Naval pass through

[Guderian1940]

Issue with non at war naval units taking losses when going through enemy units.

Issue with CA taking losses going through 3 strength DD ie. losses should take into account the relative type of units.

Seen Subs take loss going through BB with no ASW.

Issue with moving units through known enemy units. Why does the auto move not go around and have to go through the enemy unit? It seems to purposely go through it.

I think it needs some tweaking.

V1.03.02 MP

[kirk23]

The solution is extemely simple,let naval units move freely without taking any strength loses,everyone knows that Submarines can go wherever they like,no matter what ships are around, they just go under. As for surface ships, if a hex = 20miles for arguments sake,you can have 100s of ships within that area,that could pass each other without ever coming in contact, so just remove the strength penalty. In my mod all naval units have zero zone of control anyway.

[Christolos]

ORIGINAL: kirk23

The solution is extemely simple,let naval units move freely without taking any strength loses,everyone knows that Submarines can go wherever they like,no matter what ships are around, they just go under. As for surface ships, if a hex = 20miles for arguments sake,you can have 100s of ships within that area,that could pass each other without ever coming in contact, so just remove the strength penalty. In my mod all naval units have zero zone of control anyway.

I agree, naval units should be able to move freely without taking any strength losses.

C

[Guderian1940]

This feature was added in an update. The thinking was that naval units would not block movement but have some effect. I do not disagree with having an effect but it needs to be tweaked to naval strength and type. Not one solution fits all. IMHO

[sPzAbt653]

I think it was added so that naval units no longer stop dead, take losses, and end movement. I would agree that the auto-path should not move thru a spotted naval unit, if another path is available.

[Christolos]

The point is that the ships could attempt to avoid combat if they wanted to, so maybe this could be better modeled...

C

[James Taylor]

I've got Italian and French/UK naval vessels taking losses moving through each other in the Med and they aren't even at war yet.

[kirk23]

I still think the best solution is that no naval units suffer any strength loss! Without going into boring details,its a known fact that ships can avoid contact if they wanted too,all they need to do is head of in a different direction and lay down a smoke screen,end result in most cases end with no pursuit taking place,due to the huge posibility that it could be a trap to follow into the smoke screen,only to be attacked by torpedoes for example.

[Christolos]

I agree that ships can avoid combat, or at least try to if they wanted to, but this raises the issue of whether they can or should be able to evade combat all the time - i.e, with a 100% success rate every time without regard to other aspects that could be considered.

Things like whether the ship participated in combat during the current turn, whether it is in raiding mode or not, whether it is damaged, the weather, maximum speed, etc.

I think something needs to be done to tweak this towards being a little more realistic...but it has to also be simple enough in terms of an abstraction that encompasses the issues that need to be considered.

I don't remember if this was ever discussed (it may have been...), but are ships in raiding mode easier to spot?

C

[Hubert Cater]

There were a couple of bugs in this latest beta in that non belligerent units are taking losses and I noticed that I left it at a 100% chance (due to testing) which is incorrect.

Corrections for both of these will hopefully dampen the current concern. Reason being, and as mentioned above, was that you could not previously pass through enemy units, i.e. subs for one could be encircled into a death trap, and now you can escape this with the % chance that you may take one strength point loss, but of course the strength loss should not occur every time so hopefully this is a fair enough trade off for the increased mobility.

One other possible argument to not eliminate the chances of a strength point loss is that passing through enemy units is optional, and there should be some reward in place for an enemy naval force for surrounding and cutting off the enemy. If escape without potential losses is always guaranteed I don't feel like this would be completely correct either.

[kirk23]

Hubert will the option to modify the % chance be moddable using the editor,or are you keeping that a hard coded thing?

[Hubert Cater]

For now hard coded but eventually moddable as we've introduced a few other items (since release) that we would like to be moddable as well.

[kirk23]

Thanks for info.[;)]

[Christolos]

ORIGINAL: Hubert Cater

Corrections for both of these will hopefully dampen the current concern. Reason being, and as mentioned above, was that you could not previously pass through enemy units, i.e. subs for one could be encircled into a death trap, and now you can escape this with the % chance that you may take one strength point loss, but of course the strength loss should not occur every time so hopefully this is a fair enough trade off for the increased mobility.

This makes perfect sense and is a great enhancement to the game!

ORIGINAL: Hubert Cater


One other possible argument to not eliminate the chances of a strength point loss is that passing through enemy units is optional, and there should be some reward in place for an enemy naval force for surrounding and cutting off the enemy. If escape without potential losses is always guaranteed I don't feel like this would be completely correct either.

I like this too! The game just keeps on getting better all the time! [:)]

Thanks Hubert!

C

[Birdw]

Is this thread talking about changes in the newest beta version?

[Hubert Cater]

Hi Birde,

This was feedback from the v1.03.02 Beta that included some new naval movement rules and changes. There is a new v1.03.04 Beta now available that corrects a few introduced issues as highlighted in this thread.

Hubert