Matrix Games Forums

Naval System?

What is exactly wrong with the current naval system? If someone could put it simply?

--
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

1) don't get to see ships on the map
2) the 'escort' functionality of ships is amorphous
3) the fleet concept is amorphous

by amorphous I mean it's not sufficiently under the player's control. For instance you can throw ten ships out there as a fleet, but cannot have any control over which ships actually engage

For some other ideas, please see the following threads:

tm.asp?m=2252043
tm.asp?m=2250101
and tm.asp?m=2212131

Essentially, we were told, all the way back in the Road to Victory forum that the naval game would recieve serious attention and fixes would be included in a patch. The patch morphed into Time of Wrath, but nothing was done to correct the problems with the system, which we were assured would be addressed in a patch. There have now been two major patches, one of which included a major re-working of the air war, which was a very nice addition to the game, but I have never seen a single request from the community asking the designers to re-write the way aircraft worked. On the other hand, there have been numerous requests from the community to do something about the naval war. The current position of the developers seems to be, "tough, we've spent enough time on the game."

I have been asked several times, by people who's opinions I value, why I insist on beating this dead horse. This is how I see it.

[center]The Parable of the Three Wheeled Car[/center]
"I buy a very nice car, which runs well and looks great. There's only one problem, whenever I have to make a radical turn, the right rear wheel falls off. I mention this politely to the car company and am promised that this problem will b e fixed. In the meantime, I should try not to make any radical turns. I wait as patiently as I can, because I really like the car, and I really like the car company. but time passes and I still have this problem with the right rear wheel. A number of other people are having this problem, and they are also contacting the car company. Then the company announces that they are making a number of improvements to my beloved little car, and I am gratefull and appreciative, but also disappointed because they havent addressed the problem with the wheel. I write some more letters to the company trying to reduce the number of things that have to be fixed so the wheel won't fall off, and I make a real effort to not make any radical turns, but sometimes having the wheel come off (usualy during rain storms) gets kind of old. In the meantime, the car company stops answering my communications about the problem. But then, they announce that their going to give every one of their cars a new, shiny, paint job. This is nice, but I really didn't have any problem with the paint job. So I decide that maybe I can suggest some ways to fix the problem. I'm told that I don't know anything about running a car company, and I should be patient and then the other shoe falls. The company announces that despite all their assurances about fixing my broken wheel, that they have spent too much time and trouble on my sweet little car, and that it wouldn't be cost effective to fix the wheel, and I should get used to not making radical turns, and please stop bothering them with my problem. After all, why should I expect to make radical turns in my car? In the mean time, they are designing a new car, and maybe they'll fidure out how to keep the wheels from falling off, and if they do, maybe they can apply the fix to my car. But I love my little car, and I want to keep it forever, and I'd really like it if the wheel didn't occasionally fall off.

And thats how I feel about it. So shoot me.

THX

The naval game has definitely gotten better and more interesting. There are a lot of options with it, from convoys to shore bombardment, from air/naval battles to amphibious assaults.

As I play only PBEM games is there any one who has played out the game (again, pbem only) and found there to be serious problem with the naval system that effects the over all play balance of the ground system in general?

I would never approve of shooting a man of such eloquence. There seems to be so few left in the world as it is.

Chocolino and I have played PBEM through 41, albeit with 1.5. The only naval problems affecting the land game directly in 1.5 were shore bombardment strength miscalculated and convoy raiding too powerful. The shore bombardment problem has been fixed in 1.6, and I haven't tested the convoy raiding in 1.6, but looked at the data files and I believe that has been looked at also.

Original: Mike
we were told, all the way back in the Road to Victory forum that the naval game would recieve serious attention and fixes would be included in a patch. The patch morphed into Time of Wrath, but nothing was done to correct the problems with the system, which we were assured would be addressed in a patch.

Mike, within your "nothing" was a whole system overhaul, including changes within several algorithms and parameters, also in the your "category of nothing" we have implementation of brand new air-naval interaction, additional set of rules for subs and carriers, overhauling shore bombardment and report system and other minor changes (hard to take them form the top of my head because hundreds of things were done during last year, doomtrder could enumerate it better). It seems that for you more then noting is only to follow your own vision no matter anything. We did did what was possible.

