Matrix Games Forums

I'm new here and am trying hard to understand this game, but I just don't get the randomness of attacks, especially in naval battles. I was Germany. I moved my ships (2 heavy fleets, 2 light fleets) 2 sea zones and attacked an English armada of 3 heavy fleets & 1 light fleet. One of my light fleets exchanged fire with one of his, then the battle was over. Now I realize I can still repeat the attack with the ships which had not fired, but where is the logic?
Another question. Why can't I target specific units? With all the complexity afforded supply and movement, why can't they lend a little strategy to the battles? I'm getting tired of the randomness on an important part of the game.

for navy actions, iirc its more or less a random thing, except that somehow the no of fleets actually take part in each battle is inversely proportion to the distance traveled by the attacker b4 the contact. its something to due with the large area of each sea region and diff to locate enemy argument.

Why can't I target specific units?

cos the game is coded like that. i understand that its frustrating to find ur armor units keep firing at the milita unit that has already been killed but not some higher value targets ... esp in some key battles. but as i have said its coded like that so i dont think even the modders cant do anything about it. wish the 2by3 guys will take a look at this area in the WAW2 (if any).

in the meantime, my best advise is to shut the combat animations down and forget the tactical part but carry on to enjoy the strategy part of the game.

AN

Unit targetting is also illogical in the scope of the game.

Often units are ordered to achieve certain tasks that make it unlikely they can pick their opposition. If in real life an elite Panzer corps is ordered to take a city, it fights whatever is in that city, and if that's a derisory bunch of militia with half as many guns as people that could be easily cleared out by much lesser troops, so be it.

Specific unit targetting would also imply that a target unit is happy to sit there and fight any comers. But why should a commander be compliant with his enemy's preference to target a certain force? Surely he might move in reinforcements, possibly withdraw the targetted unit to protect it, or whatever else instead?

ORIGINAL: a511

for navy actions, iirc its more or less a random thing, except that somehow the no of fleets actually take part in each battle is inversely proportion to the distance traveled by the attacker b4 the contact. its something to due with the large area of each sea region and diff to locate enemy argument.
AN

I do not think that distance travelled has any influence on naval combat.

There are several threads on the selection mechanism, and it boils down to two dicerolls.
n = (1 to 'largest number of fleets present')
m = (1 to n)

m is the number of fleets actually fighting, basically the expected value is 25% of the largest nr of fleets present.
So quality is much more important than quantity in LF and HF combat.

Hope this helps,

- von Schmidt

Thanks for the responses.

ORIGINAL: Agema

Unit targetting is also illogical in the scope of the game.

Hmm, perhaps in land combat, but naval battle is definately more specific. Consider the British sinking the Bismark, or the Japanese sinking the Prince of Wales. Both of these battles were target specific and had major strategic consequences.

... basically the expected value is 25% of the largest nr of fleets present.
So quality is much more important than quantity in LF and HF combat.

Thanks. I can't say I like that system, in fact I think it stinks, but at least I can plan accordingly.
Is it just me or is anyone else disgusted with how rediculous this battle system is?

It takes some getting used to, but in general is doesnt bother me anymore at this scale. Note that units DO have a targeting priority that they tend to follow, but there is a random factor involved as well.

Again, it comes back to scale. When a naval engagement occurs, all we see is the ships lining up and firing...so why WOULDNT you fire at the 'correct' targets? But in reality, that is simulating a serious of engagements (or potential engagements) in which only select portions of the combatants engage.

I dont think anyone really thinks that the entire Japanese Combined Fleet can go engage the bulk of the US Pacific Fleet and just have a knock-down, drag out...Consider Midway...a LARGE part of Japanese fleet was present, yet how much engaged? Really only Nagumo's 1st Carrier Strike Group.

The same applies to later battles. The naval engagements around Guadalcanal were a series of battles fought over a few months. That is represented in the game a whole lot better than if all the units just lined up and shot it out.

For land battles, the same logic applies. When Army Group South attacks towards Stalingrad, it doesnt get to put the full force of all its power into one battle. Over three months, however (the scale of one turn in W@W), that power will be brought to bear.

Any which way you look at it, its an effective abstraction of combat in particular theatres during a period of three months. Some times you will get good match-ups, and other times you wont. But in no case would any form of 'firing line' be a more 'realistic' system IMO.

YMMV.

Well, I've found the naval combat a frustration as well. However, realistically if you see how the Prinz Eugen, Scharnhorst, Bismarck and so on managed to often elude the sizeable British fleet (and plane recon) to get into the Atlantic, you can appreicate the problems involved in actually engaging an opponent.

without a certain degree of randomness, you have have to increase the complexity of the game. using a slippery slope analogy, if you increase the complexity in one area, then why not another area also. pretty soon you're way outside the bounds of the original game and creating W@W2.

I think the intent was to keep things simple and easy. I think many of us would enjoy a W@W2 or a WitP:european theater.

