Ideas on Naval and Strategic Warfare

[macgregor]

I'll do my best to describe my ideas for portraying naval and strategic warfare in TOAW. Starting with naval warfare:

1) implementation of naval interdiction missions for aircraft
2) implementation of an ASW (anti-submarine warfare) value for weapons sytems and submarine as a unit type (with the same stealthy characteristics of commandoes on land).
3) allow for the development of multi-hit naval units by adding to the weapons pool variable engine speeds from 1-60 ,flight decks and player designed weapons. I suggest the scenario designers have the ability to make their own weapons as the number of hits a naval unit can sustain (and thus it's survivability)are highly variable, requiring many different groupings of weapons to make up the targeted number of hits. I'd like the ability to 'model' everything from multi-hit battleships to single-hit PT boats,destroyers,submarines and aircraft . Escort vessels and submarines would be one hit units, though grouped as desrons and wolfpacks and modelled according to class. A modelled capital ship would look like :

Fuso/ Yamashiro

6/6 14" x 2 guns
1/1 Engine speed 36
7/7 6" x 2 guns
1/1 Engine speed 18
1/1 21" torpedoes
1/1 Engine speed 9
2/2 5" x 4 guns
1/1 25mm AA gun
1/1 Engine speed 5
6/6 25mm AA gun x 6
1/1 Engine speed 3

In addition, units being transported by sea should have their movement adjusted to match the realistic 12 knots these vessels would normally do.

And for strategic warfare:

1) On selected resource hexes the scenario designer would setup for the arrival of resource/ producrtion units as reinforcements. A typical unit would arrive as:

UK Petroleum(Mosul) March/April '41

15/50 Resource/Production points (Requires transport)
15/15 Trucks

This unit will enter the game out of supply. It's only source of supply will be in designated 'factory ' hexes. Once in supply ( and thus, in a factory hex) these units can be disbanded or 'cashed in' for replacements to the inventory pool. The player may either leave the unit in the 'factory' hex until it has accumulated all it's resource/production points or opt to disband this unit before it has filled out, thus sacrificing the production points it still lacks, but will get his replacement weapons faster.Meanwhile this unit can be attacked in transit on land or at sea, or while it's accumulating production points in the factory. I believe the game already bases it's resupply level by the number of objective points,this only requires that the trigger be adapted to base the resupply on disbanded resource/ production points.

I've been obsessed with the idea of taking naval and strategic warfare in TOAW to the same level as the land combat. Please feel free to tell me what you think, ask for clarification, or offer other suggestions. I'm not a programmer and have never designed a scenario, so I'd really like some input from both programmers and scenario designers. At this point any help would be welcome.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Jeremy Mac Donald]

I like the idea of being able to model ships by having some kind of easily tweaked ship module. I'm not sure how complex it should get however. It might be worth it to presume that a ship that has lost half its 'hits' has half its firepower and half its speed remaining. Obvously a simplification but I think simplifications are to some extent required.

Your suggestion of 'production points' strikes me as interesting but quite the can of worms to open. Some method of 'buying' and selling equipment would be required and there would have to be some way of restricting some equipment and allowing others (so I don't buy a B-2 Bomber for my 1940 French). Something that is similier and maybe easier to implement would be to have 'factory' icons. From a designers perspective I'm not even sure I want the players having the ability to 'buy' any equipment they want. The Germans (and Russians and pretty much everyone really), for example, pumped out lots of inferior tanks simply because thats the production lines they had. Its a bit of a cheat to allow players to only buy the good stuff and skip over the 'junk'.

So we know that the game system (that is to say the programming) can take the contents of a unit and dump all the equipment in a unit into the replacement pool. This happens when we disband a unit and it happens when the editor disbands a unit.

What I am proposing is a 'factory' unit that disbands its contents into the replacement pool every turn - but the unit itself stays put so long as its not destroyed or withdrawn by the editor. This should not be all that hard to program since the basic mechanism is already in place (in the form of disbanding) and the basic mechanics simply need to be tweaked (so the unit itself stays put).

