Naval war mod? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command WWII War in Europe >> Scenario Design and Modding



Message


Hairog -> Naval war mod? (11/1/2018 11:25:52 PM)

Has anyone done a mod of the naval game? If so where can I look into it? I tried a search and nothing comes up...nothing ever comes up. I have the search engine in this forum.

Anyway, I want to see if modifying the war on the high seas is possible and or worth the effort.




ThunderLizard2 -> RE: Naval war mod? (11/3/2018 6:04:58 PM)

Would be great as AI is weak on naval side of things




TheBattlefield -> RE: Naval war mod? (11/6/2018 8:38:06 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hairog

Has anyone done a mod of the naval game? If so where can I look into it? I tried a search and nothing comes up...nothing ever comes up. I have the search engine in this forum.

Anyway, I want to see if modifying the war on the high seas is possible and or worth the effort.



I have not heard of a special naval war mod. But various existing modifications have tried to change aspects of the naval war. Please look in the respective Readme files.

For example, in my Elite Forces mod, I ventured into submarine warfare. My goal was to make the efficiency of destroyers, submarines and carrier ships a bit more historically intuitive and variable. The introduction of new research areas, the adaptation of existing research, the permanent reduction of unit strengths as well as a cautious optimization of combat strengths and damage avoidance were finally the trick.












Hairog -> RE: Naval war mod? (11/7/2018 1:37:50 AM)

Hey kirk23,

In studying the stats of WWII, you see certain facts...
1. Capital ships were not sunk by gunfire. In fact not that many were sunk at all but damaged and relegated to port for repairs. Most that were sunk were on suicide missions by the Japanese or in port by sneak attack (mini-subs, erstwhile allies like the Royal Navy and the French fleet or air attack like Pearl Harbor.
2. Two exceptions were the US and British Carriers and the British cruisers. A good number were sunk by air attack.
3. Surface engagements, without air units involved, were incredibly rare.
4. Subs and destroyers were sunk by the hundreds. Cruisers by the dozens. The British lost a lot of Cruisers.
5. Bombs, torpedoes and mines did the most damage
6. Transports and merchant marine were sunk by the thousands... thousands.... I was amazed at how many.

Still trying to find a good list for the Japanese losses.


[image]local://upfiles/751/DE13EE4B39464952BAF0F7A046893BE6.jpg[/image]

I have to confess I haven't played your mod yet but will look into it. Thanks

quote:

The introduction of new research areas, the adaptation of existing research, the permanent reduction of unit strengths as well as a cautious optimization of combat strengths and damage avoidance were finally the trick.




TheBattlefield -> RE: Naval war mod? (11/7/2018 2:07:18 PM)

Hello Hairog,

I have to admit that I probably did not really understand your approach to a naval game mod yet. (I am old and slow [8D])

As a basis for adjustments in unit behavior the bare loss numbers of naval units during World War II seem less helpful at first glance. These are likely to be primarily the result of operational (miss) planning, availability of units and components and ultimately also various random variables. Even in the vanilla version of the game, in the end I occasionally sent large parts of my fleet to the bottom of the sea - or not lost a single capital ship. Strategy and luck.

What bothered me from the start was the combat behavior of some units, which does not always lead to the intuitively expectable possibilities and combat results for the affected weapon class.

For example, the submarines have typical features such as silent move and alarm diving. At the same time these units baffle (I'm exaggerating something) with the robustness of a cruiser, the escape behavior of a speedboat with cloaking device and on the offensive with the strike power of a river gunboat.

From a submarine, I would rather expect a high degree of fragility and - depending on the constellation - moderate chances of escape on the defensive. At the same time, in the event of a successful attack, I would expect at least an immediate loss of serious "operational capability" on the part of the opponent.

Basically, I think that the presentation of the naval warfare in the current version of the game is quite successful. Small adjustments with the editor here and there make everything even better ... even if only for personal taste.






Hairog -> RE: Naval war mod? (11/7/2018 8:28:23 PM)

I suggest that we should strive to let the players accurately simulate the successful tactics, strategies of WW2. The land and air systems do an excellent job of fulfilling that goal. I am always amazed at how closely a historical strategy mimics history, yet how drastically changing those historical choices can logically alter the outcomes in this simulation.

