Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Naval Mod should be renamed, with warning label

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command WWII: World at War >> RE: Naval Mod should be renamed, with warning label Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Naval Mod should be renamed, with warning label - 8/29/2020 12:51:07 PM   
Hairog


Posts: 1568
Joined: 7/11/2000
From: Cornucopia, WI
Status: offline
Oh, and thanks for the kind words Simulacra53, ElvisJJonesRambo, and ThunderLizard2. Much appreciated.

_____________________________

WW III 1946 Books
SC3 EAW WW Three 1946 Mod and Naval Mods
WarPlan and WarPlan Pac Alpha and Be

(in reply to Hairog)
Post #: 31
RE: Naval Mod should be renamed, with warning label - 8/29/2020 6:50:15 PM   
ThunderLizard2

 

Posts: 364
Joined: 2/28/2018
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hairog

How in the world did I not see this thread until tonight? I put these mods out there a long time ago and begged for feedback. All was quiet so I thought it was all cool. I now see that possible changes are needed.

There is a function in these forums that allows you to send a PM

OK lets get to work. What are the top 5 problems with the naval mod? Lets give them a go and see if we can fix them. Everything is up for improvement.
One big thing first. It appears that some of you have missed one of the key concepts here.

quote:

* BB attacks lone Jap CV - odds 5-0 against BB?

quote:

destroying surface fleets with no escorts

quote:

but it's because they were screened, avoided battle when the weather didn't support them, and generally behaved cautiously. They didn't just brazenly sail out, unconcerned about whether they even have escorts, and engage surface ships with complete impunity.


Statements like this make it readily apparent that the task force unit and concept is misunderstood.

The Fast Carrier Task Force is not a single carrier, it’s a task force. You may have two or even 4 CVs, 1-4 BBs, 1-4 CAs, and 30 DDs. The unit represented is not just the Enterprise but a grouping of ships for a particular purpose commonly called a task force. During WW2 most capital ships were sunk by Fast Carrier Task Forces. Few were sunk by naval gunfire and many of those after being crippled by air attack.

Japanese torpedoes took a heavy toll as well.

Statements like the following puzzle me.

quote:

Favors the Japanese, thus Axis, big-time.


Which rule change or changes does this? The rules are the same for both sides so how does it favor the Axis over the Allies? The Axis have zones of control and the Allies have the exact same Zones of Control etc. I have done nothing to alter the balance. What could possibly be causing this?

quote:

* Too many "damage evaded" for Axis.


Once again both, sides were changed exactly the same. There is nothing that could change it from the Vanilla game.

Enough of this, let’s fix what’s wrong.

Give me the 5 things you would like to have changed and I’ll see what I can do



Hi Hairog,

Here's a few things I'd suggest to change:
* The "damage evaded" happens way too much. And it seems to favor Axis for some reason.
* Tone down damage from Japanese maritime bombers
* I get your point about BB versus CV - let's see what others suggest.

Glad you're still up for enhancing your mod.

(in reply to Hairog)
Post #: 32
RE: Naval Mod should be renamed, with warning label - 8/30/2020 3:57:16 AM   
Hairog


Posts: 1568
Joined: 7/11/2000
From: Cornucopia, WI
Status: offline
Should be easy to do. Is there any particular matchup or kind of unit that evades damage? I know the Fast Carrier task force has a very high surface evasion rating and to keep the historical accuracy of the mod I suggest we have to keep it that way, but any other that comes to mind we want to try or just in general? Keep in mind that it may not be as much fun as the vanilla game where you sink capital ships left and right but that rarely happened. Now the Wolf Packs, Screen TF, Recon TF and Off Shore TF were sunk in droves but not the big guys.

I'll get on it and see how it goes.

I'll try lowering the non-capital ship TFs evasion ratings and see how that plays out.

Oh any particular scenario to try first?

_____________________________

WW III 1946 Books
SC3 EAW WW Three 1946 Mod and Naval Mods
WarPlan and WarPlan Pac Alpha and Be

(in reply to ThunderLizard2)
Post #: 33
RE: Naval Mod should be renamed, with warning label - 8/30/2020 4:39:24 AM   
Hairog


Posts: 1568
Joined: 7/11/2000
From: Cornucopia, WI
Status: offline
Just went in and started to change a few things and discovered some interesting stuff.

The SS/Wolf Packs are hardwired. You can't lower their evasive rating only increase it so Hubert or someone else will have to nerf the subs evasivness.

