9.3 Naval Combat Wishlist Quesiton

[ralphtricky]

As a scenario designer,

If some parts of 9.3 were implemented in some fashion in a future patch, what controls would you need to be able to make a fun scenario.

My big concern is that the PO would not have a clue and would quickly be dogfood.

Right now, there are two naval AIs.

One is the normal AI which does something like find the target nearest the objective, then find the nearest unit, then put the ship as far away as possible so that it can still hit it.

The second is something close to that, although it talks about the Carrier and the aircraft instead of the artillery.

Neither of these seem like they would be a good fit for the 9.3 AI, although the first one may work while on the offensive.

The only option that I can think of off the top of my head is...

Allow the current rules if there is more than one objective.

If there is only one objective, nail the unit to a hex within X hexes (some predetermined number like 3, or 1/4 range or something) of the objective.

A new event 'SetObjectiveTrack0' which would force the current objective track for a formation to contain one and only one hex. (I think I can do that with the events anyway.)

What else could be done to let you make a better scenarios?

Ralph

[macgregor]

I hope this response is germane to the question. My thinking is that the scenario AI can be programmed to move units from place to place on a given turn, and perhaps their behavior, such as establishing patrol or raid. It's how the ships react to one another where the AI gets more complicated.

I've always thought that there would be some way of implementing naval combat by using the land engine(or perhaps more accurately -the air combat engine), modified as little as possible, though as much as necessary. Planes have settings that allow them to react up to a certain distance, either to interdict or assist, losses are inflicted/received, and they return to base. That could be the way ships are handled, except that their 'base' is wherever they are. Perhaps the 'reaction envelope' could be made adjustable. Many of the same things that affect land combat affect sea combat as well such as weather, readiness, supply. There's no entrenching at sea, but the units at sea that move more deliberately are less likely to be ambushed. There could be something like a 'patrol level' established by units that do not move that essentially works very similarly to entrenchment on land. Perhaps this could also affect how far away a unit can react to. The loss setting could be something that more affects the likelyhood of a sea-battle. Perhaps a 'raider' setting could determine if the units react to all ships, or only supply/transport. Ships need to be able to move together as a fleet. Perhaps the option that allows one to move a stack can be used to move ships as a task force. Lastly subs would need their own unit type, only attackable by units with that specific attack value.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

As a scenario designer,

If some parts of 9.3 were implemented in some fashion in a future patch, what controls would you need to be able to make a fun scenario.

Note that item 9.3 in the Wishlist refers to Naval Reaction. That's ships moving like land units would under Local Reserve or such. It's a very difficult task for an IGOUGO system (doesn't work all that great in WEGO systems, either). Just look at how poorly Local Reserve works. Very easy to fake the reserve units out of position. It would be worse for Naval Units - due to their huge movement ranges, and that they would be reacting to movement, not just combat.

I don't even know if it's going to be worth doing. Designs that really have to have this can rely on very short turn intervals instead. Then the player makes the reaction.

Naval Interdiction (9.1 & 9.2) (planes/artillery reacting to naval movement) is much simpler and doable, though - since the planes don't actually change their locations. Note that this applies to air units on Carriers, and artillery on ships, as well - simulating naval engagements. We do need to treat naval/embarked units moving by group movement as Task Forces - they should move/defend as a group.

[Curtis Lemay]

One issue that hasn't been discussed yet is the issue of recon. This has some application to land movement as well. Note that some units are revealed at the start of the player-turn by the player's TR level or by his friendly forces. But it is also possible to reveal units subsequent to the start of the turn by further movement of friendly forces - either adjacent to enemies or onto peak hexes, etc. This produces a "time machine" effect in that an enemy unit can be discovered by a moving unit at the end of its MP limit and then targeted by air/artillery that has yet to move or only has to move a little. This will be especially a problem for naval warfare, since you can send out a DD to scour the seas for enemies, then send your fleet in reaction to what it finds directly to the juiciest target.