I would just like to see the naval phase of the game be as successful.




mroyer -> RE: Naval war mod? (11/8/2018 3:29:05 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hairog

Still trying to find a good list for the Japanese losses.



From "World War II, A Statistical Survey" by John Ellis, p261
Japanese Naval Losses
Aircraft Carriers 19
Battleships 8
Cruisers 37
Destroyers 134
Submarines 130

-Mark R.




Hairog -> RE: Naval war mod? (11/9/2018 2:08:32 AM)

Thanks mroyer. Culled from Wiki, by my counting, there were 86 BB/BC/DN involved in WW2 of those 21 were sunk in combat. 10 by aircraft bombs and torps, 6 by naval guns and or torps, 4 by submarines and 1 by mines. 'Some like the Bismark were damaged by planes then ganged up on by all sorts of mayhem but the planes did the critical hit. Many of the Japanese BBs were on suicide missions and took damage from every weapons system mentioned.
I consider the critical hit as the one that doomed the ship. Hence the Bismark was doomed by a torpedo launched from a RN Swordfish that damaged it's rudders preventing any effective defense or fleeting.




TheBattlefield -> RE: Naval war mod? (11/9/2018 12:31:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hairog

I would just like to see the naval phase of the game be as successful.




The forum has repeatedly questioned the presentation and interaction of aircraft carriers, destroyers and submarines. In addition, the supposedly unrealistic implementation of the maximum march range of ship units (and aircraft) was noted in relation to the turn lengths simulated in the game (weekly / monthly).

Where do you see the weaknesses of the current version?




Hairog -> RE: Naval war mod? (11/11/2018 1:18:39 AM)

1. would be the swarming effect. Where ships or groups of ships,come from the far flung reaches of the world to attack a lone unit. Sometimes that unit retreat six time or more and ends up surrounded. I don't think I've ever read an account of a ship being surrounded at sea. Blockaded in port possibly but not surrounded in the ocean.
2. Individual ships steaming around was rare unless they were raiders. Most operations were performed by task forces. I guess it could be argued that each DD/CA/CL unit represents a task force of destroyers etc. or a flotilla. But again there were not many DD based task forces that I know of. I suppose the game could be said to represent the flotilla of screening DD, but they should have to stay with the ships they are screening.
3. Surface ships see and engage each other too often in the open sea. Historically surface fleets sans carriers or land based planes, met each other at choke points.
4. The carnage is too great during most naval battles in game. I suppose it could be argued that they are not sunk but limp back home to be never repaired or scuttled like so many actually were. So like land units being seemingly wiped out by tactical air...they aren't really destroyed but made inoperable for an extended period of time. If this is indeed the case there should be some way of making this fact better known.
5. Repair times are way...way too fast. A battleship limps home to a major port with one point remaining and is repaired in one turn. Whether it is a couple of weeks or even months. it still isn't kosher.

I know the point of the game is to be fun and fast as well as accurate as possible. I'm just trying to figure out how to do all that within the current design parameters.

By the way I'm having some interesting results with using high avoidance, increased zones of control, high damage when a hit does occur and two strikes instead of one. It creates more attempts but less damage over all but with more critical hits. In addition the DD actually screen and prevent surface ships from getting to the CVs etc. As was truly the case.

I've also increased the MMPs cost to repair a ship by a considerable amount. This seems to effectively simulate increasing the repair times since you and the AI simply run out of resources. I keep you informed on how it goes.

Found another list of battleship losses. The author came to a number of different conclusions as to what the cause of their demise was than I did. He leaned even heavier on the side of attacks by planes than I did.

"As a side barů.

