Matrix Games Forums

Command Ops gets a Massive Update!Lost Battles AAR: Smolensk 41War in the East: Lost Battles is here!Conflict of Heroes: Awakening the Bear! Let's Play videoLost Battles Scenario Manual excerpts available!A sneak peek from Allied Corps!Harpoon 3 ANWs Free Ultimate Update!All good Deals always come in threesDistant Worlds: Shadows Approaches!Lost Battles AAR: Moscow 41		 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

surface battles non-existent?

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Time of Fury >> surface battles non-existent? Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
surface battles non-existent? - 1/17/2013 4:48:59 PM   
gwgardner

 

Posts: 2936
Joined: 4/7/2006
Status: offline 		I'll admit to not following reports on inter-turn surface battles very well, but my impression is that they are too rare.

How to make them more likely?

Like JLPowell has been able to amphibious assault Leningrad twice against me, while I had the entire Soviet Baltic fleet at sea. No spotting success? No surface battle to go after his transports?

Is it a matter upping the chance of spotting the enemy fleet?
Post #: 1
RE: surface battles non-existent? - 1/17/2013 10:38:24 PM   
JLPOWELL


Posts: 367
Joined: 5/5/2011
From: Pacific Time Zone
Status: offline 		Overall naval engagements appear much less than decisive. Surface units do not either dislodge or usually even damage each other much. Particularly bad is that CV airstrikes have virtually no effect. Historically if 4 or 5 CV's attack a small task force it will be erased from the sea not be slightly dinged and able to continue to raid at will. I expect that if the entire German navy had been engaged by a TF containing 5+ CV it be sunk in a few hours or a couple of days at most. In ToF small surface units sail with impunity and are only mildly annoyed by small repeated attacks by multiple CV task forces and 'attempts' at engagement by vastly superior surface forces. This is just about the worst aspect of the game.

_____________________________

"Don’t you think that if I were wrong, I’d know it?"

(in reply to gwgardner)
Post #: 2
RE: surface battles non-existent? - 1/18/2013 12:04:50 AM   
battlevonwar

 

Posts: 176
Joined: 12/22/2011
Status: offline 		I don't really get the feel that the Naval aspect impacts too much either as say for instance Amphibious or Naval Transport of men. Which was so utterly important, it would be have suicide to send your men out there without Naval Dominance. It would be nice to see Sea action have a little more impact in this regard. Bombardment and Raiding so far has an impact. i.e. I can invade Egypt Amphibiously without really having any dominance of the Air or Sea Lanes there. You really really want to, it's very doable... With no air/naval assets at all in fact...

The ships tend to go out to sea forever, get hit a bit, return to port and repair and go back out again. The ship is not slowed in it's return to port, most naval combats are rather quiet... Neither is the ship seemed to be particularly crippled after action at sea.

From what Naval battles I've watched or read a little bit about in WW2. A lot of Fleet action I know happened in a matter of moments, whole ships were lost throughout the ETO and that isn't really simulated here.





(in reply to JLPOWELL)
Post #: 3
RE: surface battles non-existent? - 1/18/2013 7:58:52 AM   
doomtrader


Posts: 5232
Joined: 7/22/2008
From: Poland
Status: offline 		You can try to increase those values in the consts.ini file of the scenario: 
[NavalBattle]
EngagementChance = 30

[DetectingAbilityOfNavalUnits]
UnitType40 = 500
UnitType41 = 200
UnitType42 = 250
UnitType43 = 250


_____________________________

All the latest news about Wastelands Games.

Facebook

(in reply to battlevonwar)
Post #: 4
RE: surface battles non-existent? - 1/18/2013 9:27:20 AM   
Rasputitsa


Posts: 1456
Joined: 6/30/2001
From: Bedfordshire UK
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: gwgardner
I'll admit to not following reports on inter-turn surface battles very well, but my impression is that they are too rare.

How to make them more likely?

Like JLPowell has been able to amphibious assault Leningrad twice against me, while I had the entire Soviet Baltic fleet at sea. No spotting success? No surface battle to go after his transports?

Is it a matter upping the chance of spotting the enemy fleet?


This subject is so complicated and I haven't tried to mess with it, the balance of 'time at sea' and 'distance from port' and how this affected effectiveness is difficult to balance.

