I do not see a real problem with it.Smirfy said:
Transports should reduce the .org reduction yes.Stingray said:
-
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.
Look at it as the ship being somewhat damaged and under repair by the crew.Smirfy said:
And in any case, the player will usually use fleets, not individual ships.
Registered said:
I just look at it as a concept that should not be applied to naval. It did not work in HOI for naval and should be dropped and a better system adopted in its place.
I am hard pushed to find one example were organization failed in a fleet action let alone evaporated due to length of time at sea.
From what I've read here, it seems Org is just that, organization, & loss represents disorganization/disruption. If so, it definitely is not what we're looking at to penalize time at sea & distance from base. Where it would make sense is in the wake of storms or battles.
For what we're talking about, reducing effective numbers on station, plus morale hits for really excessive time, would be more appropriate. (And attrition just has to go.)
For what we're talking about, reducing effective numbers on station, plus morale hits for really excessive time, would be more appropriate. (And attrition just has to go.)
George LeS said:
Org was a system brought into HOI to simulate 2 things firstly the difference between for example the French and German armires in 1940
Secondly it was to simulate the decline in combat ability for continued usage like for instance Barbarossa.
For naval in this game the system was straight copy of the land one, as we know fleets operated from the Barents sea to the south seas far away from base without degragation of effectiveness also fleets and ships invariably remained under orders till they were sunk!
Likewise the Portuguese, Dutch , French, English in the EUIII timeframe could sail to the four corners of the earth without this handicap in their ability to project power.
EUIII needs a new system for naval and it must not simply be a port from the land system that will be in use with the game.
Last edited:
George LeS said:
I'd say that would be a good solution. Add to that an interruption of supply/trade lines by ships patrolling a designated area, and that would affect overseas troops, especially the higher LandTech you have. Without supplies of guns, ammo and gunpowder, your colonial troops would be an easy pickings for the native hordes.
True, for this particular case your system might work better. But there are other cases to concider. How do we simulate the effect of storms on a fleet?George LeS said:
The inevitable disseases that would hit the crew (though the effect of that should lower with better naval tech). Those things cannot be simulated by reducing the amount of ships (not without horribly confusing the player at any rate)
I do agree that the role of attrition should be severly reduced. As long as a fleet is within sight of shore (non-hostle shores at least) it should be able to re-supply there and not suffer from attrition. If a fleet passed through severe weather or has to cross a very wide body of water (pacific) some attrition is justified. Ships did get lost at sea after all.
Registered said:
Welcome aboard matey!
Registered said:
Have the storm effect the fleet subject to modifer for tech,
Registered said:
When we think of Suffrens campaign in the Indian ocean and the many battles in the West Indies should we consider that desease though it occured is not worth modelling especially when the same model will cover the baltic Med and North sea.
Can we not hope for some viable mechanics first and then see if there is a need for this type of modelling
Registered said:
Attrition did nothing for gameplay apart from anything else
Registered said:
These things tended to happen inshore ie Armada, have the storm modifier increase inshore a 2% chance to sink a ship goes to 5%
Registered said:
The current attrition concept makes exploration at Sea so exciting and you really jump of joy when you get an explorer. With your suggestion it sounds that as soon as you get your first explorer he will be able to map his way all between Asia and Portugal and some more.
It also makes wars at sea far from a base very difficult /before NT 41) and challenging.
If your suggestion would be implemented we would thus suffer from a from a loss of game quality. A loss we need to compensate for somehow.
Morale could compensate. Basically a ship, especially one in early tech, going into uncharted waters would suffer a dramatic decrease in morale. The quality of the explorer would determine how fast morale drops. If morale drops too low the ship could return home of it's own accord. Possibly without the explorer if the crew was particularely annoyed with him and put him over the side (This happened to Hudson for example). In this case it should also be possible for the ship to turn pirate and escape the player's controll.Daniel A said:
Daniel A said:
You cannot tie the mechanics for naval warefare to that of exploration the result is the game becomes a chore
Sure explorers should suffer attrition but not warships in the Med or Baltic just cause your busy elseware
There are 4 distinct effects on the table here:
1. Effective strength.
2. Attrition.
3. Org.
4. Morale.
IMO, each has it's place.
(1) I've already discussed at some length.
(2) It's ridiculous to base attrition on time at sea, given that we do have storms already in the game. The should be the main non-combat cause of loss, ESPECIALLY in coastal provinces. The other main cause would logically be sailing in uncharted waters. The latter would let us build it into exploration, whether handled manually now, or more abstractly.
(3) Makes sense after storms or battles. I'm not sure where else it belongs.
(4) Morale definitely should be the main effect of time at sea. The possibility of turning pirate is historical for single ships & small squadrons, but obviously not for big fleets. Note that it could still make exploration as dicey as you'd like.
Note that the Armada, from the N Sea to Spain would fall under #'s 2, & 3, & increasingly 4, as well, all simultaneously. Whether we want to use all 4 is a matter for debate, I'm just pointing out how they'd work if we did.
Regarding resupply at sea, in coastal waters, I'm already on record for it. It should be limited in how many ships can do so, probably depending on leadership & tech level. But it's definitely (IMO) the way to go.
Registered: You posted
"True, for this particular case your system might work better. But there are other cases to concider. How do we simulate the effect of storms on a fleet?
The inevitable disseases that would hit the crew (though the effect of that should lower with better naval tech). Those things cannot be simulated by reducing the amount of ships (not without horribly confusing the player at any rate)"
I largely agree with your perspective, except that I'd make storms dangerous in ANY coastal province.
