Matrix Games Forums

From a concurrent IM conversation:

"Ben says:
I'd be inclined to take the ships out altogether and just give the designer more tools to manage it abstractly
I get the feeling that units on the map under the direct control of the player is never going to be the way to manage naval warfare at this scale

wrightcolin says:
I'd be interested in trying to handle them more the way air war is handled.  The USN in the Pacific aside, they do tend to dash out and return in sub-turn length increments.
More likely to dash out the closer you get, too."

So my take is that rather than having ships rather improbably bobbing offshore for months on end, they'd be based at ports and execute missions while physically remaining stationary.

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
There is the minor detail that it's hard to make money selling 37 copies of each title.

I can also think of a couple of games that I play vs. AI but am not interested in playing PBEM. If someone wants to do that with TOAW, fine with me. It's just not my interest.

Finally, a lot of people are going to want to start out versus the AI. It wouldn't be much fun getting your ass handed to you on a plate the first few times out. I didn't buy this thing and then go out looking for a PBEM match. Long time ago, but I'm sure of that.

Colin

I'm getting lynched here. And up to now you've been the only bright spot in this debate. But where on Earth did pull this 'minor detail' from? Did you wipe afterwards? If you simply made the assumption that a game without an AI won't sell, I could ask you to back that up with hard data. But it looks like you're closing ranks with the sophists now.

While I'm posting, let me elaborate on my idea on how ships would move. There is going to be a certain amount of calculation the game will go through for every hex ships enter; intercept. NI, AND recon. Just like the old boardgame GGs Pacific War(which I believe sold more than 37 copies without an AI). A ship(or stack) may have a movement allowance of 50. But it's going to have to move one hex at a time.

ORIGINAL: macgregor

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
There is the minor detail that it's hard to make money selling 37 copies of each title.

I can also think of a couple of games that I play vs. AI but am not interested in playing PBEM. If someone wants to do that with TOAW, fine with me. It's just not my interest.

Finally, a lot of people are going to want to start out versus the AI. It wouldn't be much fun getting your ass handed to you on a plate the first few times out. I didn't buy this thing and then go out looking for a PBEM match. Long time ago, but I'm sure of that.

Colin

I'm getting lynched here. And up to now you've been the only bright spot in this debate. But where on Earth did pull this 'minor detail' from? Did you wipe afterwards? If you simply made the assumption that a game without an AI won't sell, I could ask you to back that up with hard data. But it looks like you're closing ranks with the sophists now.

You're into it with Curtis LeMay. I haven't looked, so I can't score the match. As to me, I merely pointed out what are probably the facts of life -- and if you can't take 'minor detail' in stride, Curtis is going to eat you for breakfast.

...and trust me. Me and Curtis 'closing ranks' is a singularly unlikely event. Notice that our managing to agree even momentarily was cause for exclamation.

While I'm posting, let me elaborate on my idea on how ships would move. There is going to be a certain amount of calculation the game will go through for every hex ships enter; intercept AND recon. Just like the old boardgame GGs Pacific War(which I believe sold more than 37 copies without an AI). A ship(or stack) may have a movement allowance of 50. But it's going to have to move one hex at a time.

That all sounds like it could be part of something. Better than thinking adding more destroyer types is the answer, anyway.

Bear in mind that the game is supposed to be about land warfare. We need a better naval model -- but it should remain a subsidiary part of the game. What's more, it all has to get programmed -- and that imposes sharp constraints. The second-best solution that actually gets enacted beats the dream that never does hands down. So simplicity of programming is going to be a virtue.

Hence my attachment to the idea of trying to 'lift' the routines the program uses for air war. I won't say it's a sure bet, but I'd be inclined to go that route. Ships do behave like aircraft, to some extent (here the USN in the Pacific is more of an exception than a guide). They operate from a base, conduct sorties and return, suffer an unpredictable chance of interception...

I think it's worth looking at as an alternative model -- both in terms of accuracy and in terms of programming feasibility.

I am so sick right now. Never again with the sushi! While Europe was burning stacks of bodies outside every village, the Chinese had the largest fleet in the world and quite capable of vanquishing the west. Yet the emperor ordered them all to remain in port where they rotted. All the great viruses and bacteria originated in Europe, and yet somehow with their diet they survived. Now in this period of globalization, where are all the diseases showing up? Asia and Africa. Sorry guys. Maybe hamburgers aren't so bad after all. It's not about taste or this sense of nutrition, it's about staying alive.

