Another despairing plea for a fix for the naval game

[Michael the Pole]

It appears that the developers are not going to honor their commitment to fix the most egregious flaws in the Naval Game, citing lack of community interest. I am heartbroken by this decision, not only because just one or two minor changes could massively improve an entire segment of the game, but as we all saw when we introduced the air/naval interaction, fixing ahistorical simulations improves ALL aspects of the game. It's kind of like lying -- when you find yourself caught in a lie, you have to defend it with other lies, which then must be supported by yet more lies, until you just want to kill yourself rather than lose another nights sleep worrying about it. In game terms, when an incorrect design decision is made (usually to save time or to take a shortcut) the result is an ever expanding ring of errors, ahistoricality, and loss of strategic choices. These results all have to be dealt with, and rather than correct the initial error, the designer tries to paper over the results using special rules, events or house rules. These actions cause results and it just goes on and on. A perfectly designed wargame shouldnt need such fixes, the rules should allow what was historically possible, and then the strategic choices of the players or the AI will produce results that everyone recognizes as accurate. But we all recognize that this isn't a perfect world.

The naval game is an excellent example of this truism. Before the introduction of air/sea interaction with ToW, many of the most important strategic decisions of WWII were, quite simply, a joke. But that simple fix made a huge change in how the entire game plays. There are now posts from players up to their necks in the depths of the Russian Steppes worried about how their navies are doing. Imagine the depth of play we could achieve if just one or two minor corrections are made to the naval game![8D]

In order of importance, we MUST fix the following areas.

Aircraft are quite simply not doing enough damage to naval shipping. Look at the evacuation at Dunkirk -- the British committed 603 vessels to the campaign and the luftwaffe sank 243 of them. Of 39 destroyers engaged, 10 were destroyed and 15 seriously damaged, This was in the course of one game turn (one week.) Can any one imagine being able to replicate this rate of loss as the game is currently configured? During the naval actions around Crete during May of 1941 a single Luftflotte sank 9 major British warships and severely damaged another 18 over a period lasting essentially one game turn. Can any one imagine being able to replicate this rate of loss as the game is currently configured? I could mention many other examples -- the Battle off Norway in 1940, the Arctic convoys, etc, etc.

Aircraft should be able to do sufficient damage, in a single attack, to sink or seriously damage 1 or more warships in a single turn (week.)
As a corolary of this, we should allow aircraft to attack pp transfers such as lend-lease. The strategic importance of Norway increased exponentially when we allowed planes to attack ships. Imagine how important Norway becomes to Germany if the only way to reduce the shipment of PP to the Soviet Union is to base aircraft (and warships) in Norway. It would be infinitely easy to require that lend-lease shipments (by sea) to any country be sent by convoy, and that all convoys be subject to air attack when passing through a sea zone where the enemy launches a maritime attack with an air unit.

All of the other ideas suggested for the naval patch -- improving and quantifying ports, fixing the currently silly tech level rules for ships so that they agree with the rest of the game, differentiating between engineering damage and weapons systems damage, adding the newly suggested coastal sea zones to limit aircraft range and solve the problem of ships moving through interdicted areas without suffering attacks, escorts and convoys, and repair times for damaged vessels -- all of these wouldbe less difficult to program and implement then just the changes made in the air game instituted in 1.60. They are much more necessary[:-]

Deciding not to fix the naval part of this wonderfull game "because we're going tomake another game that will have a better naval simulation," is a betrayl of what this game is supposed to be. Guys, just a little more effort on this one flawed system is going to pay AMAZING dividends! ToW can be a game for the Ages if we just fix these problems, because they will add amazing strategic depth, just as the fixes in ToW and the 1.60 patch did.

And you dont have to do it alone -- this community will fall all overitself to help.[8D]

[Spechtmeise]

I am seriously thinking of going back to CEAW for my wargaming fix. The naval aspect of WW 2 was historically so important, and ToW - otherwise a brilliant game - just does not do it justice.

[Michael the Pole]

ORIGINAL: Stratocruiser

I am seriously thinking of going back to CEAW for my wargaming fix. The naval aspect of WW 2 was historically so important, and ToW - otherwise a brilliant game - just does not do it justice.

As I said in the title of this thread, I too am despairing of getting the design team to understand just how critically important this issue is. I may give up on the whole thing myself -- everytime I try to play my beloved France 40 scenario, the naval game leaves me with the taste of ashes in my mouth.

I want to love this game. I want to play it every week like I used to play Masters of Orion 3 or Civilization or Pirates. I dont want to lose my sense of having finally found a wargaming home after 40 years in the wilderness. But, Les and Artur and Sev and all my other friends -- this issue may drive me out.[:(]

[SeaMonkey]

Don't worry Michael this will come about eventually, be patient.  Continue to play and communicate and await the Pacific version.  That will be the release that will get the naval part of the game cemented and then we will get the global version of a well polished WW2 game.
 
This chronology has unfolded before and it will again, have faith in Wastelands, they may possess the "true grit" to get'r done.

[willgamer]

Aircraft should be able to do sufficient damage, in a single attack, to sink or seriously damage 1 or more warships in a single turn (week.)

This plus coastal zones vs deep sea zones to differentiate what zones are subject to aircraft would do it for me.

