal naval engagements go. Fair enough, but we are playing a game, railing armies from Moscow to Madrid in 1 week is also fairly unrealistic, so are many things in the game. This game is most likely not created with the goal to be as realistic as possible, but to give a presentation which comes close to that, while trying to provide a experience which is as enjoyable as possible to the player.

I don't know personally what made the developers decide why naval warfare was supposed to be done like this, but they might have thought that people would get frustrated seeing how their naval engagements would fail time and time again, where they would spend 20 minutes every turn on just trying to get the navy right and/or start save/reloading frantically. There is a game which models naval warfare very realistically i think, or comes at least close to. It's Gary Grigsby's war in the Pacific. You are going to spend hours on just playing 1 turn (which is 1 day in game-time), but it is realistic. This game doesn't mean to do that and consequently playing through the war doesn't take you 1+ year in real life to complete.

All in all i think that people haven't seen enough of the game, and depend on Paradogs Gamer, my and other peoples videos a little too much. By no stretch are we playing optimally, and would probably do many things different if we started over. Besides we as humans can exploit the predictability of the AI which never makes for a fair game, especially in the water it seems. I personally feel that individual aspects of the game (even in beta) work out very well, and looking at the big picture combines into a great game. So for me at least its a big thumbs up for the developers.

First thanks for the videos, really learning a lot about managing supply in particular.

I agree, that trying to be everything to everyone is tough and while PacWar was great for naval and air it was frustratingly stupid on land so i guess it is hard to have everything. I guess there is really no way to "fix" the problem because either naval units move crazy distances in a turn or they move insanely unrealisticly short distances. Do wish there were "reaction" strikes from bombers set to something like a "Naval Interdiction" just to deal with some of these issues.

[Rosseau]

I wish I had read this thread several years ago, to better understand the naval game in SCII. We may need to re-learn some things in SC3. Of course, it's tough for a strategic game of this scale to simulate some of the naval nuances being discussed.

I would assume all are familiar with the Naval Warfare Simulations series of games, such as Rule the Waves. Hoping they will come out with WW2 game, as many agree this is the best model of naval combat out there. But of course, it is way beyond SC3 to simulate in such detail.

Thanks again for the SCII tips!

[James Taylor]

Although the "naval interdiction" setting is an excellent idea, it may require some sophisticated coding, not to mention the problems the AI may encounter implementing the feature.

Let's go with something simple already included in the mechanics, the retreat feature.

Depending on the severity of damage, or randomization, allow the attacked unit to retreat one or two hexes and become undetected. Following enemy vessels maneuvering to attack would be subject to the "surprise" encounter in which both or either vessels take damage.

Allow air attacks to be exempt from causing the retreat rule as they are obviously fast movers and have the benefit of the "high ground" observations.

[BillRunacre]

Great discussion everyone and I just want to add that we have made a change since the videos started up, and this is to increase the chance of a naval unit retreating when attacked.

This now has a 50% chance of occurring if the attacked unit's predicted strength after combat is 5 or less. So they will not be sitting still and taking punishment quite as much in future as you may have seen in the videos.

In terms of defending coastlines, Fighters to intercept enemy bombers will help because an amphibious invasion without air support is going to struggle to take key objectives if they are heavily defended.

Secondly, having mobile armoured reserves slightly inland will be useful to counterattack an invader... think of what could have happened in Normandy if the Allies hadn't had such aerial supremacy.

[Christolos]

A great discussion indeed.

While I like the idea of increasing the chance a naval unit will retreat if it senses that it will be severally pounded if it stayed put, I wonder if the actual % chance of retreat could be modified to take more into account like whether it could be beneficial for the unit to hold its position (despite the level of predicted casualties) if the attacking forces might be too weak to follow up the attack such that by holding its position, higher casualties could be inflicted on the enemy by counter attacking. In other words, how would holding postion at the cost of high casualties be determined to be viable or not?

Another way to look at this would be in the case a naval unit is already at strength 6 and is being attacked by let’s say a strength 7 or 6 enemy unit, would it make sense to retreat 50% of the time solely on the basis of losing one additional strength point down to 5, regardless of whether the attacking unit may also suffer 1 or even 2 damage points?

I also wonder if it would be interesting, in this respect, if a system (similar to TOAW) could be implemented such that naval units could be set to minimize losses with a higher chance of retreating/evading or tolerate higher losses with a lower chance of retreating/evading that could also be modified by readiness and morale. I don't know if the game mechanics would allow this? There is also the issue of how well/effectively the AI would be able to use such settings…

Cheers,

C

[Hellfirejet]

ORIGINAL: Bill Runacre

Great discussion everyone and I just want to add that we have made a change since the videos started up, and this is to increase the chance of a naval unit retreating when attacked.

This now has a 50% chance of occurring if the attacked unit's predicted strength after combat is 5 or less. So they will not be sitting still and taking punishment quite as much in future as you may have seen in the videos.

In terms of defending coastlines, Fighters to intercept enemy bombers will help because an amphibious invasion without air support is going to struggle to take key objectives if they are heavily defended.