One fix for this would be to "time stamp" when the unit was revealed. Units revealed at the start of the player turn would have a time stamp of 0. But units revealed subsequently would have a time stamp equal to the unit that revealed it. Bombardment combat would then be delayed by that time stamp. Then, that DD that found the enemy at the end of its MPs would force any attacks on them to be delayed accordingly.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: macgregor

That could be the way ships are handled, except that their 'base' is wherever they are. Perhaps the 'reaction envelope' could be made adjustable. Many of the same things that affect land combat affect sea combat as well such as weather, readiness, supply. There's no entrenching at sea, but the units at sea that move more deliberately are less likely to be ambushed. There could be something like a 'patrol level' established by units that do not move that essentially works very similarly to entrenchment on land.

This seems too divorced from reality. It's sure to produce all sorts of weird issues. Let's try to be as realistic as possible.

Ships need to be able to move together as a fleet. Perhaps the option that allows one to move a stack can be used to move ships as a task force.

Agreed.

Lastly subs would need their own unit type, only attackable by units with that specific attack value.

Subs are going to be a can of worms.

[macgregor]

Well, I've had more of a chance to think about it, and what about my post I still like the most is the idea of replacing the entrenchment symbol with one that denotes a 'patrol level' the higher level indicating the farther a ship(or stack of) can react, as well as the likelihood of a successful intercept. The way to establish patrol level' this would be the sacrifice of movement, much like entrenchment works. Time scale makes any more realistic detailed movement 'a can of worms'. Interdiction levels can be established by aircraft within range. AFAIK all units become more vulnerable the more they move. The same holds true for ships. Just like disengagement. So much of this game does not have to change for naval units. I think some are over-complicating things.

I don't see how subs have to be a can of worms. Just as we have attack values for armor, soft, and now naval, we can sure as hell have one for subs. This way only ships and planes that were effective in real life would have the capability. Commandos are more difficult to spot on land. Why can't the same treatment be afforded subs and be done with it. I'm for more realistic naval combat but I'm not looking for Harpoon here. Ground combat reports show individual units attacking, supporting, and retiring. That's pretty much how ships work as well.

Just as aircraft can be set to support or intercept, ships should be capable of seeking out supply/transport as a raider, or combat vessels. This is ALL that needs to be done. Granted it'll take some work, but we don't have to start from scratch. Scenario designers can determine stuff like range and hits with the editor. Movement allowance. That would have to be made editable for ships. Right now we have one naval movement allowance. Could we have maybe 5 or 6? How the presence of enemy ships would affect supply would depend on how supply over water is depicted.

[Telumar]

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

What else could be done to let you make a better scenarios?

Ralph

Revert to the naval supply feature/bug as "implemented" in 3.4.0.173 [:'(]

Admiral Elmer needs to get a feel about how healthy it might be for him to stay out of coastal artillery range.

[macgregor]

As far as ranged guns go, it would be nice if a stack could establish units within the stack as the picket; allowing them to be the only units vulnerable in the first round, capable of receiving support fire from the rest of the stack. Maybe this is an idea that could find a use with land units as well.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: macgregor

Well, I've had more of a chance to think about it, and what about my post I still like the most is the idea of replacing the entrenchment symbol with one that denotes a 'patrol level' the higher level indicating the farther a ship(or stack of) can react. The way to establish patrol level' this would be the sacrifice of movement, much like entrenchment works. Time scale makes any more realistic detailed movement 'a can of worms'. Interdiction levels can be established by aircraft within range. AFAIK all units become more vulnerable the more they move. The same holds true for ships. Just like disengagement. So much of this game does not have to change for naval units. I think some are over-complicating things.

That certainly wasn't the case at Pearl Harbor or Savo Island. Staying in one known location is bad news for ships. I don't know what you're basing that on. I certainly don't want it imposed on everyone.

I don't see how subs have to be a can of worms. Just as we have attack values for armor, soft, and now naval, we can sure as hell have one for subs.