Given the historical dominance of land based aircraft, I wish this would be given the highest priority to fix. [:)]

[Akmatov]

I too am hoping for a fix to the mess that is called the 'naval game'. Count me as discontented.

[Tomokatu]

While I may also be discontented with the naval implementation and see the logic in Michael's argument, I'm not likely to let the issue drive me away from ToW or the Wastelands family. [&o]
The game is still mostly land-based on a bloody BIG continent and I can get enough fun out of it to persevere. I'm happy to wait for the global version presaged in Sea Monkey's post, i.e. that will be the one AFTER "Pacific" - if I interpret that post correctly.[8D]
 
Patience is still a virtue.
[:D]

[SeaMonkey]

Yeah, but Tomo, we will all need to be involved in the Naval-Air dynamics in the Pacific so that the Global game gets it right.

In my mind the Pacific is a "must" purchase.

I didn't purchase ToW, I could see the basic code disallowed the naval fix and let's face it, you can't represent the WW2 European theater accurately without it.

The logistical/communication net will be another area that will need attention among the other things that have been mentioned. This will be Wastelands design from the ground up, not a do over like ToW so if you want a faithful recreation of the historical conflict, you've got to get on board.

[willgamer]

In my mind the Pacific is a "must" purchase.

I didn't purchase ToW, I could see the basic code disallowed the naval fix and let's face it, you can't represent the WW2 European theater accurately without it.

Is that kinda like "supporting the troops, but not the war"?? [:D][:'(][:D]

[Michael the Pole]

ORIGINAL: SeaMonkey

Don't worry Michael this will come about eventually, be patient.  Continue to play and communicate and await the Pacific version.  That will be the release that will get the naval part of the game cemented and then we will get the global version of a well polished WW2 game.

This chronology has unfolded before and it will again, have faith in Wastelands, they may possess the "true grit" to get'r done.

Unfortunately, SeaMonkey is not a designer, and has no connection with Wasteland that I'm aware of. The Beta testers have been talking about both a naval patch and the Pacific War game since ToW was published, and quite frankly, the silence from the designers on this subject in response to ourdirect questions about this subject has been extremely depressing. The Pacific War project has many potential pitfalls, and while I intend to continue playtesting, I must admit that I am not encouraged by the problems inherent in creating a game that must deal with the massive imbalance between the opponents, not to mention a historical situation that must concentrate on carrier vs carrier naval battles over huge expanses of empty ocean scattered with small islands. I have a hard time understanding how we're going to apply this theoreticall new system to the European theatre of operations where there wasnt a single carrier=carrier battle.

I love ToW, and I'd point out to Anraz and Doomtrader, et al., once again, the general dissatisfaction with the current naval game. I want to be able to play ToW, and I want to play it while we work on the next project. Who knows howlong its going to take to recreate the universe as its going to require to get Pacific War working. We were assured that there would be a serious effort to fix the problems with the naval part of the game.

The current naval system, while flawed and generalized, is workable for what it needs to do, with some relatively minor tweaks. These changes have been exhaustively detailed and discussed and could be implemented with a lot less time and trouble than was necessary to change the aircraft system in 1.60. This was a solution looking for a problem while the flaws in the naval system have been well known since RtV.

I must also admit to being somewhat annoyed being abdjured to trust my friends on the development team by someone I've never heard of before this month.

[Bleck]

ORIGINAL: Michael the Pole
These changes have been exhaustively detailed and discussed and could be implemented with a lot less time and trouble than was necessary to change the aircraft system in 1.60.

Are you sure about the "less time and trouble" part? [:)]
Believe me, it designing(considering ALL possible cases)+coding+testing+fixing naval would be easier/faster... Designing and implementing totally new things is one thing, changing things that are already there, connected with other things is totally different [;)]

[willgamer]

ORIGINAL: Bleck

ORIGINAL: Michael the Pole
These changes have been exhaustively detailed and discussed and could be implemented with a lot less time and trouble than was necessary to change the aircraft system in 1.60.

Are you sure about the "less time and trouble" part? [:)]
Believe me, it designing(considering ALL possible cases)+coding+testing+fixing naval would be easier/faster... Designing and implementing totally new things is one thing, changing things that are already there, connected with other things is totally different [;)]

I think Mike has good reason to expect that these might be less troublesome changes. [:)]

If, and it's a big if, the coding was done to best practices, then very little to none of the core changes should involve coding changes. The expectation would be that the two basic suggestions would require changes to tables only. As you know, this would require both fewer quality assurance steps and simplify regression testing.

Specific tables that need modification: 1.more sea zones need to be added, 2. coastal hexes may need to be updated as to what sea zone(s) they are adjacent to, 3. Update unit air to sea attack values and/or sea from air defense values.

Please help me understand if you see it differently. [:)]

[8D]

[Akmatov]

I really hope something will be done to generally improve the naval game and specifically the improvements mentioned in the Norway thread.  I would be delighted if the Norway ideas were implemented as it would open up a huge area of decisions, reflecting reality.

Unlike some, I have purchased the game and will be playing, a lot I suspect.  However, as a novice, I was startled to read that this:

make it possible for air units to attack convoys and make them more effective against shipping

was something not yet implemented.  Air attack on convoys was a big deal.

I very much like the implementation and scale of TOW, I'm just hoping there will be a bit more development so as to offer me a more realistic range of decisions - hopefully these can be done as the result would be GREAT!