Matrix Games Forums

Hi Elmo3, Everyone,

The introduction of longer naval unit ranges (for this game) and the implementation of the new dynamic movement options for naval units certainly has revealed a few concerns under Multiplayer. All I can say for now is that Bill and I are discussing and it is on our radar, so please continue the discussion as we are considering all feedback and options at the moment.

Hubert

Hubert, I agree with submerged sub resolution. As far as the Elmo concern, wouldn't it be fitting for some sort of defensive action on par with defensive artillery actions for air units or adjacent naval forces?

I'm not going to advocate that naval units could respond quickly enough(further than adjacent)for defensive actions in Elmo's scenario, but air units certainly could.

Of course this brings up other responses in the likelihood of air cover for naval units, like intercepts and escorts, it can get kind of complicated.

Perhaps a factor or algorithm for the proximity and number of intercepting enemy air and adjacent naval units(minus friendly fighters) to account for the possibility of attacking naval units taking additional losses.

Kind of mind boggling when you think of it.

I don't recall any complaints concerning Air Interception of Air Missions, so the mechanics applied in that area appear to be acceptable. Perhaps a similar mechanic for Naval Interception conducted by Maritime Bomber units would help in the naval aspect. For example, Naval Attacks would be subject to Interception by Maritime Bomber units, which would in turn be subject to Interception by Covering [Escort] Air Units.

Two suggested changes to the naval rules:

1. Allow ships to react to an attack by an enemy ship in their vicinity. The units don't have to move, they just join the fight like intercepting aircraft. I think ships within 5 hexes of a battle, including those in a port, should be able to react and engage the attacker. The number of reactions allowed per ship could be based on the upgrade level although you might want to keep it simple and say one reaction per turn.

2. There needs to be a movement point reduction for attacking ships that accounts for the time it takes to fight the battle.

Hi Elmo - to 1, I agree that there should be some type of Naval Interception, or Reaction, to attacks in their vicinity, but with all the different naval types I think it would impractical. DD's intercepting BB's, CA's intercepting DD's etc., might not work out too well.
to 2, we had this during Beta and if I remember correctly it was by accident and later corrected. While it was there I was kind of 50/50 on it. On one hand I saw where it made sense, on the other the overall effect was to reduce the attack range of naval units while adding another thought process to the player. So overall, naval attacks costing movement points wasn't a very good mechanic.

Well maybe if a ship attacks and then gets intercepted by another defending ship then it has to stay put for the rest of the turn. Otherwise ships just leave a port, attack a sighted enemy ship, and scoot back to port with impunity.

I'd also like to add 3. Maritime bombers should be able to intercept attacking enemy ships if within range.

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

Hi Elmo - to 1, I agree that there should be some type of Naval Interception, or Reaction, to attacks in their vicinity, but with all the different naval types I think it would impractical. DD's intercepting BB's, CA's intercepting DD's etc., might not work out too well.
to 2, we had this during Beta and if I remember correctly it was by accident and later corrected. While it was there I was kind of 50/50 on it. On one hand I saw where it made sense, on the other the overall effect was to reduce the attack range of naval units while adding another thought process to the player. So overall, naval attacks costing movement points wasn't a very good mechanic.

Hi

On 2, can you expand a little on what you didn't like about it?

Thanks

Bill

maybe if a ship attacks and then gets intercepted by another defending ship then it has to stay put for the rest of the turn.

Or a reduction in movement points, as you said in your original point 2 [and if that mechanic is adopted].
to 3, that's what I said in post #23 [:)]

can you expand a little on what you didn't like about it?

To be fair I did say I was 50/50 on it and if I recall I didn't comment at the time other than to bring attention to it. I liked it because an attacking naval unit would suffer a random reduction, which meant you had to plan a little, but things didn't always work out to plan, which is good. I didn't like it because I knew if I was planning naval attacks, my operational range would be reduced [instead of 10 hexes out and 10 hexes back, now it would be more like 7 out and 7 back]. So it was the same as before, with a shorter attack radius and another layer to the thought process. That's why I said that overall it wasn't really an improvement, but if it is put back in I don't think I would cry about it.

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

maybe if a ship attacks and then gets intercepted by another defending ship then it has to stay put for the rest of the turn.