A list of Battleships sunk during WW2 due to enemy action (full list on wiki)

Arizona - air attack
Barham - submarine attack
Bismark - air & final Surface ships
Fuso - air attack
Hyuga - air attack
Isa - air attack
Kirishima - surface attack
Haruna - air attack
Hiei - surface attack
Kongo - submarine attack
Mushasi - air attack
Mutsu - exploded, faulty ammunition
Oklahoma - air attack
Prince of Wales - air attack
Roma - air attack
Royal Oak - submarine attack
Scharnhorst - surface attack
Tirpitz - air attack
Yamashiro - air attack, finish off by surface attack
Yamato - air attack.
20 sunk (did not include French Navy at Oran or Italian Navy at Toranto)

Only 3 sunk by purely surface action, 2 sunk by surface vessels after air attacks crippled them - the rest by submarine and aircraft."




TheBattlefield -> RE: Naval war mod? (11/12/2018 2:28:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hairog

1. would be the swarming effect. Where ships or groups of ships,come from the far flung reaches of the world to attack a lone unit. Sometimes that unit retreat six time or more and ends up surrounded. I don't think I've ever read an account of a ship being surrounded at sea. Blockaded in port possibly but not surrounded in the ocean.

Yep. But that's exactly what happened in real live. Remember the "Graf Spee". But I think I understand what you want to suggest. Therefore, during the beta phase I suggested that a extended "forced march" should be defined as the (defensive) preset movement for ships. At the same time, there should be an optional offensive "Search & Battle Mode" with very short range.

quote:


2. Individual ships steaming around was rare unless they were raiders. Most operations were performed by task forces. I guess it could be argued that each DD/CA/CL unit represents a task force of destroyers etc. or a flotilla. But again there were not many DD based task forces that I know of. I suppose the game could be said to represent the flotilla of screening DD, but they should have to stay with the ships they are screening.

Right, so far I have understood the smaller ship units up to the light cruiser as a symbol of a battle group. I would not want to change anything here, as the decision to split up or merge ship units should not be dictated by the game.

quote:


3. Surface ships see and engage each other too often in the open sea. Historically surface fleets sans carriers or land based planes, met each other at choke points.

On the one hand, this may be a desired effect of the strategy chosen by both players, on the other hand, here I agree with you, this is somewhat unrealistically supported by a very large offensive "range of action", at least in relation to an "active" search. See Point 1.

quote:


4. The carnage is too great during most naval battles in game. I suppose it could be argued that they are not sunk but limp back home to be never repaired or scuttled like so many actually were. So like land units being seemingly wiped out by tactical air...they aren't really destroyed but made inoperable for an extended period of time. If this is indeed the case there should be some way of making this fact better known.

Well, yes. A matter of taste. Here, too, the high level of abstraction of the game probably demands a small tribute. If all units have a strength of "10", the only differences between destroyer and battleship are the pure combat values. That is little and therefore of course difficult. If up to 20 strength points could be awarded, the damage model would look a bit different. From my point of view, this could also benefit the land units in order to make a better distinction of the troop units in terms of their size. (On this occasion, even these unfortunate "elite strength points" could be replaced by a more differentiated "green to veteran" experience system[8D])

quote:


5. Repair times are way...way too fast. A battleship limps home to a major port with one point remaining and is repaired in one turn. Whether it is a couple of weeks or even months. it still isn't kosher.

This point will be fixed with the next edition of the game.

quote:


By the way I'm having some interesting results with using high avoidance...

I can confirm. In this way I have achieved very positive results in my "Elite Forces" mod with destroyers and submarines.

quote:


Found another list of battleship losses. The author came to a number of different conclusions...


Basically, I would like to see strategic freedom, if possible, put above personal preferences and a tactical freedom of choice is not cut by overly restrictive gametechnical narrowing.




Hairog -> RE: Naval war mod? (11/13/2018 1:54:26 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheBattlefield


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hairog

1. would be the swarming effect. Where ships or groups of ships,come from the far flung reaches of the world to attack a lone unit. Sometimes that unit retreat six time or more and ends up surrounded. I don't think I've ever read an account of a ship being surrounded at sea. Blockaded in port possibly but not surrounded in the ocean.

quote:

Yep. But that's exactly what happened in real live. Remember the "Graf Spee". But I think I understand what you want to suggest. Therefore, during the beta phase I suggested that a extended "forced march" should be defined as the (defensive) preset movement for ships. At the same time, there should be an optional offensive "Search & Battle Mode" with very short range.


