Naval Game?

[Rasputitsa]

I forgot one other gun duel, 'Renown' against 'Scharnhorst' and 'Gneisenau' during Operation Weserubung, off Norway in 1940. Both German ships disengaged early in the engagement, hits on 'Renown' were minor with one shell failing to detonate, whilst 'Gneisenau' was hit twice, with one shell passing through the director tower, without exploding, but doing damage, and a second disabling the rear main gun turret.

'Renown' was exceptionally lucky, to achieve two significant hits, but naval combat can result in unpredictable results. 'Scharnhorst' and 'Gneisenau' should have been able to deal with one old battlecruiser, even though 'Renown' had been updated from its WW1 condition, but the German ships could not risk a critical hit and 'Renown's' lucky hits sped them on their way, to the extent that they suffered substantial flooding taking water over the bows at high speed.

The strategic reality is that the British could afford to lose 'Renown', but in 1940 the Germans had nothing to replace 'Scharnhorst' and 'Gneisenau' and the game needs to reflect these realities.

There were several inconclusive gun duels in the Mediterranean, but fought at extreme range as the Italians were reluctant to close the range and the British battleships too slow to force the issue. However, at Calabria, 'Warspite' did manage to hit 'Giulio Cesare' at 26,000 yards, but still an inconclusive result.

[Rasputitsa]

ORIGINAL: kirk23
Well maybe a solution might be to abstract in something like land unit entrenchment,and it could simulate battleship resistance to damage,as it stands battleships in the game are far too weak defensively.

If you make them stronger, there should be a random critical hit effect to restore a realistic balance for all the reasons I have laid out in the posts above.

Recognising that it's probably too late to build new features into the game, maybe something can be done with Readiness, Morale, or Supply, to introduce some unpredictability, but difficult to say without seeing the game.

[CAHouston]

I have been watching Paradogs video. in number 16 he has defeated the British navy in the Med. and yet Malta is still interfering with supply to North Africa. Italian ships have bombarded Malta to little effect. the convoy line in the Med. is gone. Malta for the British should not be getting any supplies in this game and thus not interfering with axis supply.

1. redefine when Malta can interfere with axis supply.
2. allow ships to bombard twice if they are next to a land unit, have not moved and have good supply.

[Rasputitsa]

ORIGINAL: CAHouston
I have been watching Paradogs video. in number 16 he has defeated the British navy in the Med. and yet Malta is still interfering with supply to North Africa. Italian ships have bombarded Malta to little effect. the convoy line in the Med. is gone. Malta for the British should not be getting any supplies in this game and thus not interfering with axis supply.

1. redefine when Malta can interfere with axis supply.
2. allow ships to bombard twice if they are next to a land unit, have not moved and have good supply.

RN surface vessels were driven out of Malta at the height of the siege, except 'Abdiel' class fast minelayer cruisers (40 Kts) were used to bring in supplies operating in and out at night

Malta interdicted Axis North African supply mainly by submarine and aircraft attack. Having broken the Italian codes the convoy sailing times and routes of Italian convoys were often known and a recon aircraft would be sent out, just to show itself and convince the Italians that the convoy had been spotted by conventional means, but the Malta submarines were sent out on patrol into areas where convoys were expected.

Just now reading about the RN 'U' class submarines - Unbeaten, Upholder etc., a smaller class of boat which was more successful in the clear Mediterranean waters where it was difficult to hide, but still dangerous waters even for small submarines. However Malta based bombers and torpedo aircraft were very effective at destroying transport ships.

Ultra/Enigma information was a very effective force multiplier and it is difficult to see how the historical balance can be reflected in the game, when comparatively few aircraft can have a big effect, if they know where to hit.

[Christolos]

I just started watching Paradogs gamer episode 16 video and it certainly appears that it is way too easy to decimate the British navy not only in the Med but also in the North Sea.