Mike, the real problem is that first you tried to force (not convince, just force) us to change the game as you wish without looking at the feasibility, just behaving like everything was within reason. You had done in betas section, later you did it in this sections. Now you change a bit your tactic and in every second post you make eloquent, but based on false assumptions lectures with suggestions: "they promised and they failed to fulfill their obligations". It is offending and untrue. Despite the facts, understanding, feasibility or what is within reason, once again you start to rant nevertheless. I'm really sorry to say this, but your behavior eludes my grasp.

Well what can I say to summarize... I reaffirm our commitment to the game. We work really hard to meet players exceptions, since mentioned RtV full change log consist of almost thousand points..(but nevertheless Michel you still try to find a fault with a fat goose...).

There have now been two major patches, one of which included a major re-working of the air war, which was a very nice addition to the game, but I have never seen a single request from the community asking the designers to re-write the way aircraft worked.

It it seems you missed a lot of posts regarding the issue.

The current position of the developers seems to be, "tough, we've spent enough time on the game."

Mike I already announced at the forum that the next patch (1.7) is being prepared. Another "detail" you missed...

btw Mike I wonder if you perceive yourself as credible source of information regrading the game after all of these questionable statements of yours???

I wanted to give examples of what I believe is wrong with the naval game, but I've noticed that I can fill page after page with the stuff, and I know people just dont read long posts. Suffice it to say that I have copious evidence to back up these points. The bottom line is that if Wastelands would do just one or two things, it would make the naval game playable as a simulation of the naval war in Europe, and I'd shutup. As gwgardner pointed out to me, a lot of my issues can be handled as house rules -- a suggestion that I greatly appreciate![&o]

The one primary issue is the amount of damage that aircraft do (or rather, don't do) when attacking warships. In aprox. 1 week (one game turn) during the British evacuation from France the Royal Navy had 11 destroyers sunk by the attacks of one Luftflotte. It has been argued that this was a special and atypical example, which I disagree with, so look at this completely typical example. During the German invasion of Crete, the British lost (sunk) during 8 days (1 game turn) 3 cruisers and 7 destroyers, and 1 carrier, 3 battleships, 6 cruisers and 8 destroyers damaged. Of the 54 warships that participated in the battle, only 20 were not lost or damaged. Again, this was essentially in 1 game turn. Has anyone seen ANYTHING EVEN SLIGHTLY LIKE THIS FROM THE GAME? (I have played the 1940 scenario through 1941 at least 15 times, and fleets routinely hover in the Med for week after week of intense air attack, suffering one hit per turn!)

The second thing the naval game must have is the addition of 5 new sea zones. This would solve 2 major problems: the ability of naval units to move from the Atlantic to port without suffering air attack, and the ability for massed aircraft to attack warships 600 miles out in the middle of the Atlantic. There is an arguement that the ship losses suffered at Dunkirk were atypical because the British brought their ships in close to the coast. I will stipulate this point, but I believe that it only supports the need to limit the size of the intercontinental sea zones.

The other things that the game needs, the ability of ships to provide escort for convoys and capital ships, revision of the tech level issue where entire fleets are magically upgraded every time a new tech level is researched, magical instanteous repair of battle damage, the difference between mechanical and weapons damage, etc., etc. can be handled by house rules or just ignored.

The addition of the new sea zones would be nice (and not difficult, as we have already added at least one new sea zone to RtV by patch, so it wouldn't require inventing any new process.) But if Wastelands would just revise the aircraft vs. warships damage table, I'd shutup! [8D]

What I can promise is that I will discus those with doomtrader.

Naval simulation in the current game is acceptable as it is. Can it be improved, sure. As the changes to date have shown. A little time and input should see another well thought out patch for the future.

As far as more changes to the naval simulation is concerned, many elements of historical naval note could be modeled by use of the event system. Not every element of ww2 combat needs to be hands on player driven.

Too get any more detail would entail much more than just tweaking a combat results table or adding a sea zone or 2. imho

It would necessitate giving fighter units the ability to fly CAP over sea zones and fleets. CV's would need aircraft elements, which would mean carrier air operations of some sort, would have to be simulated. Dare i say, need to be implemented. Complete AAA tables need to be worked up for ships and land. Airfields would need to be implemented so that Air power is not projected where it should not be.

