Explain the Navy..or does it need rewrite?

[incbob]

Navy is my thing and so I looking at how the naval system works either I do not understand what the counters mean or it needs re-worked.

When I have a Strength 10 unit does the type of unit it is matter? It seems to with DD and SS, but what about surface ships or it is just a flat strength 10 and unit type doesn't matter. If unit type matters than the naval system has problems.

Let give you an example:
I have a German 10 Strength DN (Dreadnought). I know where a British 10 Strength CL (this should be light cruiser) is at. I attack the CL. Why is my DN losing 20-30% of its strength the the CL losing 60%.

Either the DN should not be losing so much or the CL should be losing more. I see this with other types of units as well. The only thing that should be able to fight a DN is another DN or a CC (Battlecruiser).

This, I do not believe is a quality issue. If it is, then the game needs rewritten. In WWI the quality of the German Navy and the British Navy was equivalent. In fact, if anything, it might be said that the Germans had a slight superiority in damage control and gunnery, only their lack of # of ships held them back.

Battleships or Pre-Dreadnoughts also appear to be a problems. A 10 Strength DN or CC (Battlecruiser) should have no problem with them. They might be equivalent to a CA at best.

[Torplexed]

That sounds pretty similar how naval warfare works in the Strategic Command series as a whole. In SC World at War, I just attacked a 10 strength Australian CL with a 10 strength Japanese BB. The light cruiser lost seven points. The Japanese battleship 2. More powerful ship types will do better, but they'll take losses all the same.

[incbob]

By BB do you mean Dreadnought or Pre-Dreadnought?
If you mean Pre-Dreadnought then I can agree with that result. Pre-Dreadnoughts real advantage over a modern (1914-1917) Light Cruiser would have been in heavier armor and not much else.

My problem is when I use a Dreadnought and get those results.

[Torplexed]

There are no dreadnoughts or pre-dreadnoughts anymore in World at War which covers 1939-1945 and also includes the War in the Pacific. Just battleships and battle cruisers at top of the surface ship hierarchy. All in the shadow of the aircraft carrier. However, the surface battle dynamics between capital ships and lighter ships sound like they are much the same.

[Robotron]

Wait a moment, Im confused...

BB = Battleship of at least Dreadnought class in terms of WW1
BC = Battlecruiser
CC = American built Battlecruisers after WW1
B = Pre-Dreadnought

That's correct, right?

DN = does this abbreviation even exist?

And saying that Pre-Dreads have no other advantages than heavier armor when compared to Light Cruisers?
What about the firepower?

[incbob]

And saying that Pre-Dreads have no other advantages than heavier armor when compared to Light Cruisers?
What about the firepower?

A Pre-Dreadnought would have a slight advantage in firepower over a 1914-1917 CL. A Pre-Dread might have something like 2x 10" and 4x 8", with other smaller guns, while tghe CL would have a couple of 4-6" guns. The CL's real advantage will be with torpedoes.

[Torplexed]

ORIGINAL: Robotron


DN = does this abbreviation even exist?

It's right there on the counter. (If you use those)

[Robotron]

The CL's real advantage will be with torpedoes.

Well, if the CL got into torpedo-range before getting blasted, that is.

[The Land]

ORIGINAL: incbob

Navy is my thing and so I looking at how the naval system works either I do not understand what the counters mean or it needs re-worked.

When I have a Strength 10 unit does the type of unit it is matter? It seems to with DD and SS, but what about surface ships or it is just a flat strength 10 and unit type doesn't matter. If unit type matters than the naval system has problems.

Fellow naval warfare enthusiast here!

It does matter, as better units have higher Attack and Defence values. But Defence values do not reduce damage received, only the amount your opponent takes.

But the naval side of the game isn't a great reflection of naval combat. A design decision has been made to keep the same combat system as land combat where range and armour do not really matter, and the one-unit-per-hex principle, and prepared attack bonuses if you start in an adjacent hex, and surprise attacks when a unit encounters another - none of which is great.

The game won't change because reworking this would be very extensive. So we are where we are.

[FOARP]

ORIGINAL: incbob

And saying that Pre-Dreads have no other advantages than heavier armor when compared to Light Cruisers?
What about the firepower?

A Pre-Dreadnought would have a slight advantage in firepower over a 1914-1917 CL. A Pre-Dread might have something like 2x 10" and 4x 8", with other smaller guns, while tghe CL would have a couple of 4-6" guns. The CL's real advantage will be with torpedoes.

Wasn't there a (near) cruiser v. pre-dreadnought battle at Coronel? HMS Canopus lacked the speed to engage the German cruisers, they avoided it and won the battle by blasting the other weaker British ships to smithereens. Sure, if Canopus had been able to get into gun range of Sturdee's cruisers it might have been a different story - but it wasn't, and that's kind of the point.

[Xsillione]

Don't really understand the problem, two units (well, group of units, since each chit usually represent multiple ships, even more for the smaller ships), yes, the DN and its built in escorts did way more damage (hence the 7 or so damage), but still got some hits, the cruisers and their escorts could do a torpedo hit or just score some lucky hits with their guns, so a few points of damage is perfectly reasonable. If you add in that large ships has a chance to simply ignore the damage, it is quite realistic in one on one, the naval issues come to surface in the larger actions.

[FOARP]

I think the biggest problem with the naval game as-is is the fact that subs are extremely OP against capital ships. I'd like to see destroyers escorting the capital ships (i.e., automatically attacking submarines that attack capital ships that the destroyers are adjacent to). Actually sinking capital ships with submarines should occur only if you're dumb enough to send the capital ships out without destroyer escort.

[Xsillione]

Subs also an issue, and a bit trickier to solve, since in the WWI era, detection was almost impossible if the sub was submerged, but also the submerged time was very short. Would be closer to reality, that in the enemy turn the subs would be considered surfaced, and easily attacked, with a chance to slip away with crash dive. If no crash dive, they stay and fight on the surface, with massive losses.

[FOARP]

ORIGINAL: Xsillione

Subs also an issue, and a bit trickier to solve, since in the WWI era, detection was almost impossible if the sub was submerged, but also the submerged time was very short. Would be closer to reality, that in the enemy turn the subs would be considered surfaced, and easily attacked, with a chance to slip away with crash dive. If no crash dive, they stay and fight on the surface, with massive losses.

Hmmm... U-18 was sunk when submerged in 1914 (RN ships saw her periscope and rammed it). Later in the war hydrophones and depth-charges had already been invented - the first submarine to be detected and sunk via hydrophone was UC-3 in April 1916.

[OldCrowBalthazor]

I think the Naval works okay in an abstract way only with Pbem. Against the AI not at all once you get used to it. In a perfect world like putting the ships into large taskforces (and I've seen a few attempts like taskforce type mods etc.), this would be more realistic imho. However, I've always assumed that the ships counters represent multiple ships and that predominate type represented also has escorts/tenders etc, particularly the capital ships. The abstracted way it is done here in the newer SC titles works ok if its conducted tactically in a narrow sphere of operations, as I think was attempted here. It's an abstraction that fits the overall design of this game, which is not intended to be as deep as lets say a Grigsby game. This game can be deep though in other ways, through careful analysis of reports, long term planning, short term opportunities, and a basic knowledge of game mechanics. So, yes, the Naval aspect is a little wonky, but not so bad as some think....which is my humble opinion.