I am playing 'Fall Gelb' and getting a lot of sea activity, reports into 100s, but what they mean is more difficult to work out.

In Reports/Report Statistics it shows losses of men, tanks, guns, etc., but nothing on ships.

Reports/Report Events/Raiders Activity shows action against convoys, even attacks by surface formations which have not been set as raiders, but it is showing surface actions taking place against convoys and transport fleets. It also shows attacks on enemy fleet formations, but as I sometimes set small cruiser fleets as raiders (to make them more elusive against major fleets), I cannot tell whether these fleet actions were during a raider phase, or regular fleet surface actions, either way, I do get some fleet action. The information is sparse, attack failed, target damaged etc., so doesn't tell you much, but that could be realistic.

Reports/Report Statistics/Naval Groups Lost has the fleet losses of all nations, but just shows the action as 'sea bombardment' and is that air, or surface action. These reports show how effectively you are dealing with enemy naval forces, but not how it's being achieved.

I suppose you could try to tie the losses into the reports of air attacks in Report Events/Sea Zone Attacks, to see which combats have been air attacks and by elimination which may be surface actions, but that's not easy. These sea zone attack reports give a good level of detail and includes attacks on ground units in ports, so maybe it's a format that could be transferred to all naval combat reporting.

Reports/Report Events/Battles at Sea shows little detail, only that a meeting has taken place and which ever nation you select you still get reports of all events, not just those of the nation you have chosen, so although it shows that a lot is going on with surface formations, you can't see what the effects are.

Some naval features can be adjusted in the scenario 'const' file, spotting, effectiveness of air attacks etc., but with such little useful information available, I am reluctant to try and adjust any of it so far.

So there seems to be a game structure that could be useful, but it needs to be tweaked so that the information is more useful and better laid out.







< Message edited by Rasputitsa -- 1/18/2013 10:52:40 AM >

_____________________________

"We have to go from where we are, not from where we would like to be" - me

(in reply to gwgardner)
Post #: 5
RE: surface battles non-existent? - 1/18/2013 9:54:21 AM   
Rasputitsa


Posts: 1456
Joined: 6/30/2001
From: Bedfordshire UK
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: battlevonwar
The ships tend to go out to sea forever, get hit a bit, return to port and repair and go back out again. The ship is not slowed in it's return to port, most naval combats are rather quiet... Neither is the ship seemed to be particularly crippled after action at sea.

From what Naval battles I've watched or read a little bit about in WW2. A lot of Fleet action I know happened in a matter of moments, whole ships were lost throughout the ETO and that isn't really simulated here.


If you leave your naval units at sea forever then the effectiveness and ability to spot enemy fleets will reduce, so they might not be achieving much, if left at sea.

The naval units represent groups of ships, rather than individual ships, although named for specific ships, it really represents major ships and their escorts, so the group can take losses (sunk and damaged ships) and the rest of the ships can still function, albeit at reduced strength. Leaving groups at sea with reduced strength risks losing them in the next combats and they are cheaper to repair than replace, so the game encourages you to return them to port regularly.

In reality the navies of major nations had hundreds of ships of all types and, it's not ideal, but the naval aspects are heavily abstracted to be manageable, but definitely in need of an overhaul.

< Message edited by Rasputitsa -- 1/18/2013 9:57:15 AM >

_____________________________

"We have to go from where we are, not from where we would like to be" - me

(in reply to battlevonwar)
Post #: 6
RE: surface battles non-existent? - 1/18/2013 3:59:50 PM   
gwgardner

 

Posts: 2936
Joined: 4/7/2006
Status: offline 		Reports do need work, for naval actions. Should be on the Wastelands list. My rule for reports: if the game tracks/records/knows about it, report it.

(in reply to Rasputitsa)
Post #: 7
RE: surface battles non-existent? - 1/19/2013 12:09:27 PM   
Rasputitsa


Posts: 1456
Joined: 6/30/2001
From: Bedfordshire UK
Status: online 		The point about balance is that historically there were not many major naval surface actions in the European Theatre during all the years of WW2. Matapan, Cape Spartivento, pursuit of the Bismark, sinking of the Scharnhorst, interception of the Glorious, Narvik Fjord,.....