The Maritime Bombers of all countries can only have a maximum of two attacks so I don't know how the Axis got three according to someone.

I gave the Bombardment, Strike, Cover and Raider Task Forces a 20% evasive rating when they attacked so that should help with the Fast Carrier TF inflicting so much damage and not receiving any and hopefully stop the AI from being so aggressive.

_____________________________

WW III 1946 Books
SC3 EAW WW Three 1946 Mod and Naval Mods
WarPlan and WarPlan Pac Alpha and Be

(in reply to Hairog)
Post #: 34
RE: Naval Mod should be renamed, with warning label - 8/31/2020 1:51:30 AM   
LordOfPants

 

Posts: 59
Joined: 4/5/2018
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Hairog
One big thing first. It appears that some of you have missed one of the key concepts here.

Statements like this make it readily apparent that the task force unit and concept is misunderstood.


When people point out some of the absurd things that the mod does and you respond by claiming that they just don't get the concept, it's clear that you're not going to actually fix the problems. It's not 'missing a key concept' to say that a carrier task force isolated in the Med with no friendly ports, no way to exit, no way to resupply, and no functional planes left should die when multiple battleship and cruiser task forces decide to hunt it down instead of infinitely teleporting around the sea.

(in reply to Hairog)
Post #: 35
RE: Naval Mod should be renamed, with warning label - 8/31/2020 10:56:37 PM   
Hairog


Posts: 1568
Joined: 7/11/2000
From: Cornucopia, WI
Status: offline
Sorry LordofPants, I didn't mean to imply that the mod is perfect by any means. And I have to take responsibility for not explaining the concepts well enough. For that I apologize. Sometimes when you work upon a project for a year you forget that others are not on the same wavelength that you are.

Let's move on. Your situation with the trapped Fast Carrier Task Force is almost impossible IMHO to rectify under the current game system. At the same time the situation is highly ahistorical. The only way to have the Fast Carrier Task Force easily join Davey Jones is to turn off two of the most important modifications that makes the mod close to simulating reality.

In the vanilla game, regularly, a BB unit will evade all other screening forces, slide up to a CV in the open ocean and blow it out of the water, then blithely slip away totally unharmed. IMHO this is even more unrealistic than what is happening to you. It never happened, so why make it even a possibility?

If we wanted to rectify your situation, I would have to turn off the 70% defensive evasion rating and the automatic retreat choice as well. These two tools are either on or off and can't be turned off/on for a special situation. You would have to turn them off and play the entire scenario, which is the unmodded game. Having units come out of nowhere, destroy your units and then disappear is, I believe, the number one complaint with the system.

In the Naval Mods the unit markers represent the possibility, that the actual TF is there. In the case of Fast Carrier Task Force, there is a 30% chance that the TF will be in the marked location. In the case of a Screening TF it is a 50% chance, etc. That is the only way, besides hard coding, that you can prevent the kind of behavior that drives players wild about the vanilla game.

If we turned off the “teleporting” then we would have the situation of six enemy units surrounding a single TF and preventing it from moving during it’s turn. Have you ever heard of task forces surrounding another TF so that they can’t move? Once again the retreat function represents the uncertainty of the location of the TF and prevents unrealistic tactics and their outcome. I suggest that a Fast Carrier Task Force staying alive for months in the Mediterranean, is far more realistic than a task force being surrounded in the open ocean and unfortunately that is our choice. Your ridiculously hard to kill Fast Carrier Task Force, helpless and trapped in the Mediterranean is one of the more unusual situations that are bound to happen. A Task Force being surrounded so they can't move happens quite often.

The major challenge of a turn-based game is how do you mitigate the fact that when the other player is moving you have no way to attack or impede his progress in a traditional game like SC3WW. Naval units have a huge movement radius that allows them to attack after moving 24(?) hexes. This creates a real challenge to work through and in my case, try and find some way to change such behavior.


_____________________________

WW III 1946 Books
SC3 EAW WW Three 1946 Mod and Naval Mods
WarPlan and WarPlan Pac Alpha and Be

(in reply to LordOfPants)
Post #: 36
RE: Naval Mod should be renamed, with warning label - 8/31/2020 11:23:31 PM   
The Land

 

Posts: 557
Joined: 2/19/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hairog

In the Naval Mods the unit markers represent the possibility, that the actual TF is there. In the case of Fast Carrier Task Force, there is a 30% chance that the TF will be in the marked location. In the case of a Screening TF it is a 50% chance, etc. That is the only way, besides hard coding, that you can prevent the kind of behavior that drives players wild about the vanilla game.