Since I can't breath let alone sleep, let's review what I've proposed.

1- Unless a unit is loading/unloading or supporting ground ops, or in a port; which I propose to be a unit as opposed to a map feature in order to distinguish the protection different ports afford. This may also allow for Mulberries. Unless it's on station -in which case, units need no %50 checks it's considered at sea.
2-At sea units, no matter how they're engaged; intercept, naval interdiction, must undergo a %50 engagement check for both sides. Both sides see each other, no advantage. one side sees, gets an advantage. Neither side sees, no combat and engagement is terminated. If combat occurs in the first round, they will check again every subsequent round.
3- Certain HQs will be assigned 'supply ships' which I'm hoping can be interdicted over water, much as trucks over land. These HQs will be allowed to act as beacheads for amphibious ops.
4- A patrol level can be established for ships and subs. How wide an area? I'm willing to be flexible. They still will occupy a physical hex, which can be spotted and engaged -of course, with the %50 checks.
5- Subs will be portrayed as a unique target type, like aircraft, ships, armor and soft. In order to attack a sub would require the attacking unit to possess a weapon with an anti-submarine warfare value(for those that don't understand ASW). Subs can attack with the same kind of weapons surface units
attack with. Subs should be allowed to decline engagement with surface units.
6-Every hex a naval unit enters will be checked for naval interdiction and intercepts, as well as updating it's own recon.
7- It'd be nice to designate specific unit within a stack as 'pickets' so they can get engaged first while receiving support from other units in the stack, as with these port units.
I agree that too much detail can ruin this thing. The requirement here is for the naval system to take advantage of every system that works on land to the maximum. personally, I believe this system does that.

Forgive me, but I now have to go get sick.

So my take is that rather than having ships rather improbably bobbing offshore for months on end, they'd be based at ports and execute missions while physically remaining stationary.

That sounds like a great idea, very TOAW'ish. Has anyone ever expanded on it ? The current ability to move hex by hex might have to be done away with.

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

So my take is that rather than having ships rather improbably bobbing offshore for months on end, they'd be based at ports and execute missions while physically remaining stationary.

That sounds like a great idea, very TOAW'ish. Has anyone ever expanded on it ? The current ability to move hex by hex might have to be done away with.

Answer me this; where else in the game does something remotely like this occur? TOAWish? Hardly. How about you just don't make every sea hex a supply hex? Then you adjust supply usage on ships so that it doesn't affect readiness and morale like out of supply ground units? Do you think that might be a little easier?

ORIGINAL: macgregor

Assume ...and assault! So Curtis, you've created this little scenario assuming 2 things. one that single DDs would be represented and two, that this intercept would force a stack into the combat hex. Wrong!

Single DDs may or may not be represented as designers see fit. But in all cases there will be a suite of naval unit sizes. Some will invariably be far less significant than others. And players can use those to game the reaction - just as they do now with Local Reserve. And who uses Local Reserve?

Do you even know what ASW means?

Antisubmarine Warfare.

Is there not already a naval value and did i NOT already state that naval weapons would be injected into the combat sequence?

There is no ASW (or torpedo) parameter or facility in TOAW. That would have to be coded. It could be equipment based (like in WitP), but that would mean ship modeling (like in WitP).

The only thing you apparently agree with is your own bollocks!

Why don't you stick to the facts and keep the personal comments out of the discussion. We disagree. We don't have to be vile.

ORIGINAL: macgregor

1- Unless a unit is loading/unloading or supporting ground ops, or in a port; which I propose to be a unit as opposed to a map feature in order to distinguish the protection different ports afford. This may also allow for Mulberries. Unless it's on station -in which case, units need no %50 checks it's considered at sea.

How about if a unit is in a Deep Water hex then it's considered at sea and if its in an Port hex its considered in port.

2-At sea units, no matter how they're engaged; intercept, naval interdiction, must undergo a %50 engagement check for both sides. Both sides see each other, no advantage. one side sees, gets an advantage. Neither side sees, no combat and engagement is terminated. If combat occurs in the first round, they will check again every subsequent round.

There should be a Naval Combat Procedure of some sort, eventually. It might refine the way it works now. But, for a start, they can just engage when they meet each other via interdiction fire followed by counterbattery fire. We need some procedure that allows one side to disengage when things get out of hand. Some sort of retreat ability for the loser.