Submarines would have to be subject to random air attacks as well as working out some sort of hunter/killer Destroyer groups as a rock/paper/scissors. Wolf-packs would need to be coded as pure sub fleets and given a "Wolf Pack Doctrine", along the same lines as the Land combat Doctrine per nation. In fact why stop there when you can just incorporate Doctrine for Surface Fleets and Air forces. I'm sure with the code already in place, a few more lines won't matter, much.

Raiders should be able to sink Battleships in 1 shot kills as was historical between the Bismarck and the Hood. In fact 1 shot kills should be possible in any and all engagements on the high seas.

Maybe just strip away the escorts. They just serve to give the fleets too much "life" for a game of this size to simulate. Give all BB's 2 hit-points, CA's 1 with CV's allowed to have 3. This way Ships could sink at historical levels of Dunkirk and Crete. Those pesky Escorts should be worked in, I'm just not sure how though. [8|]

There are ramifications to changes, which even in the least of which, make unforeseen change. These words will have unforeseen ramifications, even as tongue in cheek as it may not appear.

Heck, I've been playing games since the early 70's and if anything, games bring out, its the modder in all of us. When it was just paper and ink, it was easy to create and add.
When it was just a close group of friends, they understood the needs, wants and desires of each other. Evolving to the computer age of forums makes for a whole set of parameters not easy to adapt to or forgiving to those willing to speak out.

Michael the Pole, i will never attain the eloquence of Milrevko or the passion of you. I'm just a dog-face enjoying a game or 2 or 3 along life's journey.
One thought on my mind worth mentioning, is that coercion never gets anyone much support, especially from me.

But if Wastelands would just revise the aircraft vs. warships damage table, I'd shutup!

First, I am hard put to understand how I have coerced anyone. If arguement is coercion, if maintaioning a logical and well reasoned position with evidence and vigor is codercion, if refusing to give up is coercion, well I guess that I'm guilty. (BTW, heres a textbook definition of coercion: "the act of coercing; use of force or intimidation to obtain compliance. 2. force or the power to use force in gaining compliance, as by a government...")

I'm not going to discuss how we got into this mess because, despite some opinion, I try to honor my agreement with the developers to preserve the sanctity of the beta testing process. But I would like to point out, that if the ground combat results were producing results that were off by a factor of five, it would have been fixed long ago.

As I have stated several times, I love this game. I think that it deserves repeated recognition as a Game of the Year. My friendships with the designers are very important to me. And if you are convinced, and I mean really convinced, that friends are making a serious mistake, and by intervening, you can prevent that mistake, then you are morally obligated to interpose yourself. I was al.ways taught by my relatives who served in the War that doing what was right was a Poles obligation even if it meant standing in front of a tank or trying to stop a freight train with your bare hands or taking on a country three times your size with no allies worth the name. This doesnt rise to that level of importance, but the theory is the same.

I have many times in this process surrendered ideas that I really believed were kool. This isn't such a position. I really feel that these two changes, or even just the revision of the combat table will result in a major improvement of the only weak part of this game of genius. Why on earth do ya'll think that I am risking all of my friendships on this very important part of my life? And I really, truly believe that the time may come when my friends will thank me for standing up for what I honestly believe.

Michael,

I cannot help but think that with the wide ocean naval zones the system models the reality pretty well. Crete was a real lesson to the Royal Navy and they did not expose their forces thus again. Dunkirk was a very special case and even 11 destroyers represents one or two, maybe three HP in the current system. Any more serious results would take the system way beyond the real situation on the high seas. We have gone over this before, but German "naval" air was not very effective against warships. In narrow seas, with no room to run, and very slow moving, or stationary targets it could get hits, but not out in fleet formation on the high seas. The remote blockade that is represented by the cruisers shadowing Bismarck is very different from the seas off Brest where she wanted to get.

I respect your opinion, but I think the table you want is only approriate when you are in littoral waters. With Gary asking for the AI to be withdrawing from the current heavy damage inflicted by current tables I think we would be in big trouble with your change.

I think the currrent system plays well. When I saw the damage the Axis was doing with air to my multi nation Allied fleets I withdrew, and this is just the reaction you want, and is historically acurate.

I think you have won this battle already with the air changes we have. Any more would be too much, in my opinion.