These are what come to mind, but it's not a lot to show for six years of war. In comparison, huge losses were inflicted by air and submarine attacks, with surface actions of smaller ships based around convoy battles.

Overall, more damage was done to capital ships whilst in port, Royal Oak in Scapa Flow, Taranto, Mers-el-Kébir, Alexandria underwater attack, Tirpitz air and underwater attacks, etc., I've seen the Queen Elizabeth group destroyed in Valetta harbour by air attack.

So what I am seeing in the reports (this is Fall Gelb scenario) seems OK, based on the above record, significant losses inflicted by submarines, lots of damaging air attacks, occasional surface fleet actions attacking convoys in the Med and not much fleet to fleet action. I think historically, most of the time, one, or other, of the sides was trying to avoid action and meant that major ship surface actions were rare. You put your ships to sea, but the commanders on the spot decide what happens next, they cannot easily avoid submarine, or air attack, but against surface ships the weaker side will want to avoid action, frustrating, but possibly quite realistic. I haven't played many turns under 1.03betav3 yet, so not sure if that affects things and there is still the convoy problem, putting transports and convoys where they are most vulnerable instead of safer routes.

However, I have an Allied division holding out in Narvik and it is very hard to dislodge, I have almost all the Kriegsmarine offshore doing regular bombardments, with TAC air covering the sea zone, but the Allies are providing naval alternative supply keeping that unit alive. I think fleets carrying out and supporting amphibious landings and supplying ground forces is a different case and needs attention.

When fleets are providing alternative supply they no longer have the option to avoid combat, they have a mission to perform and the enemy knows where the supply is going, so perhaps we need an additional mechanism for when alternative supply is being provided from sea zones. Something like the air superiority feature (no naval superiority - no alternative supply, partial naval superiority - partial supply), or a higher probability of surface combat for fleets providing alternative supply.









< Message edited by Rasputitsa -- 1/20/2013 9:19:35 AM >

_____________________________

"We have to go from where we are, not from where we would like to be" - me

(in reply to gwgardner)
Post #: 8
RE: surface battles non-existent? - 1/19/2013 7:03:23 PM   
battlevonwar

 

Posts: 176
Joined: 12/22/2011
Status: offline 		We like to put our fleets out to sea though!!! We all do... So it's no longer abstract or quiet at Sea. Not unless you got a guy that is lazy with his Navy. Sea battles cost the West a lot, not really important in the East at all. Had fleets gone toe to toe, I could see a lot more going on. Bismark was sunk cause of a massive effort... If Germany had the kind of operations I make out in the Atlantic Naval losses would have been a lot higher than they are, U-boats are harder to detect than Surface Fleets!

~Fleet Detection raised makes sense?


(in reply to Rasputitsa)
Post #: 9
RE: surface battles non-existent? - 1/20/2013 4:07:09 AM   
JLPOWELL


Posts: 367
Joined: 5/5/2011
From: Pacific Time Zone
Status: offline 		it was not 'lazy with the Navy' (I like that phrase it has a ring...) that kept them in port. It was the near certainty of immediate destruction and the value of keeping a threat in place the "Fleet in being" concept, which kept them in port. When they took out a battle group it was nearly always sunk particularly (pretty quickly, in game terms usually in a single 'turn') if it went beyond air support.

_____________________________

"Don’t you think that if I were wrong, I’d know it?"

(in reply to battlevonwar)
Post #: 10
RE: surface battles non-existent? - 1/20/2013 4:11:42 AM   
JLPOWELL


Posts: 367
Joined: 5/5/2011
From: Pacific Time Zone
Status: offline 		Thanks for the info re detection. Are the CRT's for surface actions and CV strikes editable? Also is there a way to increase the engagements for surface without unbalancing ASW. In other words, is there a way to edit the chance of spotting of subs and other units. (Edit the chance of being detected rather than the chance of detection).

< Message edited by JLPOWELL -- 1/20/2013 4:13:50 AM >

_____________________________

"Don’t you think that if I were wrong, I’d know it?"

