Naval Game ? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Commander - The Great War



Message


kirk23 -> Naval Game ? (12/30/2012 12:50:05 PM)

Hi I'm sitting on the fence about this game,thinking about buying but the naval game concerns me.

1st Question = What are the starting fleet strenghts of the major nations.

2nd Question = How does the game treat different capital ship types,ie Pre-Dreadnoughts,Dreadnoughts & Battlecruisers.

3rd Question = How easy is it to add new unit types if I need to mod the game.




Myrddraal -> RE: Naval Game ? (12/30/2012 1:04:21 PM)

The naval element of the game, it has been pointed out, is not as strong as the land war side. If it helps at all, we're looking at things we can do in patches to improve it. Here's some answers to your specific questions.

1) Will get back to you on this one, I'm not on the right machine (unless someone else gets there first)

2) The game has three unit types to represent the different fleets: Cruiser, Battleship & Submarine. Each of these units represents a fleet rather than an individual ship (in the same way that land unit counters represent armies with all the trimmings (including field artillery). There are also different naval technologies available for research.

3) It's entirely possible, and I would consider it easy, but given that I'm a dev, I guess it would be best to get an answer from someone who has had a crack at modding. It's certainly very easy indeed to edit the existing units (new name, stats, graphics etc).




kirk23 -> RE: Naval Game ? (12/30/2012 1:27:13 PM)

Cheers thanks for reply,I will have to investigate the game more,read more within the forum,I'm 85% certain I will buy the game because I like the look of it,and its a time period I really like,the naval game does bother me thou,I understand the concept of ships are not individual ships,but the counters represent fleets,that said so how many Battleships + escorts = 1 fleet. How many fleets of Battleships does Britain have at game start ?

Does Britain have Dreadnought fleets,Pre-Dreadnought fleets & the Battlecruiser fleet ?

Britain's primary service is the Navy during this time period,the Army & Air Corp were of secondary importance,




warspite1 -> RE: Naval Game ? (12/30/2012 1:34:42 PM)

Hi kirk23

I would love the developers to do more with the naval rules - if only so you can add your brilliant artwork to them [&o]

Re your questions, for game balance purposes the major navies all start with one 10-strength Battlefleet [8|]. The only advantage the Royal Navy get, over the German player, is an extra cruiser counter....[&:]

I fully understand the developers concentrating on the land war but the naval aspect has not been really thought out at all and the naval counters and sizing are sorely lacking.

That said, the developers are working on it and I would still recommend this game to anyone - it really is great fun.





kirk23 -> RE: Naval Game ? (12/30/2012 1:45:45 PM)

Hi warspite 1,

Thanks for the compliment regarding my artwork,I would like to do something with the naval art for this game also [:)]

As for Britain only having 1 Battlefleet I can only repeat what John McEnroe famously shouted YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS !![&:]

I'm afraid to say thats nuts ! By the looks of it the naval game does not need tweeking,it needs a complete overhaul [:@]

So 1 Battleship Counter represents anything from a 4 Squadron sized unit - over 90 Battleships that Britain had at war start,sorry to say but I think the lunatics have taken over the assylum this is wrong totally wrong,who cares about game balance,so Britains sea power equates to 1 Battleship counter,I'm speechless!!!![sm=character0229.gif]





kirk23 -> RE: Naval Game ? (12/30/2012 2:08:35 PM)

What different naval technologies are available for research in game terms ?




warspite1 -> RE: Naval Game ? (12/30/2012 2:16:51 PM)

Anti-torpedo bulges
Seaplane tender
ASW
Dual Shaft Propulsion

I think these are the four.




kirk23 -> RE: Naval Game ? (12/30/2012 3:29:28 PM)

I think I will buy the game even thou I have major concerns about the naval aspect,Its a new game so it can only improve I feel.[;)]




warspite1 -> RE: Naval Game ? (12/30/2012 3:40:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kirk23

I think I will buy the game even thou I have major concerns about the naval aspect,Its a new game so it can only improve I feel.[;)]
warspite1

I hope you won't be disappointed - I'm sure you won't!!




kirk23 -> RE: Naval Game ? (12/30/2012 3:51:16 PM)

If or should I say when I buy the game,I will be modding it to include different unit types naval wise,Pre-Dreadnoughts & Dreadnoughts are not really compatible in the same fleet,anyway I like a challenge.[8D]



UPDATE = I just bought a copy of the game,I'm downloading the update as I write this.[:)]




micha1100 -> RE: Naval Game ? (12/30/2012 5:47:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kirk23
As for Britain only having 1 Battlefleet I can only repeat what John McEnroe famously shouted YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS !![&:]
...


