---Naval--- (and Supply) ... Will I Buy Semper Fi?

[MAC]

I think ships should have torpedo attack but also defense - land units do have two attack and defense values, too (+softness). I guess the abstract system can be optimized to make battles more realistic, if a few mechanics can be changed.

So far it seems that the fleets simply engage and try to get into firing range so the fastest ships usually end up being blown up by the heavy guns. Subs and other ships using mainly torpedoes attacking BBs results in almost no damage.

1) Add torpedo attack/defense and maneuverability/surprise (like landunits 2a/d + softness).

2) Fleets need to react as fleet (keep range/flee or attack).

3) Small, fast ships should be hard to hit by the big guns - but the escorts would fight it out (right now DDs get usually sunk asap - by the big guns and not the escorts).

In the end speed and escorts would become more valuable. A slow ship will force its escorts to defend it vs a faster attacker. A fast ship will keep its distance to the attacker and escorts + big guns would engage any small, fast vessels of that fleet trying to close in. If the fast ship has no escorts it might still get sunk, though and depending on damage they need to loose speed. I guess a solution for subs could be two values depending if they dive or attack - don't know if that can be modelled, though.

There are a lot of people who would love to play Japan and Italy (and to some degree the UK and the US are also affected) but don't simply because of the naval warfare. Really hope on Semper Fi.

 

[unmerged(63310)]

There are a lot of people who would love to play Japan and Italy (and to some degree the UK and the US are also affected) but don't simply because of the naval warfare. Really hope on Semper Fi.

Yes... right now due to the naval mechanics I just get bored playing especially Japan but really any of the nations which have large navies...which are all the nations eventually.

Naval warfare was neglected in favor of land battles in design obviously. Germany vs Soviets might as well be the entire game. This maybe is understandable for basic game but an expansion needs to address more.

My main hope for HoI3 was to address naval and air combat, the weakest parts of HoI2. Instead HoI3 got a re-worked land system which is nice (some bug fixes but the concepts are good for most part) and partially re-worked air system which is great. Unfortunately totally unchanged naval system which severely impacts any game where players country is not in Europe or Russia.

 

[Rancher]

Naval revisited

Discovered this thread ending May 2010 with much reference to the coming SF. It appears to me that not too many of the improvements mentioned actually happend, especially with ref to Carriers and cags. Personally I think the idea of CVE, CVL, CVA idea is a far better reflection of their cag capability. I would be very interested to hear the opinions of the correspondents to the present state of the naval game

 

[gramis]

Naval Combat needs a rework from ground up. It is an ABSOLUTELY EXCELLENT World War 1 naval simulator.

This is not World War 1.

CAGs unable to sink ships without being on a CAG mission in the same hex as its own carrier, and the enemy target, is just a critical design failure.

This is simply not true. In my mp experience so far most of the naval engagements where cv fleets were involved carried out with the CV fleets being in different hexes form the one said naval engagement was taking place and cags were sent in naval strike missions. Cags performing naval strike from CVs in different hexes than the one where naval combat occurs are just as deadly.

That being said, my beef with CVs as they are atm is they are too cheap and too easy to build (even the highly teched ones) and this in its turn renders all other naval assets (with the exception of CLs and DDs) useless. As the game is currently, you can easily top as Japan a net of arround 18 to 24 CVs rdy till 42 and arround the same number as US. This combined with the ability in vanilla (mainly Jap ability due to its enormeous research speed bonus it receives via conquests) to rush researches you can get much of the 18/24 CVs to be at arround 1942/1944 (5 years ahead) tech with its airwings at the same lvls. This does make for an entirely ahistoric and deadly Pacific war when it comes to the size and efectivness of naval forces.

 

[mrwrong]

after reading what you wrote i just had to reply ( to the OP ) ... it really moved me .... i too used to play PTO 2 and PTO 1 , and even playing all the other games i've ever played in my life , no game has ever drawn me in like those two ...it really felt like you were fighting the pacific war when you played ... that game is part of the reason i got into the Hearts of Iron Series ... and while they've done a great job with the land warfare ... i don't think they've ever really captured the magic of the pacific warfare ... does anyone remember that hawwiann music that would come on when you selected hawiaii ?the little touches here and there , the constant ART everywhere you go giving life to the game , the sound effects .... i can only hope that if they do a HOI 4 ... that it moves closer to PTO ...

 

[Traks]

I played PTO on Sega. KOEI had very good wargame titles there, also European one.
From hybrid games Pacific Storm was good, not only buildup but could also take part in combat yourself.

And yes, naval part is most neglected. In multiplayer naval works slightly better, but also more of minmaxing, meaning only CV and CL or DD.
Oh, and few subs as Germany, everybody else lives with starting subs.