I can't help but feel like the ability to recon with air units and subs (the way Paradogs gamer has been doing) to reveal the British ships, games the system too much in that ships or subs that are quite far away at the time the target is discovered, are able to move over great distances and still find the target waiting in the same place it was discovered in. I can understand that air reconnaissance to reveal ship locations and course for subsequent air attack is realistic, but to discover a ship and have it stay in the same location long enough for ships that were far away (around 250 Km in the case of the first sub attack on the discovered Hood - see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpO44EW ... paFTGQ_o4e from 0:17 to 0:57), has me wondering. I understand that the AI operates this way too, so it can be considered fair enough, but this is also a consequence of the inherent weaknesses in any IGOUGO game system (with the exception of TOAW). I also noticed that subs (and any ship for that matter) can move along incrementally hex by hex (instead of having to end their movement the first time they stop) until they either run out of movement points or run into something. This also seems a little gamey in that it may not necessarily reflect or model a realistic search pattern/approach such that more time would be needed to be spent in each hex searching resulting in less net distance travelled in a more or less straight line.

Don't get me wrong, I am still very anxious about getting this game and will do so as soon as it is released. I also understand that certain abstractions need to be made for the sake of playability, but I wonder if some tweaking may be in order for the sake of balance against the AI...

Maybe something like a chance for discovered ships to evade (like subs do) based on how far away and how quickly an attacking unit can be brought to bear.

C

[Hellfirejet]

ORIGINAL: CC1

I just started watching Paradogs gamer episode 16 video and it certainly appears that it is way too easy to decimate the British navy not only in the Med but also in the North Sea.

I can't help but feel like the ability to recon with air units and subs (the way Paradogs gamer has been doing) to reveal the British ships, games the system too much in that ships or subs that are quite far away at the time the target is discovered, are able to move over great distances and still find the target waiting in the same place it was discovered in. I can understand that air reconnaissance to reveal ship locations and course for subsequent air attack is realistic, but to discover a ship and have it stay in the same location long enough for ships that were far away (around 250 Km in the case of the first sub attack on the discovered Hood - see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpO44EW ... paFTGQ_o4e from 0:17 to 0:57), has me wondering. I understand that the AI operates this way too, so it can be considered fair enough, but this is also a consequence of the inherent weaknesses in any IGOUGO game system (with the exception of TOAW). I also noticed that subs (and any ship for that matter) can move along incrementally hex by hex (instead of having to end their movement the first time they stop) until they either run out of movement points or run into something. This also seems a little gamey in that it may not necessarily reflect or model a realistic search pattern/approach such that more time would be needed to be spent in each hex searching resulting in less net distance travelled in a more or less straight line.

Don't get me wrong, I am still very anxious about getting this game and will do so as soon as it is released. I also understand that certain abstractions need to be made for the sake of playability, but I wonder if some tweaking may be in order for the sake of balance against the AI...

Maybe something like a chance for discovered ships to evade (like subs do) based on how far away and how quickly an attacking unit can be brought to bear.

C

I completely agree with you,if you read this thread: Video Preview (UPDATED WITH PART V) I questioned the logic behind it.

[Rasputitsa]

ORIGINAL: kirk23

ORIGINAL: CC1

I just started watching Paradogs gamer episode 16 video and it certainly appears that it is way too easy to decimate the British navy not only in the Med but also in the North Sea.

I can't help but feel like the ability to recon with air units and subs (the way Paradogs gamer has been doing) to reveal the British ships, games the system too much in that ships or subs that are quite far away at the time the target is discovered, are able to move over great distances and still find the target waiting in the same place it was discovered in. I can understand that air reconnaissance to reveal ship locations and course for subsequent air attack is realistic, but to discover a ship and have it stay in the same location long enough for ships that were far away (around 250 Km in the case of the first sub attack on the discovered Hood - see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpO44EW ... paFTGQ_o4e from 0:17 to 0:57), has me wondering. I understand that the AI operates this way too, so it can be considered fair enough, but this is also a consequence of the inherent weaknesses in any IGOUGO game system (with the exception of TOAW). I also noticed that subs (and any ship for that matter) can move along incrementally hex by hex (instead of having to end their movement the first time they stop) until they either run out of movement points or run into something. This also seems a little gamey in that it may not necessarily reflect or model a realistic search pattern/approach such that more time would be needed to be spent in each hex searching resulting in less net distance travelled in a more or less straight line.