They are a can of worms because they have to be very hard to detect - even if you are in the same hex. We don't have that sort of unit yet - not even commandos. Also, they can't be permitted to run down and attack combat vessels. They have to be assigned a patrol area and hope the enemy sails across their location. See how it's done in WitP.

Just as aircraft can be set to support or intercept, ships should be capable of seeking out supply/transport as a raider, or combat vessels. This is ALL that needs to be done.

Aircraft can fly anywhere in a straight line - at 300 mph. Ships have to sail there - by sea routes - possibly taking more than a game turn to get there. They certainly can't make 10 reactions a turn, like planes. As I said, this is divorced from reality.

And we don't have supply vessels yet to target. Every aspect of sea supply is another huge can of worms. Not just for invasion forces, for the ships themselves too.

Movement allowance. That would have to be made editable for ships. Right now we have one naval movement allowance. Could we have maybe 5 or 6?

Another can of worms.

And then there's depicting ships as if they were ships, not artillery guns that float. They at least need to have damage levels - possibly to multiple systems (hull, bridge, engine, guns, etc.) And that means that ports need repair capabilities. They can't be allowed to escape to the "On Hand" pool X% of the time, either.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Telumar

Revert to the naval supply feature/bug as "implemented" in 3.4.0.173 [:'(]

Not unless it's a designer option.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: macgregor

As far as ranged guns go, it would be nice if a stack could establish units within the stack as the picket; allowing them to be the only units vulnerable in the first round, capable of receiving support fire from the rest of the stack. Maybe this is an idea that could find a use with land units as well.

What if the target outranges them - by a bunch? Suppose they run into the Yamato? Different ranges could make it get complicated in a hurry.

[Telumar]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Telumar

Revert to the naval supply feature/bug as "implemented" in 3.4.0.173 [:'(]

Not unless it's a designer option.

Agreed. Do it then. [:)]

[macgregor]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
That certainly wasn't the case at Pearl Harbor or Savo Island. Staying in one known location is bad news for ships. I don't know what you're basing that on. I certainly don't want it imposed on everyone.

Good point. But ships on patrol and ships in port are two entirely different things. I don't see how ships could be in port and on patrol at the same time. The ships at Savo were practically stationary; represented by a '0 patrol level', and indeed vulnerable. Perhaps a routine for designating ships were 'in port' could be established as well. Thus affording them the strength/ vulnerabilities of that particular port(unit -not map feature). You're handling this devil's advocacy very well.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
They are a can of worms because they have to be very hard to detect - even if you are in the same hex. We don't have that sort of unit yet - not even commandos. Also, they can't be permitted to run down and attack combat vessels. They have to be assigned a patrol area and hope the enemy sails across their location. See how it's done in WitP.

You're making this much more complicated than I intend. Perhaps unit proficiency needs to play a part, but the rigors of anti-submarine warfare could be easily abridged by attack and defense values that reflect such difficulties. I don't want Harpoon or WitP. Making subs a unique target type and only allowing certain air and naval units that type of attack strength should suffice.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
Aircraft can fly anywhere in a straight line - at 300 mph. Ships have to sail there - by sea routes - possibly taking more than a game turn to get there. They certainly can't make 10 reactions a turn, like planes. As I said, this is divorced from reality.

And we don't have supply vessels yet to target. Every aspect of sea supply is another huge can of worms. Not just for invasion forces, for the ships themselves too.

What time scale are you talking about? Most scenarios of large scale will have 1 or 1/2 week turns. I'm not proposing that ships be allowed react to more than a fraction of their movement allowance anyway(perhaps up to 200km, okay, maybe 400km), which in most scenarios I've seen could sail them halfway around Europe. Aircraft should interdict separately from ships. The inability to conduct multiple interceptions could easily be represented by supply and readiness use, resulting in something like reorg, only allowing them to return to port. I'm not even suggesting we need 'supply vessels' just as long as there's a path established that the supplies move. Perhaps a reduction in supply points to a given HQ could result. An event trigger maybe.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
Another can of worms.

