Consultation: Patching the naval game

[Myrddraal]

Dear friendly forum users! We (the LGS) are looking at ways we can improve the naval game in a patch. We've been watching the efforts of some modders on these forums with interest, and thinking of ways we could incorporate some of their ideas into an official patch. We’re trying to finalise a plan for what to change, and your input would be very much appreciated.

NB: Patching a game isn't the same as modding a game.
When you’re modding a game, anything goes. You can rip up the rule book and start again. When patching a game with an official you have to be a lot more careful. For example:
You might create a mod where any unit in the enemy red zone loses 1 hp per turn, to simulate losses due to mines. Anyone who downloads your mod will know exactly what their getting, no nasty surprises. But many more players will download a patch than a mod, and many of these won’t be forum posters. If we include something similar in a patch, we’d have to be very careful about how this new rule was introduced to the player, possibly with a new overlay on the map showing ‘mined’ hexes in such as way as the player is immediately aware that something has changed. Otherwise we’d be much more likely to be flooded with bug reports (My fleet hp is falling every turn, this game is borked!!!) than happy customers.

So what are we considering:
- A new ‘Destroyer’ unit type, as implemented by kirk and xris.
The reason this unit wasn't added originally is that naval units are meant to represent entire fleets (due to a lack of stacking in this game). Destroyer units by themselves don’t make much sense in that context.

- An ‘escort’ ability for all naval units.
This escort ability would be very similar to the air intercept/escort mechanic, where armed fighters automatically protect units which are attacked from the air. For naval vessels, the range of this ‘escort’ ability would be just 1 hex. This means that units adjacent to each other would support each other if attacked. A mechanic like this in a sense compensates for the lack of stacking, and allows for some sort of combined arms approach to naval defense. Three naval units can now sail together, support each other defensively and could be considered a ‘fleet’ (rather than the single unit counter model we had previously).
Different units could provide a different defensive bonus when escorting. Destroyers would provide a very large defensive bonus to ships they escort, but provide very little offensive impact, meaning that fleets without destroyer ‘screens’ would be much more vulnerable to taking casualties.

- Simulate the blockade of German ports
At the start of the game, Germany would have convoys, just like France & Britain. When Britain first attacks a German convoy (usually within the first few turns of the game), a historical event would appear saying ‘Germany’s ports blockaded!’ ‘Britain has intercepted merchant shipping heading for German ports. No more merchant convoys will sail for Germany until the British hold on the North Sea is weakened’.
If entente naval power in the north sea then drops to less than half of German naval power, Germany’s convoys would be ‘re-activated’ and convoys would spawn for Germany.

We’re hoping that these three changes would be enough to make the naval game more meaningful, as well as more tactical. Comments and ideas very much appreciated!

[TheWombat_matrixforum]

I really like the third option you list, as it finally gives a real incentive for some battleship on battleship action.

[warspite1]

What is proposed re nos and composition of naval units? Needs to be more realistic. The RN needs to keep the same number of ships as the Germans at Scapa Flow or North Sea ports - minimum.

I like the idea of "escort" ability - a balanced fleet needs dreadnoughts, scouting cruisers and destroyers. I still like a chance element though that determines whether all these escorts take part in any battle.

In the days of primitive signal and communication equipment (not to mention poor decisions) not all ships are going to be where they need to be come the decisive moment - Jutland showed this!

I still maintain there should be restrictions on fleets (I refer to my suggestions in The Naval Game thread) movements. Ships cannot sail anywhere in confined waters with immunity e.g. The Austro-Hungarians should be penalised for leaving and entering the Adriatic if Italy are in the War etc

EDIT: Sorry, meant to say - great that you are responding to the comments to improve this great game. Thank-you!

[kirk23]

ORIGINAL: Myrddraal

Dear friendly forum users! We (the LGS) are looking at ways we can improve the naval game in a patch. We've been watching the efforts of some modders on these forums with interest, and thinking of ways we could incorporate some of their ideas into an official patch. We’re trying to finalise a plan for what to change, and your input would be very much appreciated.