I appreciate the intention, but the problem with this is that the damage evasion applies regardless of how well located the unit is. In the open sea with a couple of surface ships scouting for it - fair enough for a 70% chance to be missed. With another CTF looking - unlikely. In the English Channel - not a chance.

The other problem is that such high evasion breaks the link between cause and effect in the game, as every attack is basically hoping for a 30% change to cause any damage at all.


_____________________________


(in reply to Hairog)
Post #: 37
RE: Naval Mod should be renamed, with warning label - 9/1/2020 5:10:27 AM   
Hairog


Posts: 1568
Joined: 7/11/2000
From: Cornucopia, WI
Status: offline
quote:

the damage evasion applies regardless of how well located the unit is.


I have no way of controlling this. This is up to the programmers to fix. The damage evasion is either on or off. Hubert's addition of this option is a boon to any modder. but it only can go so far.

Besides, any Fast Carrier Task Force commander who would place his units in confined waters during combat operations is incompetent and should be relieved on the spot. Any commander of a FCTF that puts his command in a position that he can be engaged by surface units should be relieved as well. Only one did it on purpose and he was killed along with his crew and the other was placed in the wrong spot at the wrong time by his commander and that's it for the whole war, just the two. The idiot was a former submariner who somehow was given command of a carrier. He went into harms way without, CAP, search planes or even look outs. When he did encounter 2 German big gun surface ships he just kept closing on them. I guess he figured the 16 4.7 inch guns would protect the HMS Glorious. Well they didn't.

quote:

The other problem is that such high evasion breaks the link between cause and effect in the game, as every attack is basically hoping for a 30% change to cause any damage at all.


Does knowing the probable outcome of attacking at 1 to 6 odds break the link between cause and effect in the game? Is every such attacking unit just hoping to survive? Do you go ahead and attack anyway? Why is it any different than the Naval Mod? Don't bother to pin your hopes on that 30%.

In the beginning of the war there were Task Forces made up of surface only units sent out to intercept Carriers. After multiple failures it became apparent that this tactic was ineffectual and they stopped. I submit that knowing what you know about the Naval Mod that players stop trying to use a tactic that did not work in real combat. The point of the Naval Mods is to simulate reality, not fantasy.

You should know that even if you get past the zones of control of a properly setup fleet and get within range of what you believe is the location of a Fast Carrier Task Force you will have a 30% chance of finding and damaging that TF. That 30% is much, much higher than was experienced in WW2 Combat. With there being only 2 encounters between surface ships and carriers and both of those were aberrations, you should expect just about the same results as attacking at 1-6 odds. That you'll get your ass handed to you.

I would guess off the top of my head that the odds of a surface force tracking down and damaging an undamaged carrier task force is hovering around 1% or less considering how many times it happened in reality.

_____________________________

WW III 1946 Books
SC3 EAW WW Three 1946 Mod and Naval Mods
WarPlan and WarPlan Pac Alpha and Be

(in reply to The Land)
Post #: 38
RE: Naval Mod should be renamed, with warning label - 9/1/2020 1:15:47 PM   
The Land

 

Posts: 557
Joined: 2/19/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hairog

quote:

the damage evasion applies regardless of how well located the unit is.


I have no way of controlling this. This is up to the programmers to fix. The damage evasion is either on or off. Hubert's addition of this option is a boon to any modder. but it only can go so far.

Besides, any Fast Carrier Task Force commander who would place his units in confined waters during combat operations is incompetent and should be relieved on the spot. Any commander of a FCTF that puts his command in a position that he can be engaged by surface units should be relieved as well.


Yes, but the way you've set up your mod encourages people to be highly aggressive with how they use these units, as they are just as unlikely to take damage if they are parked outside the Kiel Canal as if they are in the depths of the Pacific Ocean.


quote:

The other problem is that such high evasion breaks the link between cause and effect in the game, as every attack is basically hoping for a 30% change to cause any damage at all.


Does knowing the probable outcome of attacking at 1 to 6 odds break the link between cause and effect in the game? Is every such attacking unit just hoping to survive? Do you go ahead and attack anyway? Why is it any different than the Naval Mod? Don't bother to pin your hopes on that 30%.


So basically: You should give up any hope of attacking a carrier task force, under any conditions, anywhere on the map.

I mean, that's fine, but in my view the fix is worse than the original problem you're trying to address.