And then there's depicting ships as if they were ships, not artillery guns that float. They at least need to have damage levels - possibly to multiple systems (hull, bridge, engine, guns, etc.) And that means that ports need repair capabilities. They can't be allowed to escape to the "On Hand" pool X% of the time, either.

I'm beginning to feel like Atticus Finch. No they don't. You're making it way too complicated. I get it. We'll first make it way too complicated and thus easier to shoot down. Multiple hits have already been established in some scenarios -even separate weapon systems. This is a non-argument as I feel nothing needs to be done here. Ships go to port and receive replacement already. That's good enough for me. How realistically it's handled is up to the scenario designer.

[macgregor]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
What if the target outranges them - by a bunch? Suppose they run into the Yamato? Different ranges could make it get complicated in a hurry.

There's already an attack sequence in the ground combat. Different ship(or gun) types will have to be placed in there somewhere. I don't see why the data can't simply be added to the existing combat engine.

[macgregor]

Ships can only receive/unload supplies from a port.

Wait. I'm wrong here. Ships have been able to get supplied at sea, way too much so in fact(IMO). It's been awhile since I've played. Unless there can be some specific unit that can carry extra supplies, and through stack sharing supply at sea, I don't think ships at sea should remain supplied. Their supply usage per turn should not be like an out-of-supply unit however, and their resupply at ports should be quick. Naturally usage would drastically increase while in combat. But otherwise, depending on time scale, I could see where usage could be 5 or less points per turn while not affecting readiness or proficiency.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: macgregor

Good point. But ships on patrol and ships in port are two entirely different things. Ships can only receive/unload supplies from a port. I don't see how ships could be in port and on patrol at the same time. Establishing the highest patrol level could require more than one move. The ships at Savo were practically stationary; represented by a '0 patrol level', and indeed vulnerable. Perhaps it could be setup so that ships with a patrol level could not receive/ unload supplies. That doesn't seem too hard. Though perhaps a routine for designating ships were 'in port' could be established as well. Thus affording them the strength/ vulnerabilities of that particular port(unit -not map feature). You're handling this devil's advocacy very well.

The ships at Savo had been there a while. Time enough to reach any "patrol" level. In game terms, they would have become fortified - when the exact opposite was the case. Same for ships in port or any other stationary deployment. That's exactly what your feature would produce. It doesn't seem to be based upon anything and I don't see it in WitP or any other serious naval simulation. It's not worth another syllable.

You're making this much more complicated than I intend. Perhaps unit proficiency needs to play a part, but the rigors of anti-submarine warfare could be easily abridged by attack and defense values that reflect such difficulties. I don't want Harpoon or WitP. Making subs a unique target type and only allowing certain air and naval units that type of attack strength should suffice.

If you want subs to function like surface naval units you can do that now. To make them function like subs they need the features I listed. It's no more complicated than it needs to be. They can't be allowed to be detected just by units moving adjacent to them and they can't be allowed to chase down their targets. Furthermore, this requires special strengths that can’t be applied against ground targets (torpedoes, depth charges, etc.).

What time scale are you talking about? Most scenarios of large scale will have 1 or 1/2 week turns. I'm not proposing that ships be allowed react to more than a fraction of their movement allowance anyway(perhaps up to 200km, okay, maybe 400km), which in most scenarios I've seen could sail them halfway around Europe. Aircraft should interdict separately from ships. The inability to conduct multiple interceptions could easily be represented by supply and readiness use, resulting in something like reorg, only allowing them to return to port.

I'm talking about all the scales used in TOAW (and even beyond for some folks). It would have to handle from 1km to 100km.

Ships can't react like planes. First, they don't fly to the target. Ships in the Aegean can't react to targets in the Black Sea without going through the Dardenelles, etc. Ships in the
Black Sea can't react to targets in the Caspian at all. There has to be a path determined and the reacting force must be subject to interdiction (or even reaction?) along that path. The point where the target is detected will not be the point where the target is intercepted, because the target may have moved as far as the reacting force since their speed will be much the same.