(in reply to doomtrader)
Post #: 11
RE: surface battles non-existent? - 1/20/2013 8:48:12 AM   
Rasputitsa


Posts: 1456
Joined: 6/30/2001
From: Bedfordshire UK
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: battlevonwar
We like to put our fleets out to sea though!!! We all do... So it's no longer abstract or quiet at Sea. Not unless you got a guy that is lazy with his Navy. Sea battles cost the West a lot, not really important in the East at all. Had fleets gone toe to toe, I could see a lot more going on. Bismark was sunk cause of a massive effort... If Germany had the kind of operations I make out in the Atlantic Naval losses would have been a lot higher than they are, U-boats are harder to detect than Surface Fleets!

~Fleet Detection raised makes sense?


Quite agree, that's the good part about the game, it can be adjusted to suit what each player is looking for.

What I am describing is that fleets are going to sea, I am getting 100s of combat reports, but most of them are 'sea bombardment' (air attacks), or submarine attack, with some surface action against transports and convoys. I am not saying that this is perfect, but it is close to the historical record, there were not many surface gun actions in the European war. I only listed the wartime attacks on capital ships in port to indicate that they were in as much danger when anchored as they were at sea and the game is representing this fact.

Prinz Eugen was able to return to port undetected with one of the most intensive searches going on the Atlantic, the Bismarck would also have returned mainly unscathed, but for the injudicious radio communication by Lutjens and a lucky hit from an ageing Swordfish. The Italian fleet used its superior speed to leave the scene of action whenever possible and only a single hit, at extreme range, by Warspite (why didn't we save that ship ?) made Cape Spartivento into a gun action. Surface actions by major warships were very few, whilst air and submarine attacks were everyday events, which is what I am reading in the game reports.

None of this should exclude players from wanting to try different strategies, which is a major part of the fun in this game, with its ability to change settings.

However, that doesn't means it's all OK, some things settings can't fix, an Italian BB fleet is able to attack and destroy an AI controlled transport group in the MED, firstly the transport group probably shouldn't have been there, unless it was heading for Malta (AI convoy routing problem), secondly, in the presence of enemy fleets, it should have had a substantial escort. It's not enough to have friendly forces in the same sea zones, the transport groups should be moving as part of a fleet also containing BB and CA groups, as close escort, ideally with CV/CVE groups, if available. The AI should be made to do this, as that would be a more realistic deployment and it would have probably resulted in a surface action between the attacking force and the escort (which is the effect we are looking for).

Just increasing detection chances may merely result in a further slaughter of unescorted AI transport fleets, which the enemy will be better able to detect.

The point has been made before that the AI tends to send out fleets in many small packets, which can easily be destroyed in detail, or are too small to be effective if they do get a sighting, instead of forming sensible packages of ship groups in the fleets it creates. If the AI fleet deployment could be improved it would go a long way to providing the combat effects we want to see.

I don't know what can be done with the game system, but if naval superiority could be calculated, as air superiority is now being displayed, this would help in calculating the need for close escorts and the type and size the escort should be. The escort you need in mid-Atlantic sea zones is not the same as will be needed in the Central Med.

When fleets are providing 'alternative supply' to ground units, as during and after amphibious operations, there should be an increase in sighting and engagement chances. Fleets cannot easily evade when unloading supplies, or maybe naval superiority could be part of the calculation, affecting the rate of supply in areas where the enemy has naval superiority.

So, I am in no way proposing Lazy Navy, my navies are very active, as are the AI forces, but can see how significant improvements could be provided, firstly, with adjustments to the scenario 'const' file engagement chance and sighting settings, but mainly by making the naval game work better overall, if the game system is capable of doing it.

We have a fleet tick boxes for 'engage' and 'raiders', perhaps we can refine these tick boxes for aggressiveness, or caution, with the player choosing whether fleets are looking for action, or just scouting and providing supplies, the tick box selection would adjust the chance of engagement, especially when opposing fleets are both on aggressive settings. If you choose to be set fleets at cautious, then they may not be able to carry out amphibious landings, alternative supply, bombardment and spotting missions, depending on naval superiority in sea zones. Obviously if the enemy has no naval units present in a sea zone, it should not matter much what setting you have.

I would also like to see some account taken of the sea zones that a surface fleet passes through during movement, if it passes through an area where there are enemy bomber units in range, there should be a risk of interdiction attacks, otherwise you can pass from one safe area, to another safe sea area, with no risk in between.


