Matrix Games Forums

If you want to test go ahead with 1.04 otherwise I would stay with 1.03. (IMO 1.04 isn't really playable yet and 1.03 is but is still not a 'release' yet either. 1.02 is the last 'official' release.

I have been using 1.03 and it works pretty well but has issues.

I will post a Gotterdamerung mod file which will adjust the tech levels on the mods thread

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa

Just a quick check through the docs and there may be more, but I am working on 10 turns.[:)]

Extract from Strategy Guide

...... this time when you open up the ship menu review the top and bottom boxes for the last column on the right. In the top box will be distance. This is the distance from the nearest port. The bottom box says Time at Sea. Both numbers affect your ability for detection and your combat effectiveness. It is recommended that after 10 turns, that you return to port, or on the 10th turn you are in port. The negative effects increase sharply after the tenth turn. For distance penalties every sea zone above one decreases your detection and combat statistics, EXCEPT for raiders, their penalty starts after 2 sea zones.

Extract Change log update 1.01

UK, USA, Germany, Soviet Union and France will receive additional time at sea by two weeks with every level they will advance.

PS : This applies to fleets set at 'regular', as might be used for surface actions, fleets set as 'raiders' use 20 turns, before the penalties start to apply, these figures can be adjusted in each scenario 'const' file. [:)]

Referring to the main points of the OP, lack of surface action and no opposition reaction to amphibious landings. Scanning through the some of the scenario 'const' files shows many settings affecting the naval war. I have not tried to change many so far, as the balance issues could be complicated, but the following sections probably will have most effect on the problems noted. This is how the original file looks, changing the values here may generate more surface combat.

[ShipRetreats]
RetreatWithStrengthPercentageLowerThan = 40
RetreatWithEnemyAdvantage = 3
RetreatChanceOfSuccess = 25

[NavyParticipatingInInvasion]
ProbabilityOfAttackingShipToJoin = 65
ProbabilityOfDefendingShipToJoin = 70

[DetectingEnemyFleets]
BasicChanceInCurrentSeaZone = 30
OwnMinimumSizeBonus = 20
OwnOversizeBonus = 5
OwnBonusValue = 2
OwnCarrierBonus = 1
EnemyMinimumSizeBonus = 10
EnemyOversizeBonus = 10
EnemyBonusValue = 1

[NavalBattle]
EngagementChance = 30
ChanceForTurns = 80;75;50;20;5

[Commander]
HittingShipBonusForEachSkillPoint = 5
AvoidingDamageInNavalCombatByGroupForEachSkillPoint = 5
DetectingConvoyBonusForEachSkillPoint = 5
DetectingEnemyShipsWhenEnterSeaZoneForEachSkillPoint = 5

It also reveals why some players are running into frustrating problems, whilst others seem to have fewer difficulties, as the different scenario files are not consistent. I have mostly used 'Fall Gelb' and have paid most attention to the air and land war and apart from the Allied convoy routeing problem and unescorted kamikaze AI transport fleets, the naval war reports and events have been mainly OK.

I plan to use a modified 'Gotterdammerung' (earlier start, no Anzio bridgehead) to try out personal house rules for large scale amphibious operations and the naval war will become more significant, so having a look at the other scenario files. There is so much more that can be adjusted in the scenario and national 'const' files.

I know that some will not want to mess with their games, but these files can be opened and changed in 'notebook' and one of the very good points about 'Time of Fury' is how easily it can be modded. There are many more naval related items that could be adjusted.

[MovementPointsForNavalUnit]
[MaximumStrengthOfNavalUnits]
[MaximalDamageDealtByNavalUnits]
[MinimalDamageDealtByNavalUnits]
[SupplyFromShips]
[DetectingAbilityOfNavalUnits]
[ChanceOfSurpriseAttack]
[CarrierAirStrike]
[AmphibiousInvasion]
[ShoreBombardment]
[CarrierRecon]
[SeaZoneStrike]
[NavalUnit_TimeOnSeaPenalties]
[NavalUnit_DistanceFromPortPenalties]

Note for Doomtrader : Whilst looking at what can be done with the naval settings, I noticed that the 1.04beta 'Gotterdammerung' scenario 'const' file does not have the lines [NavalBattle], but [ShipRetreats] appears twice, that must be affecting how fleets react and the chance of surface action in that scenario. [NavalBattle] is in 1.04beta 'Fall Gelb', so before launching a new game with any of the other scenarios, I will need to check the 'const' files to ensure they are consistent and try some changes to the figures, to see if it generates a more active naval game.

However, I think the best result would be to make the game react to missions, if fleets are set to evade ('engage' not checked), or as 'raider', then they should have a low chance of carrying out bombardment, transport, amphibious landings and providing alternative supply, when there are enemy fleets in the same sea zone (with no opposition around, it wouldn't matter what setting was selected). They cannot succeed if they are going to run away from enemy fleets. When regular fleets are set to 'engage' then there should be a high chance of success, subject to any combats which might occur. This way, player decisions will affect how much action will occur, not just be enforced by changes to game's internal settings and players will have to decide how much they what to risk their fleets to achieve naval missions.

The Devs have introduced the chance of an amphibious landing failing, we need to extend the odds probabilities of failure into ship supply, bombardment, etc., so Doomtrader can that be done ? [:)]

in V102 I gamed out Sealowe a couple of times in human.v.human solitaire play. The first time the Royal Navy attempted to contest the channel with surface fleets. It got decimated by the German tacair. It did not get a decisive surface engagement. The British tacair and carriers hurt the German fleet a lot, but did not get the transports so the invasion succeeded. A lot of tacair and carrier air gets through despite the some 2000 German fighters near the channel.

As far as I can tell, there is no way for air power - naval or land to interdict supply.

In v104 I really paid attention to the uboat campaign. By Feb '40 all of the German uboats had been damaged or sunk. All of the British and French carriers were out on the uboat raider hunt. Part of the problem is that uboats that have moved into a sea zone are frequently visible even if they have not sunk anything yet and there are no allied vessels in the sea zone. If uboats are not visible, moving cruisers around will frequently reveal one. The carriers can then move in for the kill. A cruiser did get one uboat hit. Carriers got two surface raider hits before the Atlantis departed for home. By March, all the uboats were setting home waiting to get rebuilt.

Note for Doomtrader : Whilst looking at what can be done with the naval settings, I noticed that the 1.04beta 'Gotterdammerung' scenario 'const' file does not have the lines [NavalBattle], but [ShipRetreats] appears twice, that must be affecting how fleets react and the chance of surface action in that scenario. [NavalBattle] is in 1.04beta 'Fall Gelb', so before launching a new game with any of the other scenarios, I will need to check the 'const' files to ensure they are consistent and try some changes to the figures, to see if it generates a more active naval game.

Doomtrader - Put this in an earlier post, going through the files again and Gotterdammerung does not have this problem, so now not sure which scenario file I was looking at when I first saw it. Going cross-eyed looking at text files, but still checking.[&:]