This is further complicated by time machine effects of TOAW's IGOUGO system. The triggering unit may have moved the limit of its allowance while other naval groups have yet to be moved. And players will be able to exploit those effects to game the reaction however they please. They can switch back and forth between naval groups stringing the reactors along. The only way I see this as possibly working is if we use some sort of plotted movement for sea movement. I don't know how that would be received. In the end, we'll spend a fortune trying to make this work and have no one use it for the same reasons Local Reserve isn't used. I don't see it as all that necessary anyway.

I'm not even suggesting we need 'supply vessels' just as long as there's a path established that the supplies move. Perhaps a reduction in supply points to a given HQ could result. An event trigger maybe.

I have no idea what you're suggesting here. I am sure that logistical improvements that allow real contested amphibious operations are going to be very non-trivial.

I'm beginning to feel like Atticus Finch. No they don't. You're making it way too complicated. I get it. We'll first make it way too complicated and thus easier to shoot down. Multiple hits have already been established in some scenarios -even separate weapon systems. This is a non-argument as I feel nothing needs to be done here. Ships go to port and receive replacement already. That's good enough for me. How realistically it's handled is up to the scenario designer.

I'm not trying to "shoot down" naval improvements. I'm trying to identify the ones we need. This is one of them. Other things can come first, but this is ultimately needed. Modeling different ship speeds is part of it.

Currently naval units are treated like ground combat units that float. They "evaporate" - a feature intended to model a ground unit losing cohesion - totally inappropriate for naval units. A naval unit can escape an impossible situation to the "On Hand" pool by evaporating - where a real naval unit would have been sunk.

Furthermore, the ship is treated like a single piece of ground equipment. In combat it only has three possible outcomes: Undamaged survival, complete destruction, or a "limbo" state where it is returned to the "On Hand" pool, to return as soon as a unit for it can be rebuilt. Real naval units take damage which has immediate effect on their strength and speed. If they survive, they go to port for repair to that damage. Furthermore, real naval units are armored and only guns of a certain power can penetrate that armor. In TOAW ships are subject to cumulative AP strengths. A horde of DDs can sink the Yamato.

It is true that some designers try to work around some of this by splitting their ships up into components. But that only works so far, if at all. You can destroy their hulls and the superstructure elements will continue to operate. There are no effects on speed or C&C, etc. And there are still the problems with evaporation, lack of armor, etc.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: macgregor

Ships can only receive/unload supplies from a port.

Wait. I'm wrong here. Ships have been able to get supplied at sea, way too much so in fact(IMO). It's been awhile since I've played. Unless there can be some specific unit that can carry extra supplies, and through stack sharing supply at sea, I don't think ships at sea should remain supplied. Their supply usage per turn should not be like an out-of-supply unit however, and their resupply at ports should be quick. Naturally usage would drastically increase while in combat. But otherwise, depending on time scale, I could see where usage could be 5 or less points per turn while not affecting readiness or proficiency.

That gets to what Telumar wanted.

But it is absurd to require ships to return to port every six hours. Or even every week. Ships are able to stay at sea for considerably longer periods. And they can receive resupply at sea. That, no doubt is why they've been modeled the way they have. Again, ships are not ground units, but they are stuck in a ground unit logisitical system. Making it more realistic would be part of those non-trivial logistical things I've mentioned.

[macgregor]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
The ships at Savo had been there a while. Time enough to reach any "patrol" level. In game terms, they would have become fortified - when the exact opposite was the case. Same for ships in port or any other stationary deployment. That's exactly what your feature would produce. It doesn't seem to be based upon anything and I don't see it in WitP or any other serious naval simulation. It's not worth another syllable.

The British commander Crutchley, in charge of mostly American ships(not that this should matter) did not have these ships patrolling around but rather on station, where they were indeed most vulnerable.