Apparently this was done intentionally by the developers:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lord Zimoa

historical background is of course hugely important and we know the numbers, but if we go this route, basically GB will shoot everything out of the water with a breeze...






kirk23 -> RE: Naval Game ? (12/30/2012 6:02:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: micha1100


quote:

ORIGINAL: kirk23
As for Britain only having 1 Battlefleet I can only repeat what John McEnroe famously shouted YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS !![&:]
...


Apparently this was done intentionally by the developers:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lord Zimoa

historical background is of course hugely important and we know the numbers, but if we go this route, basically GB will shoot everything out of the water with a breeze...





Well I must say I disagree with the logic,GB won't shoot everything out of the water with a breeze,mainly because Naval warfare is much more difficult than land warfare,for a start the firing ranges were in miles,usually in poor visability and moving at 20 plus knots,with a result that the chance of hitting a moving target was approx 5% - 10% with of course the weaker force withdrawing under the cover of a smoke screen,so the solution is simple,add the correct number of ship units to the game,but reduce the combat chance of hitting anything!

Also with regard to Germany,the High Seas Fleet for the most part had better armoured,better hull subdivision anti-torpedo protection,plus better range finder optical lenses!




micha1100 -> RE: Naval Game ? (12/30/2012 6:31:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kirk23
...
Well I must say I disagree with the logic...


So do I, actually I disagree with how the game handles a lot of things. But I was basically told that the game designers decided that playability and balance have a much higher priority than realism and historical accuracy and I guess we have to accept that.




kirk23 -> RE: Naval Game ? (12/30/2012 7:51:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: micha1100


quote:

ORIGINAL: kirk23
...
Well I must say I disagree with the logic...


So do I, actually I disagree with how the game handles a lot of things. But I was basically told that the game designers decided that playability and balance have a much higher priority than realism and historical accuracy and I guess we have to accept that.


If I can mod it I will,.I don't have to accept anything,if I don't like it, I change it, and if I can't change it, it gets binned simples!




Keke -> RE: Naval Game ? (12/30/2012 8:29:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: micha1100


quote:

ORIGINAL: kirk23
...
Well I must say I disagree with the logic...


So do I, actually I disagree with how the game handles a lot of things. But I was basically told that the game designers decided that playability and balance have a much higher priority than realism and historical accuracy and I guess we have to accept that.


Imagine if this was a boardgame. Would people be bitching about the design philosophy, or accept it and actually play it (if it is playable, as is in this case)?




warspite1 -> RE: Naval Game ? (12/30/2012 8:48:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Keke


quote:

ORIGINAL: micha1100


quote:

ORIGINAL: kirk23
...
Well I must say I disagree with the logic...


So do I, actually I disagree with how the game handles a lot of things. But I was basically told that the game designers decided that playability and balance have a much higher priority than realism and historical accuracy and I guess we have to accept that.


Imagine if this was a boardgame. Would people be bitching about the design philosophy, or accept it and actually play it (if it is playable, as is in this case)?

warspite1

I hope its not seen as bitching by the developers of this great game. But there is no harm in suggesting ways of trying to make it even better. Quite frankly, I would pay for add-ons that increase the scope and detail of the game. Afterall, players of the World In Flames series do that.




Aurelian -> RE: Naval Game ? (12/30/2012 10:03:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kirk23


Also with regard to Germany,the High Seas Fleet for the most part had better armoured,better hull subdivision anti-torpedo protection,plus better range finder optical lenses!


They shot better at the beginning of an engagement, but started to fall off the longer it went on, while the Brits were the opposite IIRC.




warspite1 -> RE: Naval Game ? (12/30/2012 10:25:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian


quote:

ORIGINAL: kirk23


Also with regard to Germany,the High Seas Fleet for the most part had better armoured,better hull subdivision anti-torpedo protection,plus better range finder optical lenses!


They shot better at the beginning of an engagement, but started to fall off the longer it went on, while the Brits were the opposite IIRC.
warspite1

Well that's a bit of a problem isn't it? - because there is no guarantee that your still going to be around in one piece later if the other guy is hitting you but you're not hitting him [;)]





Mike Parker -> RE: Naval Game ? (12/31/2012 5:23:55 PM)

I would love to see the naval aspect expanded. Perhaps have each hvy ship type represent 4 vessels (plus attendant smaller ships). This would allow an Ottoman Pre-DN counter to appear. One would have to seriously tone down shore bombardment I would think.. or maybe not considering ammo restrictions.

I wouldn't know how many cruiser type ships for each counter, I only know the hvy ship counts from the old AH game Jutland and some light research.