In this manner designers input what each 'factory' makes every turn during scenario creation. The designers have lots of latitude as well. They can withdraw 'factories' if they want them to stop producing or they can add new 'factories' both using the event editor. Furthermore they could use 'factories' to represent other things such as a large stockpile of weapons that might be overrun early in the game or have the 'factory' make lots of infantry squads to represent mobalization. One could even get more in depth and say have three 'factories' making infantry squads early in the war representing mobalization and then over a period of time remove one, then later on the next and finally the last one as the supply of young males in the area dries up. Maybe then they add back a very small one to represent continous recruiting potential from the area.

[macgregor]

Your suggestion of 'production points' strikes me as interesting but quite the can of worms to open. Some method of 'buying' and selling equipment would be required and there would have to be some way of restricting some equipment and allowing others (so I don't buy a B-2 Bomber for my 1940 French). Something that is similier and maybe easier to implement.

I think we're on the same page. I'm not proposing players select what they build. But to take the current system (that I believe already allows the set inventory to be resupplied based on controlled objective points)tweaked to 'cash in' these disbanded production points.(much like a disbanded unit would add it's weapons to the inventory). If the production point is to become the currency, a value will have to be asessed for all weapon types. The only choice the player need make is whether to disband production units before they have reached full strength. The inventory is setup by the scenario designer, so unless he places a
B-2 bomber in the inventory, no one can build one. Since these factories would function as one-hex supply for the production units, the only way I could see them moving is through a game event triggered by a theater option(ex-move Soviet factories east). Neither am I suggesting that factories be categorized, making only the stacking limit govern how many production units can be in a factory hex.(very juicy targets for strategic bombers though)

[Bombur]

1) implementation of naval interdiction missions for aircraft

-Excellent idea, but don´t remember to change the way interception works or you will have your naval bombers headed for that wonderful British fleet near the Norway coast intercepted by Spitfires flying from the British Isles (a Pacific War scenario would result in even worse results)

2) implementation of an ASW (anti-submarine warfare) value for weapons sytems and submarine as a unit type (with the same stealthy characteristics of commandoes on land).

-Good, I would also add naval patrol missions

3) allow for the development of multi-hit naval units by adding to the weapons pool variable engine speeds from 1-60 ,flight decks and player designed weapons. I suggest the scenario designers have the ability to make their own weapons as the number of hits a naval unit can sustain (and thus it's survivability)are highly variable, requiring many different groupings of weapons to make up the targeted number of hits. I'd like the ability to 'model' everything from multi-hit battleships to single-hit PT boats,destroyers,submarines and aircraft . Escort vessels and submarines would be one hit units, though grouped as desrons and wolfpacks and modelled according to class. A modelled capital ship would look like :

Fuso/ Yamashiro

6/6 14" x 2 guns
1/1 Engine speed 36
7/7 6" x 2 guns
1/1 Engine speed 18
1/1 21" torpedoes
1/1 Engine speed 9
2/2 5" x 4 guns
1/1 25mm AA gun
1/1 Engine speed 5
6/6 25mm AA gun x 6
1/1 Engine speed 3

-Good idea, but I wouldn´t go to far. I think all ships could be rated for durability, antiship value (plus range), anti AA value, land bombardment and ASW value (carriers would also be rated for number of aircraft they could carry). They should be damaged (damage would be expressed in %) and damage should result in speed reduction. It should be possible to build TF´s from individual ships and to repair ships in shiypyards. Maybe it could be possible to create rules for naval surface interception based on distance and speed of the two fleets.

In addition, units being transported by sea should have their movement adjusted to match the realistic 12 knots these vessels would normally do.

-The rules for naval movement are screwed anyway in TOAW. Depending on the time/space scale used , speed for naval units goes from 5km/h to 190km/h!!!!!