I may have suggested using the entrenchment symbol(location on the unit symbol), but there is no way for stationary ships to 'fortify' on station. They fortify by staying mobile -if you want to call it that. What my 'patrol level' would represent is a larger radius as to where these ships may or may not actually be. If enemy ships enter this radius, there's a chance that the patrolling ships will find them. The value of spotting first in a surface engagement is not the huge advantage it would be in a carrier battle. so I wouldn't make the advantage that great, beyond having the phasing player listed first in the combat sequence. The ability for carriers to strike patrolling units should be randomized as the exact location can be anywhere in this patrol radius.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
If you want subs to function like surface naval units you can do that now. To make them function like subs they need the features I listed. It's no more complicated than it needs to be. They can't be allowed to be detected just by units moving adjacent to them and they can't be allowed to chase down their targets. Furthermore, this requires special strengths that can’t be applied against ground targets (torpedoes, depth charges, etc.).

Though not sure what exact capacity, I realize that you are part of the development team. I personally think that getting too detailed with naval combat can detract from the land. A single ASW value should be all that's necessary. At this level, we're not commanding individual subs, but wolfpacks and desrons. I don't think we should have to make tactical decisions beyond staying or leaving.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
I'm talking about all the scales used in TOAW (and even beyond for some folks). It would have to handle from 1km to 100km.

As long as this patrol radius is kilometer and not hex-based, I don't see what the problem is.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
Ships can't react like planes. First, they don't fly to the target. Ships in the Aegean can't react to targets in the Black Sea without going through the Dardenelles, etc. Ships in the
Black Sea can't react to targets in the Caspian at all. There has to be a path determined and the reacting force must be subject to interdiction (or even reaction?) along that path. The point where the target is detected will not be the point where the target is intercepted, because the target may have moved as far as the reacting force since their speed will be much the same.

This is further complicated by time machine effects of TOAW's IGOUGO system. The triggering unit may have moved the limit of its allowance while other naval groups have yet to be moved. And players will be able to exploit those effects to game the reaction however they please. They can switch back and forth between naval groups stringing the reactors along. The only way I see this as possibly working is if we use some sort of plotted movement for sea movement. I don't know how that would be received. In the end, we'll spend a fortune trying to make this work and have no one use it for the same reasons Local Reserve isn't used. I don't see it as all that necessary anyway.

It's the IGOUGO system the requires this kind of ability to have ships 'in an area' as opposed to a fixed location. I expect that you have Ralph's ear. But let's be clear; you're the one wanting all this added detail. I've come up with an idea that I think not only works, but won't detract from ground combat.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
I have no idea what you're suggesting here. I am sure that logistical improvements that allow real contested amphibious operations are going to be very non-trivial.

Amphibious operations would require units to be 'on station' thus guaranteeing successful engagement by enemy aircraft and ships.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
I'm not trying to "shoot down" naval improvements. I'm trying to identify the ones we need. This is one of them. Other things can come first, but this is ultimately needed. Modeling different ship speeds is part of it.

You are loathing the difficulty, and at the same time insisting we need to make things more complicated.
Every gun or weapon has to be considered a hit just like a hull. We have one ship speed right now. Would it be that tough to have 5 or 6? Perhaps they could be stacked on the unit equipment list so that slower speed hulls 'backup' the faster ones, thus slowing down the unit after being damaged.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
Currently naval units are treated like ground combat units that float. They "evaporate" - a feature intended to model a ground unit losing cohesion - totally inappropriate for naval units. A naval unit can escape an impossible situation to the "On Hand" pool by evaporating - where a real naval unit would have been sunk.

Naval units can be modeled by the scenario to have a given number of hits, at which point they do sink. Damaged ship currently go to port where they are repaired in the form of receiving replacements. Am I simplifying too much? Why make it more complicated than that?

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
Furthermore, the ship is treated like a single piece of ground equipment. In combat it only has three possible outcomes: Undamaged survival, complete destruction, or a "limbo" state where it is returned to the "On Hand" pool, to return as soon as a unit for it can be rebuilt. Real naval units take damage which has immediate effect on their strength and speed. If they survive, they go to port for repair to that damage. Furthermore, real naval units are armored and only guns of a certain power can penetrate that armor. In TOAW ships are subject to cumulative AP strengths. A horde of DDs can sink the Yamato.

