Naval War Mod glitches

[Jackmck]

Most allied units in the force pool have incorrect names. Also, the initial research and resource settings appear to be high- is it intended for the USSR to be advanced to 1 in many fields already?
I thought the Mod was only for Naval units and rules, but it appeared to change lots about other things. Was that intended?
Just started a PBEM as allies.

[Hairog]

The only rules that were changed were the Zones of Control, retreat and defensive evasion.

There is a problem with the 1943 using the wrong setup that we are correcting as we type.

Did you use the Naval War Units mod?

I'm rechecking everything and it should be available in a day or two. Sorry about that.

[ctimmerman]

All the land and sea units for all sides have crazy names. George V for an Italian taskforce? Italian names for German armor? etc. This is for the naval war mod. I'm assuming names are correct without the mod but the mod otherwise seems to correct a major shortcoming of the naval system in the base game. I'm guessing the names data somehow didn't match properly with counter IDs.

[Hairog]

Where were you guys when I needed Beta testers? [;)]

All most done with the patches and I checked the names. They're correct in this version.

There will be a new Naval Mod Readme as well.

[shi4stone]

I loaded this campaign from the community pack, but I could not see these changes in gameplay, i.e., no extra zoc from screening force, CV\s dont evade...why is that?or how can check if ZoC is working as intended?

[Hairog]

Revision coming soon. In the meantime you can check by taking one of your naval units and sliding next to an enemy unit and there should be an additional 6 movement points added. If not then I suspect that you are playing the scenario where you have to have two units to activate the zone of control.

If so... the short-term fix is to open the editor. open the campaign in question in the Community Pack. Save As, something besides the real name. then in the tabs on top find the Campaign Tab, then the Edit Movement Cost Data Tab. In the middle of the page there should be the Zone of Control section and at the very bottom of that there is a box labeled # of Units Required. It should be one, if not change it to one. OK - Save - Play game.

That should do it. see screen -below

[Tanaka]

ORIGINAL: Hairog

Revision coming soon. In the meantime you can check by taking one of your naval units and sliding next to an enemy unit and there should be an additional 6 movement points added. If not then I suspect that you are playing the scenario where you have to have two units to activate the zone of control.

If so... the short-term fix is to open the editor. open the campaign in question in the Community Pack. Save As, something besides the real name. then in the tabs on top find the Campaign Tab, then the Edit Movement Cost Data Tab. In the middle of the page there should be the Zone of Control section and at the very bottom of that there is a box labeled # of Units Required. It should be one, if not change it to one. OK - Save - Play game.

That should do it. see screen -below

Where can I find a list of changes for the naval mod? Don't see it posted?

[Hairog]

Naval Mod Readme HERE

[Tanaka]

ORIGINAL: Hairog

Naval Mod Readme HERE

Thanks! Looks interesting!

[Hairog]

I think it works, so far most like the changes. I haven't seen an announcement but there are new versions, sans bugs, somewhere in the Matrix.

[Tanaka]

ORIGINAL: Hairog

I think it works, so far most like the changes. I haven't seen an announcement but there are new versions, sans bugs, somewhere in the Matrix.

Is there a forum post discussing it anywhere? Also is this mod available for WIE?

[Hairog]

A naval mod for SC3 WIE the 1939 scenario was posted HERE. Others have not been done yet. There is not much call for it, I guess.

[CaesarAug]

A curious thing... I cannot use the game editor to open the Naval War campaign. An error comes up about not finding the convoy.txt file. Yet there is a convoy.txt file... Any thoughts about how I can open the Naval War campaign? Thanks!

[Hairog]

If I recall it has something to do with the Community Mod folder and require special handling. I’m sorry but I don’t remember exactly what it is. This should be a question for Hubert or Bill.

[celebrindal]

I've encountered a couple of interesting scenarios.

First I was attacking a Japanese CV and I destroyed it, got the NM bonus, it then reappeared a couple of hexes over. I hit it with several units, got the NM serveral times. I think about 4 or 5 times.

Another instance, I was going up against a solo Japanese CV, nuked off all the supporting ships, and threw 3 10 str full morale etc BB against it. All 3 BB died. This was after I had hit it with 6 strikes from my CV's. CV was down to 3 unit str and I think about 2 airpower. Never could kill it and reloaded as that seemed like a bug vs a tough CV

I changed my tactics and hit it with 5 CV's and that seemed to do the trick but wow.

[Hairog]

Thanks for the feedback and I will look into it. The fact that the BBs couldn't sink the CV is built into the mod. Very rarely did surface ships sink CVs because they couldn't seem to catch them in the open ocean. Only two CVs were sunk by surface combat. The Glorious and Gambier Bay. Both were just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I am puzzedled at the seeming immunity from air attack. If a CV is caught and attacked by a full air component of another carrier, it should go down.

The Battleships being damaged needs to be looked at as well.I may have done this as a deterent earlier on but I thought that I rejected it and turned it off. It really is a myth that BBs got anywhere near a CV much less fire shots at it. I've tried to make it a waste of time.

Again thanks for pointing these out.

[Simulacra53]

ORIGINAL: Hairog
The fact that the BBs couldn't sink the CV is built into the mod. Very rarely did surface ships sink CVs because they couldn't seem to catch them in the open ocean. Only two CVs were sunk by surface combat. The Glorious and Gambier Bay. Both were just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

It really is a myth that BBs got anywhere near a CV much less fire shots at it. I've tried to make it a waste of time.