And for strategic warfare:

1) On selected resource hexes the scenario designer would setup for the arrival of resource/ producrtion units as reinforcements. A typical unit would arrive as:

UK Petroleum(Mosul) March/April '41

15/50 Resource/Production points (Requires transport)
15/15 Trucks

This unit will enter the game out of supply. It's only source of supply will be in designated 'factory ' hexes. Once in supply ( and thus, in a factory hex) these units can be disbanded or 'cashed in' for replacements to the inventory pool. The player may either leave the unit in the 'factory' hex until it has accumulated all it's resource/production points or opt to disband this unit before it has filled out, thus sacrificing the production points it still lacks, but will get his replacement weapons faster.Meanwhile this unit can be attacked in transit on land or at sea, or while it's accumulating production points in the factory. I believe the game already bases it's resupply level by the number of objective points,this only requires that the trigger be adapted to base the resupply on disbanded resource/ production points.

I've been obsessed with the idea of taking naval and strategic warfare in TOAW to the same level as the land combat. Please feel free to tell me what you think, ask for clarification, or offer other suggestions. I'm not a programmer and have never designed a scenario, so I'd really like some input from both programmers and scenario designers. At this point any help would be welcome.

-I think it should be better to create a system with on map/off map factories to replace equipment, while the player can´t control these factories production. I don´t know if we should add resources or work only with supplies.

[Bombur]

-Another important thing to be added is the antiship capability for air units. In TOAW we have an all or nothing model, with some units being useless on naval attack and other wiping out ships every time they attacked. Planes should be rated for antiship capacity that would involve two vaules (1) precision and (2) damage inflicted when a ship is hit. Planes carrying antiship missiles should also be rated for distance they deliver their weapons.

[Jeremy Mac Donald]

ORIGINAL: macgregor

Your suggestion of 'production points' strikes me as interesting but quite the can of worms to open. Some method of 'buying' and selling equipment would be required and there would have to be some way of restricting some equipment and allowing others (so I don't buy a B-2 Bomber for my 1940 French). Something that is similier and maybe easier to implement.

I think we're on the same page. I'm not proposing players select what they build. But to take the current system (that I believe already allows the set inventory to be resupplied based on controlled objective points)tweaked to 'cash in' these disbanded production points.(much like a disbanded unit would add it's weapons to the inventory).

I'm sorry - you have lost me. There is a replacement system in which certian amounts of equipment can be set to arrive every turn. But it has nothing to do with objective points. A designer can apply a percentage to the entire replacement system to increase or decrease it by some percentage but its got nothing to do with objective points unless the designer decides to to make say the loss of Paris be a hit to french production say -25% to everything the French get in replacements. The designer might also choose to make Paris an objective (that is tell an enemy formation that they want to try and move through Paris) and make could further decide to make it worth VPs if he wanted to I guess.

If the production point is to become the currency, a value will have to be asessed for all weapon types. The only choice the player need make is whether to disband production units before they have reached full strength.

I'm sorry - I'm not sure what you mean by a 'production unit'. Are you saying that some mechanism creates units out of whole cloth? How does the system know what the TO&E of the unit is supposed to be? Actually how does the program know what the name of the unit is? Also what happens if we modify the stats of the equipment? Would that not make the price fixes for the equipment go off? Or does this idea pre-empt the idea of having an equipment database editor?

The inventory is setup by the scenario designer, so unless he places a B-2 bomber in the inventory, no one can build one. Since these factories would function as one-hex supply for the production units, the only way I could see them moving is through a game event triggered by a theater option(ex-move Soviet factories east). Neither am I suggesting that factories be categorized, making only the stacking limit govern how many production units can be in a factory hex.(very juicy targets for strategic bombers though)

I'm still not sure what these factories are - what is a 'one-hex supply'? Are they kind of like supply points but they make new units that players buy through some mechanism?

Truthfully I don't think we are all that close to each other in terms of our ideas except that they are both methods of creating a production element. I'm really just saying that I want another unit - one that disbands itself every turn but does not vanish. You seem to have an idea that - so far as I can tell - involves new units being constantly added to the game, players design their own TO&E for these units every turn, and they buy equipment for these new units every turn.

[macgregor]

There is a replacement system in which certian amounts of equipment can be set to arrive every turn. But it has nothing to do with objective points. A designer can apply a percentage to the entire replacement system to increase or decrease it by some percentage but its got nothing to do with objective points unless the designer decides to to make say the loss of Paris be a hit to french production say -25% to...

Thank you for explaining this to me.

