-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
In my opinion there are so many basic fundamental problem with this games naval model. They use some type of pseudo land combat model with some naval aspects and it do not work very well. Not even for surface engagements.
Battleships primary role were to engage enemy capitol ships... their main guns were basically unsuitable to fire against smaller ships such as Destroyers and even smaller cruisers for that matter. You also need to consider the rather limited amount of ammunition that such ships had for their main guns and you can quickly understand how vulnerable such a ship would be to a dedicated attack by a number of smaller torpedo armed combat ships. Especially in confined waters. On open waters such an engagement would most probably never happen since both forces would avoid it. A battleship of course had secondary batteries to fight against smaller ships but no sane battleship commander would want to risk a bunch of Destroyer that close to their ship.
It was the cruisers (light) main job to defend larger capital ships from smaller vessels such as enemy destroyers and other cruisers or even smaller ships.
The Destroyer was a general purpose ship that had the function as scout, ASW and AA for a larger fleet. Destroyers could even be used to attack vulnerable capital ships if they were found without an escort.
The game needs to have a more stronger surprise effect. Unescorted capitol ships should be very vulnerable to surprise attacks from smaller ships and submarines. Capitol ships primary goal should in the game be focused at enemy capitol ships while cruisers target other cruisers and smaller ships. Destroyers should be dangerous to capitol ships (when surprised) and submarines. This would create a great dynamic in the game that would give you the feel of being quite realistic.
If you read a couple of naval history books you will understand the fear that captains had in the early and middle part of the war against torpedo attacks. As radar was improved and air reconnaissance were more intense the fear for Destroyers and torpedo boats were reduced but submarines were still a very potential threat even at the end of the war.
I find this whole battle-fleet dynamic in the game are none existent. One major reason is of course how doctrines are handled, but basically all a major nation need are Destroyers, Battleships and Carriers. Anything in between are just a bland and bleak version of the above. You need three type of fleets...
Patrol fleet: 2-3 Destroyers
SAG (Bombardment): 4+ BB, 2-4 Destroyers
CTF: 3-6 Carriers, 4-8 Destroyers (to soak damage against air attacks)
(not to mention the impossible micromanagement a CTF needs to be effective)
Destroyers surface attack value can much be ignored since it has no use what so ever... even AA are questionable but useful since you can upgrade them so I would research it. Of course their only job is to defend against submarines (who are pretty toothless anyway) and find enemy fleets. You will not need that many destroyers in your fleets other than to soak air damage in a CTF.
Neither of these compositions are realistic (except for maybe the patrol fleets) or fun to play with... but building anything else would just handicap yourself in a MP game. Against the AI it doesn't matter much since the naval AI is a little to aggressive with too small task-forces.
What the game needs is what's been suggested with torpedoes, but all capitol ships do need to separate their main guns and secondary guns since the main guns are less useful on smaller ships and have very limited ammunition.
Ammunition replenishment for battleships was a very late war occurrence with any large frequency so this must be considered somehow, such as capitol ships losing ORG when they fire their main guns. Replenishment and repair (Auxiliary) ships should help a fleet restore fuel and ORG at sea faster, or these could be simulated with tech research somehow.
I think, as other has suggested as well, that CAG should be removed and simply replaced with naval fighters and bombers. There should be five different Carrier types in the game. CVE who carries 1 wing (30 planes), CVL who carries 2 wings (60 planes), armoured CV who carries 2 wings (60 planes), regular fleet carriers who carries 3 wings (90 planes) and super carriers who carries 4 wings (120 planes). All missions for carrier airplanes should have about 1/3 the capacity of a normal air-group, but still get a 2.5% stacking penalty on ALL their missions.
Naval bombers should have much better soft and hard attack values and much better range. Many naval bombers in the Pacific were dual purpose bombers and could attack as well as any regular twin engine aircraft on land. I would make naval bombers take slightly longer to build and be slightly more expensive than regular TAC but have them get almost the same land bombing capacity. The extra time to train would be what the pilots need to be trained properly. Also TAC and dive bombers should get better naval attack as well... at least this is my opinion.
I only have one solution for submarines... strategical use only. All their attacks should be like convoy attacks... submarines should never be part of naval battles. A submarine fire once and dive to get away against warships... there need not be any naval combat with submarines involved, they just don't fight like that.
In short... in my opinion... PI have a lot to do about naval combat before they have a good system to work with.
Battleships primary role were to engage enemy capitol ships... their main guns were basically unsuitable to fire against smaller ships such as Destroyers and even smaller cruisers for that matter. You also need to consider the rather limited amount of ammunition that such ships had for their main guns and you can quickly understand how vulnerable such a ship would be to a dedicated attack by a number of smaller torpedo armed combat ships. Especially in confined waters. On open waters such an engagement would most probably never happen since both forces would avoid it. A battleship of course had secondary batteries to fight against smaller ships but no sane battleship commander would want to risk a bunch of Destroyer that close to their ship.
It was the cruisers (light) main job to defend larger capital ships from smaller vessels such as enemy destroyers and other cruisers or even smaller ships.
The Destroyer was a general purpose ship that had the function as scout, ASW and AA for a larger fleet. Destroyers could even be used to attack vulnerable capital ships if they were found without an escort.
The game needs to have a more stronger surprise effect. Unescorted capitol ships should be very vulnerable to surprise attacks from smaller ships and submarines. Capitol ships primary goal should in the game be focused at enemy capitol ships while cruisers target other cruisers and smaller ships. Destroyers should be dangerous to capitol ships (when surprised) and submarines. This would create a great dynamic in the game that would give you the feel of being quite realistic.
If you read a couple of naval history books you will understand the fear that captains had in the early and middle part of the war against torpedo attacks. As radar was improved and air reconnaissance were more intense the fear for Destroyers and torpedo boats were reduced but submarines were still a very potential threat even at the end of the war.
I find this whole battle-fleet dynamic in the game are none existent. One major reason is of course how doctrines are handled, but basically all a major nation need are Destroyers, Battleships and Carriers. Anything in between are just a bland and bleak version of the above. You need three type of fleets...
Patrol fleet: 2-3 Destroyers
SAG (Bombardment): 4+ BB, 2-4 Destroyers
CTF: 3-6 Carriers, 4-8 Destroyers (to soak damage against air attacks)
(not to mention the impossible micromanagement a CTF needs to be effective)
Destroyers surface attack value can much be ignored since it has no use what so ever... even AA are questionable but useful since you can upgrade them so I would research it. Of course their only job is to defend against submarines (who are pretty toothless anyway) and find enemy fleets. You will not need that many destroyers in your fleets other than to soak air damage in a CTF.
Neither of these compositions are realistic (except for maybe the patrol fleets) or fun to play with... but building anything else would just handicap yourself in a MP game. Against the AI it doesn't matter much since the naval AI is a little to aggressive with too small task-forces.
What the game needs is what's been suggested with torpedoes, but all capitol ships do need to separate their main guns and secondary guns since the main guns are less useful on smaller ships and have very limited ammunition.