I dont think anyone really thinks that the entire Japanese Combined Fleet can go engage the bulk of the US Pacific Fleet and just have a knock-down, drag out...Consider Midway...a LARGE part of Japanese fleet was present, yet how much engaged? Really only Nagumo's 1st Carrier Strike Group.

I understand what you're saying, and thanks for taking the time to explain. But look at who Nagumo used for offense, the aircraft carriers. Cruisers and destroyers were primarily used for defense. And I'm sure every pilot felt the full furry of every ship within sight when it came to defense. Not just a ship of matching class as the attacker. And look what Nagumo bagged, the Yorktown. Not an oiler or a transport. Not that my griping matters. I was just hoping W@W would have been that perfect turn based strategy game which I know must be out there somewhere.

well speaking about carrier air (or all aircraft for that matter). there is no randomness in the numbers that attack with them, they all get a shot. the same rule applies for the subs. therefore the Midway or eastern solomons (around guadacanal), are both good examples.

the japanese in both cases wanted to use surface forces to engage the americans, but neither where able to find the US fleets. therefor the W@W model seems to be working historically for a change.

That's a really good point, Aletoledo. I'm beginning to see the light. Seems the randomness is a sustitute for the unrealistically high recon abilities in the world map which are needed to make the game playable. In the game you can see the enemy, but can't always shoot at them. In reality they rarely saw the enemy in the first place.
Thanks to all you responders. I was frustrated as to why randomness was intentionally included. Now it makes alot more sense.[:)]

despite it making sense I still get frustrated like you.

I wonder if thats how fleet commanders felt regarding their own surface fleets during the real war?

I have to say I think the randomness of number of participants in naval battles was a good design decision. I cant say I enjoy it but I think it was a great idea. It makes most naval engagements 'risky' you really cant count on a particualr outcome, I would guess that is how it is in reality also.

-MrQuiet

I would have preferred to have just 1 roll for the nr of participants instead of 2 (ie have the expected % of participants be 50% of the max nr of fleets instead of 25%).

Randomness is a good way to model the uncertainty and friction of war; too much randomness means that strategy - in this case concentrating fleets - becomes almost meaningless.

All the more jarring since air and subs *do* all show up in combat. Even though those types of unit did also had difficulty in locating targets IRL.

I guess this is a prime example of design for effect: CAG trump surface fleets.

Land combat is just fine as is, IMO. If you want to kill a certain type of unit, either bring along overwhelming numbers or more of that type than the enemy has.

Just my 2 pence.

- von Schmidt

ORIGINAL: MrQuiet
I have to say I think the randomness of number of participants in naval battles was a good design decision. I cant say I enjoy it but I think it was a great idea. It makes most naval engagements 'risky' you really cant count on a particualr outcome, I would guess that is how it is in reality also.

-MrQuiet

Yep! The game design is perfect. Naval battles without Air-Units are "risky". So if you want to defeat your opponent, use Air-Units along HF/LF. You need to build up and maintain your carrier fleets or you loose control of the sea. German raiders like the Graf Spee were sunk right in the beginning of the war, the Bismarck was sunk after swordfish torpedo planes jammed her rudder. The Italian fleet had no air support (and no air reconnaissance) and after mid 1941 it didn't leave its port anymore.

ORIGINAL: von_Schmidt


I do not think that distance travelled has any influence on naval combat.

There are several threads on the selection mechanism, and it boils down to two dicerolls.
n = (1 to 'largest number of fleets present')
m = (1 to n)

m is the number of fleets actually fighting, basically the expected value is 25% of the largest nr of fleets present.
So quality is much more important than quantity in LF and HF combat.

Hope this helps,

- von Schmidt

It kind of reflects what happened with the Bismark on the high seas. Ships hoping to engage and unable.

I think wounded ships should lose movement points and try to limp back from an adjacent seazone.

Never had an occasion where I move one fleet to an area where they don't fight only if I move a bunch. Never move a light fleet where you want shore bombardment I use 1 heavy.

It may use more supplies to send in a bunch I'm a newbie so I dont 'know' but I assume it would. Why have the whole flotilla there for D-day if only 1 will shoot? Did I just have bad luck the first few times and there is a chance they could all show up?

It may use more supplies to send in a bunch I'm a newbie so I dont 'know' but I assume it would. Why have the whole flotilla there for D-day if only 1 will shoot? Did I just have bad luck the first few times and there is a chance they could all show up?

the number of ships firing in support of an amphibious attack is dependent on the number of units landing. you get one ship firing for each unit landing.

if you simply do an air attack, with any number of planes, you'll only get a single ship firing. of course you could just send one plane in at a time, then you'll get one ship firing per air attack.

I think the most unfortunate implementation in GGWAW is the ability of subs always to engage a target and in particular warships. I would be much happier if sub v warship was handled in the same way as warship v warship whilst sub v transport is probably OK.

The IJN used its subs primarily to attack warships and yet they had a lot of difficulty in getting much effect.

Mike

mcaryf, for such fine detail and control down to a tactical level, you'll probably enjoy "war in the pacific".