< Message edited by Rasputitsa -- 1/20/2013 12:37:19 PM >

_____________________________

"We have to go from where we are, not from where we would like to be" - me

(in reply to battlevonwar)
Post #: 12
Time Limit at Sea - 1/20/2013 5:07:31 PM   
Omnius

 

Posts: 246
Joined: 6/22/2012
From: Salinas, CA
Status: offline 		One thing a player has to do is regularly rotate naval units at sea to port to reset the time at sea counter to zero. The manual is totally derelict at giving us any clue as to how many turns ships at sea can stay at sea before losing ability. I saw something in one file I now forget the name of but it told me that it was 22 turns for that country at that time. Now the value can change by country and there are some events that can make that time longer if you make that choice, but it doesn't tell us how much longer.

So think about 20 turns as your maximum stay at sea and you should have the best chance of having your naval units operating at peak efficiency. I rotate ships back to port much sooner, usually when they take a lot of damage.
Omnius

(in reply to Rasputitsa)
Post #: 13
RE: Time Limit at Sea - 1/20/2013 6:00:49 PM   
Rasputitsa


Posts: 1456
Joined: 6/30/2001
From: Bedfordshire UK
Status: online 		Just a quick check through the docs and there may be more, but I am working on 10 turns.

Extract from Strategy Guide

...... this time when you open up the ship menu review the top and bottom boxes for the last column on the right. In the top box will be distance. This is the distance from the nearest port. The bottom box says Time at Sea. Both numbers affect your ability for detection and your combat effectiveness. It is recommended that after 10 turns, that you return to port, or on the 10th turn you are in port. The negative effects increase sharply after the tenth turn. For distance penalties every sea zone above one decreases your detection and combat statistics, EXCEPT for raiders, their penalty starts after 2 sea zones.

Extract Change log update 1.01

UK, USA, Germany, Soviet Union and France will receive additional time at sea by two weeks with every level they will advance.




_____________________________

"We have to go from where we are, not from where we would like to be" - me

(in reply to Omnius)
Post #: 14
RE: Time Limit at Sea - 1/27/2013 11:08:05 PM   
Mark Clark

 

Posts: 107
Joined: 7/22/2008
Status: offline 		I have no idea what to do with my navy.  The whole naval aspect of the game seems to serve no purpose.  There is no Battle of the Atlantic at all.  Basically, as the Allies, you put ships out to sea so they can have their strength degraded.  Then you pull them back to port, repair them and send them out again. That's all.  They don't accomplish anything.

Well, with one exception: shore bombardment is useful.

I haven't the faintest idea how to defend convoys.  The usual methods like putting squadrons off the approaches to the key ports, does absolutely nothing.  Convoys often fail or partially fail and I have no idea why.

I get that the developers apparently think that more straightforward naval battle system such as that in CEAW is not realistic enough, but at least it has a point.  From a gameplay standpoint, the naval aspect may as well not even be in this game.  I ignore it when I play.  This is a ground and air game, pure and simple.

(in reply to Rasputitsa)
Post #: 15
What to do at Sea - 1/28/2013 3:57:53 PM   
Omnius

 

Posts: 246
Joined: 6/22/2012
From: Salinas, CA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mark Clark

I have no idea what to do with my navy.  The whole naval aspect of the game seems to serve no purpose.  There is no Battle of the Atlantic at all.  Basically, as the Allies, you put ships out to sea so they can have their strength degraded.  Then you pull them back to port, repair them and send them out again. That's all.  They don't accomplish anything.

Well, with one exception: shore bombardment is useful.

I haven't the faintest idea how to defend convoys.  The usual methods like putting squadrons off the approaches to the key ports, does absolutely nothing.  Convoys often fail or partially fail and I have no idea why.

I get that the developers apparently think that more straightforward naval battle system such as that in CEAW is not realistic enough, but at least it has a point.  From a gameplay standpoint, the naval aspect may as well not even be in this game.  I ignore it when I play.  This is a ground and air game, pure and simple.


Mark Clark,
The whole Battle for the Atlantic revolved around the German submarine warfare that Time of Fury replicates fairly well. It's all about the Axis trying to sink Allied convoys, both resource and supply. You are missing the whole point of the naval aspect expecting the Battle for the Atlantic to be some kind of Jutland rematch.