3- Certain HQs will be assigned 'supply ships' which I'm hoping can be interdicted over water, much as trucks over land. These HQs will be allowed to act as beacheads for amphibious ops.

There are already elaborate plans for sea supply. Very non-trivial, though.

4- A patrol level can be established for ships and subs. How wide an area? I'm willing to be flexible. They still will occupy a physical hex, which can be spotted and engaged -of course, with the %50 checks.

Subs, yes - but no physical representation. Surface ships, no. That's unnecessary. How they're represented now will work fine.

5- Subs can attack with the same kind of weapons surface units attack with.

They also need torpedoes. Some surface ships will need them too. That's a new feature that will have to be coded.

6-Every hex a naval unit enters will be checked for naval interdiction and intercepts, as well as updating it's own recon.

Gotta have recon aircraft for carriers to do that.

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Ships do behave like aircraft, to some extent (here the USN in the Pacific is more of an exception than a guide). They operate from a base, conduct sorties and return, suffer an unpredictable chance of interception...

Those sorties can last a very long time - much longer than TOAW's turn interval ranges. Lots of scenarios have ships operating out of port for the duration of the scenario. And, if all ships are in port at the end of their turns, they can only interact with enemy ships via computer reaction - a very unsatisfactory method as Local Reserve has shown.

I don't see why we would need this. The current method is more connected to reality.

ORIGINAL: macgregor

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

So my take is that rather than having ships rather improbably bobbing offshore for months on end, they'd be based at ports and execute missions while physically remaining stationary.

That sounds like a great idea, very TOAW'ish. Has anyone ever expanded on it ? The current ability to move hex by hex might have to be done away with.

Answer me this; where else in the game does something remotely like this occur? TOAWish? Hardly.

Air units. If the game system can abstract air units as they are now, why not stay within the same realm of thought and treat naval units the same. That eliminates most of the complexity and required rule reading/memorizing that a lot of this other stuff requires. Ground combat in TOAW is complex enough that players gain advantages over others in pbem by experience. A reworked Naval model doesn't need that.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Ships do behave like aircraft, to some extent (here the USN in the Pacific is more of an exception than a guide). They operate from a base, conduct sorties and return, suffer an unpredictable chance of interception...

Those sorties can last a very long time - much longer than TOAW's turn interval ranges. Lots of scenarios have ships operating out of port for the duration of the scenario. And, if all ships are in port at the end of their turns, they can only interact with enemy ships via computer reaction - a very unsatisfactory method as Local Reserve has shown.

I don't see why we would need this. The current method is more connected to reality.

Having seen how the current method works -- or fails to -- in any situation where both sides have weapons, I disagree.

This isn't to say that my suggestion is a complete answer, all wrapped up and ready to go -- but the current system completely fails to simulate reality. It can only deliver remotely plausible results in situations where one side enjoys complete naval supremacy.

While it is true that sorties can last a very long time, they generally don't. In the Mediterranean, units might be out from port for a day or two. In the Atlantic, while German commerce raiders were an exception, for most TOAW-relevant missions it was -- again -- more like a day or two. Even in the Pacific, if one looks at the time away from port for anything but the USN 1944-45, one will discover the usual sorties ran for weeks rather than months -- and of course destroyers and such would require some sort of mobile 'port' even for that.

It's not a perfect fit, but all this suggests to me that between the current model, where ships behave like land units that happen to move around on water, and what I am proposing -- where they would function like air units that move in water rather than air -- that my alternative might be an improvement.

Add that in combat, ships do behave more like aircraft than infantry regiments. They don't dig in -- they dart out. The Germans attempt to mount an amphibious invasion of Crete, and the Mediterranean fleet darts out, takes a hell of a pasting from the Luftwaffe, but manages to sink the seaborne units. The German Navy slips up the coast of Norway, and manages to deliver its seaborne units, but much of it is intercepted and sunk by the Royal Navy.

Similarly with most fire support missions. Look at the fighting off Guadacanal. Generally, the ships lurked in nearby ports and sallied into the waters around Guadacanal in brief forays. Not always, but usually.

It's a pattern of behavior where the air combat model seems to more appropriately model things. As it stands, ships can move vast distances, deliver a hammer blow with impunity, and then if it isn't safe to stay, sail back unscathed. It would work better if they were seen as launching 'missions' in the course of which they might or might not be intercepted by enemy ships and aircraft. That last is more like what usually happened.