Strength is already represented because some of the hits received will be in the form of weapons hits. You are right about damaged ships losing speed, Reorg is a little too binary, though could represent crippled units. This could be tough to program, but I'm willing to consider it somewhat unnecessary. I don't see TOAW as a way to represent naval battles in scale of less than 10km, because that indeed would be 'tactical' as far as ships are concerned.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
It is true that some designers try to work around some of this by splitting their ships up into components. But that only works so far, if at all. You can destroy their hulls and the superstructure elements will continue to operate. There are no effects on speed or C&C, etc. And there are still the problems with evaporation, lack of armor, etc.

I think I already responded to this. I think there is a point where if you do too much with naval combat; try to make it tactical, you run the risk of making this more of a naval sim. I don't see that as Norm's original intention. The naval representation has to remain more operational.

'Klotzen nicht kleckern'.

[macgregor]

I realize I have offered ideas, but not much detail. I would propose this; that all sea engagements, that is with units that are not 'on station' (to support amphibious ops, load/unload) would have to pass a check -each side %50 they either see the other guy, or they don't. If they both see each other, no advantage. But if only one side sees the other, he gets an advantage. Naturally if neither side sees, no combat.

Now lets talk about this patrol level. How far away should units be allowed to patrol? What are the chances for an engagement within this radius? I admit my answers right now are less than scientific. Even the %50 engagement rule I'm sort of borrowing from WiF. 200km in every direction is a sizable piece of real estate, and I would expect that ships would have to likely move ten times as much to achieve such a patrol. That should though afford something like a a %5-%10 chance of intercept within that radius -every hex moved by an enemy unit. So the number of movement points given to the patrol would determine the size of the area of the patrol. Hopefully this offers a little more detail.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: macgregor

The British commander Crutchley, in charge of mostly American ships(not that this should matter) did not have these ships patrolling around but rather on station, where they were indeed most vulnerable.

That's in real life. I'm talking about the game system you're proposing. Under that system, they would be "fortified" (whether you call it "patrol" or not the effect will be the same). In fact, the sea will be filled with "fortified" ships. It will look like someone built the Maginot line at sea. Restricted sea lanes will be especially clogged with such. And it will all be nonsense.

I may have suggested using the entrenchment symbol(location on the unit symbol), but there is no way for stationary ships to 'fortify' on station. They fortify by staying mobile -if you want to call it that.

It's irrelevant what you call it or how you represent it. The effect would be the same.

What my 'patrol level' would represent is a larger radius as to where these ships may or may not actually be. If enemy ships enter this radius, there's a chance that the patrolling ships will find them. The value of spotting first in a surface engagement is not the huge advantage it would be in a carrier battle. so I wouldn't make the advantage that great, beyond having the phasing player listed first in the combat sequence. The ability for carriers to strike patrolling units should be randomized as the exact location can be anywhere in this patrol radius.

We already have recon in the game system. Ships will either be spotted or not as per the enemy's recon. In fact, we need recon planes as well, so carriers can scout as they move. That's another can of worms. Regardless, unspotted ships will have to be sought out. When searchers get close enough, they will interdict them (by air or gun) once Naval interdiction is implemented (suffering counterbattery/counterstrikes in the process). Or there could eventually be a "Naval Combat Procedure" triggered. There is no need to massively abstract everything. We want the game to become more realistic, not less.

personally think that getting too detailed with naval combat can detract from the land. A single ASW value should be all that's necessary. At this level, we're not commanding individual subs, but wolfpacks and desrons. I don't think we should have to make tactical decisions beyond staying or leaving.

So subs can't attack with torpedoes? If an ASW rating is necessary, so are torpedoes. And, since TOAW is equipment based, why shouldn't there be ASW equipment that forms that ASW rating? And, again, the subs can't be allowed to be detected by just moving a ship next to them. And they can't be allowed to chase down surface ships. They have to have special treatment separate from normal surface vessels.

And there's no real need for subs until we get sea supply.