The Graf Spree was loose from Sept to Dec. and was caught by chance on a hunch by three cruisers. There were 8 Task Forces formed to find the GS but only one had any luck. Kind of shows how hard it was to initiate surface combat without planes. Even then she could have escaped the cruisers but chose to attack instead.. Now the Bismark was indeed swarmed. But that involved planes.

quote:


2. Individual ships steaming around was rare unless they were raiders. Most operations were performed by task forces. I guess it could be argued that each DD/CA/CL unit represents a task force of destroyers etc. or a flotilla. But again there were not many DD based task forces that I know of. I suppose the game could be said to represent the flotilla of screening DD, but they should have to stay with the ships they are screening.

quote:

Right, so far I have understood the smaller ship units up to the light cruiser as a symbol of a battle group. I would not want to change anything here, as the decision to split up or merge ship units should not be dictated by the game.


I would tend to agree but some consideration should be given to common sense. There was a reason that all navies chose task forces as the standard organizational structure. I would suggest that studies, experience and common sense dictated this choice. There must be some practical reason why this was the choice of many navies.

quote:


3. Surface ships see and engage each other too often in the open sea. Historically surface fleets sans carriers or land based planes, met each other at choke points.


quote:

On the one hand, this may be a desired effect of the strategy [quote[&o]chosen by both players, on the other hand, here I agree with you, this is somewhat unrealistically supported by a very large offensive "range of action", at least in relation to an "active" search. See Point 1.


Agreed

quote:


4. The carnage is too great during most naval battles in game. I suppose it could be argued that they are not sunk but limp back home to be never repaired or scuttled like so many actually were. So like land units being seemingly wiped out by tactical air...they aren't really destroyed but made inoperable for an extended period of time. If this is indeed the case there should be some way of making this fact better known.

quote:

Well, yes. A matter of taste. Here, too, the high level of abstraction of the game probably demands a small tribute. If all units have a strength of "10", the only differences between destroyer and battleship are the pure combat values. That is little and therefore of course difficult. If up to 20 strength points could be awarded, the damage model would look a bit different. From my point of view, this could also benefit the land units in order to make a better distinction of the troop units in terms of their size. (On this occasion, even these unfortunate "elite strength points" could be replaced by a more differentiated "green to veteran" experience system[8D])


I like this idea...a lot! I'll try battleships at 10, CA 9, CL 8, DD 7 etc.and see what happens.

quote:


5. Repair times are way...way too fast. A battleship limps home to a major port with one point remaining and is repaired in one turn. Whether it is a couple of weeks or even months. it still isn't kosher.

quote:

This point will be fixed with the next edition of the game.


Very good news!

quote:


By the way I'm having some interesting results with using high avoidance...

quote:

I can confirm. In this way I have achieved very positive results in my "Elite Forces" mod with destroyers and submarines.


Excellent news.

quote:


Found another list of battleship losses. The author came to a number of different conclusions...


quote:

Basically, I would like to see strategic freedom, if possible, put above personal preferences and a tactical freedom of choice is not cut by overly restrictive gametechnical narrowing.


I agree with the exception that you have to take into account there were reasons for certain standard practices and the limitations of the equipment, physics etc.




TheBattlefield -> RE: Naval war mod? (11/13/2018 11:52:05 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hairog


I like this idea...a lot! I'll try battleships at 10, CA 9, CL 8, DD 7 etc.and see what happens.


Please don't expect too much here. You will need a wider range of strength points to "feel" a size/armor effect within the game. I have set the strength points for submarines to 5, in order to achieve a noticeable difference in fragility to the surface ships. At the same time I had to introduce a very high damage avoidance, in order to reduce unrealistic total losses in an attack and to take into account a kind of "covert" attack. A residual risk remains and can be further reduced (among other effects) by the new research area "Submarine Warfare".




Hairog -> RE: Naval war mod? (3/14/2019 11:48:41 PM)

Sorry I missed this response. We've progressed quite far in the Naval Mod and the discussion has moved to the World At War forum.

Here

We need more beta testers and ideas like you have presented. I believe we have a real chance at making a game changer here...pun intended.




Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
3.295898E-02