Ammunition replenishment for battleships was a very late war occurrence with any large frequency so this must be considered somehow, such as capitol ships losing ORG when they fire their main guns. Replenishment and repair (Auxiliary) ships should help a fleet restore fuel and ORG at sea faster, or these could be simulated with tech research somehow.
I think, as other has suggested as well, that CAG should be removed and simply replaced with naval fighters and bombers. There should be five different Carrier types in the game. CVE who carries 1 wing (30 planes), CVL who carries 2 wings (60 planes), armoured CV who carries 2 wings (60 planes), regular fleet carriers who carries 3 wings (90 planes) and super carriers who carries 4 wings (120 planes). All missions for carrier airplanes should have about 1/3 the capacity of a normal air-group, but still get a 2.5% stacking penalty on ALL their missions.
Naval bombers should have much better soft and hard attack values and much better range. Many naval bombers in the Pacific were dual purpose bombers and could attack as well as any regular twin engine aircraft on land. I would make naval bombers take slightly longer to build and be slightly more expensive than regular TAC but have them get almost the same land bombing capacity. The extra time to train would be what the pilots need to be trained properly. Also TAC and dive bombers should get better naval attack as well... at least this is my opinion.
I only have one solution for submarines... strategical use only. All their attacks should be like convoy attacks... submarines should never be part of naval battles. A submarine fire once and dive to get away against warships... there need not be any naval combat with submarines involved, they just don't fight like that.
In short... in my opinion... PI have a lot to do about naval combat before they have a good system to work with.
Suggestions for AI fleet deployment and HQ/Fleet stacks
Here a a few scattered thoughts from my scatterbrain:wacko:
I agree to many of the points of my former posters and use some of the things i read there and own ideas.....
I dont know about the rules of Fleet deployment the AI uses but they lack something apparantly....
AI should try to fill fleets according to "templates", which in turn should be decided by the role it has to fill and the corresponding admiral.
1. AI decides (randomly ? scripted ? ) which fleet it needs
a.) Patrol fleet of DDs using a rear admiral ( 12 Ships max, not
necessarily filled up to 12, lets say 2 would be ok, when all fleets are
full this way another fleet is deployed or the other fleets filled to next
"level" lets say 4, next level ....and so on ).
b.) Surface Action Group ( standing for SAG,right ?). Needs at least 1 CA
and bigger, and should use any admiral higher as rear-ad.
Factor: Ratio of Capital vs. Escort
c.) Invasion Fleet ( actually a SAG + transports )
Probably a bit tricky because the AI must "know" how many divisons
it wants to transport for the invasion.
But the linking with "Inv.Fleet template" eliminates the lone AI
transport fleets which are constantly shot up ( minimum Invasion fleet
then 1 TP+ 1CA + 1DD ) Inv.fleet should NOT be confused with normal
transport fleets ....
d. Transport fleets
can be composed of any number of TP which should be able to
transport troops to non-invasion ports AND ALSO BE ABLE TO CARRY
SUPPLIES/OIL to destination ....eliminating the delay of setting up a
regular supply convoy ( lets say the fleet carries a stock of X supplies
for Y days of troops on board (included in Weight of troops or
LoadingSpace - Troops).
AI should get detailed rules about this and Player could use it to
supply vital ports not yet or not sufficiently supplied. Just like
Airsupply but not as inefficient.
e: Carrier Task Forces
Im not sure here if a CTF should or should not contain BB/BC or SHBB. I feel that it should not
for game reasons. Lets assume its forbidden for a CTF to use heavier ships then CA´s.
It then should strictly follow the tactic "DO NOT CLOSE WITH ENEMY - SKIRMISH WITH CAG".
As it is apparantly a waste to to that with BBs see above.
With the implementation of several fleets ( my idea for it explained in next post) inside a Sea
Command a combat could contain fleets skirmishing, closing and even fleeing individually.
additional factor to reckon with: available new ships in the force pool vs. list of demands from existing fleets. If no demands from ex.fleets then create new one... rinse and repeat.
Ships which reach a certain treshold of STR should be detached from the fleets immediately and be put in the force pool. They should then attain the status of "limping home/being transferred/whatever" for a time depending on STR x speed x actual distance to home port.
Of course there should be a certain chance that it explodes/is lost/torpedoed/scuttled on the way home. Many tales of the voyages of damaged ships exist...
After it reaches home (forcepool) it is repaired IN the forcepool for a certain time ( again depending on damage, random number and tech level of owner and finally put into available fleets in a home port just as if newly built.
Most strategic boardgames with Ships act in this way.
Additionally this will "recycle" the fleets so that ships will be continually redeployed according to fleet rules provided there is combat/damage.
This will be a little bit rigid but you know your local AI.....
next i will rant about my ideas about the HQ System for land/air/sea with several different fleets in ONE SEA COMMAND and stuff
Here a a few scattered thoughts from my scatterbrain:wacko:
I agree to many of the points of my former posters and use some of the things i read there and own ideas.....
I dont know about the rules of Fleet deployment the AI uses but they lack something apparantly....
AI should try to fill fleets according to "templates", which in turn should be decided by the role it has to fill and the corresponding admiral.
1. AI decides (randomly ? scripted ? ) which fleet it needs
a.) Patrol fleet of DDs using a rear admiral ( 12 Ships max, not
necessarily filled up to 12, lets say 2 would be ok, when all fleets are
full this way another fleet is deployed or the other fleets filled to next
"level" lets say 4, next level ....and so on ).
b.) Surface Action Group ( standing for SAG,right ?). Needs at least 1 CA
and bigger, and should use any admiral higher as rear-ad.
Factor: Ratio of Capital vs. Escort
c.) Invasion Fleet ( actually a SAG + transports )
Probably a bit tricky because the AI must "know" how many divisons
it wants to transport for the invasion.
But the linking with "Inv.Fleet template" eliminates the lone AI
transport fleets which are constantly shot up ( minimum Invasion fleet
then 1 TP+ 1CA + 1DD ) Inv.fleet should NOT be confused with normal
transport fleets ....
d. Transport fleets
can be composed of any number of TP which should be able to
transport troops to non-invasion ports AND ALSO BE ABLE TO CARRY
SUPPLIES/OIL to destination ....eliminating the delay of setting up a
regular supply convoy ( lets say the fleet carries a stock of X supplies
for Y days of troops on board (included in Weight of troops or
LoadingSpace - Troops).
AI should get detailed rules about this and Player could use it to
supply vital ports not yet or not sufficiently supplied. Just like
Airsupply but not as inefficient.
e: Carrier Task Forces
Im not sure here if a CTF should or should not contain BB/BC or SHBB. I feel that it should not
for game reasons. Lets assume its forbidden for a CTF to use heavier ships then CA´s.
It then should strictly follow the tactic "DO NOT CLOSE WITH ENEMY - SKIRMISH WITH CAG".
As it is apparantly a waste to to that with BBs see above.
