ETA release & info update

[JAMiAM]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

Yeah. As far as sales are concerned, the problem is not in the way the game works but most likely in its image. Wargaming itself is something of an unsexy genre, and few people are keen to try an eight year old game. Dunno how Matrix plans to deal with this problem.

A fine game. Difficult to convince people that this is true, however.

Well...in addition to the nips and tucks that we have planned, do you think it'll help if we add SWFLOTH's to the available equipment list?

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

Well...in addition to the nips and tucks that we have planned, do you think it'll help if we add SWFLOTH's to the available equipment list?

SWFLOTH?

[JAMiAM]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

Well...in addition to the nips and tucks that we have planned, do you think it'll help if we add SWFLOTH's to the available equipment list?

SWFLOTH?

I'm sorry, that should be SWFLBATTH's
Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Attached To Their Heads...[:D]

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM
I'm sorry, that should be SWFLBATTH's
Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Attached To Their Heads...[:D]

Well, macgregor wants you to simulate naval warfare...

[JAMiAM]

I don't want to make anenome out of anyone. I was just horsing around. Sea?

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

I don't want to make anenome out of anyone. I was just horsing around. Sea?

While we're on the database, I reckon the Swordfish is underrated. Makes heavy going for Coastal Command in Sealion.

[JAMiAM]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

I don't want to make anenome out of anyone. I was just horsing around. Sea?

While we're on the database, I reckon the Swordfish is underrated. Makes heavy going for Coastal Command in Sealion.

Swordfish kick heinie on naval units, provided they have any decent fighter protection to penetrate the Axis CAP. Set them (and your nearby Spits and Hurricanes) at ignore losses to get through the furballs and you shouldn't have any problems sending most of the KM to the bottom of the Channel.

Provided, of course, that your opponent obliges (through house rules, or failed prof checks) by leaving them at sea at the end of his turn.

[macgregor]

I'm just trying to help that's all. If Siberian HEAT's list is (even if not with the first release) accomplished -

10) Naval Combat
A) Implement a naval system that is more than just floating artillery. (a very detailed subject that can go many ways, but really any refinement of the system to where ship-on-ship combat reflects the real world would be greatly appreciated)*
B) Submarines: Some suggestions have been to make actual submarine equipment. Others have suggested giving a submarine interdiction capability (but no units) to each side in a particular scenario.
C) Ability to move naval units (embarked and pure naval typology) together just like land units. *
D) Naval interdiction (naval ZOCs). This goes for coastal artillery too.
E) Naval CAP/reaction zone. [In the larger discussion of naval units, one change that has gone unsaid, but might work, would be to redo the naval aspect so that it more resembles the air aspect of TOAW, if you get my drift. Missions to include: land bombardment, interdiction, etc.

...I should be happy. I've got enough anenomes as it is.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

Swordfish kick heinie on naval units,

So now you're the only one allowed to make nautical puns? Humbug.

Anyway, I suspect you're talking about a totally different Sealion scenario. Swordfish (and fighter command, for that matter) are rarely seen over the Channel in this one.

[JAMiAM]

Sorry, but my head was swimming, reading in a hurry, and missed you being subtle and naughty...call me the dull blade, fishing for excuses...

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

Sorry, but my head was swimming, reading in a hurry, and missed you being subtle and naughty...call me the dull blade, fishing for excuses...

S'alright. I've found myself in the same plaice.

[Jeremy Mac Donald]

ORIGINAL: Chuck2

ORIGINAL: DanNeely

Broadly speaking my views are closer to GD's than MG's. While I'd like a significantly improved naval model, it's not a top priority for me; which is why I'm trying to come up with improvements that wouldn't require major engine changes requiring extensive development and testing efforts. Depending on how much the land model's improved in the initial matrix release, and the level of effort they're willing to put into updating it afterwards my priorities are subject to change. But even if, I'm more interested in a good beer and pretzels level simulation, rather than adding harpoon into toaw.

I'd like to see some basic upgrades:

1. Air interdiction of naval ships.
2. Coastal gun interdiction of naval ships.
3. Different values for ship transport and amphibious operations.
4. Simplified mines and subs (could even be the same feature).
5. More realistic results when ships engage each other.

One thing I would add to this list is the ability of ships to intercept ships or units moving by sea transport. I'd go with something similier to the current air model. Basically one could set ships on interception the way we currently set planes on air superiority and they would try and intercept things within their movement radius in the same manner as planes try and intercept moving units in the current system.