Create fleets of subs with a leader set to "Raider" and not to engage and send them to sea areas where the Brits have to pass through their resource and supply convoys. I'll give you a hint that the program incorrectly routes all convoys through the Med. Once Italy is in the game you can pretty much throttle Allied resource and supply convoys by double teaming the convoys in the Med and the Atlantic. The British Colonies send resources to Great Britain, and if you work at it you can stop an AI-controlled BC's convoys to a complete halt. Same for the UK supply convoys to Africa. Avoid sea areas adjacent to enemy land where tactical bombers can be stationed to attack sub fleets. Read your Raiders Activity report to see where your subs are doing damage.

To defend against sub fleets you need to station small surface fleets with hopefully a leader set to "Regular" and "Engage" and place them in sea areas where subs have been reported raiding your convoys. Important to read the pathing of convoys to see which sea areas they travel through and most importantly where they are attacked. The best weapon against subs are carriers. They can do recon in a sea area to see if they find enemy fleets, either surface or sub. Doesn't always work but usually does when a sub fleet isn't showing up. You need to break down your regular fleets more because to increase chances of finding enemy raiders is to have multiple regular fleets doing a search.

Doing a little homework regarding convoys and convoy routing is a smart thing to do. I found that playing Switzerland is most instructive while setting all other countries on AI. Let the game run and then save the test and restart it by setting some countries like Great Briatain and the British Colonies on human. Now when you get to those countries look at their convoy reports, especially the pathing. Once you understand convoy pathing by the AI you tend to understand just how to use subs better to sink convoys. You can also use surface raider fleets to good effect.

Read the rules to understand how the naval part of the game works and do some tests to see how the AI's do things for different countries and you'll better understand how to play the game to win.
Omnius

(in reply to Mark Clark)
Post #: 16
RE: surface battles non-existent? - 1/28/2013 8:42:38 PM   
JLPOWELL


Posts: 367
Joined: 5/5/2011
From: Pacific Time Zone
Status: offline 		The Bismark sortie was a fiasco for Germany they were LUCKY to get away with 'just' loosing the Bismark (and inflicting the damage they did. There is a LOT of randomness int these engagements but what they aren't is (as in the game) indecisive. I am not saying that a strong German surface sortie could not sink stuff, with a bit of luck they would do a LOT of damage, but the chances of survival would be very close to zero particularly if they stayed out at sea for weeks rather than days.

Besides it shows what happens vrs the game pretty well. The German military can hardly be accused of being timid but they never tried anything that foolhardy again. The Japanese sent surface units on 'one way' missions against CV forces and pretty much proved how desperate and hopeless this is.

Event - Strong small fast Surface units make a run for the open sea. Have some success but get nearly completely wiped out (in just a few days) one ship escapes to port.

Game - Try the same thing in ToF and you can sail around for months with near impunity. Totally silly, but fortunately we can mod a bit. (I documented 40+ carrier/air strikes on a small GE surface force over months of game time in a PBEM game in another post about a year ago)

_____________________________

"Don’t you think that if I were wrong, I’d know it?"

(in reply to Rasputitsa)
Post #: 17
RE: surface battles non-existent? - 1/28/2013 11:34:53 PM   
Mark Clark

 

Posts: 107
Joined: 7/22/2008
Status: offline 		Actually, I am playing as the Allies and trying to do more or less what they did after the "happy time".  Escorts are impossible because the convoys don't show up as units.  So, barring that, what I have done is try to patrol the main approaches to England, particularly in the NW.  All it gets me is damage to my ships.

(in reply to JLPOWELL)
Post #: 18
RE: surface battles non-existent? - 1/28/2013 11:54:23 PM   
JLPOWELL


Posts: 367
Joined: 5/5/2011
From: Pacific Time Zone
Status: offline 		Mark,

Which version of the game are you playing?

_____________________________

"Don’t you think that if I were wrong, I’d know it?"

(in reply to Mark Clark)
Post #: 19
RE: surface battles non-existent? - 1/29/2013 12:14:46 AM   
Mark Clark

 

Posts: 107
Joined: 7/22/2008
Status: offline 		I am about to install 1.04

(in reply to JLPOWELL)
Post #: 20
RE: surface battles non-existent? - 1/29/2013 1:39:34 AM   
JLPOWELL


Posts: 367
Joined: 5/5/2011
From: Pacific Time Zone
Status: offline 		If you want to test go ahead with 1.04 otherwise I would stay with 1.03. (IMO 1.04 isn't really playable yet and 1.03 is but is still not a 'release' yet either. 1.02 is the last 'official' release.