NB: Patching a game isn't the same as modding a game.
When you’re modding a game, anything goes. You can rip up the rule book and start again. When patching a game with an official you have to be a lot more careful. For example:
You might create a mod where any unit in the enemy red zone loses 1 hp per turn, to simulate losses due to mines. Anyone who downloads your mod will know exactly what their getting, no nasty surprises. But many more players will download a patch than a mod, and many of these won’t be forum posters. If we include something similar in a patch, we’d have to be very careful about how this new rule was introduced to the player, possibly with a new overlay on the map showing ‘mined’ hexes in such as way as the player is immediately aware that something has changed. Otherwise we’d be much more likely to be flooded with bug reports (My fleet hp is falling every turn, this game is borked!!!) than happy customers.

So what are we considering:
- A new ‘Destroyer’ unit type, as implemented by kirk and xris.
The reason this unit wasn't added originally is that naval units are meant to represent entire fleets (due to a lack of stacking in this game). Destroyer units by themselves don’t make much sense in that context.

- An ‘escort’ ability for all naval units.
This escort ability would be very similar to the air intercept/escort mechanic, where armed fighters automatically protect units which are attacked from the air. For naval vessels, the range of this ‘escort’ ability would be just 1 hex. This means that units adjacent to each other would support each other if attacked. A mechanic like this in a sense compensates for the lack of stacking, and allows for some sort of combined arms approach to naval defense. Three naval units can now sail together, support each other defensively and could be considered a ‘fleet’ (rather than the single unit counter model we had previously).
Different units could provide a different defensive bonus when escorting. Destroyers would provide a very large defensive bonus to ships they escort, but provide very little offensive impact, meaning that fleets without destroyer ‘screens’ would be much more vulnerable to taking casualties.

- Simulate the blockade of German ports
At the start of the game, Germany would have convoys, just like France & Britain. When Britain first attacks a German convoy (usually within the first few turns of the game), a historical event would appear saying ‘Germany’s ports blockaded!’ ‘Britain has intercepted merchant shipping heading for German ports. No more merchant convoys will sail for Germany until the British hold on the North Sea is weakened’.
If entente naval power in the north sea then drops to less than half of German naval power, Germany’s convoys would be ‘re-activated’ and convoys would spawn for Germany.

We’re hoping that these three changes would be enough to make the naval game more meaningful, as well as more tactical. Comments and ideas very much appreciated!

Thanks Myrddraal, as we all know the naval game is far from perfect,and your above suggestions will indeed improve matters,there still remains the major problem off,the lack of durability for naval units,especially Battleships.Its better to return to port,after the first round of combat to repair any battle damage,as per history its better to repair, than build a new unit from scratch.Build times could be looked at, as an official patch,Battleship units should be about 20 - 24 turns.

I really like the escort rolls for convoys etc,plus the inclusion of the destroyer unit type![;)]

NB! I added destroyer units to the game,as a visual deterrent port defence,and to act as a barrier against enemy incursions
[;)]

Also what is your thoughts on increasing the deterrent aspect of the green dot area,a restrictive barrier as per the land ZOC,enemy fleets should not be able to move within the green dot area at will,either that or simulate the effect of having mine fields within the green dot area,so that only 1 or 2 routes remain free for access[:)]

[stockwellpete]

I think these are very good ideas even though I have a slight reservation about destroyer units being introduced. I wonder if it might clutter the map up too much and if it might be better to just represent capital ships and subs. I think a much clearer distinction should be made between dreadnoughts and pre-dreadnoughts in the game and I also wonder if there needs to be a build battleship capability at all. I don't think there were any new battleships built after the war had started that actually took part in the action (there were some started before 1914 that were completed during the war and then played an active role). You would still have a repair battleship capability, of course.

Other things the patch should do on the basis of your ideas . . .
i) give port status to Helsinki and Petrograd
ii) increase green dot deterrent area for main ports of each power as kirk is suggesting (the coastal defences were very extensive at some of these places)
iii) increase build times for ships as kirk is suggesting (battleships took 2 years, destroyers took 1 year)
iv) give Turkey some naval capacity (i.e. to build destroyers) to activate Black Sea zone
v) reduce bombard power of battleships against cities a bit
vi) increase durability of dreadnoughts as kirk is suggesting as they were not sunk by shell fire during WW1 (their armour was much better than pre-dreadnoughts)

[kirk23]

ORIGINAL: stockwellpete

I think these are very good ideas even though I have a slight reservation about destroyer units being introduced. I wonder if it might clutter the map up too much and if it might be better to just represent capital ships and subs. I think a much clearer distinction should be made between dreadnoughts and pre-dreadnoughts in the game and I also wonder if there needs to be a build battleship capability at all. I don't think there were any new battleships built after the war had started that actually took part in the action (there were some started before 1914 that were completed during the war and then played an active role). You would still have a repair battleship capability, of course.