Don't get me wrong, I am still very anxious about getting this game and will do so as soon as it is released. I also understand that certain abstractions need to be made for the sake of playability, but I wonder if some tweaking may be in order for the sake of balance against the AI...

Maybe something like a chance for discovered ships to evade (like subs do) based on how far away and how quickly an attacking unit can be brought to bear.

C

I completely agree with you,if you read this thread: Video Preview (UPDATED WITH PART V) I questioned the logic behind it.

Perhaps naval units can be given an aggression setting to select, whether you want them to engage, or evade. If it's 'engage' than you assume both sides are trying to find each other and there is no impediment to them being discovered. If unit are set to 'evade', then they should have odds to avoid combat, depending on recon ability, whether a CV is present on either side. Transports would find it difficult to evade, because of low speed.

[Hellfirejet]

This is where the naval game is completely different from the land combat.On land its feasible to assume, that a unit will defend one hex,be that a Town,City whatever. At sea,naval units don't have that,when naval units get attacked,they are both aggressive and defensive, they are moving targets,at 20 Knots or more in most cases,firing at a target thousands of yards away,while at the same time always changing course to evade being hit by the enemy.If they are undamaged and winning nothing changes,but when they start to take serious damage,then the revert to all out defence,by using a smoke screen to hide their position,while at the same time repeatedly altering course,in an all out effort to escape.

[Rasputitsa]

It is difficult to comment without playing the game, but is seems very unrealistic to see naval units fighting over hexes, especially in a game where turns are spread over several days. It would be more appropriate to be fighting for control, or supremacy over sea zones. Alternatively, are there possibilities for extended 'zones of control' for naval operations rather than hex-to-hex combat ?

If you wanted to evade combat you could not enter a ZOC, or you would set 'engage' and be prepared to fight for it. The opposition would either be on 'engage' and combat would take place, or on 'evade' where there would have to be a retreat.

If we have to stay with hex combat, then when two opposing units become adjacent, if the opposition has been set to 'engage' than the combat could proceed, but if set at 'evade', then depending on a odds check the defender would be bumped out of the way. If there is no empty hexes, due to land areas, or other units occupying surrounding hexes then combat could not be avoided.

[Biker1984]

ORIGINAL: CC1

I just started watching Paradogs gamer episode 16 video and it certainly appears that it is way too easy to decimate the British navy not only in the Med but also in the North Sea.

I can't help but feel like the ability to recon with air units and subs (the way Paradogs gamer has been doing) to reveal the British ships, games the system too much in that ships or subs that are quite far away at the time the target is discovered, are able to move over great distances and still find the target waiting in the same place it was discovered in. I can understand that air reconnaissance to reveal ship locations and course for subsequent air attack is realistic, but to discover a ship and have it stay in the same location long enough for ships that were far away (around 250 Km in the case of the first sub attack on the discovered Hood has me wondering. I understand that the AI operates this way too, so it can be considered fair enough, but this is also a consequence of the inherent weaknesses in any IGOUGO game system (with the exception of TOAW). I also noticed that subs (and any ship for that matter) can move along incrementally hex by hex (instead of having to end their movement the first time they stop) until they either run out of movement points or run into something. This also seems a little gamey in that it may not necessarily reflect or model a realistic search pattern/approach such that more time would be needed to be spent in each hex searching resulting in less net distance travelled in a more or less straight line.

Don't get me wrong, I am still very anxious about getting this game and will do so as soon as it is released. I also understand that certain abstractions need to be made for the sake of playability, but I wonder if some tweaking may be in order for the sake of balance against the AI...

Maybe something like a chance for discovered ships to evade (like subs do) based on how far away and how quickly an attacking unit can be brought to bear.

C

I also completely agree with this comment. Also the subs are way too strong. They have a high chance of diving and dealing up to 3 damage to a complete healthy battle ship. I would make the defense penalty when they are being hunted by destroyers higher.
The Atlantic sea war could be won with the tactics that have been applied in the Meds. In the second World War the Germans had no idea how strong the British navy and airforce was. If in this case the AI withholds the ships in western and north England (into the fog of war) it could send the complete navy as the German fleet was near the UK and pick them out one by one. This would make the Germans think twice about sealion. I think the British navy has enough vessels but is using them in a to spread way.

