Ideas on Naval and Strategic Warfare

[macgregor]

I was wondering how to best represent submarines. I figure they would be one-hit units with a database big enough to include every class.(Perhaps modern submarines could be multiple hit units -I'm not sure). Realistically, with the exception of losses incurred by interdicting air units, subs should probably only be vulnerable to attack at their own discretion. My suggestion would be that on the turn a sub is involved in combat, it becomes 'spotted'. Afterwards, unless it moves, it should be invulnerable to attack. Of course subs should only suffer losses from units with an ASW strength. I like the idea of one-hit escort ships thus allowing the scen designer to 'stack' multiple-hit capital ship units with an escort.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: macgregor

I was wondering how to best represent submarines.

Since they don't directly impact on the land side at all, they can be heavily abstracted. I don't think a unit would be needed at all. Probably best to have them as a moveable hazard effect which attrites any enemy naval units moving through their area of operations.

[macgregor]

I regret that this opinion is probably shared with many others. The fact is; that this wonderful game already has the building blocks of a great naval simulator. Their are a multitude of games that only cover land warfare. This game (IMO) was intended to be versatile enough to represent naval warfare. Do you really want to relegate this to abstraction?

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: macgregor

I regret that this opinion is probably shared with many others. The fact is; that this wonderful game already has the building blocks of a great naval simulator. Their are a multitude of games that only cover land warfare. This game (IMO) was intended to be versatile enough to represent naval warfare. Do you really want to relegate this to abstraction?

The trouble is I, along with most other TOAW players, have no interest in figuring out whether HMS Sibyl would be better deployed in the open sea or right outside Tripoli harbour.

It might be possible to have TOAW simulate naval warfare to the extent you're discussing. However a) I don't really want to have to really get into the ins-and-outs naval warfare and b) I would prefer the developers to perfect the land simulation first.

If you can provide this element to the game whilst both allowing the player to largely ignore it without seriously hindering his play and without taking away from the effort to improve the land warfare simulation, then that's all very well. I just don't think that's likely.

[macgregor]

Those who have no interest in naval warfare should probably restrict their play to non-naval scenarios. I was once stymied by Matrix's decision to add AI to World in Flames, thus considerably delaying it's release. So I understand not wanting them to get started on too ambitious of a project. However, next to that I believe this is small potatoes. If killing the bugs wasn't already accomplished by Norm's patch, I believe it's pretty close to being finished. I would suspect a Matrix version of TOAW probably isn't too far off. Perhaps the idea of a naval warfare patch could be kept alive. I know I'll keep trying -if not with Matrix then with Larry Fulkerson. Though I'll admit that so far, I haven't run into many takers.

-BTW IMO HMS Sibyl would be best deployed outside Tripoli where it's sure to find the most action. Open sea is more dicey. Now we're making the same decisions as the sub commander. Though I wouldn't have individual sub counters. They would be grouped into squadrons or wolfpacks.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: macgregor

Those who have no interest in naval warfare should probably restrict their play to non-naval scenarios.

The classic example is Seelowe. I've been periodically involved in playtesting a very good scenario on the subject. I worry that if you're able to get your excellent naval model that I will no longer be able to play the fascinating land campaign because I don't know the ins-and-outs of naval warfare.

If killing the bugs wasn't already accomplished by Norm's patch, I believe it's pretty close to being finished. I would suspect a Matrix version of TOAW probably isn't too far off.

Version 1.07 will probably come out in a couple of months or so. An actual updated game? Maybe a year to eighteen months. It's all pure speculation, of course.

-BTW IMO HMS Sibyl would be best deployed outside Tripoli where it's sure to find the most action.

On the one hand, it's a more target rich environment. On the other, it's also much closer to Axis shore-based airpower and coastal patrol vessels. That's just it- I don't want to have to worry about how to make this trade-off. As the Italians, I don't want to have to worry about what my squadron of Z.506s is doing today.

Now we're making the same decisions as the sub commander.

That's even worse. How does the submarine commander out on the open ocean get instructions from the player in his central location? Doesn't he have to maintain radio silence?

[macgregor]

quote:

Now we're making the same decisions as the sub commander.

That's even worse. How does the submarine commander out on the open ocean get instructions from the player in his central location? Doesn't he have to maintain radio silence?

It's a good point. But I think that in the context of a scenario with 1 week or 1/2 week turns, it's not inconcievable. Even subs make contact once a week. I do understand the argument that sea supply would be easier portrayed in the abstract. My idea would have players outline operations areas that would cut supply. Naturally, where these operations areas overlap with the opponent's there would be sea battles. If they're going to enlarge the event engine, perhaps a scenario designer would have a choice as to how to portray the naval ops.

[macgregor]

I've been doing some more thinking about this. It's much more difficult to determine defense strength than attack strength. My thought is that this should factor in:
a) Speed b)armor(integrity) c) weapon range d)tonnage e) profile and f) crush depth(subs). I don't feel that combining these factors into one overall defense strength is the way to go(exception:subs and escorts). I feel that once a defense strength is determined , it should be represented in the number of hits via weapons groupings and speed hits. Each hit should have a similar defensive value.


It would be nice if torpedo combat could have a special representation. Say, based on number of tubes, relative proficiency and readiness, after the initial round of combat(exception: subs), torpedo attacks could be 'awarded'. These attack would have a 50% succcess check but if successful, should do substantial damage.Subs would not have to endure a first round of combat. However, in addition to proficiency and readiness, number of tubes,relative speed and ASW value of targeted ships would also get factored.

If reserve status is to be available for naval units, then too perhaps should be the standing order to disengage(run like hell) if attacked.

Any comments by the development team on the feasability(or desirability) of any of these ideas would be greatly appreciated,

[macgregor]

Certainly nothing determines 'victory at sea' more than reconaissance. Radar and spotter planes(or helos) should be given weapon status and in this way affect the recon ability of naval units. It would be nice if the player could select his carrier planes to serve this function. However, it would probably be best for the scenario designer to add the spotter planes to the carrier's own weapons. Aircraft on naval interdiction would augment this by not only spotting enemy units, but by reducing their movement, thus denying them the ability to evade engagement .