_____________________________


(in reply to Hairog)
Post #: 39
RE: Naval Mod should be renamed, with warning label - 9/1/2020 4:50:56 PM   
Hairog


Posts: 1568
Joined: 7/11/2000
From: Cornucopia, WI
Status: offline
quote:

Yes, but the way you've set up your mod encourages people to be highly aggressive with how they use these units, as they are just as unlikely to take damage if they are parked outside the Kiel Canal as if they are in the depths of the Pacific Ocean.


There is nothing I can do about this. Is the AI more aggressive or just your human opponents? I would be very surprised that the AI learned to alter it's behavior based on my changes. If so, that’s some pretty smart AI that Hubert has created. If it's not the AI and just your human player then I suggest you make some house rules before you play. Rules like you cannot put your Fast Carrier Task Forces in harms way.
Another way to make the AI play fair is to have some maritime bomber units within range (which I increased). They are devastating in attacking Fast Carrier TFs.

Unfortunately that is our choice. We can have it so that any surface unit can come from dozens of hexes away, weave it's way through enemy units at no cost in movement points or being attacked or interdicted in anyway, attack its target and escape without so much as a scratched paint job and do it again and again and again, turn after turn after turn. This is highly unrealistic and is what most were complaining about. This is your stated preference, which is fine with me.

Or we can have it so that surface units can still meet at choke points, shoot at each other, give and receive damage and limp home. What the naval mods do is to simulate the real world role of surface units in WW2 which was to provide AA support, bombard land targets, protect other surface units from SS and surface attacks. They did not waste their time hunting aircraft carriers after the first few months of the war once they discovered how futile that was. In practice the Fast Carrier Task Force was pretty close to impossible to find and attack by surface warfare.

Submarines on the other hand did manage to cripple and sink quit a few CVs. Which is modeled in the Naval Mod. Screening forces are used as they were in reality, to screen capital ships etc. Hunter Killer Task Forces do a good job of killing Wolf Packs who are almost impossible to damage by other less specialized units, just like reality.

And this is the way I want to play, until Hubert comes up with some changes, like I know he will. To each his own I guess you choose vanilla and I choose vanilla with hot fudge sauce. Yours is probably more fun but to a lover of history it makes me want to kick my computer screen in when a BB wastes a CV.


_____________________________

WW III 1946 Books
SC3 EAW WW Three 1946 Mod and Naval Mods
WarPlan and WarPlan Pac Alpha and Be

(in reply to The Land)
Post #: 40
RE: Naval Mod should be renamed, with warning label - 9/1/2020 5:23:45 PM   
Hairog


Posts: 1568
Joined: 7/11/2000
From: Cornucopia, WI
Status: offline
Wait a minute, I just had a brainstorm. How about this, I do away with the 70% defensive evasion and try a reduction down to 50%. We then try this out and see if the zones of control can keep most surface ships out. See if the AI can and will adapt to using Screening TF. -

You want to try that?

_____________________________

WW III 1946 Books
SC3 EAW WW Three 1946 Mod and Naval Mods
WarPlan and WarPlan Pac Alpha and Be

(in reply to Hairog)
Post #: 41
RE: Naval Mod should be renamed, with warning label - 9/2/2020 4:37:40 PM   
BillRunacre

 

Posts: 3796
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Hairog

The SS/Wolf Packs are hardwired. You can't lower their evasive rating only increase it so Hubert or someone else will have to nerf the subs evasivness.


Hi Harry

I've just looked in the Editor and I seem to be able to amend this, so I'm a bit confused, can you explain what exactly you're trying to amend, is it the Evasion or the Subs' Initial Dive %?

Their evasion is by default set to zero and their Initial Dive to 40%, and using Restore Defaults for the former should reset them to zero if you can't reduce it directly.

Bill

_____________________________

Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/FurySoftware

We're also on Facebook! https://www.facebook.com/FurySoftware/

(in reply to Hairog)
Post #: 42
RE: Naval Mod should be renamed, with warning label - 9/2/2020 8:16:09 PM   
Hairog


Posts: 1568
Joined: 7/11/2000
From: Cornucopia, WI
Status: offline
Hey Bill, Glad to hear from you.

A few players want to nerf the SS Wolf Packs and in my ignorance I have never seen a setting to do that. We can try your method for sure.