[Christolos]

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa

ORIGINAL: kirk23

ORIGINAL: CC1

I just started watching Paradogs gamer episode 16 video and it certainly appears that it is way too easy to decimate the British navy not only in the Med but also in the North Sea.

I can't help but feel like the ability to recon with air units and subs (the way Paradogs gamer has been doing) to reveal the British ships, games the system too much in that ships or subs that are quite far away at the time the target is discovered, are able to move over great distances and still find the target waiting in the same place it was discovered in. I can understand that air reconnaissance to reveal ship locations and course for subsequent air attack is realistic, but to discover a ship and have it stay in the same location long enough for ships that were far away (around 250 Km in the case of the first sub attack on the discovered Hood - see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpO44EW ... paFTGQ_o4e from 0:17 to 0:57), has me wondering. I understand that the AI operates this way too, so it can be considered fair enough, but this is also a consequence of the inherent weaknesses in any IGOUGO game system (with the exception of TOAW). I also noticed that subs (and any ship for that matter) can move along incrementally hex by hex (instead of having to end their movement the first time they stop) until they either run out of movement points or run into something. This also seems a little gamey in that it may not necessarily reflect or model a realistic search pattern/approach such that more time would be needed to be spent in each hex searching resulting in less net distance travelled in a more or less straight line.

Don't get me wrong, I am still very anxious about getting this game and will do so as soon as it is released. I also understand that certain abstractions need to be made for the sake of playability, but I wonder if some tweaking may be in order for the sake of balance against the AI...

Maybe something like a chance for discovered ships to evade (like subs do) based on how far away and how quickly an attacking unit can be brought to bear.

C

I completely agree with you,if you read this thread: Video Preview (UPDATED WITH PART V) I questioned the logic behind it.

Perhaps naval units can be given an aggression setting to select, whether you want them to engage, or evade. If it's 'engage' than you assume both sides are trying to find each other and there is no impediment to them being discovered. If unit are set to 'evade', then they should have odds to avoid combat, depending on recon ability, whether a CV is present on either side. Transports would find it difficult to evade, because of low speed.

I like the idea of a selectable aggression setting (like in TOF) but I wonder how easy this would be to implement in terms of the AI using it effectively. Also, it would have to follow that a heavily damaged unit would have to be less effective at evading.

I also noticed, in watching the gameplay videos, that it appears that the effects of weather (like rain) seem to occur mainly overland and only extend one hex into adjacent sea zones. Have I missed something here? Do rain storms/low cloud effects also (as they should) occur mid ocean/at sea away from land? If so, it would be useful for the AI to also take advantage of this when trying to evade/hide with ships at sea.

C

[Christolos]

ORIGINAL: kirk23

ORIGINAL: CC1

I just started watching Paradogs gamer episode 16 video and it certainly appears that it is way too easy to decimate the British navy not only in the Med but also in the North Sea.

I can't help but feel like the ability to recon with air units and subs (the way Paradogs gamer has been doing) to reveal the British ships, games the system too much in that ships or subs that are quite far away at the time the target is discovered, are able to move over great distances and still find the target waiting in the same place it was discovered in. I can understand that air reconnaissance to reveal ship locations and course for subsequent air attack is realistic, but to discover a ship and have it stay in the same location long enough for ships that were far away (around 250 Km in the case of the first sub attack on the discovered Hood - see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpO44EW ... paFTGQ_o4e from 0:17 to 0:57), has me wondering. I understand that the AI operates this way too, so it can be considered fair enough, but this is also a consequence of the inherent weaknesses in any IGOUGO game system (with the exception of TOAW). I also noticed that subs (and any ship for that matter) can move along incrementally hex by hex (instead of having to end their movement the first time they stop) until they either run out of movement points or run into something. This also seems a little gamey in that it may not necessarily reflect or model a realistic search pattern/approach such that more time would be needed to be spent in each hex searching resulting in less net distance travelled in a more or less straight line.