Chuck

To clarify my request - I just want the AI to be smart enough not to lose its entire fleet by just sitting there in a sea zone, and never withdrawing ships that are in danger of being sunk.

ORIGINAL: cpdeyoung

Michael,

I cannot help but think that with the wide ocean naval zones the system models the reality pretty well. Crete was a real lesson to the Royal Navy and they did not expose their forces thus again. Dunkirk was a very special case and even 11 destroyers represents one or two, maybe three HP in the current system. Any more serious results would take the system way beyond the real situation on the high seas. We have gone over this before, but German "naval" air was not very effective against warships. In narrow seas, with no room to run, and very slow moving, or stationary targets it could get hits, but not out in fleet formation on the high seas. The remote blockade that is represented by the cruisers shadowing Bismarck is very different from the seas off Brest where she wanted to get.

I respect your opinion, but I think the table you want is only approriate when you are in littoral waters. With Gary asking for the AI to be withdrawing from the current heavy damage inflicted by current tables I think we would be in big trouble with your change.

I think the currrent system plays well. When I saw the damage the Axis was doing with air to my multi nation Allied fleets I withdrew, and this is just the reaction you want, and is historically acurate.

I think you have won this battle already with the air changes we have. Any more would be too much, in my opinion.

Chuck

Chuck
First, thank you for the respect of actually dealing with my arguement, rather than accusing me of threatening you, as Anraz did.

I'm afraid that I don't agree with your analysis. By my count (and it is difficult to come to a solid conclusion, esp. concerning the Royal Navy, since so much of it is considered to be off map) some counters do consist of a flotilla leader (usually a cruiser or light cruiser) and somewhere between 1 and 6 escorts (destroyers.) This is not uniformly true -- the Poles (and most of the smaller navies) destroyers get their own counters and sometimes they were deployed all by themselves as single ships. But lets go with the proposition that most counters represent five or six ships. I agree that Dunkirk was unusual in that most of the ships sunk were in close, and some (not all) were not manuvering. I think that this only strengthens my arguement for the proposed coastal sea zones. But have you ever seen the game destroy two or three ship counters in a single turn? I know that I haven't. That aside, Crete was certainly not a case of either lack of manuvering room or not manuvering at all. The only sense were this question comes up is when you order your ships into an area where the other side has air superiority.

This kind of choice is certainly, and solely, the conscious choice of the owning player. However, when you do make that choice, the consequences should be dire. I have a statement by Churchill himself here somewhere (I believe that its in "Finest Hour" during his discussion of running the first armored regiment reinforcement to Egypt in September, 1940) that taking ships into such an area is "grave."

The bottom line is, are we able to replicate the same levels of damage that were common historicaly? The answer is clearly, no! The only sense that manuverability was limited at Crete was that the Med Fleet was unable to escape from under the Axis air umbrella before first light. I can give you many, many examples of this from the Pacific War as well, but here's just one. Repulse and Prince of Wales had all the sea room to manuver that anyone could ask for. In fact, one of the reasons that Admiral Phillips took his ships where he did is because, "he thought that Japanese forces could not operate so far from land." After recieving attacks over the course of a single day from aprox. 100 Japanese aircraft,both ships sank. In game turns, two battleships sunk in a single turn by a single aircraft unit.

Chuck, honestly, have you ever seen anything in the game that comes even close to this level of damage? I know that I haven't. This preformance was seen over and over and over during the war. Have you ever seen three cruiser counters destroyed in a single turn, as at Crete? I know that I haven't. How about what happened to the Japanese fleets who moved under American air cover at Leyte Gulf?

The lesson to be drawn from this is that unopposed airforces could sink darn near anything in a week. And yet in the game, we see example after example of fleets remaining on station under heavy air attack for month after month, suffering one or two hit points of damage per turn and sailing placidly along, while presumably improving their tans![8|]

And this, after all, is the crux of Gary's arguement about the AI. The AI is leaving ships under air attack -- AND THEY ARE NOT BEING SUNK! IF they WERE being sunk, there wouldn't be an issue of the AI leaving them there, week after week, as we have all seen the French or English do in the North Sea or the Med.

The following are Royal Navy ships lost in the ETO. I heavily edited the specific information for each entry for brevity. A link is supplied for much more detailed information per ship. Only BB's, CV's, CA's are listed here as well as main cause of damage before sinking.