Just being in the wrong place vs a myth, odd.

If a carrier could be engaged by a surface ship, it was at a disadvantage. That’s why carriers needed protection.
Being in the wrong place is part of that equation. Just like being in the wrong place when a submarine fired spread of torpedoes hits a CV... or being in the wrong place when that single lucky DB lands a bomb at the right (wrong) time and right (wrong) place to start a catastrophic fire.

By granting immunity to CV you also allow tactics that are not realistic.
So instead of making something a waste of time, try to recreate the proper circumstances within the bounds of the game engine.

[Hairog]

The facts speak for themselves. Out of all the carriers and surface ships vying the oceans in WWII only 2 allied carriers did not evade and were sunk by gunfire. The situational awareness of a properly commanded carrier group made it almost impossible for it to be caught off guard by a superior surface force.

If a carrier could be engaged by a surface ship.

Very true statement, but any carrier force commander worth his salt would not and did not let it happen.

On the way through the Norwegian Sea the funnel smoke from Glorious and her two escorting destroyers, Acasta and Ardent, was spotted by the German battleships Scharnhorst and Gneisenau (part of Operation Juno) at about 15:46 pm.[Note 3] The British spotted the German ships shortly after 16:00 and Ardent was dispatched to investigate. Glorious did not alter course or increase speed. Five Swordfish were ordered to the flight deck and Action Stations were ordered 16:20. No combat air patrol was being flown, no aircraft were ready on the deck for quick take-off and there was no lookout in Glorious's crow's nest.

Underscore added by me.

Basically the commander of the Glorious TF did just about everything wrong that you can do to get a carrier sunk by a battleship. In all of World War II this is the one time that a carrier commander (who was a former submariner by the way) did most everything wrong and got caught.

The Gambier Bay:

Meanwhile, the Japanese threw their entire fleet against American naval power in a desperate gamble to destroy the large concentration of American shipping in Leyte Gulf. Powerful Japanese forces—composed of carriers, battleships, cruisers, and destroyers—attempted to converge on the Philippines in a three-pronged attack to the south, center, and north. The Japanese Southern Force met disaster before dawn on 25 October as it tried to drive through Surigao Strait to join the Center Force off Leyte Gulf. While steaming through the Sibuyan Sea en route to the San Bernardino Strait on 24 October, the Center Force was hit hard by hundreds of planes from the carriers of Admiral William "Bull" Halsey′s 3rd Fleet. After the Battle of Sibuyan Sea, Admiral Halsey no longer considered the Center Force a serious threat, and he sent the carriers north to intercept decoy carriers of the Japanese Northern Force off Cape Engaño.

The departure of Halsey's carriers left the escort carriers of "Taffy 3" as the only ships guarding the area around Samar. American commanders were unaware of night-time movement of the Japanese Center Force toward Samar. However, shortly after sunrise on 25 October, a gap in the morning mist disclosed the pagoda-like masts of enemy battleships and cruisers on the northern horizon.

So once again a major mistake by a commander and this time the Gambier Bay was truly in the wrong place at the right time.

CV are not immune. You could get a lucky computer generated random number and score big time. However, like real life, the chances are that the carrier will evade just like a real TF would. You surly are not proposing that we ignore statistics and probability in order to model a situation that very, very, very rarely occured. 100% of the time that a Strike Task Force set out to engage a Fast Carrier Task Force it failed, everytime.

So instead of making something a waste of time, try to recreate the proper circumstances within the bounds of the game engine.

Recreating the proper circumstances within the bounds of the game engine is exactly what I have done. By adding the naval zones of control and the defensive evasion capabilities (both of which Hubert designed into the game) we have recreated the historic situation.

In World War Two it was a waste of time to try and engage a properly commanded Fast Carrier Task Force with surface forces. The Naval Readme does warn you of what the probable outcome would be. This was much more than the real commanders of WWII knew. At the begining of the war the Battleship was seen, by most military minds, as the ultimate weapon. Reality proved this was not the case, but most did not know this. People who read the Readme had a headsup.

The zones of control reacreate the fact that Taskforces did not blithly sail by each other without engaging. Just didn't happen. I could not find one instance where two enemy task forces were within gun range, ignored each other and did not spend significant time and resourses shooting at each other. This was true no matter how large or small they were relative to each other. They still went at it. One of the only times a task force was virtually ignored was Halsey and The Center Force that Taffy 3 encountered.

Many carriers that were sunk, were sunk by submarine but the vast majority were crippled or sunk by aircraft. In the Naval Mod, submarines are an excellent way to damage a carrier.

[Simulacra53]

So based on statistics you say that carriers being sunk by surface ships are a fluke.

How many US carriers were sunk in WW2?
- by aircraft
- by submarine
- by ship
- combination

12 lost
6 by a/c
3 by sub
2 combination (crippled by a/c, sunk by enemy action)
1 by surface ships

Same for RN carriers.

8 lost
5 by sub
1 by a/c
1 by surface ships
1 accident

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of ... t_carriers

Are we still talking about anomalies?
IMO it is arbitrary to exclude wrong command decisions as a valid reason to get sunk.
Statistical hero armor.

[Simulacra53]

Now we could do the same for Japanese carriers and get a different loss proportion, but I am being just as arbitrary as you to proof my point.

[8D]