I have been using 1.03 and it works pretty well but has issues.

I will post a Gotterdamerung mod file which will adjust the tech levels on the mods thread

_____________________________

"Don’t you think that if I were wrong, I’d know it?"

(in reply to JLPOWELL)
Post #: 21
RE: Time Limit at Sea - 1/31/2013 10:14:22 AM   
Rasputitsa


Posts: 1456
Joined: 6/30/2001
From: Bedfordshire UK
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa

Just a quick check through the docs and there may be more, but I am working on 10 turns.

Extract from Strategy Guide

...... this time when you open up the ship menu review the top and bottom boxes for the last column on the right. In the top box will be distance. This is the distance from the nearest port. The bottom box says Time at Sea. Both numbers affect your ability for detection and your combat effectiveness. It is recommended that after 10 turns, that you return to port, or on the 10th turn you are in port. The negative effects increase sharply after the tenth turn. For distance penalties every sea zone above one decreases your detection and combat statistics, EXCEPT for raiders, their penalty starts after 2 sea zones.

Extract Change log update 1.01

UK, USA, Germany, Soviet Union and France will receive additional time at sea by two weeks with every level they will advance.


PS : This applies to fleets set at 'regular', as might be used for surface actions, fleets set as 'raiders' use 20 turns, before the penalties start to apply, these figures can be adjusted in each scenario 'const' file.

_____________________________

"We have to go from where we are, not from where we would like to be" - me

(in reply to Rasputitsa)
Post #: 22
RE: Time Limit at Sea - 2/1/2013 10:47:27 AM   
Rasputitsa


Posts: 1456
Joined: 6/30/2001
From: Bedfordshire UK
Status: online 		Referring to the main points of the OP, lack of surface action and no opposition reaction to amphibious landings. Scanning through the some of the scenario 'const' files shows many settings affecting the naval war. I have not tried to change many so far, as the balance issues could be complicated, but the following sections probably will have most effect on the problems noted. This is how the original file looks, changing the values here may generate more surface combat.

[ShipRetreats]
RetreatWithStrengthPercentageLowerThan = 40
RetreatWithEnemyAdvantage = 3
RetreatChanceOfSuccess = 25

[NavyParticipatingInInvasion]
ProbabilityOfAttackingShipToJoin = 65
ProbabilityOfDefendingShipToJoin = 70

[DetectingEnemyFleets]
BasicChanceInCurrentSeaZone = 30
OwnMinimumSizeBonus = 20
OwnOversizeBonus = 5
OwnBonusValue = 2
OwnCarrierBonus = 1
EnemyMinimumSizeBonus = 10
EnemyOversizeBonus = 10
EnemyBonusValue = 1

[NavalBattle]
EngagementChance = 30
ChanceForTurns = 80;75;50;20;5

[Commander]
HittingShipBonusForEachSkillPoint = 5
AvoidingDamageInNavalCombatByGroupForEachSkillPoint = 5
DetectingConvoyBonusForEachSkillPoint = 5
DetectingEnemyShipsWhenEnterSeaZoneForEachSkillPoint = 5

It also reveals why some players are running into frustrating problems, whilst others seem to have fewer difficulties, as the different scenario files are not consistent. I have mostly used 'Fall Gelb' and have paid most attention to the air and land war and apart from the Allied convoy routeing problem and unescorted kamikaze AI transport fleets, the naval war reports and events have been mainly OK.

I plan to use a modified 'Gotterdammerung' (earlier start, no Anzio bridgehead) to try out personal house rules for large scale amphibious operations and the naval war will become more significant, so having a look at the other scenario files. There is so much more that can be adjusted in the scenario and national 'const' files.

I know that some will not want to mess with their games, but these files can be opened and changed in 'notebook' and one of the very good points about 'Time of Fury' is how easily it can be modded. There are many more naval related items that could be adjusted.