Or a reduction in movement points, as you said in your original point 2 [and if that mechanic is adopted].
to 3, that's what I said in post #23 [:)]

Yeah I didn't mean to make it sound like those were all my ideas. More a summary of what sounded good to me.

How about a loss of movement APs attached to the amount of damage a vessel takes in that turn.

So if you start with 20 APs and move to attack, for this example you lose 3 APs for every step of damage(immediately subtracted), you take 3 hits you lose 9 APs.

You're done when out of APs, makes things unknown, could set you up for major counter next turn.

I like the idea of intercepting aircraft with the naval upgrade only, TAC, Mediums, and Maritimes only.

I didn't mean to make it sound like those were all my ideas. More a summary of what sounded good to me.

And I didn't mean to insinuate that you did that, I just thought you didn't see what I said. [8D]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

can you expand a little on what you didn't like about it?

To be fair I did say I was 50/50 on it and if I recall I didn't comment at the time other than to bring attention to it. I liked it because an attacking naval unit would suffer a random reduction, which meant you had to plan a little, but things didn't always work out to plan, which is good. I didn't like it because I knew if I was planning naval attacks, my operational range would be reduced [instead of 10 hexes out and 10 hexes back, now it would be more like 7 out and 7 back]. So it was the same as before, with a shorter attack radius and another layer to the thought process. That's why I said that overall it wasn't really an improvement, but if it is put back in I don't think I would cry about it.

Even if I can not remember this "bug": this sounds like a simple as well as quick solution approach for a reasonable deduction in the tactical movement. And I love extra thinking in a strategy game. [;)]

I plead for a field trial in the next patch beta...

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

can you expand a little on what you didn't like about it?

To be fair I did say I was 50/50 on it and if I recall I didn't comment at the time other than to bring attention to it. I liked it because an attacking naval unit would suffer a random reduction, which meant you had to plan a little, but things didn't always work out to plan, which is good. I didn't like it because I knew if I was planning naval attacks, my operational range would be reduced [instead of 10 hexes out and 10 hexes back, now it would be more like 7 out and 7 back]. So it was the same as before, with a shorter attack radius and another layer to the thought process. That's why I said that overall it wasn't really an improvement, but if it is put back in I don't think I would cry about it.

Thanks for that. [:)]

ORIGINAL: elmo3




Ports also feel way to strong. I'm sure some of them had guns to defend the port but a ship tied up in a port should be a sitting duck. As it is now the attacker almost always takes much heavier losses than the defender.

Ports must be strong with this gameplay. You don't want weak ports if you play Axis because in that case the whole Italian Navy would be wiped out in 2 turns . Actually the KM too - perhaps in 3

Not asking for weak. Just asking for it to be toned down a bit so it's better balanced. It shouldn't be easy to attack a port and it shouldn't be impossible. Right now it feels closer to the latter IMHO.

I think ports are about right. That's where the RM can hold out against the French and UK naval gambit. The best thing for ports is to make them vulnerable to air attacks, especially carriers.

Give them the counter of anti-air tech, perhaps start Italians with level 1. Let them burn the MPPs to institute the upgrades if they so choose, otherwise they'll take a hit if the UK and French strike early with aircraft.

I really do not see a problem with the navy in general, but I only play other players and not the ai. Naval battles are absolute and ruthless and maybe that is what is really bothering some. Once you have realised that sailing a naval ship blind through unscouted sea hexes is a BAD idea then your ready to learn naval play. As for ports I think they are just fine and provide some absolute protection (accept for air attack) and is a nice balance to the ruthlessness of naval combat at sea. As for subs and convoy raiding I have no comment I use my subs to scout and support my surface fleets(full stop), as the axis. If I have a spare sub or two I may toss them onto a convoy line. Just my thoughts on this subject

If you do not see a problem with the navy in general and you use subs to scout then the naval mechanics have forced you to adopt the wrong strategy. I would think that should present an easy to see problem.

How do you feel about the changes made in v1.03.01 for naval combat and subs?

About right? Too much. too little or different but not better?

Its a tricky area to get right and without wising to offend Hubert and Bill might be impossible to get right for both
single player and PBEM. Indeed there might not be a "right" answer to this

Mind you, I do like the change to the land surprise mechanic in v1.03.01

regards
Ben Wilkins