It's the IGOUGO system the requires this kind of ability to have ships 'in an area' as opposed to a fixed location. I expect that you have Ralph's ear. But let's be clear; you're the one wanting all this added detail. I've come up with an idea that I think not only works, but won't detract from ground combat.

I don't want all this extra detail. I'm pointing out the difficulties involved in Naval Reaction. Basically we have two choices: Massive detail, or errant nonsense. I don't want either one.

And I haven't covered all the detail yet. There would have to be a suite of settings for the forces set to react, spelling out just what they would react to. You don't want the full fleet to react to a row boat - that would be a waste. Similarly, you don't want a tiny fleet to react to a powerful one - that would be suicide. And you don't want a BB fleet to react to a CV one either - that's also suicide (assuming the reaction method allows the CVs to interdict the BBs as they approach). Another can of worms - and it would still be easy for the enemy player to game.

I think this could possibly be handled a different way. For one thing, if your scenario is about a contested amphibious landing, then use a short turn interval. That way, the players themselves can decide when, where, and how to react. If, on the other hand, you're doing a strategic scale scenario, there might be a way to use variable turn-intervals to effect reaction. So, if the normal turn-interval was one-week, then when a reaction would be triggered, the turn-interval would automatically shorten to, say, one-day, for a week (or whatever the designer specified). Again, this would allow the players to make reaction decisions – far better than the computer can do.

Amphibious operations would require units to be 'on station' thus guaranteeing successful engagement by enemy aircraft and ships.

The issue was sea supply. Again, we don't have it yet, and it will be very non-trivial to implement.

You are loathing the difficulty, and at the same time insisting we need to make things more complicated.

I am loathing only the complexity we don't need. Not the stuff we do need. This is needed. What we have now is, as I've said, like floating artillery units.

Every gun or weapon has to be considered a hit just like a hull.

Different weapon systems hit different things. Bombs and guns hit the superstructure. Torpedoes and mines hit the hull. Different systems on the ship affect different things besides firepower (speed, C&C, damage control).

We have one ship speed right now. Would it be that tough to have 5 or 6? Perhaps they could be stacked on the unit equipment list so that slower speed hulls 'backup' the faster ones, thus slowing down the unit after being damaged.

I think it would be far better to have the ship design specify the fraction of the current naval speed that the ship could maintain at full repair. Damage would lessen that - till repaired.

Naval units can be modeled by the scenario to have a given number of hits, at which point they do sink. Damaged ship currently go to port where they are repaired in the form of receiving replacements. Am I simplifying too much? Why make it more complicated than that?

That's not how it works at all. A ship unit can evaporate just like a land unit. It's equipment (usually the entire ship itself) can then be sent to the "on hand" pools - even if it was in an impossible situation and should have been sunk. "On hand" equipment can then end up in another ship unit the very next turn.

Strength is already represented because some of the hits received will be in the form of weapons hits.

Only to the extent that that kluge actually works (I'm not even sure if it does). And, as I said there is no way to represent armor. Ships are attacked by cumulative AP values.

A simple version of this would be to just have two structures: Hull and Superstructure. Each would have its own damage value and armor value.

Here's the good news: There are some things we can do that are easy and should be effective:

First, Naval Interdiction. Air units set to NI and artillery (including the guns on Naval vessels and coastal artillery) will interdict sea movement that occurs in their range.

Ad hoc Task Forces: Naval units moving by group movement will defend against interdiction as a group. So, the lead unit triggers interdiction, but the interdiction attack is delayed until the entire group is in the hex.

Target Priority: Ability to target naval stuff in the hex, and the ships given target priorities that heavily favor CVs over others etc.

Spotting: Units on coastal hexes and naval units treated like peak hexes for purposes of spotting enemy naval/embarked units. Like peak hexes, it happens in real time. So, the Yamato spots those DDs and interdicts them long before they get close enough to fire at it. Same for coastal guns.

Embarked units defense strengths: Treated like in transport vessels with naval strengths based upon weight (ground defense and armor values no longer used).