A gross simplification of course but couple this with your above suggestions and we have enough, I'd think, to simulate the aspects of naval war that pertian to things like naval invasions ala Normandy or even situations where the water was being contested (as where some of the islands in the Pacific in 1942) without encumbering the system with a complex mechanism.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Jeremy Mac Donald

ORIGINAL: Chuck2

ORIGINAL: DanNeely

Broadly speaking my views are closer to GD's than MG's. While I'd like a significantly improved naval model, it's not a top priority for me; which is why I'm trying to come up with improvements that wouldn't require major engine changes requiring extensive development and testing efforts. Depending on how much the land model's improved in the initial matrix release, and the level of effort they're willing to put into updating it afterwards my priorities are subject to change. But even if, I'm more interested in a good beer and pretzels level simulation, rather than adding harpoon into toaw.

I'd like to see some basic upgrades:

1. Air interdiction of naval ships.
2. Coastal gun interdiction of naval ships.
3. Different values for ship transport and amphibious operations.
4. Simplified mines and subs (could even be the same feature).
5. More realistic results when ships engage each other.

One thing I would add to this list is the ability of ships to intercept ships or units moving by sea transport. I'd go with something similier to the current air model. Basically one could set ships on interception the way we currently set planes on air superiority and they would try and intercept things within their movement radius in the same manner as planes try and intercept moving units in the current system.

A gross simplification of course but couple this with your above suggestions and we have enough, I'd think, to simulate the aspects of naval war that pertian to things like naval invasions ala Normandy or even situations where the water was being contested (as where some of the islands in the Pacific in 1942) without encumbering the system with a complex mechanism.

Naval and air interdiction of naval units will probably require a task force system. Ships don't usually travel individually, except in TOAW.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Naval and air interdiction of naval units will probably require a task force system. Ships don't usually travel individually, except in TOAW.

Just allowing group movement, as is already possible on land, would be the simplest way of resolving this.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Naval and air interdiction of naval units will probably require a task force system. Ships don't usually travel individually, except in TOAW.

Just allowing group movement, as is already possible on land, would be the simplest way of resolving this.

No. If you'll watch closely, group-moving units still move one unit at a time, with only one unit in a hex at a time. Naval units moving in such a fashion could not combine their AAA, naval, or ASW strengths. The "group" aspect of the movement is only that of a group order to move. They don't actually move as a group.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

No. If you'll watch closely, group-moving units still move one unit at a time, with only one unit in a hex at a time. Naval units moving in such a fashion could not combine their AAA, naval, or ASW strengths. The "group" aspect of the movement is only that of a group order to move. They don't actually move as a group.

I'm aware of how group movement works visually; whether it could be used in this way would depend on the code.

I'm not keen on the prospect of managing task forces in TOAW in the way that one does in War in the Pacific. This is precisely the sort of thing I do not want to have to think about when I am playing the game.

[ralphtricky]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

No. If you'll watch closely, group-moving units still move one unit at a time, with only one unit in a hex at a time. Naval units moving in such a fashion could not combine their AAA, naval, or ASW strengths. The "group" aspect of the movement is only that of a group order to move. They don't actually move as a group.

I'm aware of how group movement works visually; whether it could be used in this way would depend on the code.

I'm not keen on the prospect of managing task forces in TOAW in the way that one does in War in the Pacific. This is precisely the sort of thing I do not want to have to think about when I am playing the game.

Is there a reason they can't be considered as part of a group the way other units are?

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick
Is there a reason they can't be considered as part of a group the way other units are?

Well, you've seen the code. How feasible would it be to have units moving as a group act together in an event like interdiction?

[JAMiAM]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick
Is there a reason they can't be considered as part of a group the way other units are?

Well, you've seen the code. How feasible would it be to have units moving as a group act together in an event like interdiction?

A question to consider here, is are they moving together as a group, as a game mechanism to avoid micromanaging, or is the group considered to have met and travelled together for purposes of mutual support.

On long rail moves, it is generally the case of the former, while in naval missions, I would suspect that the case is more often the latter. A change in code would need to consider both cases, and intervene appropriately.

[ralphtricky]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick
Is there a reason they can't be considered as part of a group the way other units are?

Well, you've seen the code. How feasible would it be to have units moving as a group act together in an event like interdiction?

It wouldn't be possible. My question was why aren;t they being modeled as Task force Alpha, Task force Brave, etc. Then the question of moving individual units doesn't come up. I know that there are a lot of issues, but I was wondering about that one.