Keke -> RE: Naval Game ? (12/31/2012 5:43:11 PM)

Indeed scaling down the unit efficiency would allow more naval units (I would think).




kirk23 -> RE: Naval Game ? (1/1/2013 2:13:55 AM)

Hi guys I have been experimenting with the Naval side of the game,and untill we get more Naval counters,an easy fix is I have Increased the defence strenghts of Battleships,Cruisers & Submarines.I can't mind of hand what the defence strenght of a Battleship counter is,in the standard game,I think its about 13 or something,anyway I have increased it to 40,with the result being, let say the High Seas Fleet should blunder into the Grand Fleet + Cruisers,in the bog standard game that whould proberly mean the High Seas Fleet is toast,and the wars over for Germany!But with the Defence increased of 40 The High Seas Fleet now only takes 2 or 3 points of damage,and can return to Germany for repairs.[:)]




warspite1 -> RE: Naval Game ? (1/1/2013 9:45:57 AM)

Looking at the Imperial Navy and the Royal Navy, one way of doing a better, more interesting, naval game is to give each country more realistic starting numbers, but give Germany slightly higher values - representing the superior gunnery and the fact that the German ships took punishment better.

The British would have better efficiency - any German naval defeat would have a worse impact on the Germans than on the British for example.

This means the British cannot just fritter away its forces in case of contact with a full-strength enemy, but allows players to explore more options.




Keke -> RE: Naval Game ? (1/1/2013 10:42:14 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kirk23

Hi guys I have been experimenting with the Naval side of the game,and untill we get more Naval counters,an easy fix is I have Increased the defence strenghts of Battleships,Cruisers & Submarines.I can't mind of hand what the defence strenght of a Battleship counter is,in the standard game,I think its about 13 or something,anyway I have increased it to 40,with the result being, let say the High Seas Fleet should blunder into the Grand Fleet + Cruisers,in the bog standard game that whould proberly mean the High Seas Fleet is toast,and the wars over for Germany!But with the Defence increased of 40 The High Seas Fleet now only takes 2 or 3 points of damage,and can return to Germany for repairs.[:)]


That is good to know. Thanks!




kirk23 -> RE: Naval Game ? (1/1/2013 12:07:09 PM)

In my first quick play through as Germany,I went on a suicide mission with the Battleship counter, just to see what happens,and as expected the counter lasted no time at all untill it was wiped out,the thing that did surprise me was that,the loss of the High Seas Fleet only resulted in a reduction off 25% approx to the National Morale,that can't be right?Because had Britain or Germany lost there major surface fleet in the real world,then they would have sued for peace, and the war would have been over.For the so called play balance the designers of this game, have got the naval game all wrong,this needs fixed NOW!

As a side note increasing the defence factor of the land forces,also makes the game better,no more fluid fronts with counters being wiped out in one go,now they take damage but survive,REAL TRENCH WARFARE HAS FINALLY ARRIVED !!




soldier1 -> RE: Naval Game ? (1/2/2013 12:00:10 AM)

I'd certainly like to see naval combat be less lethal in the game. Its very risky to go on naval raids with the morale penalty because if there is combat and your on the receiving end you will probably lose a ship. With the few units available and the high costs of buying or upgrading it seems like good policy to hide away in port. Although some navies really did this I'd still like to see a little more action at sea and i think this easy fix would bring it




Rasputitsa -> RE: Naval Game ? (1/2/2013 8:30:43 AM)

I am a novice at this game, but I think we need to keep in mind the grand strategy scale of the game. The naval unit icons represent battle fleets and squadrons of cruisers, the number of times battle fleets clashed during WW1 can be counted on the fingers of one hand.

The game doesn't represent the actions of individual ships and raiders, but as on land, the game combats represent major offensives, not the everyday warfare that still cost 1000s of lives.

Not sure about the national morale hit, serious loses sometime stiffen the will to fight on, so 25% is not necessarily that far out, but with so few naval units represented, one unit destroyed can equal 100% losses, which is way too much risk.

The naval game is certainly weak and needs modification, as you can't get much grand strategy out of one unit, but it needs to stay in scale.[:)]




Aurelian -> RE: Naval Game ? (1/2/2013 10:07:32 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian


quote:

ORIGINAL: kirk23


Also with regard to Germany,the High Seas Fleet for the most part had better armoured,better hull subdivision anti-torpedo protection,plus better range finder optical lenses!


They shot better at the beginning of an engagement, but started to fall off the longer it went on, while the Brits were the opposite IIRC.
warspite1

Well that's a bit of a problem isn't it? - because there is no guarantee that your still going to be around in one piece later if the other guy is hitting you but you're not hitting him [;)]




Depends on which side of the guns you're on [:)]




Rasputitsa -> RE: Naval Game ? (1/2/2013 10:52:40 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian
quote:

ORIGINAL: kirk23
Also with regard to Germany,the High Seas Fleet for the most part had better armoured,better hull subdivision anti-torpedo protection,plus better range finder optical lenses!


They shot better at the beginning of an engagement, but started to fall off the longer it went on, while the Brits were the opposite IIRC.