Offhand, I'd say that going over to such a system will turn out to produce new flaws and anomalies of its own, but it won't be as bad as the current system, where one cannot reasonably model actual conflict at all.

I'm certainly not wedded to this idea as presented. But please don't dig in along the lines of the current system and doggedly insist that in its essentials it's just fine. It's not, and we need a fundamental revision.

Another advantage to making a change is that under the current system, players enjoy the sort of complete control that really only occurs in land combat. An enemy ship is in a specific hex, and they move to that hex and attack it.

But that isn't what happened. More like, ships sortied into harms way, and had unpredictable encounters with enemy ships and aircraft.

...like what the air model simulates. This is supposed to be an operational system, and as the operational commander, you order or don't order the Mediterranean Fleet to provide fire support for the Australians advancing up the Lebanese coast, while the Luftwaffe in Rhodes sets or doesn't set its units to 'anti-shipping.'

In the upshot, the fire support mission is performed but several destroyers are sunk or damaged. However, no operational commander ever assigned the Ju-88's to attack those specific destroyers. They were just ordered to go look for British ships off the Lebanese coast. From the point of view of the operational commanders, it is like assigning air missions.

One thing we would need -- which is needed anyway -- is the ability to confine sea and air units to perform their interdiction and inception missions within specific areas. It's an old trick to 'bait' enemy bombers set to interdiction well beyond their own fighter cover where they can be hammered.

In general, for these sort of missions -- interdiction, interception, non-specific combat support -- what is needed is the ability to pick a target hex and specify a radius from that hex over which the unit will attempt to perform its mission. He-111's in Northern Germany will attempt to bomb Royal Naval units off Norway. They won't pursue them right into Scapa Flow and get shot out the sky for their pains.

Curtis (Bob)

I am indeed a bit cranky. For 7 years I have been pouring ideas out. If not with TOAW, World in Flames. And for seven years, I've had someone; if not you here, it's been Greyshaft over at WiF or some other 'devil's advocate' doing their utmost to find ways of spinning my ideas in order to defeat them, essentially trying to out-lawyer me. I'll admit it's taken a few posts to clarify these ideas, but I'm now satisfied that I've communicated my vision of how this game can work. If I can communicate one lasting idea, let it be that THIS CAN WORK. Not only that, it can enrich this game to another level. NOTHING upsets me more than to hear someone say 'it won't work', especially if they don't properly understand what 'it' is.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
How about if a unit is in a Deep Water hex then it's considered at sea and if its in an Port hex its considered in port.

This is not a deal-breaker. You mentioned how the ships at Pearl Harbor were successfully attacked. The units I proposed could still be on top of the port(like they already are in some scenarios). Yeah. I agree. Though units supporting ground ops -especially in places like Guadalcanal with no port to mention are particularly vulnerable as they are not moving.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
There should be a Naval Combat Procedure of some sort, eventually. It might refine the way it works now. But, for a start, they can just engage when they meet each other via interdiction fire followed by counterbattery fire. We need some procedure that allows one side to disengage when things get out of hand. Some sort of retreat ability for the loser.

Agreed. This already occurs with ground forces, and I believe mobility is taken into account. It'd be nice if loss setting would handle this without requiring a player decision.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
There are already elaborate plans for sea supply. Very non-trivial, though.

Hopefully these plans include some way of interdicting supplies. My idea doesn't seem too elaborate. Maybe it can help.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
Subs, yes - but no physical representation. Surface ships, no. That's unnecessary. How they're represented now will work fine.

Again, not a deal-breaker.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
They also need torpedoes. Some surface ships will need them too. That's a new feature that will have to be coded.

Yes and perhaps special consideration for the 'long lance' as well.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
Gotta have recon aircraft for carriers to do that.

I would propose these recon aircraft be in the ship's equipment list as opposed to the air group's. Perhaps float planes could also be represented. I would imagine long range flying boats can already be represented with the editor.

If we disagree on something, that's fine. If I can't get my idea across, that's another. I am guilty of making my own assumptions, mostly about what you said; motives. It's been a long wait.

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653
Air units. If the game system can abstract air units as they are now, why not stay within the same realm of thought and treat naval units the same. That eliminates most of the complexity and required rule reading/memorizing that a lot of this other stuff requires. Ground combat in TOAW is complex enough that players gain advantages over others in pbem by experience. A reworked Naval model doesn't need that.