Other things the patch should do on the basis of your ideas . . .
i) give port status to Helsinki and Petrograd
ii) increase green dot deterrent area for main ports of each power as kirk is suggesting (the coastal defences were very extensive at some of these places)
iii) increase build times for ships as kirk is suggesting (battleships took 2 years, destroyers took 1 year)
iv) give Turkey some naval capacity (i.e. to build destroyers) to activate Black Sea zone
v) reduce bombard power of battleships against cities a bit
vi) increase durability of dreadnoughts as kirk is suggesting as they were not sunk by shell fire during WW1 (their armour was much better than pre-dreadnoughts)

All above very logical and would enhance the naval game no ends,naval game should not play,how the land game plays,different tactics were used,there is no trench warfare mentality,a naval game is all about movement,hit and run skirmishes.

Naval battles can't go on into multiple combat rounds,ships only have a certain amount of shell storage within their magazines,and then they need to return to port,there were no fleet auxiliaries around in this period in history,to replenish the ships magazines at sea.[;)]

[stockwellpete]

Naval battles can't go on into multiple combat rounds,ships only have a certain amount of shell storage within their magazines,and then they need to return to port,there were no fleet auxiliaries around in this period in history,to replenish the ships magazines at sea.[;)]

Yes, that's right. There is also a question about the "range" of a ship. How long should they be able to stay at sea before returnin to port. Not sure how that might be modelled though.

Another thing for the naval patch is to reduce the cost of naval upgrades.

[catwhoorg]

Good point Pete.

The upgrades right now are so expensive, that its just another reason to can the research labs. Even if I get the tech I don't then apply it.

[kirk23]

ORIGINAL: stockwellpete

Naval battles can't go on into multiple combat rounds,ships only have a certain amount of shell storage within their magazines,and then they need to return to port,there were no fleet auxiliaries around in this period in history,to replenish the ships magazines at sea.[;)]

Yes, that's right. There is also a question about the "range" of a ship. How long should they be able to stay at sea before returnin to port. Not sure how that might be modelled though.

Another thing for the naval patch is to reduce the cost of naval upgrades.

Range movement of ships is a hard one to put into game terms,if a hex is say for arguments sake 50 miles,and a game turn is 14 days,then in my estimation a ship moving at 10 knots would be able to move 70 hexes per turn![:D]

[stockwellpete]

Range movement of ships is a hard one to put into game terms,if a hex is say for arguments sake 50 miles,and a game turn is 14 days,then in my estimation a ship moving at 10 knots would be able to move 70 hexes per turn![:D]

I was thinking more in terms of time really, kirk - the question being how many turns could a ship stay at sea at full efficiency? Whether a gradual drop in efficiency after a certain number of turns at sea could be modelled into the naval units - that might be enough to force a periodic return to port. It may not be exactly accurate but it would be a representation of sorts, perhaps?

[kirk23]

Ah ok I see my boo boo,the problem with efficiency is that it would reduce the ship ability to resist damage,if its model like the land units,then the damage in combat would be to severe,efficiency plays no part in Battleship armour,just because the crew might tire due to long periods at sea,the ships ability to withstand damage in combat cannot be reduced,the durability of the ships in game is already a big problem,it's getting to the stage that my present modding trials,I have given all ship units in game,the retreat trait given to armour cars,in an effort to make the ship last longer in game![:)]

[JJKettunen]

Considering how quickly fleets can be rebuilt one can say that 100% casualties doesn't mean 100% of the ships were actually destroyed (although the event message informs us so -- instead it should say that heavy losses at sea has affected nation's morale)...

[kirk23]

ORIGINAL: Keke

Considering how quickly fleets can be rebuilt one can say that 100% casualties doesn't mean 100% of the ships were actually destroyed (although the event message informs us so -- instead it should say that heavy losses at sea has affected nation's morale)...

