Matrix Games Forums

Pretty much everyone finds the battle generator frustrating after a certain point. It keeps on not putting the ships you want into battle, or not arranged into the forces you want, or whatever. The designers have defended this by noting that in this period admirals were rarely able to arrange exactly the battle they wanted, and were constantly dealing with the unexpected with the tools they had on hand. And that's true! At the same time, the inability to tailor your force deployments can be immensely frustrating. So what are some ways that the game could be redesigned in order to give players more agency in this area while simultaneously retaining friction?

First of all, what is "this area"? Broadly speaking, it is "operations." What forces get engaged for what missions, and how are those forces arranged in the tactical battle itself? Operations is the middle layer between the (extremely good) design and procurement layer and the (also very good) tactical battle layer. And the problem is that operations isn't a clearly delineated layer, but is instead spread across a half-dozen different parts of the game interface. Which "class" a ship is, what mission (AF, R, TP) it is set to, what division it is a part of, what doctrinal choices you have made--all of these interact to determine how the ship gets deployed, and often in totally mysterious ways. The difference between BC and BB in the late era can often be quite impenetrable, and yet somehow also very consequential for how those ships are deployed.

Operational planning could be streamlined by giving a more detailed menu of mission types and the option to assign different ships priorities for engaging in those missions (beyond just AF/R/TP). This would, for instance, make it easier to encourage small BCs to perform patrol-type missions and larger BCs fleet engagement type missions. It would be easier to encourage your heavy warships act as an independent surface group in carrier engagements, rather than being tied to your own carriers. BUT there would also be room for friction--the ever-present possibility that the enemy performs an ambush, your ships are out of position, the needs-must necessities of war drove a ship to a nonstandard position.

Even if the mechanics were tuned to overall push the player towards designing a relatively balanced fleet, as they currently do, this system would make that reasoning *intelligible* to the player within the mechanics of the simulation, and would give people the opportunity to push those boundaries with nonstandard choices (as we all know we want to). For example, if "fleet scout" became an operational mission, then it would once again make sense to build CAs (for instance: 2x4x10 guns, 34 knots, long range, 4 floatplanes) for that role, or alternatively light BCs, instead of ignoring the class and creating a "hollow middle" between your huge supercapitals and your tiny CLs.

anyways devs if you're listening just my two cents

Are you putting your ships into divisions and defining their roles? I find the game far more likely to deploy how I want when I've done that.

Edit: As for the BC and BB thing, that's pretty much what happened by the 1930s/1940s IRL. Take the Iowa class - they absolutely blended the lines. Built like battleships, operated like battlecruisers.

Yes, I use the division editor. I just find that the battle generator mostly does not respect my division / role+subordination. Yes, I know that the distinction between BB and BC starts to break down in the fast battleship era. What I am saying is that the way this is modeled in the game is a little frustrating!

I would support this. I'd like to be able to assign ships to particular roles even if the ship designer thinks they should be in different roles; for example, the light BC versus the Iowa as the OP suggested. I'd also like to be able to designate zones the ships should operate in, for example by range from nearest port or from nearest enemy airbase.

In my opinion, by far the weakest point in RTW is the strategic/operational side when at war.
I think it’s a very good idea your proposal to assign clear operational tasks to our ships, like fleet scout because as you said that would allow us to build CAs or light BCs without them always being paired against much bigger and powerful enemies.
But there are other factors that make wars a bit less thrilling that they could be too. For instance, all battles are chosen by the AI. So much for all that strategic thought we’ve put to build our fleet and take this or that possession and when war comes we cannot even send our ships to bombard a land target. Of course we may be given such a battle by the AI. But the problem is that it will not be part of any strategy. In this sense wars are little more than abstracted battles without any strategy behind them other than to sink enemy ships and win VPs.
There are other shortcomings. For example, owing strategic locations like Gibraltar, anything in the Horn of Africa to stop access to the Mediterranean, Falklands, Singapore… will add nothing to the war. Even owing Ireland seems to have no effect in our submarine war against British shipping! The only operation we can undertake ourselves are invasions. But even those are very dependent on the enemy’s strength in the area and are very limited in range during a big part of the game. I suggested long time ago that to make long range and extreme range ships more useful (I don’t think anybody ever builds ER ships) we could use them as a way to extend invasion ranges. But the suggestion was not taken. So LR and ER ships are still something we hardly ever use. We also get those messages about DDs not included in the battle because lack of range. Sometimes we have a base a few hundred miles from the battle and still our DDs cannot make it! This could be changed if we could place our ships in specific ports. We never know where our ships are other than in Northern Europe or other sea area. If we could base more DDs in harbours closer to the expected battle area, then we could take some responsibility if we end up in a battle without them. It would be our own fault instead of, as now, something we do not have any control of. In general, during wars we have to keep a very passive attitude, just waiting for the next random battle the AI gives us. In contrast designing and building ships and improving our navy when at peace is not only thrilling but also something that requires our constant care and attention.

The operational/strategic game in this is basically just a battle generator. What we are asking for is a more complex game. I have played the Grigsby War in the Pacific with great pleasure - it is an operational/strategic game that gives the player very little control over battles. I'd love to see a mixture of the two.