Secondly, having mobile armoured reserves slightly inland will be useful to counterattack an invader... think of what could have happened in Normandy if the Allies hadn't had such aerial supremacy.

I'm very glad to here that naval units will no longer be sitting ducks,the retreat option is a positive that will indeed help the naval game,how far do units now retreat 2 or 3 hex maybe?[:)]

Also as a deterrent has the RAF been enhanced to ensure air superiority is maintained against any German Operation Sea Lion,because Britains air defence against Paradogs Gamer successful invasion was ineffective.

[Christolos]

I too am very glad that naval units will no longer remain sitting ducks but I just wonder whether the way to implement this based randomly (50% chance) and solely on the determination of a triggering threshold (if predicted casualties result in remaining strength of 5 or less), is the best way to go...

C

[Biker1984]

ORIGINAL: kirk23

because Britains air defence against Paradogs Gamer successful invasion was ineffective.

I think that anti-air and anti-tank units need to inflict heavier damage when facing units which they are meant to repel. I would say that AA is triggered they deal always between 1-3 damage to an enemy aircraft. I have seen them miss a lot of times or just doing 1 damage to an aircarft that the loss are neglectable. Considering 1 stack of planes would represent 200 planes, this would equal 20 to 60 planes when hit by AA.

[Hellfirejet]

It is my fervent hope that Britain will reclaim its place in history,after the game designers fix their total lack of resistance highlighted by Paradogs Gamer AAR video's. In his campaign Britain is no more than a small bit player,when in history they were the glue that held the Allied cause together.

Britain is far stronger than the game would have you believe,the Royal Navy ruled the waves and Germany and Italy were no match,the Royal Airforce held out against all the odds during the Battle of Britain,and dealt the Lufftwaffe a bloody nose that they never really recovered from.

Where is Britain's Home Guard? ( Every Town and City should be defended )

As for moving their government to Canada etc,I know its only a game but I think Britain should move their government to Edinburgh or Belfast for that matter,before even considering upping sticks and running away with their tails between their legs.

Winston S Churchill: We Shall Fight on the Beaches


We Shall Never Surrender

[Hellfirejet]

ORIGINAL: Biker1984

I think that anti-air and anti-tank units need to inflict heavier damage when facing units which they are meant to repel. I would say that AA is triggered they deal always between 1-3 damage to an enemy aircraft. I have seen them miss a lot of times or just doing 1 damage to an aircarft that the loss are neglectable. Considering 1 stack of planes would represent 200 planes, this would equal 20 to 60 planes when hit by AA.

I agree the AA units are not effective enough.[;)]


Anti-aircraft fire terrified military pilots and crews. Few aircraft could fly above the range of large-caliber anti-aircraft guns, and aircraft were not fast or maneuverable enough to evade anti-aircraft barrage fire. As the war progressed, improved fire control methods and equipment plus increased numbers of AAA weapons made defensive fire more fearsome.


Anti-aircraft guns surrounding Moscow were one of the best of the war since German bomber losses over the USSR capital were so high that bombing missions targeting Moscow were called off, relatively early into the German Soviet war.

[Toby42]

Watching Paradogs AAR, I notice that naval units are not affected when they are in port and enemy ground units surround it? I'm speaking of the Canadian DD in port in Britain. In Dundee I think?

[ILCK]

ORIGINAL: kirk23

ORIGINAL: Biker1984

I think that anti-air and anti-tank units need to inflict heavier damage when facing units which they are meant to repel. I would say that AA is triggered they deal always between 1-3 damage to an enemy aircraft. I have seen them miss a lot of times or just doing 1 damage to an aircarft that the loss are neglectable. Considering 1 stack of planes would represent 200 planes, this would equal 20 to 60 planes when hit by AA.

I agree the AA units are not effective enough.[;)]


Anti-aircraft fire terrified military pilots and crews. Few aircraft could fly above the range of large-caliber anti-aircraft guns, and aircraft were not fast or maneuverable enough to evade anti-aircraft barrage fire. As the war progressed, improved fire control methods and equipment plus increased numbers of AAA weapons made defensive fire more fearsome.


Anti-aircraft guns surrounding Moscow were one of the best of the war since German bomber losses over the USSR capital were so high that bombing missions targeting Moscow were called off, relatively early into the German Soviet war.

The AA units are specific formations but, and again haven't seen urban bombing really in the videos to know, but i would assume/hope that cities have some inherent AA capability because the idea that only a handful of cities at best are protected by flak batteries is also unrealistic. Strategic bombing has to have some cost to thiose doing it.

[James Taylor]

AA has always been an attachable addition to any resource once you have level one research.

Simply right click on the resource and upgrade, just like a unit receiving the attachment. Addition of a strategic defensive value for SAC type bombings appears for cities/resources but combat/HQ units get TAC defense for the upgrade.

[BillRunacre]

Just to add that cities do have an inherent AA value too, so coupled with upgrades they can get better at resisting bombing... providing the enemy aren't upgrading their Bombers too. [:)]