With the implementation of several fleets ( my idea for it explained in next post) inside a Sea
Command a combat could contain fleets skirmishing, closing and even fleeing individually.
additional factor to reckon with: available new ships in the force pool vs. list of demands from existing fleets. If no demands from ex.fleets then create new one... rinse and repeat.
Ships which reach a certain treshold of STR should be detached from the fleets immediately and be put in the force pool. They should then attain the status of "limping home/being transferred/whatever" for a time depending on STR x speed x actual distance to home port.
Of course there should be a certain chance that it explodes/is lost/torpedoed/scuttled on the way home. Many tales of the voyages of damaged ships exist...
After it reaches home (forcepool) it is repaired IN the forcepool for a certain time ( again depending on damage, random number and tech level of owner and finally put into available fleets in a home port just as if newly built.
Most strategic boardgames with Ships act in this way.
Additionally this will "recycle" the fleets so that ships will be continually redeployed according to fleet rules provided there is combat/damage.
This will be a little bit rigid but you know your local AI.....
next i will rant about my ideas about the HQ System for land/air/sea with several different fleets in ONE SEA COMMAND and stuff
Last edited:
Submarines
I agree to some point with Jorgen_Cab about the shortcomings of submarines.
While it would be more approbiate to put them into something like an strategic warfare box (strat. Bombers and Rockets too) and remove them from the map.
they would lose some flair....but nevertheless....
They could sit all day in this box and be assigned to particular seazones while staying there.
e.g. right click on a sea province and a popup window should appear which lists all available submarines and their data. Now you could assign the date, damage treshold ( like the stances of aircraft), single province or several etc.
Status of the Sub units then could be: Staging to target sea province, Transferring to home port, Replenishing/repairing in home port.
Of course the escorts should slug it out with the subs there too.
They should however retain some measure of influence on the map and not be completely ignored by the units there.
Lets say you have assigned several submarines in your stratbox to interdict an adjacent seaarea to Gibraltar. Any regular fleet then needs to check if it is harrassed by those subs and to which extent ( means by all of them or just a few), resulting in a regular seabattle (preferrable)or an abstract one.
Whatever you think about this, but anyway the submarines should at least change in terms of combat. They should have very high sea attack values but very,very low org so they dont have the ability to annihilate ( or being ....) large fleets in sustained combat. They should shoot and scoot,basta.
Everything they target (and hit !) should stand a good chance of being heavily damaged. Chances of this of course influenced by tech.
A big factor should be the implementation of Wolfpack tactics which should increase the chance of fleets being intercepted by sizable submarine forces instead of a few ones.....
I agree to some point with Jorgen_Cab about the shortcomings of submarines.
While it would be more approbiate to put them into something like an strategic warfare box (strat. Bombers and Rockets too) and remove them from the map.
they would lose some flair....but nevertheless....
They could sit all day in this box and be assigned to particular seazones while staying there.
e.g. right click on a sea province and a popup window should appear which lists all available submarines and their data. Now you could assign the date, damage treshold ( like the stances of aircraft), single province or several etc.
Status of the Sub units then could be: Staging to target sea province, Transferring to home port, Replenishing/repairing in home port.
Of course the escorts should slug it out with the subs there too.
They should however retain some measure of influence on the map and not be completely ignored by the units there.
Lets say you have assigned several submarines in your stratbox to interdict an adjacent seaarea to Gibraltar. Any regular fleet then needs to check if it is harrassed by those subs and to which extent ( means by all of them or just a few), resulting in a regular seabattle (preferrable)or an abstract one.
Whatever you think about this, but anyway the submarines should at least change in terms of combat. They should have very high sea attack values but very,very low org so they dont have the ability to annihilate ( or being ....) large fleets in sustained combat. They should shoot and scoot,basta.
Everything they target (and hit !) should stand a good chance of being heavily damaged. Chances of this of course influenced by tech.
A big factor should be the implementation of Wolfpack tactics which should increase the chance of fleets being intercepted by sizable submarine forces instead of a few ones.....
Has Anyone managed to sink enemy carriers by 'chasing them down' with fast BCs/CA/Screens? In my experience enemy carriers seem to have a magic repuslor field that keeps everything at that magic 50k distance, regardless of relative speed capabilities.
My latest example... Enemy fleet, 3 CV, 4 BB + Screens. Mine 2 CV, 4BC, 5CA + Screens. First couple combat ticks, my surface fleet sinks all his BS for almost no losses (tech advantage). His CVs run to 50... my fleet tries to chase while my CAGs engage his CAGs.
His carriers then spend 2 days sinking my fleet with, I guess, the evil eye.
Conclusion. Japan is unplayable. Sigh. It was actually better in 1.3 (though the game as a whole was worse.)
(I haven't noticed because nobody builds them, but do escort carriers have the same magic, despite their slower speed?)
My latest example... Enemy fleet, 3 CV, 4 BB + Screens. Mine 2 CV, 4BC, 5CA + Screens. First couple combat ticks, my surface fleet sinks all his BS for almost no losses (tech advantage). His CVs run to 50... my fleet tries to chase while my CAGs engage his CAGs.
His carriers then spend 2 days sinking my fleet with, I guess, the evil eye.
Conclusion. Japan is unplayable. Sigh. It was actually better in 1.3 (though the game as a whole was worse.)
(I haven't noticed because nobody builds them, but do escort carriers have the same magic, despite their slower speed?)
Once. The only saving grace I've ever had was, in one rare occasion, I entered a fight with a CVL/E with my 6BC 6CL fleet, and due to positioning, all 6 BCs and 4 of the CLs were in firing position in the first hour, allowing me to get just enough hits right out of the bat to score a kill.
In related irony, I found out that Germany was sinking UK carriers wholesale with a fleet containing 1BB 1DD. I'm wondering if Naval AI is afflicted by the same "carrierdance at 50KM" insanity that players face ;p
As Germany I managed to sink 2 british CV's, Argus and Invincible, vith a fleet consisting of 2 BB, 2 BC, 4 CA, 3 LC, 5 DD's.... It was in 1940, i had 1938 BB ad BC's, 1940"s Ca Lc and DD's... all naval doctrines of 1939 exept those for the carrier from the 1 naval doctrine.... Also, level 2 radars on the escorts ships and level 1 radar on the big ships.
The enemy fleet was 2 carriers, 2 old BB's, 3 old Bcs, 4-5 Lcs and 6 dd's.
I managed to sink the carrieres, and other bc's and lc and dd's, but i also loose one bc , 2 ca, an 4 dd's in the battle....
As i was watching the battle, due of good positioning my bb'sand bc's vere dealing with the enemy capital ships, managed to get two salvos on the carriers, wich begain to retrait, damaged... My CA and Lc began to chase them, and got under heavy fire, but Graf Spee managed to sink the Argus, and coming on the last run the Gneisnau sinked the Invincible, but then after that the british bb's managed to sink some of the ships that chased the cv's.... then my bb's and other Bc came to range and it was turkey shoot....
