Potential naval game improvement option.

[Hellfirejet]

I have been playing all versions of Strategic Command since they first appeared many years ago, and in all that time one of the weakest part is the naval game, don't get me wrong it has improved over the years but some major issues still remain.
Something that could be fairly easily implemented in to the game is more target type options used other than just Naval, Carrier, Sub, and Transport. The one size fits all for target type naval is to simplified, and I feel it could benefit being expanded upon.

Small Naval, Medium Naval, Large Naval.

Small Naval = Destroyer,Torpedo boats,MTB
Medium Naval = Light Cruiser & Heavy Cruiser
Large Naval = Dreadnought,Battleship,Battlecruiser

For example in the game at the present time a Destroyer inflicts the same amount of damage regardless of the size of the naval unit it is attacking and that is just 1 point.
Now if we used the above combat types to calculate potential damage, the Destroyer could be more effective in game by attacking enemy Destroyers.

Destroyer attacking other Small Naval Target = 3 Points of damage
Destroyer attacking Medium Naval Target = 2 Points of damage
Destroyer attacking Large Naval Target = 1 point of damage

or

Cruiser attacking Small Naval Target = 4 points of damage
Cruiser attacking Medium Naval Target = 3 points of damage
Cruiser attacking Large Naval Target = 2 points of damage

or

Battleship attacking Small Naval Target = 5 points of damage
Battleship attacking Medium Naval Target = 4 points of damage
Battleship attacking Large Naval Target = 3 points of damage

[Hellfirejet]

The main reason that I'm posting messages here about the naval game is simple, the naval game is not good whatever way you look at it, land combat has better combat options whether that be combat against the soft or hard target, fighting within a town or city or across the river, for example, naval warfare has none of that, as far as I'm aware it's just a straight-up calculation about attack v defence combat value, and the defence combat value has nothing really to do with a ships ability to resist damage ie its armour or internal hull subdivision watertight compartments, it's speed or range distance it's calculated based on its own attack strength returning fire?

[BillRunacre]

Yes, please do as while we cannot promise any changes at the moment, it is always interesting and useful to hear new ideas. Good to see you back too.

[Hellfirejet]

Thanks Bill, Glad to be back.[:)]

[The Land]

ORIGINAL: kirk23

The main reason that I'm posting messages here about the naval game is simple... as far as I'm aware it's just a straight-up calculation about attack v defence combat value, and the defence combat value has nothing really to do with a ships ability to resist damage ie its armour or internal hull subdivision watertight compartments, it's speed or range distance it's calculated based on its own attack strength returning fire?

Yes, this is the case. Defence Value is the damage you dish out to a unit attacking you.

And you're right that the system doesn't handle the asymmetries and nuances of naval warfare well.

How about....
Gun Attack, Torpedo Attack, Gun Defence, Torpedo Defence, Gun Resistance, Torpedo Resistance, Positioning

Positioning is based on Readiness (and therefore on strength, supply and morale) but can also be affected by weather, and be degraded by engaging in combat etc. Probably also the distance from coastal hexes also affects Positioning - if you are in a Norwegian Fjord then MTBs have a bonus and a carrier a penalty, etc.

Carriers have the highest inherent Positioning, following that in order of speed (destroyers/MTBs highest -> battleships, then subs, then transports). Some units (carriers, destroyers, light cruisers) can offer an 'umbrella' where they also increase the Positioning value of nearby units.

When a naval attack is made, the first step is a Positioning roll. If I am a battleship with Positioning 30 attacking a carrier with Positioning 80 in good weather, then I am likely to lose the Positioning roll. If I'm a heavy cruiser with Positioning 50 attacking a carrier in a storm that has effective Positioning 40, then I have an advantage.

The winner of the Positioning roll determines whether any of the following happens: a 'gun' engagement, a 'torpedo' engagement, or no engagement at all. The engine calculates the expected results of each and uses some rules to pick what's in the winner's most interest. This isn't a simple 'most damage' but also the relative value; a destroyer may initiate an engagement with a battleship that does 3 to the battleship and 4 to the destroyer. (Maybe also there is a 'mode' toggle where you can set a ship to be cautious, aggressive or neither).

If it's a 'gun' engagement then you use 'gun' attack and defence values. The attack value reflects the attacker's abilities with that weapon (so battleships and heavy cruisers have 0 torpedo attack, carriers have 0 gun attack, and those units will never select those weapons; however a battleship has some torpedo defence representing its secondary gun armament firing at attackers, carriers have some gun defence representing their air wing/escorts fighting at very close range).

Further, damage received is reduced by the 'resistance' value. So battleships have tonnes of 'gun' resistance but only moderate 'torpedo' resistance. A destroyer unit might have Gun Attack 3 and Torpedo Attack 3, but expect to do 0 damage to a battleship when using Gun Attack, and 2 when using Torpedo Attack...

I think this would be way too complex to add to the existing game, but it'd be an interesting approach for the future - and it's compatible with the non-stacking, hex-based model.

There'd be slightly more complexity in working with strikes by carrier air wings.

