Are you going to update the Naval Model?

[Mike Carroll]

A real weakness in TOAW in the big scenarios (those are the ones I like) is that the naval model does not work very well. Any plans on making this better? Add in subs? ect.

[Bombur]

-Excellent question. I would also add the air model. Of course, we don´t want the level of detail of WiTP and UV, but damage to individual ships, across the sea supply rules, correction of the movement calculation bug, naval interdiction missions for aircraft, better modeling of air superiority missions and other changes would be wonderful.

[Rob322]

Personally I'd dump the naval model and deal with it through the event engine. This is a land war game after all, not Harpoon. [:D] The only time you need the navy is for amphibious assaults and really it's just shore bombardment. Few navies have sent their convoys of troop ships into seas known to contain enemy capital ships, the risk is too high. Therefore, I say dump the naval aspect of the game. Honestly I can't think of one scenario from TOAW where the naval ships were really useful save the occasional bombardment.

[Erik2]

I disagree.
There are many examples of landbattles where the naval components were important and the outcome not a sure thing at all.
Two of my own scenarios; in Weserubung the invading Kriegsmarine could well have been intercepted by the Royal Navy.
In Crete the RN did intercept and sunk one German convoy and caused another to turn back.

[Mantis]

Agreed. Crete is an excellent example. Also Europe Aflame - fight out the entirety of WWII, and there's going to be some good naval actions. The floating arty pieces that represent the warships are simply inadequate.

[steveh11Matrix]

Not to mention Sealion, or The Solomons, for example!

Steve.

[DoubleDeuce]

I would say any scenario taking place in the Pacific would need some modelling of naval forces. If the naval aspect can be redesigned I say go for it.

[Pippin]

I never used the navy much at all in TOAW. I also did not get the imprssion TOAW was supposed to have major naval support. Seemed to me to always be more of a corps engine.

[Vincenzo_Beretta]

The first fix should be the ability for fleets and air squadrons to be put in a "naval interception" mode. I would be happy with even this single fix - no more Kriegsmarine streaking through Gibiltair while the RN watches from the Rock.

[pad152]

Dream Game

TOAW - land combat, and UV/Witp supply and naval warfare!

Looks like Matrix now has the peices let's hope they can put them together.

[Rob322]

ORIGINAL: Pippin

I never used the navy much at all in TOAW. I also did not get the imprssion TOAW was supposed to have major naval support. Seemed to me to always be more of a corps engine.

My point. I won't say naval has nothing to do with land combat but this game is a land game, the naval forces always felt like they were an afterthought. My feeling is you do them right or not at all.

For instance, you play the Korea 2000 scenario. It was always fun when the North Korean navy engaged say the US navy and while they were eliminated they did 50% casaulties sometimes. That's because there was simply a generic "missile frigate", nothing more. In all reality, there's a far difference between an American and a North Korean frigate and in all reality the North Korean navy would've been wiped clean pretty fast. That's just one of many issues with naval forces that generally caused me to ignore them in this game. Can the model be made to really handle them intelligently?

[coralsaw]

Drop the naval system, abstract landing. There are tons of great suggestions already on the land system improvements that should have higher priority, IMHO.

/coralsaw

[Panama Red]

Keep the naval and improve it to where it should be.

[coralsaw]

PR, obviously you're entitled to your opinion.

I just wonder though, would you rather see Matrix spend 1 man-week improving the naval model, or 1 man-week eg. improving the AI or supply system? There is a finite budget for improvements on TOAW, I can assure you, so every man-day counts.

/coralsaw

[JMS2]

I´ll rather see a better naval system than a better AI. A better AI has limited projection when compared to human vs human play, while a naval system increases the versatility of TOAW even more.

[ydejin]

I'd love to see both a naval system and a better AI. However, having to chose, I'd pick the AI. I don't play human-to-human so the AI quality is very important to me.

[JMS2]

However, let me ask you a question, have you ever played against a human?

[ydejin]

ORIGINAL: JMS2

However, let me ask you a question, have you ever played against a human?

No, I prefer to play against the computer. The only computer games I've played against/with humans are RTS and CRPG. While I love Turn-Based Strategy, I don't think I have the patience to wait for another human and I think an PBEM game of TOAW would probably take to long to hold my interest.

[JJKettunen]

If there's a choice between better AI, or better overall simulation, I'd go for the latter. People who have kept the game alive, ie PBEM-crowd, deserve it.

[Iñaki Harrizabalagatar]

I think the naval model could be made similar to the current air model, in the sense in which we could have naval units stationed at a port, with a fight range