Brits flew avay with 2 bb's one Lc and 2 dd badly damage...
I got avay vith Bismark and Tripitz a bit damaged, Scharnost almost intact, Deutschland a bit damaged, Graf Spee badly damaged, 2 lc damaged and, 2 dd very damaged...
Then I retreat to wilhemshaven, but on the way got bombed twice by Raf, and surprise, an another RN ambush, a flee of 2 bc and 2 lc and 4 dd's, lost then my dds, my lcs, the Graf spee, and Deutchland and scharnost badly damaged... Managed to sink 2 dd and one Lc of the britsh fleet...
So it was quite fun
The enemy fleet was 2 carriers, 2 old BB's, 3 old Bcs, 4-5 Lcs and 6 dd's.
I managed to sink the carrieres, and other bc's and lc and dd's, but i also loose one bc , 2 ca, an 4 dd's in the battle....
As i was watching the battle, due of good positioning my bb'sand bc's vere dealing with the enemy capital ships, managed to get two salvos on the carriers, wich begain to retrait, damaged... My CA and Lc began to chase them, and got under heavy fire, but Graf Spee managed to sink the Argus, and coming on the last run the Gneisnau sinked the Invincible, but then after that the british bb's managed to sink some of the ships that chased the cv's.... then my bb's and other Bc came to range and it was turkey shoot....
Brits flew avay with 2 bb's one Lc and 2 dd badly damage...
I got avay vith Bismark and Tripitz a bit damaged, Scharnost almost intact, Deutschland a bit damaged, Graf Spee badly damaged, 2 lc damaged and, 2 dd very damaged...
Then I retreat to wilhemshaven, but on the way got bombed twice by Raf, and surprise, an another RN ambush, a flee of 2 bc and 2 lc and 4 dd's, lost then my dds, my lcs, the Graf spee, and Deutchland and scharnost badly damaged... Managed to sink 2 dd and one Lc of the britsh fleet...
So it was quite fun
I think this is reasonable and a good solution, except for one thing.
Light Carriers were little more then Escort carriers with bigger engines and warship hulls. Thus instead I would give them the same Airgroup (1 wing of 30 planes), and the only difference would be defensive values (better for CVL due to more trained crew and warship hull) and ofcourse speed.
I think History does support 30planes on CVL classes:
Ryuho: 31 Aircraft
Chitose: 30 Aircraft
Zuiho: 30 Aircraft
Independence: 33 Aircraft
Saipan: 42 Aircraft
Colossus: 48 Aircraft
Centaur: 26 Aircraft
Majestic: 37 Aircraft
Basically only a one latewar designs show large enough airgroups to almost warrant 2 CAGs with such a system (breakpoint being 45 aircraft), the rest would be more suited with 1.
You are quite right about the CVL... there could be a technology that finally increase the CAG capacity of CVL from 1 to 2 CAG groups.
As far as I know the CVL were primarily used to provide fighter cover for the other CV in the task force, and as a small ASW platform.
Escort carriers air-wings were rather light in fighter aircraft and mainly used strike aircraft if I'm not mistaken. But since those type of carriers were primarily US they didn't need that much fighter cover. But they did perform ASW duties.
It might be wise to give both strike and fighter CAG groups ASW capability to symbolize a few of such capable planes in each one of them.
Nah I think the opposite is true, CVE Airwings were much more fighter heavy then CV Airwings generally were.
The two main CVE classes had the following air-wings as I understand:
Bogue: 12 Fighters & 9 Torpedo bombers
Casablanca: 16 Fighters & 12 Torpedo bombers
The torpedo bombers however were generally not the same strike bomber used on fleet CVs, but refitted to scout and ASW roles carrying depth charges and light bombs. The Avenger Torpedo bomber in this setup was the airplane that sunk most submarines during all off WW2.
So based on this you should either have 3 types of CAGs:
Fighter CAG (general CV fighters)
Bombers CAG (general CV bombers)
Light CAG (fighters, recon and ASW)
Or if you can accept that fleet carriers are better at ASW (they generally weren't) just two types, Fighters + ASW and Bombers.
Nice post. Excellent ideas.
And my suggestions are:
- SHBB must have upgrades. A navy always need a big, better, huge, monstruous and doomsday machine of doom from hell to kill the enemy. Even if the enemy has DD 1938. If you are conquering the world, you must CAN afford the cost.
- Supplies need a fix: @themousemaster you said all:
" SUPPLY:
The change to 1.4 edited supply in a way I don't fully understand, but that I can observe: for one, amphibious landings have odd in/out supply issues, and for another, the amount of forces I can actually supply over any given infrastructure has gone... weird. (a level 10 port having trouble supplying 8 3xINF 1xART divisions, each no more than 5 "squares" away, and all infra being level 6 or higher, is... iffy, to say the least).
The Landing thing I assume is a bug. Units going "out of supply" the day after landing, IF IT WERE TO represent the logistical efforts of trying to supply tens of thousands of men from a beachhead, sounds reasonable; however, since this changed was not documented, AND the problem PERSISTS as you push inward (every single time you take a province). I assume the expansion will fix this, OR make it official, but... it's a mark no less.
As for the supply, it seems that the "recalculation" of supply routes is as bad as it's always been, just the effect has been magnified in the 1.4 patch. Best as I can tell, the problem is this:
If a division moves 1 space farther from a supply hub, then supplies take 1 more day to reach it, which is fine. Also, if a division is "freshly" attached to a supply hub, it takes a few (or many) days for it to receive supply. Which is fine.
However, if a divisions has just started receiving supply the first 2 days worth of it's 30 day allotment has made it, and the rest is in the various provinces leading back to the hub, AND you move that division 1 province PERPENDICULAR to it's previous supply path, then all supplies that had "almost" made it get sent BACK to the hub, and a FRESH set are dispatched, leading to a massive delay for the unit, while it's supplies are often less than 10KM away from it.
I would surmise that having the supply "route" twin-calculated for units; one as a direct-path to the hub, and one as a last-30-day-incremented path, would allow the division to get it's "already in transit" supplies, while establishing a new route for it's new location. But as I have no access to source code, I cannot, obviously, say this for certain.
The new "draw from docks" in the announcement is good, mind you... it moves the coffee from my head to at least my eyebrows. If you are taking my advice and making a sea-route count as "1" supply-square to the hub (resulting in some units actually tracing their main supply through a port, even if land connected), is a DEFINITE plus.
But when a unit in deep Siberia steps off the Trans-Siberian Railroad in a bad spot, and all the supplies that it ALMOST had are SENT BACK TO MOSCOW, that is a major loss of Acceptable-break-From-Physical-Reality for me.
"
Paradox keep working, improving the game and principally listening to your fans.
THX
And my suggestions are:
- SHBB must have upgrades. A navy always need a big, better, huge, monstruous and doomsday machine of doom from hell to kill the enemy. Even if the enemy has DD 1938. If you are conquering the world, you must CAN afford the cost.