These are tactical effects, which although part of the combat odds, are difficult to simulate in a strategic game. I would like to see the naval aspects of the game widened, but it will still be greatly abstracted and whatever the tactical advantages the High Seas Fleet possessed, they were heavily outweighed by the numbers that the RN could bring into action (if you get the strategy right).

Thinking more of separate unit icons for Battleship fleets, Battle-cruiser fleets and Pre-dreadnoughts. The Battle-cruisers have their well known weaknesses, but used alone, have the ability to outrun other units and that would reflect in minimising the damage suffered (speed is armour) if attacked by Battleships. They can force cruisers into action, but if used to attack Battle fleets they are more vulnerable. To justify different types of capital ship units, they should have different attributes.

Tech levels will effect the ability of units to escape damage from other slower units, lower tech is the reverse and would have to be used with more care, or support (old cruisers and pre-dreadnoughts being especially at risk). There is a lot of general strategic effects to be brought into the game, without the specific detail of guns and armour.

The 20 day game turn is representing more than just single engagements and there is a naval campaign to be fought here, with a little more flexibility in the game (e.g. more than one unit). [:)]




warspite1 -> RE: Naval Game ? (1/2/2013 1:34:07 PM)

My outline suggestions for improving the naval game – without losing sight of the fact that this is a strategic level game, but allowing for more options, more realism and more fun.
Things that need amending from current game:

- Petrograd needs a port.
- If a ship has no port it can theoretically return to at the end of any turn, it should be destroyed e.g. the Russian cruiser in the Black Sea, or the Russian Fleet in the Baltic (and the German if the Kiel Canal is closed).

Shore Bombardment

I think shore bombardment is probably about right in terms of its effectiveness, but there needs to be a cost. E.g. major warships operating in enemy controlled coastal waters were subject to heavy losses from mines etc.
Therefore areas such as:

- The Gulf of Finland
- The Gulf of Danzig (and waters around Konigsberg)
- The English Channel (both sides)
- The Adriatic for the Austrians
- Limited areas around major ports
- The Straits of Otranto for the Italians

should automatically see a dice roll for enemy units operating in those zones (including passing through) for every turn they are there. This will mean either no effect or a 1-strength point loss. E.g large losses inflicted during the Dardanelles Campaign and German destroyer losses in the Gulf of Finland.

The benefits for ports should not take effect immediately, but should take a turn or two to implement – e.g. if the Germans take Calais, then a British ship counter may operate off Calais for x no. of turns before the German has a chance to get mines laid, coastal units in position etc. Thereafter the dice roll applies.

The Fleets themselves and counter nos:

The counter numbers should roughly reflect actual size of fleets (give or take some allowance for balance). The navies of the world were not all the same and the 10-point-counter-for-all concept really detracts from such a good game.

How to make the naval game more fun but keep a historical setting? Looking at Britain vs Germany we have Britain needing to implement its blockade of the continent, while the Germans need to break it. Instead of unrealistic strategic bombardment*, the blockade is the way for Britain to hurt Germany (this effect gets worse over time – probably a morale effect rather than production?). This has two effects – there is a reason for the British to keep its Grand Fleet intact and in place, and a reason for the Germans to try and force a battle.

The fleets would need to be broken up into smaller elements. Importantly, to represent the huge chance element – weather and such like – that is a feature of naval encounters - fleets that end the turn next to each other will have to roll a dice to decide whether they “find each other” and thus there is a battle. With no counter stacking, this combination of fleet counters and chance will make for a much more interesting, cat-and-mouse situation as really existed – and give a chance for a smaller fleet to beat a bigger one (the attacker keeps the surprise as per current rules).

*Picking up on Naskra’s recent comment in the forum about bombing/bombardment affecting morale – not production.

Britain has the biggest navy in the world, but 100-years + of being unchallenged on the high seas has led to an element of complacency – allied to industrial shortcomings. This can be reflected in better hitting power and defensive power for the Germans. German efficiency (morale) should be weaker than the British – and more likely to run from any battle.

As said, the Battleship and cruiser counters reflect the ship nos. more accurately for each country and there is a need for other counter-types to be added so you could have:

- Battleships
- Battlecruisers
- Non-dreadnought type battleships
- Cruisers

It is assumed that destroyers are “present” with all counter-types.

The idea would be to keep the actual counter numbers relatively low – not sure how many would be required, but I am happy to do some work on this if these ideas are of any interest.





Rasputitsa -> RE: Naval Game ? (1/2/2013 3:39:53 PM)

I am too much of a novice with this game to make much comment, but agree with Warspite, especially that weaker nations' naval forces should start at low strength, whilst the stronger nations would have several strength 10 units, to reflect the historical number of ships available.[:)]




Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.734375E-02