Don't get me wrong, I am still very anxious about getting this game and will do so as soon as it is released. I also understand that certain abstractions need to be made for the sake of playability, but I wonder if some tweaking may be in order for the sake of balance against the AI...

Maybe something like a chance for discovered ships to evade (like subs do) based on how far away and how quickly an attacking unit can be brought to bear.

C

I completely agree with you,if you read this thread: Video Preview (UPDATED WITH PART V) I questioned the logic behind it.

Yes, I read the thread and found the reasoning behind the questioning of the logic quite reasonable. I look forward to hearing more about your plans to tweak the game (particularly the naval game) with the editor.

I also have to say that I found Hubert's explanation regarding the flow of the game, quite reasonable as well and will have more to say about this when I get myself a copy of the game.

I can't wait for it to be released!!!

Cheers,

C

[Christolos]

ORIGINAL: Biker1984

ORIGINAL: CC1

I just started watching Paradogs gamer episode 16 video and it certainly appears that it is way too easy to decimate the British navy not only in the Med but also in the North Sea.

I can't help but feel like the ability to recon with air units and subs (the way Paradogs gamer has been doing) to reveal the British ships, games the system too much in that ships or subs that are quite far away at the time the target is discovered, are able to move over great distances and still find the target waiting in the same place it was discovered in. I can understand that air reconnaissance to reveal ship locations and course for subsequent air attack is realistic, but to discover a ship and have it stay in the same location long enough for ships that were far away (around 250 Km in the case of the first sub attack on the discovered Hood has me wondering. I understand that the AI operates this way too, so it can be considered fair enough, but this is also a consequence of the inherent weaknesses in any IGOUGO game system (with the exception of TOAW). I also noticed that subs (and any ship for that matter) can move along incrementally hex by hex (instead of having to end their movement the first time they stop) until they either run out of movement points or run into something. This also seems a little gamey in that it may not necessarily reflect or model a realistic search pattern/approach such that more time would be needed to be spent in each hex searching resulting in less net distance travelled in a more or less straight line.

Don't get me wrong, I am still very anxious about getting this game and will do so as soon as it is released. I also understand that certain abstractions need to be made for the sake of playability, but I wonder if some tweaking may be in order for the sake of balance against the AI...

Maybe something like a chance for discovered ships to evade (like subs do) based on how far away and how quickly an attacking unit can be brought to bear.

C

I also completely agree with this comment. Also the subs are way too strong. They have a high chance of diving and dealing up to 3 damage to a complete healthy battle ship. I would make the defense penalty when they are being hunted by destroyers higher.
The Atlantic sea war could be won with the tactics that have been applied in the Meds. In the second World War the Germans had no idea how strong the British navy and airforce was. If in this case the AI withholds the ships in western and north England (into the fog of war) it could send the complete navy as the German fleet was near the UK and pick them out one by one. This would make the Germans think twice about sealion. I think the British navy has enough vessels but is using them in a to spread way.

Yes and in fact, the Germans would have never ventured out with the entire Kriesmarine the way it is possible to do so in this game, but while this may be ahistorical, it also makes for very interesting and exciting game play possibilities. The point about the flow of the game by Hubert in tm.asp?m=4158565&mpage=2&key= , and how it was designed more for destruction of units, is interesting in terms of a design philosophy and I look forward to playing a number of games (from both sides) to see how it goes. The ultimate, as with all computer wargames (as we all know), is to play against a human opponent, and I look forward to eventually being able to do this as well. For the time being, I await the release of this fine wargame with much anticipation and enthusiasm.[:)]

Cheers,

C

[Ironclad]

I have just watched another episode of the Paradogs game which seemed to show the weakness of the AI in respect of naval activity in both attack and defence:

There were the examples of British carriers being left exposed in Southern England cities and Malta to continual (turn after turn) attacks and eventual elimination by massed enemies air fleets within range (supplemented by surface naval identification/attacks for the latter). Yet the AI made no attempt to withdraw them - admittedly there were enemy fleets off Southern Italy and the N.Sea but withdrawal routes seemed available.

In the N.Sea a large number of British destroyers sallied out to attack enemy subs - or a weakened one in particular - despite the presence of a large mixed enemy fleet being present. They were joined by heavy units cruisers/battleship and a carrier launching air attacks from afar, without any real screening units - given all the light units had joined in the melee.