- Supplies need a fix: @themousemaster you said all:
" SUPPLY:
The change to 1.4 edited supply in a way I don't fully understand, but that I can observe: for one, amphibious landings have odd in/out supply issues, and for another, the amount of forces I can actually supply over any given infrastructure has gone... weird. (a level 10 port having trouble supplying 8 3xINF 1xART divisions, each no more than 5 "squares" away, and all infra being level 6 or higher, is... iffy, to say the least).
The Landing thing I assume is a bug. Units going "out of supply" the day after landing, IF IT WERE TO represent the logistical efforts of trying to supply tens of thousands of men from a beachhead, sounds reasonable; however, since this changed was not documented, AND the problem PERSISTS as you push inward (every single time you take a province). I assume the expansion will fix this, OR make it official, but... it's a mark no less.
As for the supply, it seems that the "recalculation" of supply routes is as bad as it's always been, just the effect has been magnified in the 1.4 patch. Best as I can tell, the problem is this:
If a division moves 1 space farther from a supply hub, then supplies take 1 more day to reach it, which is fine. Also, if a division is "freshly" attached to a supply hub, it takes a few (or many) days for it to receive supply. Which is fine.
However, if a divisions has just started receiving supply the first 2 days worth of it's 30 day allotment has made it, and the rest is in the various provinces leading back to the hub, AND you move that division 1 province PERPENDICULAR to it's previous supply path, then all supplies that had "almost" made it get sent BACK to the hub, and a FRESH set are dispatched, leading to a massive delay for the unit, while it's supplies are often less than 10KM away from it.
I would surmise that having the supply "route" twin-calculated for units; one as a direct-path to the hub, and one as a last-30-day-incremented path, would allow the division to get it's "already in transit" supplies, while establishing a new route for it's new location. But as I have no access to source code, I cannot, obviously, say this for certain.
The new "draw from docks" in the announcement is good, mind you... it moves the coffee from my head to at least my eyebrows. If you are taking my advice and making a sea-route count as "1" supply-square to the hub (resulting in some units actually tracing their main supply through a port, even if land connected), is a DEFINITE plus.
But when a unit in deep Siberia steps off the Trans-Siberian Railroad in a bad spot, and all the supplies that it ALMOST had are SENT BACK TO MOSCOW, that is a major loss of Acceptable-break-From-Physical-Reality for me.
"
Paradox keep working, improving the game and principally listening to your fans.
THX
I can't think of an instance here, but I could be wrong. Was there ever an example of a heavy fleet attacking ships that were in port? I am not saying that the game has to be purely historical, but I think it is a good yardstick. I mean, Germany having to evacuate the North Sea ports because of British battleships seems pretty unhistorical, unrealistic, and potentially game-breaking. Anyway, Churchill had some pretty crazy ideas in regards to aggressivly using the Royal Navy, but not even he (as far as I know) suggested shooting his way into Wilhelmshaven. My 2 cents.
None come to mind.
That said, come WW2, the reason for such hesitation was port defenses (which I'll have, happily, in the defenders ability to "fight back" to such an operation), and the fear of aircraft...
Which often don't exist.
I'm sure if the Royal Navy had it on good authority that the Luftwaffe didn't exist... like, say, blown out of the sky... they would have been happy to take their BC/BB to the 15/20-mile range and start lobbing shells at ports and any ships therein, whereas CL and DD probably wouldnt want to get close enough to use their own guns, what with coastal fortifications, high mine concentrations, and whatnot (I.E. why I suggest it be the Shore Attack value).
I'll keep my stance repeated for clarity sake: I'm all for making the mission(s) relative-to-level dangerous, just not phsyically impossible.
The best examples I can think of are the Naval Battle of Casablanca (part of operation Torch), or better, the British destruction of the Vichy fleet at Mers-el-Kébir.
Obviously its a situation that's a lot more likely to happen when you're unsure if the other side is going to fight, or in the first case, when enemy ships (the French BB Jean Bart) aren't ready to sail.
Obviously its a situation that's a lot more likely to happen when you're unsure if the other side is going to fight, or in the first case, when enemy ships (the French BB Jean Bart) aren't ready to sail.
I agree with everything except the Port Bombardment if there are coastal defenses present.
I assume you want a BB to be able to logistically strike an undefended port? I can agree with that, but... coming into range of coastal batteries with the range to hit a ship seems idiotic. In the length of time a ship would need to do much logistic damage it would suffer heavily vs a shore battery.
I actually wrote a long post with similar observations a few months ago, I'll repost a bit of it below- remember this is only the 2nd half of my original post which was so long I think few people read it.
Right now naval warfare in 1.4 is all about getting one big decisive battle with a BB battleline or massive CTF and finishing off half an enemy fleet. After 3-4 such battles rule of the seas fairly established. It should be more difficult to bring a decisive battle around and also require all the elements be in place to truly hammer an enemy fleet. IE- CTF well screened, scouts, or SAG with shore based aircrafts.
Screening ratios based on Hit size of Capitol hulls and torpedo attacks could be introduced to make things much more interesting for both the ship vs ship and air vs ship aspects of naval warfare.
The goal being if two well screened fleets meet early war either can withdraw with fairly light damage unless CV or shore based craft also present and same if aircraft encounter enemy fleet without naval units also engaged. A fleet of only capitols or only screens could suffer but not be under threat to be truly wrecked from one single engagement until later war naval/aircraft techs available.
To factor hits by torpedoes there should be at least 3 hit BBs(maybe 4 hit SHBB), 2 hit CV(later war larger hulls 3 hit), 2 hit CA, BC, and 1 hit CL, DD,(CVL?). A 100% screen ratio gives defensive bonus vs torpedoes. Only calculate the torpedo hits at start of engagement and with nightfall where the nightfall torpedo attack bonus slightly larger so a well screened fleet vs another well screened fleet most of the screens fire at each other and miss and to sink a larger ship still requires more than 1 hit which might be possible if fleet sizes vary massively(within current stacking efficiency limits) so fleet with 3 capitol and 22 screens vs 4 capitols and 18 screens does have some advantage due to number of screens (DD's and CL with torpedoes) with initial torpedo attack but after that 1 torpedo salve is fired the smaller fleet but with more capitol has the more advantage longer the battle runs as it has more sea attack total with the +1 capitols and better screening ratio probably(4 BBs need 12 screen but 4 BC need 8 so depends on composition for screening ratio efficiency). The ratio has both a min and max affect so too few screens for each capitol bad obviously, but also having far too many screens is also bad with communication, friendly fire, coordination issues.