Good call event message I like ![;)]

Ships build times need increased no doubts about that,in modded game Battleships have build time of 24 turns.[8D]

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: stockwellpete

Range movement of ships is a hard one to put into game terms,if a hex is say for arguments sake 50 miles,and a game turn is 14 days,then in my estimation a ship moving at 10 knots would be able to move 70 hexes per turn![:D]

I was thinking more in terms of time really, kirk - the question being how many turns could a ship stay at sea at full efficiency? Whether a gradual drop in efficiency after a certain number of turns at sea could be modelled into the naval units - that might be enough to force a periodic return to port. It may not be exactly accurate but it would be a representation of sorts, perhaps?

warspite1

This is an excellent idea. A ship shouldn't be allowed to stay at sea indefinitely, and to lose efficiency each turn its at sea gives another variable, another potential twist to naval warfare. Does your opponent know how long you've been at sea? Are you bluffing? If this could be incorporated it would be excellent.

[Myrddraal]

But quite a lot of micro management no? Especially because ship movement is much lower than the distance a ship could realistically cover in 2 weeks. A ship in the north sea could pop back to port and be back in position all within a single turn. We try to simulate supply with the 'operational range' of ships.

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: Myrddraal

But quite a lot of micro management no? Especially because ship movement is much lower than the distance a ship could realistically cover in 2 weeks. A ship in the north sea could pop back to port and be back in position all within a single turn. We try to simulate supply with the 'operational range' of ships.

And the Austrian Navy had a problem with coal supply, being they imported most of it from Great Britain. http://www.cityofart.net/bship/oesterreich.html

[JeffroK]

ORIGINAL: Myrddraal

But quite a lot of micro management no? Especially because ship movement is much lower than the distance a ship could realistically cover in 2 weeks. A ship in the north sea could pop back to port and be back in position all within a single turn. We try to simulate supply with the 'operational range' of ships.

Many here have cut their teeth on UV, WITP, WITPAE.

What you are talking about would not rate as micromanagement.

I might be simplifying it, but is the offering WW1 for Dummies OR a serious attempt at showing WW1??

there's a market for both and most would play both, just work out where you are aiming.

With the problem of lowering efficiency also lowering the defence value, is it possible to only lower the attack value??

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Myrddraal

But quite a lot of micro management no? Especially because ship movement is much lower than the distance a ship could realistically cover in 2 weeks. A ship in the north sea could pop back to port and be back in position all within a single turn. We try to simulate supply with the 'operational range' of ships.

warspite1

No not at all - and please just to clarify my personal situation here, I am not proposing anything that takes this into micro-management territory. Instead I am just asking for the naval game to be as engrossing and fun as the land war.

If I need to launch a ground-attack, I need to weigh up the odds and one of the things I need to look at is the efficiency rating of the land units I want to attack with. Another is, what support do I have for the attack - artillery or other land units? This should be no different for my naval units. I'm at sea, I need to stay at sea to provide bombardment for a vital ground attack. But do I have enough efficiency left? Do I have other naval counters to support? There is no reason why the naval game should be more dumbed down than the land war.

For example I should not be able to just shove my ships into the English Channel and forget about them until its time to shore bombard or cover a transport for a land unit or whatever. I should need to make decisions on when to leave out, when to bring home to port (It could be something like one turn in port = return to full efficiency and maybe one turn in a captured port = incremental steps in efficiency repair) so its kept relatively simple.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

ORIGINAL: Myrddraal

But quite a lot of micro management no? Especially because ship movement is much lower than the distance a ship could realistically cover in 2 weeks. A ship in the north sea could pop back to port and be back in position all within a single turn. We try to simulate supply with the 'operational range' of ships.

And the Austrian Navy had a problem with coal supply, being they imported most of it from Great Britain. http://www.cityofart.net/bship/oesterreich.html

warspite1

So the Austrian navy could require more time to bring units up to efficiency - say 5 turns in port to bring back to maximum. This means a CP player can still have some options with the Austrian Fleet, but they are, rightly, restricted in what they can do.

In addition, in the same way that Entente ships entering the Adriatic should face penalties so Austrian ships should face the same penalties for entering / exiting the Adriatic (mirroring the Italian mining and effective blockade).

This latter point comes back to my idea of making certain zones (constricted sea zones and areas around enemy major ports) requiring a "dice throw" to see if they suffer a strength point loss (i.e. to simulate torpedo boats, mines etc).

[JJKettunen]

Keep it simple is all I'm saying.