This was a beta game so its possible that some further improvements may have already been made or are planned but it would be nice to see the AI reducing avoidable risks particularly to high value units.

[James Taylor]

Sadly, this has always been the weakest area for SC, but in retrospect, SC has been true to the formula and it works pretty well. We need the active / passive setting and the evasion possibility based upon weather, experience, and perhaps speed of the opposing taskforces.

There should always be that chance that "two ships will pass in the night" not knowing the other was in the vicinity.

[Hellfirejet]

I have always said that, the Naval game can't be treated as an extension of the land campaign,combat at sea is completely different and should be treated as such.Sea state and weather plays a huge part,visibility due to mist and thick fog should also be a factor,all combat should have an element of units evading damage,but that is just my belief,I just wish the game designers would at least,utilise the evade option even a 10% chance is better than nothing.[&:]

[bo]

Great comments on the Naval aspect of the game, posters talk of fog and units traveling long distances and the ship everyone else is attacking is still there, I see both Huberts side on this and the posters side, to me it is a strategic game so things like fog and distance traveled may not be as important as in a tacticle game, just guessing not written in stone.

But what bothers me in some of the posters comments is the use of the editor to change naval attributes and such, and that is cool but not all players are comfortable with changing things in the editor section or at least I know I am not. I pay for a game and I want it to work properly or at least reasonable.

Some of the Naval warfare does not seem right to me, so I expect Hubert to fix it prior to release [if indeed it neeeds fixing] and if that would hold up the release of the game at least get the first patch out as soon as possible after the release.



Bo

[Christolos]

ORIGINAL: Ironclad

I have just watched another episode of the Paradogs game which seemed to show the weakness of the AI in respect of naval activity in both attack and defence:

There were the examples of British carriers being left exposed in Southern England cities and Malta to continual (turn after turn) attacks and eventual elimination by massed enemies air fleets within range (supplemented by surface naval identification/attacks for the latter). Yet the AI made no attempt to withdraw them - admittedly there were enemy fleets off Southern Italy and the N.Sea but withdrawal routes seemed available.

In the N.Sea a large number of British destroyers sallied out to attack enemy subs - or a weakened one in particular - despite the presence of a large mixed enemy fleet being present. They were joined by heavy units cruisers/battleship and a carrier launching air attacks from afar, without any real screening units - given all the light units had joined in the melee.

This was a beta game so its possible that some further improvements may have already been made or are planned but it would be nice to see the AI reducing avoidable risks particularly to high value units.

The issue of the carriers sticking around in ports while under threat of elimination, has been fixed. See tm.asp?m=4158565&mpage=2&#4169581

C

[Ironclad]

Thanks and to the Developers. It did seem the easier of the issues to address.

[Hellfirejet]

Strategic Command WW1 The Great War owners.

I have a new mod for the world war 2 scenario STORM OVER EUROPE that comes with the game.Please make sure that you have the latest patch installed before playing this mod.


This mod is called Europe In Turmoil.

The scenario has many alterations to the naval game,all ship types now have a better chance of evading during combat.Also the german cruisers Scharnhorst and Gneisenau, are both now classed as Battleships! Plus Admiral Graf Spee is added to the game map.There are a few other modifications to air combat etc.




The main reason I'm making this mod available here on the Matrix forum,is because the scenario Storm Over Europe, is basically the up and coming new game,Strategic Command WWII War in Europe that has been given a full face lift, and which gets released next month on the 17th if all goes to plan,without any last minute issues.


NB: Anyone who does not already own a copy of Strategic Command WW1 The Great War.What are you waiting for go buy a copy of this superb game now![;)]

If you don't own any Strategic Command games yet,they can be found here : Furysoftware


Europe In Turmoil mod link: Brand new link added with many changes 30/10/2016 ( Any feedback would be appreciate thank you )

http://www.filedropper.com/europeinturmoilworldwar2_1



IGNORE THE BIG GREEN START DOWNLOAD BUTTON.

Download file using the Download This File Button highlighted with the arrowed click here.