The screening ratio should also reflect efficiency more linearly with optimum ratio being capitols requiring 2x their hit points so BB require 6 screens for full efficiency while CV, CA, BC requires 4. That efficiency also influences engage/disengage times so 2 hit BC with less screens required than BB but more sea attack than CA could finally be differentiated. The ratio is an absolute so going over in screens much is as bad as too few. So just making a fleet of 2 BC and 50 screens doesn't let torpedo attacks be the decider as less capitols allows enemy screens to get closer without fear of longer range guns and do more effective torpedo attacks themselves. So most of the time in an engagement with 2 equal size fleets with 100% efficiency due 1-1 optimum ratio of screens to capitols both fleets have defense bonus to torpedoes maxed so 1 or 2 screens might get hit and sink as they are 1 hit but each side mostly misses with first salvo(for roleplaying/historical basically there might never really be the salvos fired as each side is well screened so just could be a couple of DD's engaging or lucky capitol hit, or DDs running into each other etc to cause the 1 or 2 lost screens). If any capitols are hit it will be just an ORG loss unless they are hit 2x or the 3x a BB requires to actually suffer critical hit and be sunk. That should be very rare with well screened fleets even when one side has much more screens than the other as long as screening ratios kept near 100%. After torpedoes fire a purely ship to ship battle works out just like now with sea attack and efficiency due positioning/screen ratio deciding the losses. Technology of the torpedo level just adds to attacking bonus of the salvo so an attacker with large tech advantage in torpedoes gets some attack bonus. Higher tech screens don't have much affect for defending vs torpedoes except for later tech CV gaining 3 hit hull size but add to AA, positioning, sea attack, and speed similar to how it already works.
To add in aircraft from CV or shore based aircraft its a simple calculation of #'s of air squadrons and capitol ships present. IE- for each attacking air squadron over the defenders CAP squadrons get larger attack bonus against enemy capitol ships if friendly capitols are present in same sea zone. So if 2 attack squadrons from CV of attacking CTF vs 1 defending CAP squadron of defending CTF then 1 attack squadron gets attack bonus (other squadron of defending CTF's CV might be flying to counter attack and if it encounters no aircraft flying CAP over attacking CTF it attacks normally but does not get a combined arms bonus unless friendly capitol present).
Other important advantage of aircraft in battle is the positioning... IE- more difficult to engage/disengage when aircraft present depending on the fleet's task. The choices of whether to fly CAP or all out attack obviously important and a CTF which thinks itself safe in a distant sea zone and launches all out attack has a decisive advantage over its target unless another CTF or land based aircraft find its undefended CVs. But for a CTF to find a target it needs smaller task forces scouting or land based aircraft doing recon for it- or using its own aircraft for scouting rather than CAP and it becomes as much prey as a hunter.
The point of requiring friendly capitols for a full combined operations bonus (attacking squadrons only get attack bonus when outnumbering defending CAP and friendly capitols present, 1 sea zone away CTF does not count as present though even without this bonus more attacking aircraft than defending still does damage, just not getting a bonus to really devastate) is this will prevent making huge fleet of screens just to do a torpedo attack or pin enemy fleet with cheap screens while aircraft attack from distant CTF or land. If a fleet comes under attack from aircraft flying from unknown base it does not stick around, however if there is also enemy fleet capitols present the choice is more difficult and the options more limited on how to disengage is the reasoning here.
Fleets with bad screen ratio also get much poorer positioning so if trying to pin enemy fleet with large ratio screen fleet, the enemy can disengage easier along with the massive lower efficiency from stacking penalty that an all screens fleet would get if it was really large. To have a chance of engaging long enough to do enemy fleet massive damage your fleet must have capitols along with aircraft or shore based attack squadrons for the combined arms bonus which also affects positioning so enemy fleet has more difficult time disengaging. This will encourage more use of CVL purely for defensive CAP to negate attacking aircraft and to get the positioning bonus of having aircraft present which is more often the function they performed in fleets. The 2 hit CV with 2-3 attack squadrons are the hard hitters and consequently expensive and hard choices about risking sending their squadrons on attack instead of CAP and doing more damage vs holding back on CAP. Technologically superior fleets would usually benefit more from taking the risks as their relative ability to damage opponents is higher and ability to sustain damage is also higher- better AA, larger hull CV, better sea attack- so a USN vs IJN Pacific campaign could potentially occur somewhat similar as historically.
Screen ratio also should influence AA. Good ratio sets AA to the max allowed with technology on the defending ships/aircraft while bad ratio gets a few 5 percent negative AA for each 10% the ratio is off ideal 100% ratio of 2x ship hull hit points.
Of course aircraft do little damage at night and only get combined arms attack bonus vs capitols (large slow targets). Attacking aircraft flying from CTF in another sea zone lowers sea attack of aircraft by maybe 50%(longer flight times and lining up runs causes more time between attacks but reduced to 25% by techs so later in war attacks from further away/neighboring sea zone become more effective).
So the choice is keep CTF in same sea zone as naval battle occurring and do full aircraft attack damage which might not be huge with early game techs even with combined arms bonus but if you have more attack squadrons than defenders CAP and willing to put your CTF at risk. Attacking from other sea zone for less air attack but minimal risk to CTF. If CTF attacks enemy fleet in neighboring sea with no friendly naval ships present in that sea zone then mostly ORG damage results in early war, just as if it was land based aircraft attacking long distance as there is no combined operations bonus. Later techs could increase long distance attacks but full bonus should always require combined operations of friendly fleets engaging in same sea zone as the aircraft are attacking.
This allows many of the choices present in real naval operations- except supply problems and how do subs fit into actual battles plus relative differences in pilot training and aircraft reduced by abstraction to only what is dif in the techs and national training and the problems presented in a game how to represent code breaking but overall would improve naval combat hugely I think.
For the subs just add them to screens if they get into a naval battle for purposes of torpedo attack but subs not fit into the screening ratio unless right late war tech researched (subs should not improve AA or give the defense of DD or CL do as screens). Since subs much more expensive then a DD and putting them in engagement puts them at higher risk from capitol/air attack they should usually remain in strategic/convoy attack mode unless its a desperate situation, perhaps have AI give them a similar weight to CV in whether to risk engagement).
This system should if I haven't missed something huge be able to reflect many of the historical kind of battles which were inconclusive. IE- Different fleet sizes/compositions in battles during the early war without aircraft present were mostly inconclusive as one side or the other disengaged, early war with aircraft present there was fleet damage but aircraft were not doing massive damage yet but if one side completely lack defensive CAP still decisive damage. If a situation arises of just BB's vs BB's aside from the affects of screening ratio(efficiency and disengage speed and torpedoes which would be mostly equal between 2 BB fleets) it would play out how it does already which I feel is based more on Jutland scenarios not WWII naval battles.