[Hellfirejet]

You are correct that what you have written is a bit complex to code into the game, but it just goes to show what can be achieved with some thought given to it to improve the naval game, after all, that is my goal here improving the naval game beyond the simplistic combat calculation we have at present, that has no bearing on what actually happens with naval combat.

Also, the fact that there is no stacking makes it all the more reason to have ship units listed as Squadrons, Divisions, and Flotillas rather than named ships which have always been the case with the Strategic Command series, don't get me wrong I would like nothing more than to see all the historical named ships in-game but at the scale named ships don't work, with a little research historically named Squadrons and Divisions, etc would be a much better fit for all these games.

But that is a distraction from what needs to improve to help the naval game be much better, so I'm making a plea here to any gamers who have any interest in improving the naval game. Please contribute and post messages here and then maybe we can help improve the naval game for all thank you.[;)]

[Taxman66]

The whole naval system needs to be ripped up, scrapped and rethought from the ground up.

The emphasis on gang attack hit and run is not how naval combat works.
It's particularly irritating when there is no chance at reprisal due to weather changes or the attacker fleeing into a port with his remaining movement.
Subs did, but very rarely, offensively engage surface ships (and usually when they caught alone). There is also no way to build fleets where ships supported each other.

Other than Tech there is no difference in the ship types between navies. If you think the Italian navy could operate with the range and speed in the open Atlantic like the UK, US or even the GE & FR ships you would be sorely mistaken.

I'd like to see a fleet and area based system like a World in Flames light naval system.

[Hellfirejet]

You are 100% correct in what you say. The whole naval system needs looked at, I have said it many times naval warfare is not an extension of how the land campaign works, it is completely different.

An area based system like World in Flames works well, but I can't see that ever being used for Strategic Command.

For me the worst part of how the current naval game plays, is as you say gang attack hit and run. Naval game needs a rethink not tweaks, naval game has been tweaked since the very beginning of the Strategic Command series, roundabout 20 years ago I think, the naval game needs to go back to the drawing board.


I would like to draw gamers attention to concerns I raised 6 years ago about Strategic Command :

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.a ... age=2&key=

[CaesarAug]

All very interesting ideas, gentlemen. I am currently dedicating some time on improving naval warfare in my home-made mod, but obviously working within the game parameters.

Borrowing on ideas from Hairog’s Naval War Mod, I’m making similar and also somewhat different adjustments and from the testing so far, results do seem to be better.

Mainly, all naval units, except submarines, motor torpedo boats (modded as destroyer escorts), transports and both amphibious types, get a +6 naval ZoC, and all naval units get 12 action points (24 naval cruise), except standard amphibious. This means that for virtually all naval units, entering a naval ZoC costs half the normal naval movement allowance, which further restricts sailing in from afar, and those hit & run tactics.

Furthermore, practically all naval units get a 100% retreat chance to non-resource hexes, 2-hex maximum retreat (possibly allow for additional retreat hexes), when damage reaches the default threshold for retreat. So disengagement occurs more frequently, and even with that 1 or 2 hex retreat, depending on the original distance to an attacked, retreating unit, the unit that was attacking, as well as other potentially attacking units, may not have sufficient action points now, in that same turn, to close the range, i.e., naval ZoC of +6.

The overall effect is restricting those gang up, hit & run naval tactics. Values require more testing but like I said, results are surprisingly good and quite different from game-default.

Testing naval evasion parameters as well, per naval class or across the board, research bonuses in this regard, the possibility of only capital ships getting 2 strikes (heavy battleships, battleships, battle cruisers), in order to make these more powerful with respect to heavy and light cruisers and destroyers.

As for differences in national navies, (also armies and air forces for that matter) the editor can very easily mod the respective combat values for each nation, and tech research values can likewise be edited differently per nation.

I do believe that certain adjustments with the powerful editor can improve naval warfare, given the current game engine, at least in some aspects.

[Elessar2]

ORIGINAL: BillRunacre

Yes, please do as while we cannot promise any changes at the moment, it is always interesting and useful to hear new ideas. Good to see you back too.

Reiterating my call for admirals. Attach them to a ship (technically that would be stacking, but carriers and their air group already stack, and that works, more or less).

[Hellfirejet]

Hairog's naval mod is a big improvement on the standard game. In the naval game evade has to play a bigger part in combat, also increased zone of control, but with a zone of control of +6 having a retreat of only 2 or 3 does not work, as that can't break free in most cases from other enemy nearby ships with their zone of control, I'm testing using the editor with a retreat 50% of a ships action points.

Also the fact that alternating turns does not work well with the naval game, 1 - 3 weeks in game time nope does not work. I think of naval combat as happening on maybe 1 or 2 days a snapshot as it were a small portion of a game turn, then ships disengage, they don't hang around.

[Hellfirejet]

Elessar2, I would love to see Admirals attached in some way to a Capital ship, maybe as a menu option that gives nearby ships a boost to morale effectiveness.

[OxfordGuy3]

I agree with Taxman66, but suspect those changes are not possible with the current engine. Assuming that's the case, then I'd still support some of the other, perhaps more feasible, tweaks discussed above, to try to improve the naval game a little.