I'm sorry - I'm not sure what you mean by a 'production unit'. Are you saying that some mechanism creates units out of whole cloth? How does the system know what the TO&E of the unit is supposed to be? Actually how does the program know what the name of the unit is? Also what happens if we modify the stats of the equipment? Would that not make the price fixes for the equipment go off? Or does this idea pre-empt the idea of having an equipment database editor?

Production units are like air and land units, except that they represent resources(and ultimately weapons in production). They arrive as reinforcements on selected resource hexes and must move to factory hexes to recieve the remainder of their production points(see my original post). These factory hexes are the only hexes where these 'units' can recieve more production points (just like supply, in fact if they remain out of the factory, they will begin to lose production points -just like out of supply units would lose weapons). Once in a factory hex, these units can be disbanded. These disbanded 'production points' would allow a percentage of the replacements to be recieved. Have enough production points and you would recieve 100% of your scheduled replacements. With more you'd get more and less, likewise. TO&E and OOB would not be affected. Reinforcements could arrive understrength to give this production scheme more of an impact.

You seem to have an idea that - so far as I can tell - involves new units being constantly added to the game, players design their own TO&E for these units every turn, and they buy equipment for these new units every turn.

Only production units(and not every turn). Players do not design their own TO&E. It's already in the scenario. This 'production' merely acts to 'fuel' the replacements. Except for perhaps theater options, a player has no control over what he gets, only how much of it. I hope I explained it a little better.

I think all ships could be rated for durability, antiship value (plus range), anti AA value, land bombardment and ASW value (carriers would also be rated for number of aircraft they could carry). They should be damaged (damage would be expressed in %) and damage should result in speed reduction.

More drastic than what I offerred however perhaps simpler to understand. My method is more informative though, I think. Are you thinking of pacwar style naval units? All I ask is for numbers 1,2, and 4( not listed- naval reserve movement ) from my naval wishlist. The rest would all be added to the weapons database.

-Good, I would also add naval patrol missions

I forgot to add this. Though I think having naval reserve movement would be easier to implement as it's already in use on land. I'm trying to make these improvements as minimal as possible. My idea of naval interdiction air missions is to slow down(or better yet) stop moving enemy naval units and it should be the key to sinking them. Patrolling should be doable by placing units at sea while having units behind in reserve(to protect the patrol). I feel this is more realistic. Place a naval unit in every third hex and you have a picket.

I'm tired and must go to bed now.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Jeremy Mac Donald

From a designers perspective I'm not even sure I want the players having the ability to 'buy' any equipment they want. The Germans (and Russians and pretty much everyone really), for example, pumped out lots of inferior tanks simply because thats the production lines they had. Its a bit of a cheat to allow players to only buy the good stuff and skip over the 'junk'.

Worst is weapons systems which seemed like a good idea at the time but turned out not to be so hot. The Defiant fighter is one I've heard in this context in the past.

[lok]

Please...whatever you do give us a naval module that it is somewhat realistic. It's the reason I stopped playing TOAW and would be the reason to come back. I'd be happy with something simple (like the way the air war works right?)...of course, if you want to make it more sophisticated don't let me stop you [:)]

[lancerunolfsson]

Even though the TOAW Naval model stinks. I woud give it close to the absoloute lowest priority for repair. Most scenarios don't need it and and of those that do it is pretty trivial in the great majority. Yeah fix it, someday but don't worry a lot about it for now.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: lancerunolfsson

Even though the TOAW Naval model stinks. I woud give it close to the absoloute lowest priority for repair. Most scenarios don't need it and and of those that do it is pretty trivial in the great majority. Yeah fix it, someday but don't worry a lot about it for now.

Part of the reason relatively few scenarios use naval units is because those campaigns where naval units feature heavily cannot be modelled easily in TOAW as it stands.

[Bombur]

Part of the reason relatively few scenarios use naval units is because those campaigns where naval units feature heavily cannot be modelled easily in TOAW as it stands.

-Correct, the attempts to simulate Norway invasion, Guadalcanal and even the Pacific war prove your point. And with a better naval engine it could be possible to simulate Soviet vs. NATO naval operations in the North Atlantic and Mediterranean, Falklands war and lots of other historical and hypothetical scenarios.