IE- an early war Japanese fleet with 3 CV 5 DD (17% off ideal screen ratio = 5% penalty) attacking US fleet of 2 CV, 4 BB 18 DD (12% off ideal screen ratio also = 5% penalty) in another sea zone the Japanese could have +2 attack squadrons over defenders CAP and do damage but get between 50-25% penalty for long distance attack. If US land base aircraft present on nearby sea zone island find and attack the Japanese CTF which left no aircraft flying CAP then the US also gets between 50-25% long distance penalty but slight advantage in not facing a CAP. The Japanese fleet is smaller than the US fleet Japan is attacking so the Japanese +2 attacking aircraft vs 95% screen efficiency of US fleet(screen efficiency also contribute to air defense) does proportionally less damage vs the US land based 2 attack squadrons facing smaller fleet and 95% screen efficiency which means if Japan loses 1 DD its screen ratio would go to +30% off ideal and then get 15% penalty vs US fleet losing 1 DD actually gets improved screen ratio and would lose its 5% penalty. This example battle would end with Japanese losing more even though #'s of aircraft appear equal( 6 attack squadron from Japanese CTF vs 4 US squadron on CAP and 2 land based aircraft squadrons) and the actual ships never engage in a battle in the same sea zone. Trying to show how a Midway type battle could play out. Replace the US land based aircraft with a small CTF in nearby sea zone that moves into same sea zone as Japanese CTF and thus US gains combined arms bonus or give the Japanese fleet more CV or DD and it plays out much differently.
Many variations possible but would make naval game much more interesting as not only are massive decisive victories only possible with coordination between air and naval assets but the island campaign is more important especially early war for the Japanese to establish forward island air bases to overcome later disparity of Japanese CTF power vs US CTF and overall air power. Afterall, if US is able to project mostly only CTF air power vs a net of Japanese forward island airbases even a smaller Japanese fleet and air force can accomplish alot where in the current game once a navy has more BB's/CV's it basically wins.
The only major changes in mechanics in this model would be introduction of hit points for ships which are only used to calculate torpedo hits/misses and the screening efficiency addition which would between equally screened fleets negate torpedoes for the most part. Combined arms bonus for aircraft working with naval assets is not so much a change in mechanics as simply adding how it works with land forces between different arms to naval operations.
Criticism please... what I presented here I think could work well but I might have missed something but the current system is surely extremely unrealistic, not fun, and completely changes the strategic picture of half the war. e strategic picture of half the war.
I assume you want a BB to be able to logistically strike an undefended port? I can agree with that, but... coming into range of coastal batteries with the range to hit a ship seems idiotic. In the length of time a ship would need to do much logistic damage it would suffer heavily vs a shore battery.
I actually wrote a long post with similar observations a few months ago, I'll repost a bit of it below- remember this is only the 2nd half of my original post which was so long I think few people read it.
Right now naval warfare in 1.4 is all about getting one big decisive battle with a BB battleline or massive CTF and finishing off half an enemy fleet. After 3-4 such battles rule of the seas fairly established. It should be more difficult to bring a decisive battle around and also require all the elements be in place to truly hammer an enemy fleet. IE- CTF well screened, scouts, or SAG with shore based aircrafts.
Screening ratios based on Hit size of Capitol hulls and torpedo attacks could be introduced to make things much more interesting for both the ship vs ship and air vs ship aspects of naval warfare.
The goal being if two well screened fleets meet early war either can withdraw with fairly light damage unless CV or shore based craft also present and same if aircraft encounter enemy fleet without naval units also engaged. A fleet of only capitols or only screens could suffer but not be under threat to be truly wrecked from one single engagement until later war naval/aircraft techs available.
To factor hits by torpedoes there should be at least 3 hit BBs(maybe 4 hit SHBB), 2 hit CV(later war larger hulls 3 hit), 2 hit CA, BC, and 1 hit CL, DD,(CVL?). A 100% screen ratio gives defensive bonus vs torpedoes. Only calculate the torpedo hits at start of engagement and with nightfall where the nightfall torpedo attack bonus slightly larger so a well screened fleet vs another well screened fleet most of the screens fire at each other and miss and to sink a larger ship still requires more than 1 hit which might be possible if fleet sizes vary massively(within current stacking efficiency limits) so fleet with 3 capitol and 22 screens vs 4 capitols and 18 screens does have some advantage due to number of screens (DD's and CL with torpedoes) with initial torpedo attack but after that 1 torpedo salve is fired the smaller fleet but with more capitol has the more advantage longer the battle runs as it has more sea attack total with the +1 capitols and better screening ratio probably(4 BBs need 12 screen but 4 BC need 8 so depends on composition for screening ratio efficiency). The ratio has both a min and max affect so too few screens for each capitol bad obviously, but also having far too many screens is also bad with communication, friendly fire, coordination issues.
The screening ratio should also reflect efficiency more linearly with optimum ratio being capitols requiring 2x their hit points so BB require 6 screens for full efficiency while CV, CA, BC requires 4. That efficiency also influences engage/disengage times so 2 hit BC with less screens required than BB but more sea attack than CA could finally be differentiated. The ratio is an absolute so going over in screens much is as bad as too few. So just making a fleet of 2 BC and 50 screens doesn't let torpedo attacks be the decider as less capitols allows enemy screens to get closer without fear of longer range guns and do more effective torpedo attacks themselves. So most of the time in an engagement with 2 equal size fleets with 100% efficiency due 1-1 optimum ratio of screens to capitols both fleets have defense bonus to torpedoes maxed so 1 or 2 screens might get hit and sink as they are 1 hit but each side mostly misses with first salvo(for roleplaying/historical basically there might never really be the salvos fired as each side is well screened so just could be a couple of DD's engaging or lucky capitol hit, or DDs running into each other etc to cause the 1 or 2 lost screens). If any capitols are hit it will be just an ORG loss unless they are hit 2x or the 3x a BB requires to actually suffer critical hit and be sunk. That should be very rare with well screened fleets even when one side has much more screens than the other as long as screening ratios kept near 100%. After torpedoes fire a purely ship to ship battle works out just like now with sea attack and efficiency due positioning/screen ratio deciding the losses. Technology of the torpedo level just adds to attacking bonus of the salvo so an attacker with large tech advantage in torpedoes gets some attack bonus. Higher tech screens don't have much affect for defending vs torpedoes except for later tech CV gaining 3 hit hull size but add to AA, positioning, sea attack, and speed similar to how it already works.
To add in aircraft from CV or shore based aircraft its a simple calculation of #'s of air squadrons and capitol ships present. IE- for each attacking air squadron over the defenders CAP squadrons get larger attack bonus against enemy capitol ships if friendly capitols are present in same sea zone. So if 2 attack squadrons from CV of attacking CTF vs 1 defending CAP squadron of defending CTF then 1 attack squadron gets attack bonus (other squadron of defending CTF's CV might be flying to counter attack and if it encounters no aircraft flying CAP over attacking CTF it attacks normally but does not get a combined arms bonus unless friendly capitol present).
Other important advantage of aircraft in battle is the positioning... IE- more difficult to engage/disengage when aircraft present depending on the fleet's task. The choices of whether to fly CAP or all out attack obviously important and a CTF which thinks itself safe in a distant sea zone and launches all out attack has a decisive advantage over its target unless another CTF or land based aircraft find its undefended CVs. But for a CTF to find a target it needs smaller task forces scouting or land based aircraft doing recon for it- or using its own aircraft for scouting rather than CAP and it becomes as much prey as a hunter.