Reading this obituary is very sobering in the lives lost per ship in the very unforgiving environment of war at sea.

Battleships:

BARHAM torpedoed by German ‘U.331’

ROYAL OAK torpedoed by German ‘U.47’

HOOD 15in gunfire of German battleship 'Bismarck'

TERROR Bombed by Ju.87

Carriers:

EAGLE Torpedoed by German ‘U.73’

COURAGEOUS Torpedoed by German ‘U.29’

GLORIOUS 11in gunfire of German battlecruisers 'Scharnhorst' and 'Gneisenau'

ARK ROYAL 1 torpedo on the 13th from German ‘U.81’

AUDACITY torpedoed by German ‘U.751

AVENGER Torpedoed by German ‘U.155’

DASHER aviation gasoline explosion

NABOB torpedoed by German ‘U.354’

THANE torpedoed by German ‘U.1172’

PATIA German bombers

SPRINGBANK Torpedoed by German ‘U.201’

Cruisers:

YORK, Badly damaged by Italian explosive motor boats, beached and later wrecked by bombing

CAIRO torpedoed by Italian submarine 'Axum'

CALCUTTA German Ju.88 bombers.

CALYPSO torpedoed by Italian submarine 'Bagnolini'

CARLISLE German Ju.87 divebombers.

COVENTRY German Ju.87 divebombers.

CURACOA sunk in collision with liner 'Queen Mary'.

CURLEW German Ju.88 bombers.

DUNEDIN torpedoed by German ‘U.124’

EFFINGHAM* ran aground and wrecked, later torpedoed and abandoned.

NEPTUNE 3 or 4 mines laid by Italian cruiser force

GALATEA torpedoed by German ‘U.557’

PENELOPE torpedoed by German ‘U.410’

GLOUCESTER German Ju.87 and Ju.88 bombers.

MANCHESTER torpedoed by Italian MTBs

SOUTHAMPTON German Ju.87 divebombers.

EDINBURGH hit by a third torpedo from German destroyers, scuttled with a torpedo from destroyer Foresight

BONAVENTURE torpedoed by Italian submarine 'Ambra'

CHARYBDIS torpedoed by German torpedo boats ‘T.23' and ‘T.27'.

HERMIONE torpedoed by German ‘U.205’

NAIAD torpedoed by German ‘U.565

FIJI German Me.109 fighter-bomber.

TRINIDAD scuttled, German Ju.88 bombers, damaged by own torpedo

SPARTAN German aircraft-launched Hs.293 glider bomb.

ABDIEL,mines laid by German E-boats.

LATONA German Ju.87 divebombers.

WELSHMAN torpedoed by German ‘U.617’

http://www.naval-history.net/WW2aBritishLosses01BB.htm
Go to this link for specific information.

Make your own conclusions about the naval losses ETO.

If i were to suggest anything about how the naval war in Europe could be improved, i'd start with the Battle of the Atlantic. The U-Boat was the core element of the German navy. It compelled Churchill to say,

"The only thing that ever frightened me during the war was the U-Boat peril."

The Battle for the Atlantic was waged without respite and only in 1943 was the climactic turning point reached. I would rather a hard look be placed there.

Victory at Sea Episode 1 Part 1 Battle of the Atlantic, 1939-1941
http://www.youtube.com/user/waywrd#p/u/83/6ausVC2NhAo
If you have never seen the series, here is a taste. If you have seen the series, well you know.

Michael, you have your view. Your arguments for a change in air to sea battles are yours to shout about all you want. To say you will only stop shouting when changes are made to this game that suit you, is unbecoming of a gentleman wargamer.

Make your points, back off, play the game and let the designers come to a decision. Seems history is on their side as far as making an effort to please us the gamers and themselves in creating a game they want to support.

WW2: Time of Wrath
7/16/2009 Available for Purchase
7/27/2009 Official 1.50A Hotfix
10/7/2009 1.60 update

I don't think any casual gamers have even had a chance to finish a game, with the latest patch.(i have not)

I agree with your points, but Terror would not qualify as a battleship. She was a monitor, and used for coastal gun support.

Chuck

True, I just made the choice to leave it under the heading of Battleships. 

http://www.naval-history.net/WW2aBritishLosses01BB2.htm

Then again, I always thought Monitors are very cool ships!

Chuck