[Jeremy Mac Donald]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Jeremy Mac Donald

From a designers perspective I'm not even sure I want the players having the ability to 'buy' any equipment they want. The Germans (and Russians and pretty much everyone really), for example, pumped out lots of inferior tanks simply because thats the production lines they had. Its a bit of a cheat to allow players to only buy the good stuff and skip over the 'junk'.

Worst is weapons systems which seemed like a good idea at the time but turned out not to be so hot. The Defiant fighter is one I've heard in this context in the past.

That German M-110 was a big disapointment as well.

[Jeremy Mac Donald]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: lancerunolfsson

Even though the TOAW Naval model stinks. I woud give it close to the absoloute lowest priority for repair. Most scenarios don't need it and and of those that do it is pretty trivial in the great majority. Yeah fix it, someday but don't worry a lot about it for now.

Part of the reason relatively few scenarios use naval units is because those campaigns where naval units feature heavily cannot be modelled easily in TOAW as it stands.

I agree with this - its not that designers would not like to simulate many of these interesting and exciting campaigns - its often that attempts to do so fall foul of the damn naval module.

[lok]

I really do think that making at least a minimum effort to fix the naval aspect of the game would make many scenarios much more interesting and much better.
Virtually any, non land-locked scenario, from a NATO-USSR conflict, to a Pacific WWII campaign, etc. could benefit from a more realistic naval module.

A minimal effort could be, simply to have the ability to limit the movement of naval units to allow the opponent a chance for intercepting an amphibious assault or sea transport. This change could be implemented in the event engine or the unit editor or both.

A better, but still relatively small effort would be to use the present air model with the addition of a submarine unit (akin to the stealth fighter presently in the game) for naval combat and movement. Not exactly Harpoon but much better than what we have now.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Jeremy Mac Donald
That German M-110 was a big disapointment as well.

Yeah, it's not great as a heavy fighter, its intended role, but players do need it in TOAW because it is the nearest thing the Germans had to a long-range fighter. So it does get built in GS3, for example.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: lok

A better, but still relatively small effort would be to use the present air model with the addition of a submarine unit (akin to the stealth fighter presently in the game) for naval combat and movement. Not exactly Harpoon but much better than what we have now.

What I want is a system which produces historically plausible results without the scenario designer or player having to invest a serious effort in understanding naval warfare.

[macgregor]

I'd prefer the present system over something like the air system. All I want is the same features the land combat offers -air interdiction, reserve movement, subs(which we agree on) and the ability to model multi hit naval units. I don't think I'm asking for too much. For all I know, you can copy and paste code that's already written. While I'm not opposed to designating operations areas for ships(and planes) I realize that there's nothing in the game like this so it would have to be programmed from scratch.

[lok]

What I want is a system which produces historically plausible results without the scenario designer or player having to invest a serious effort in understanding naval warfare.

I agree. That would be ideal.

I'd prefer the present system over something like the air system.

I was merely trying to suggest what I thought would be relatively small change (in terms of code implementation). For all I know, it could be much simpler to just add new code for the naval module. It all depends how the game engine works and how it is implemented in code.


What I would like to see (at minimum) is the ability to intercept/interdict sea transport and amphibious assaults by enemy air/naval units and the addition of submarines. Then perhaps we can move on to supply issues etc. How these features are best implemented in code is a question for Norm...

[macgregor]

What I would like to see (at minimum) is the ability to intercept/interdict sea transport and amphibious assaults by enemy air/naval units and the addition of submarines. Then perhaps we can move on to supply issues etc. How these features are best implemented in code is a question for Norm...

I understand what you're saying and I agree with what needs to be represented. First, they should make it imposssible to cheat by reopening the pbl file if any representation is to work 100% if it's possible. I agree that sea supply also has to be represented. Perhaps operation areas are necesary.

- I've read the new developer's post (http://www.strategyzoneonline.com/forum ... hp?t=33232)and, regardless of which way the naval representation gets handled(he mentions both our ideas) I'm confident that it'll be a huge improvement. How long it takes to be released is another question.