The point of requiring friendly capitols for a full combined operations bonus (attacking squadrons only get attack bonus when outnumbering defending CAP and friendly capitols present, 1 sea zone away CTF does not count as present though even without this bonus more attacking aircraft than defending still does damage, just not getting a bonus to really devastate) is this will prevent making huge fleet of screens just to do a torpedo attack or pin enemy fleet with cheap screens while aircraft attack from distant CTF or land. If a fleet comes under attack from aircraft flying from unknown base it does not stick around, however if there is also enemy fleet capitols present the choice is more difficult and the options more limited on how to disengage is the reasoning here.
Fleets with bad screen ratio also get much poorer positioning so if trying to pin enemy fleet with large ratio screen fleet, the enemy can disengage easier along with the massive lower efficiency from stacking penalty that an all screens fleet would get if it was really large. To have a chance of engaging long enough to do enemy fleet massive damage your fleet must have capitols along with aircraft or shore based attack squadrons for the combined arms bonus which also affects positioning so enemy fleet has more difficult time disengaging. This will encourage more use of CVL purely for defensive CAP to negate attacking aircraft and to get the positioning bonus of having aircraft present which is more often the function they performed in fleets. The 2 hit CV with 2-3 attack squadrons are the hard hitters and consequently expensive and hard choices about risking sending their squadrons on attack instead of CAP and doing more damage vs holding back on CAP. Technologically superior fleets would usually benefit more from taking the risks as their relative ability to damage opponents is higher and ability to sustain damage is also higher- better AA, larger hull CV, better sea attack- so a USN vs IJN Pacific campaign could potentially occur somewhat similar as historically.
Screen ratio also should influence AA. Good ratio sets AA to the max allowed with technology on the defending ships/aircraft while bad ratio gets a few 5 percent negative AA for each 10% the ratio is off ideal 100% ratio of 2x ship hull hit points.
Of course aircraft do little damage at night and only get combined arms attack bonus vs capitols (large slow targets). Attacking aircraft flying from CTF in another sea zone lowers sea attack of aircraft by maybe 50%(longer flight times and lining up runs causes more time between attacks but reduced to 25% by techs so later in war attacks from further away/neighboring sea zone become more effective).
So the choice is keep CTF in same sea zone as naval battle occurring and do full aircraft attack damage which might not be huge with early game techs even with combined arms bonus but if you have more attack squadrons than defenders CAP and willing to put your CTF at risk. Attacking from other sea zone for less air attack but minimal risk to CTF. If CTF attacks enemy fleet in neighboring sea with no friendly naval ships present in that sea zone then mostly ORG damage results in early war, just as if it was land based aircraft attacking long distance as there is no combined operations bonus. Later techs could increase long distance attacks but full bonus should always require combined operations of friendly fleets engaging in same sea zone as the aircraft are attacking.
This allows many of the choices present in real naval operations- except supply problems and how do subs fit into actual battles plus relative differences in pilot training and aircraft reduced by abstraction to only what is dif in the techs and national training and the problems presented in a game how to represent code breaking but overall would improve naval combat hugely I think.
For the subs just add them to screens if they get into a naval battle for purposes of torpedo attack but subs not fit into the screening ratio unless right late war tech researched (subs should not improve AA or give the defense of DD or CL do as screens). Since subs much more expensive then a DD and putting them in engagement puts them at higher risk from capitol/air attack they should usually remain in strategic/convoy attack mode unless its a desperate situation, perhaps have AI give them a similar weight to CV in whether to risk engagement).
This system should if I haven't missed something huge be able to reflect many of the historical kind of battles which were inconclusive. IE- Different fleet sizes/compositions in battles during the early war without aircraft present were mostly inconclusive as one side or the other disengaged, early war with aircraft present there was fleet damage but aircraft were not doing massive damage yet but if one side completely lack defensive CAP still decisive damage. If a situation arises of just BB's vs BB's aside from the affects of screening ratio(efficiency and disengage speed and torpedoes which would be mostly equal between 2 BB fleets) it would play out how it does already which I feel is based more on Jutland scenarios not WWII naval battles.
IE- an early war Japanese fleet with 3 CV 5 DD (17% off ideal screen ratio = 5% penalty) attacking US fleet of 2 CV, 4 BB 18 DD (12% off ideal screen ratio also = 5% penalty) in another sea zone the Japanese could have +2 attack squadrons over defenders CAP and do damage but get between 50-25% penalty for long distance attack. If US land base aircraft present on nearby sea zone island find and attack the Japanese CTF which left no aircraft flying CAP then the US also gets between 50-25% long distance penalty but slight advantage in not facing a CAP. The Japanese fleet is smaller than the US fleet Japan is attacking so the Japanese +2 attacking aircraft vs 95% screen efficiency of US fleet(screen efficiency also contribute to air defense) does proportionally less damage vs the US land based 2 attack squadrons facing smaller fleet and 95% screen efficiency which means if Japan loses 1 DD its screen ratio would go to +30% off ideal and then get 15% penalty vs US fleet losing 1 DD actually gets improved screen ratio and would lose its 5% penalty. This example battle would end with Japanese losing more even though #'s of aircraft appear equal( 6 attack squadron from Japanese CTF vs 4 US squadron on CAP and 2 land based aircraft squadrons) and the actual ships never engage in a battle in the same sea zone. Trying to show how a Midway type battle could play out. Replace the US land based aircraft with a small CTF in nearby sea zone that moves into same sea zone as Japanese CTF and thus US gains combined arms bonus or give the Japanese fleet more CV or DD and it plays out much differently.
Many variations possible but would make naval game much more interesting as not only are massive decisive victories only possible with coordination between air and naval assets but the island campaign is more important especially early war for the Japanese to establish forward island air bases to overcome later disparity of Japanese CTF power vs US CTF and overall air power. Afterall, if US is able to project mostly only CTF air power vs a net of Japanese forward island airbases even a smaller Japanese fleet and air force can accomplish alot where in the current game once a navy has more BB's/CV's it basically wins.
The only major changes in mechanics in this model would be introduction of hit points for ships which are only used to calculate torpedo hits/misses and the screening efficiency addition which would between equally screened fleets negate torpedoes for the most part. Combined arms bonus for aircraft working with naval assets is not so much a change in mechanics as simply adding how it works with land forces between different arms to naval operations.
Criticism please... what I presented here I think could work well but I might have missed something but the current system is surely extremely unrealistic, not fun, and completely changes the strategic picture of half the war. e strategic picture of half the war.
Last edited:
Wow, I thought I wrote alot
.Here's the thing: I don't really have anything against what you said. Attacking port'ed ships in a heavily defended area SHOULD be dangerous for the attackers.
As mentioned, putting port level and Coastal fort level into the equation is something I will be happy to include for realism's sake.
(of course, if doing this mission, the coastal/port level would be part of the "defenders" equation too, to represent that the attacking fleet can shoot at THEM while approaching, or otherwise not shooting, at any docked ships
)