A bigger problem seems to be how to modify the Defensive Evasion rating depending upon where a unit is located. Example: in the naval mod, a CV unit that is in the open ocean now has a 70% chance of defensive evasion. The concern is that when that same unit gets near a constricted area, it stays at 70%, even though it should be easier to spot and attack by surface units like Taffy One was (the second of a total of two carrier task forces that were brought under gunfire during all of WW2). The concern is that the CVs are getting more aggressive since there is a highly reduced chance that they will take damage from naval gunfire. Is there anyway, to modify the Defensive Evasion Rating depending upon location? Examples being the English Chanel or off of the Keil Canal.

The biggest challenge, however, seems to be that some players are experiencing an enhanced Axis. The mod does not change the balance of the game. If the Allies gained Defensive Evasion prowess so did the Axis. Sames goes for zones of control, search radius etc. I have no explaination as to why the Axis side seems to be more lethal. Did something change in the last couple of updates that could have caused the Axis to surge ahead?

_____________________________

WW III 1946 Books
SC3 EAW WW Three 1946 Mod and Naval Mods
WarPlan and WarPlan Pac Alpha and Be

(in reply to BillRunacre)
Post #: 43
RE: Naval Mod should be renamed, with warning label - 9/3/2020 10:28:44 AM   
BillRunacre

 

Posts: 3796
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline
There's nothing I can think of as to why the Axis might be doing better now at it, apart from that players are using an early advantage to get ahead, i.e. using their knowledge of the system and experience maybe.

As to the evasion setting being dependent on location, I do see what you mean but there isn't any way to modify this at the moment I'm afraid.

_____________________________

Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/FurySoftware

We're also on Facebook! https://www.facebook.com/FurySoftware/

(in reply to Hairog)
Post #: 44
RE: Naval Mod should be renamed, with warning label - 9/4/2020 3:59:14 AM   
Hairog


Posts: 1568
Joined: 7/11/2000
From: Cornucopia, WI
Status: offline
Bill - I'm probably looking right by it but I cannot find the Dive %. Could you tell me where the choice is?

Good news I found out why the Maritime Bombers gained and extra strike. It was in the automatic upgrades. All nations now have their number of Maritime Bomber Strikes set at 2 and that will not go up.

As to the Axis being better in the Naval Mods, We have no clue as to why or even if this is happening. I can nerf whatever aspect of the Axis side you feel is too strong. I need to know so we can test it.
















_____________________________

WW III 1946 Books
SC3 EAW WW Three 1946 Mod and Naval Mods
WarPlan and WarPlan Pac Alpha and Be

(in reply to BillRunacre)
Post #: 45
RE: Naval Mod should be renamed, with warning label - 9/4/2020 8:57:08 AM   
BillRunacre

 

Posts: 3796
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline
If you go to:

Campaign -> Edit Country Data -> Edit Research -> Advanced

Then in the middle of the screen you should see Subs' Initial Dive %, and this can be adjusted upwards or downwards, as can the increment with every level of Advanced Subs' research.

_____________________________

Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/FurySoftware

We're also on Facebook! https://www.facebook.com/FurySoftware/

(in reply to Hairog)
Post #: 46
RE: Naval Mod should be renamed, with warning label - 9/4/2020 8:45:47 PM   
Hairog


Posts: 1568
Joined: 7/11/2000
From: Cornucopia, WI
Status: offline
Thanks Bill, found it.

The first version of nerfed SS, corrected Maritime bombers, and weak Axis units (by 10%), will be coming soon. Any other changes u would like to see, let me know ASAP.

_____________________________

WW III 1946 Books
SC3 EAW WW Three 1946 Mod and Naval Mods
WarPlan and WarPlan Pac Alpha and Be

(in reply to BillRunacre)
Post #: 47
RE: Naval Mod should be renamed, with warning label - 9/5/2020 9:27:23 PM   
Hairog


Posts: 1568
Joined: 7/11/2000
From: Cornucopia, WI
Status: offline
OK then, putting it in the can and will have a link up soon.

_____________________________

WW III 1946 Books
SC3 EAW WW Three 1946 Mod and Naval Mods
WarPlan and WarPlan Pac Alpha and Be

(in reply to Hairog)
Post #: 48
RE: Naval Mod should be renamed, with warning label - 9/6/2020 2:46:09 AM   
Hairog


Posts: 1568
Joined: 7/11/2000
From: Cornucopia, WI
Status: offline



LINK to 1939 Naval Mod 4.0

_____________________________

WW III 1946 Books
SC3 EAW WW Three 1946 Mod and Naval Mods
WarPlan and WarPlan Pac Alpha and Be

(in reply to Hairog)
Post #: 49
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command WWII: World at War >> RE: Naval Mod should be renamed, with warning label Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
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

0.145