We could also have no ships and just represent naval battles in the event editor. I think I want a little more than this.

ORIGINAL: macgregor

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653
Air units. If the game system can abstract air units as they are now, why not stay within the same realm of thought and treat naval units the same. That eliminates most of the complexity and required rule reading/memorizing that a lot of this other stuff requires. Ground combat in TOAW is complex enough that players gain advantages over others in pbem by experience. A reworked Naval model doesn't need that.

We could also have no ships and just represent naval battles in the event editor. I think I want a little more than this.

Indeed; and so do I. A little more.

It's not that I object to a fully-programmed, complete naval warfare model being grafted onto TOAW -- I'll buy the game when it comes out.

It's just that I don't think we'll get that anytime soon. Too much work -- and if you disagree, have at it.

So, in the real world, I see an adaptation of the air war model as potentially offering a lot of bang for the buck. The programming routines are presumably already there, it would seem to offer a better simulation than what we have, and for what is after all, a subsidiary aspect of a game primarily concerned with land warfare that looks at things from the operational rather than the tactical perspective, it seems likely to be adequate.

Really, I will modify what I said at the beginning of this post. I don't even want unlimited effort going into improving the naval model. Wavell didn't concern himself with the minutia of how, where, and when Cunningham was to intercept the German invasion flotillas headed for Crete, and it's not particularly imperative to simulate that in minute detail. The game is supposed to be about land warfare -- and there are plenty of improvements to be made there if the programming resources are in fact available. I want naval warfare simulated -- but in broad strokes. I just want the strokes to be accurate, is all.

The naval warfare model does need to be improved. Even Curtis would agree with that -- when he hasn't gone into Festung Stalingrad mode. The issue is what improvements can be obtained with the resources at hand. And unless you can buy the rights to TOAW or kidnap the majority stockholder's daughter, those are decidedly limited.

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

What's more, it all has to get programmed -- and that imposes sharp constraints. The second-best solution that actually gets enacted beats the dream that never does hands down. So simplicity of programming is going to be a virtue.

Hence my attachment to the idea of trying to 'lift' the routines the program uses for air war. I won't say it's a sure bet, but I'd be inclined to go that route. Ships do behave like aircraft, to some extent (here the USN in the Pacific is more of an exception than a guide). They operate from a base, conduct sorties and return, suffer an unpredictable chance of interception...

I think it's worth looking at as an alternative model -- both in terms of accuracy and in terms of programming feasibility.

I disagree with the assumptions about programming.

First, the similarity between ships and planes operating from a base is only superficial. Planes can fly to their targets in a straight line in any direction. Ships must follow sea-lanes. As I said elsewhere, a Black Sea fleet can't react into the Caspian. Even where they can physically get there, the route may be convoluted (Norwegian Sea to Gulf of Bothnia) or very hazardous (Aegean to Black Sea). Furthermore, planes travel at more than an order-of-magnitude faster than their targets. It's reasonable to assume that the interception point would be the same as the detection point. Ships, however, move at the same speed as the target, so interception could literally be on the other side of the world from the detection point, if ever.

What this means is that you can't just cut and paste the code for air interdiction for naval reaction. At best it will serve as crude inspiration for the real code that would have to be developed from scratch.

Second, even if it could have been cut and pasted, that's only useful if it’s an entirely new feature. In other words, if TOAW didn't yet have naval operations. It does. That means you have to rip the current code out by the roots and put something alien into its place. That not the easy way. That's a programming nightmare. The easiest way to proceed is the way that disturbs the current naval code the least.

Finally, the whole philosophy is wrong. We've found out the hard way that even the simplest changes usually turn into very hard missions, because the code is so intertwined. So choosing the half-baked way on the theory that it will be easier to code is a fool's bargain. The tasks we choose have to be diamonds, in case they do turn out to be programming nightmares. Like Caesar's wife, they must be above suspicion.

Furthermore, note that this would not eliminate the long list of other changes. It doesn't add torpedoes, ASW, subs, Naval interdiction, Naval targeting, sea supply, Naval Combat Procedures, sea transports, Carrier recon, port capacities, Task Forces, modeling ships as ships instead of Heavy Artillery Units that float, coastal spotting, etc.

It just adds another huge log to the fire that's already a bonfire.