[MovementPointsForNavalUnit]
[MaximumStrengthOfNavalUnits]
[MaximalDamageDealtByNavalUnits]
[MinimalDamageDealtByNavalUnits]
[SupplyFromShips]
[DetectingAbilityOfNavalUnits]
[ChanceOfSurpriseAttack]
[CarrierAirStrike]
[AmphibiousInvasion]
[ShoreBombardment]
[CarrierRecon]
[SeaZoneStrike]
[NavalUnit_TimeOnSeaPenalties]
[NavalUnit_DistanceFromPortPenalties]

Note for Doomtrader : Whilst looking at what can be done with the naval settings, I noticed that the 1.04beta 'Gotterdammerung' scenario 'const' file does not have the lines [NavalBattle], but [ShipRetreats] appears twice, that must be affecting how fleets react and the chance of surface action in that scenario. [NavalBattle] is in 1.04beta 'Fall Gelb', so before launching a new game with any of the other scenarios, I will need to check the 'const' files to ensure they are consistent and try some changes to the figures, to see if it generates a more active naval game.

However, I think the best result would be to make the game react to missions, if fleets are set to evade ('engage' not checked), or as 'raider', then they should have a low chance of carrying out bombardment, transport, amphibious landings and providing alternative supply, when there are enemy fleets in the same sea zone (with no opposition around, it wouldn't matter what setting was selected). They cannot succeed if they are going to run away from enemy fleets. When regular fleets are set to 'engage' then there should be a high chance of success, subject to any combats which might occur. This way, player decisions will affect how much action will occur, not just be enforced by changes to game's internal settings and players will have to decide how much they what to risk their fleets to achieve naval missions.

The Devs have introduced the chance of an amphibious landing failing, we need to extend the odds probabilities of failure into ship supply, bombardment, etc., so Doomtrader can that be done ?

< Message edited by Rasputitsa -- 2/6/2013 1:43:51 PM >

_____________________________

"We have to go from where we are, not from where we would like to be" - me

(in reply to Rasputitsa)
Post #: 23
RE: Time Limit at Sea - 2/2/2013 1:17:48 AM   
rmonical

 

Posts: 345
Joined: 4/1/2011
Status: offline 		in V102 I gamed out Sealowe a couple of times in human.v.human solitaire play. The first time the Royal Navy attempted to contest the channel with surface fleets. It got decimated by the German tacair. It did not get a decisive surface engagement. The British tacair and carriers hurt the German fleet a lot, but did not get the transports so the invasion succeeded. A lot of tacair and carrier air gets through despite the some 2000 German fighters near the channel.

As far as I can tell, there is no way for air power - naval or land to interdict supply.

In v104 I really paid attention to the uboat campaign. By Feb '40 all of the German uboats had been damaged or sunk. All of the British and French carriers were out on the uboat raider hunt. Part of the problem is that uboats that have moved into a sea zone are frequently visible even if they have not sunk anything yet and there are no allied vessels in the sea zone. If uboats are not visible, moving cruisers around will frequently reveal one. The carriers can then move in for the kill. A cruiser did get one uboat hit. Carriers got two surface raider hits before the Atlantis departed for home. By March, all the uboats were setting home waiting to get rebuilt.

(in reply to Rasputitsa)
Post #: 24
RE: Time Limit at Sea - 2/8/2013 12:55:17 PM   
Rasputitsa


Posts: 1456
Joined: 6/30/2001
From: Bedfordshire UK
Status: online
quote:

Note for Doomtrader : Whilst looking at what can be done with the naval settings, I noticed that the 1.04beta 'Gotterdammerung' scenario 'const' file does not have the lines [NavalBattle], but [ShipRetreats] appears twice, that must be affecting how fleets react and the chance of surface action in that scenario. [NavalBattle] is in 1.04beta 'Fall Gelb', so before launching a new game with any of the other scenarios, I will need to check the 'const' files to ensure they are consistent and try some changes to the figures, to see if it generates a more active naval game.


Doomtrader - Put this in an earlier post, going through the files again and Gotterdammerung does not have this problem, so now not sure which scenario file I was looking at when I first saw it. Going cross-eyed looking at text files, but still checking.

_____________________________

"We have to go from where we are, not from where we would like to be" - me

(in reply to rmonical)
Post #: 25
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Time of Fury >> surface battles non-existent? Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.387