The easiest way to proceed is the way that disturbs the current naval code the least.

I can understand that. I have no knowledge of the programing that's involved so its silly of me to put forth ideas, but my thought was, given the choice of having three separate models (air, land, sea) or two similar air and sea models with the separate land model, that because TOAW is land oriented, the similar land and sea was the better option. Not the same, but similar in that air units are 'based' and assigned missions, and sea units could also be 'based' and assigned missions.

I'm not even into sea stuff but even my simple thoughts run across many complexities. I keep coming across troubles with moving one sea hex at a time. Are there other sea game systems that do this ? I honestly have no idea.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
We've found out the hard way that even the simplest changes usually turn into very hard missions, because the code is so intertwined.

May I modestly suggest maybe replacing the code with something more object oriented? LOL

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

What's more, it all has to get programmed -- and that imposes sharp constraints. The second-best solution that actually gets enacted beats the dream that never does hands down. So simplicity of programming is going to be a virtue.

Hence my attachment to the idea of trying to 'lift' the routines the program uses for air war. I won't say it's a sure bet, but I'd be inclined to go that route. Ships do behave like aircraft, to some extent (here the USN in the Pacific is more of an exception than a guide). They operate from a base, conduct sorties and return, suffer an unpredictable chance of interception...

I think it's worth looking at as an alternative model -- both in terms of accuracy and in terms of programming feasibility.

I disagree with the assumptions about programming.

First, the similarity between ships and planes operating from a base is only superficial. Planes can fly to their targets in a straight line in any direction. Ships must follow sea-lanes. As I said elsewhere, a Black Sea fleet can't react into the Caspian. Even where they can physically get there, the route may be convoluted (Norwegian Sea to Gulf of Bothnia) or very hazardous (Aegean to Black Sea). Furthermore, planes travel at more than an order-of-magnitude faster than their targets. It's reasonable to assume that the interception point would be the same as the detection point. Ships, however, move at the same speed as the target, so interception could literally be on the other side of the world from the detection point, if ever.

What this means is that you can't just cut and paste the code for air interdiction for naval reaction. At best it will serve as crude inspiration for the real code that would have to be developed from scratch.

Second, even if it could have been cut and pasted, that's only useful if it’s an entirely new feature. In other words, if TOAW didn't yet have naval operations. It does. That means you have to rip the current code out by the roots and put something alien into its place. That not the easy way. That's a programming nightmare. The easiest way to proceed is the way that disturbs the current naval code the least.

Finally, the whole philosophy is wrong. We've found out the hard way that even the simplest changes usually turn into very hard missions, because the code is so intertwined. So choosing the half-baked way on the theory that it will be easier to code is a fool's bargain. The tasks we choose have to be diamonds, in case they do turn out to be programming nightmares. Like Caesar's wife, they must be above suspicion.

Furthermore, note that this would not eliminate the long list of other changes. It doesn't add torpedoes, ASW, subs, Naval interdiction, Naval targeting, sea supply, Naval Combat Procedures, sea transports, Carrier recon, port capacities, Task Forces, modeling ships as ships instead of Heavy Artillery Units that float, coastal spotting, etc.

It just adds another huge log to the fire that's already a bonfire.

For a variety of reasons, I don't see subs as something appropriate for TOAW to simulate directly, so no problem there. Ergo, no need for ASW either.

More generally, your objections are valid enough -- but you fail to justify the current situation. As with the current government of Libya, it's not like we risk losing something of value if we make changes.

The current paradigm is simply unrelated to reality. Therefore, we have nowhere to go but up. I'll grant that it's highly unlikely that the aircraft code can simply be bodily lifted -- but I think thinking about naval vessels that way is more likely to yield fruitful results than trying to cling to the current paradigm.

TOAW is about (1)operational level (2) land warfare. That said, we needn't -- and probably shouldn't -- seek a naval warfare model that is accurate in fine detail -- any more than the air war model is accurate in fine detail. However, we do need something that roughly approximates it. This, the current system does not do.

Aside from everything else, the moments of decision in naval warfare happen quickly. From first contact to resolution how long was Midway? Over how many weeks did the naval battles in the Leyte Gulf spread? It's not even appropriate for a system like TOAW to model in detail. You'd need this elaborate, multi-turn sub-game within each turn.

Go for the broad strokes. Just try to lay them down in the right places. And they're not there now, so resign yourself to starting from scratch, one way or another.