What I'd like to see is different mission types, which would entail different effects. Blockade would differ from raiding, transport, exploration, transit, pursuit, flight, etc. It would probably be the one with the most special character, but we could deal with the problems common or unique to each. For instance, when transporting troops, we could, if we wanted, distinguish the morale effects on the soldiers from those on the sailors. It would just take thought & discussion on (a) what the missions should be, & (b) what their special needs are.
1. Effective strength.
2. Attrition.
3. Org.
4. Morale.
IMO, each has it's place.
(1) I've already discussed at some length.
(2) It's ridiculous to base attrition on time at sea, given that we do have storms already in the game. The should be the main non-combat cause of loss, ESPECIALLY in coastal provinces. The other main cause would logically be sailing in uncharted waters. The latter would let us build it into exploration, whether handled manually now, or more abstractly.
(3) Makes sense after storms or battles. I'm not sure where else it belongs.
(4) Morale definitely should be the main effect of time at sea. The possibility of turning pirate is historical for single ships & small squadrons, but obviously not for big fleets. Note that it could still make exploration as dicey as you'd like.
Note that the Armada, from the N Sea to Spain would fall under #'s 2, & 3, & increasingly 4, as well, all simultaneously. Whether we want to use all 4 is a matter for debate, I'm just pointing out how they'd work if we did.
Regarding resupply at sea, in coastal waters, I'm already on record for it. It should be limited in how many ships can do so, probably depending on leadership & tech level. But it's definitely (IMO) the way to go.
Registered: You posted
"True, for this particular case your system might work better. But there are other cases to concider. How do we simulate the effect of storms on a fleet?
The inevitable disseases that would hit the crew (though the effect of that should lower with better naval tech). Those things cannot be simulated by reducing the amount of ships (not without horribly confusing the player at any rate)"
I largely agree with your perspective, except that I'd make storms dangerous in ANY coastal province.
What I'd like to see is different mission types, which would entail different effects. Blockade would differ from raiding, transport, exploration, transit, pursuit, flight, etc. It would probably be the one with the most special character, but we could deal with the problems common or unique to each. For instance, when transporting troops, we could, if we wanted, distinguish the morale effects on the soldiers from those on the sailors. It would just take thought & discussion on (a) what the missions should be, & (b) what their special needs are.
I think that #1 is more like the combination of the other three, not a seperate thing. If a fleet becomes spread out (for whatever reason) it loses effective strength, ditto for loss of morale and loss of ships.George LeS said:
Yes... I don't think i said they should not be. If anything a storm in coastal waters is more dangroues than one at full sea. (no sanbanks/cliffs to run into). Being in friendly waters does not make the cliffs any softer.George LeS said:
Different missions would be ideal yes. Although their number should not grow too great. I'm not sure if it's a good idea to, say, have seperate types for battle and pusruit. That would require you to micromanage all you naval engagements, not something i would relish. It would, perhaps be better if you could tell a fleet to perform a mission in a (player designated?) set of seazones. Missions could be interdicting/escorting trade, anti-piracy mission, actively searching and destroying enemy fleets, blockading a specific port.George LeS said:
Let's hope HOI2's system of naval missions can provide some experience for how fleets work. Having the fleet in port, assigning it to blockade a port and getting all the information needed (how effective the blockade is expected to be, how many ships can be kept on station, that sort of thing) would be nice.
1. Registered, by "effective strength", meant my proposal for handling fleets on blockade, that is, reducing number of ships counting as on station. In that sense, it is separate from the other 3. Other than that, I think we're on the same page here.
2. As to the number of missions, who knows? That's a matter for some thought. I, too, would prefer to keep the number fairly low, which means telescoping some into others, where possible.
3. There are 2 senses of pursuit possible: (a) trying to catch a fleet at sea, & (b) pursuing a beaten enemy. IMO, only the 1st might be a mission, & could as easily be called "interception", or something else. Your phrase, "actively searching and destroying enemy fleets" is just what I meant, & works just fine, except it involves more typing. It would differ from general patrol, though, where, like blockade, a station is involved. But I don't want to insist on it, or on any of the list I gave. Except blockade, I just meant it as a starting point. What can be cut, should be.
4. Gwalcmai, I agree, but your post made me think of one possible problem. Currently, armies don't load in port, but from port to ships at sea. But they do unload automatically. If this is still the case in EUIII, it could complicate things. I'd like to see troops load, & stay loaded, in port. This means the only way to beat a blockade is to fight your way through; I don't see evasion, unless it's possible to start the fight & retreat to an adjacent sea zone. (& would the AI ever do this, as things stand.)
2. As to the number of missions, who knows? That's a matter for some thought. I, too, would prefer to keep the number fairly low, which means telescoping some into others, where possible.
3. There are 2 senses of pursuit possible: (a) trying to catch a fleet at sea, & (b) pursuing a beaten enemy. IMO, only the 1st might be a mission, & could as easily be called "interception", or something else. Your phrase, "actively searching and destroying enemy fleets" is just what I meant, & works just fine, except it involves more typing. It would differ from general patrol, though, where, like blockade, a station is involved. But I don't want to insist on it, or on any of the list I gave. Except blockade, I just meant it as a starting point. What can be cut, should be.
4. Gwalcmai, I agree, but your post made me think of one possible problem. Currently, armies don't load in port, but from port to ships at sea. But they do unload automatically. If this is still the case in EUIII, it could complicate things. I'd like to see troops load, & stay loaded, in port. This means the only way to beat a blockade is to fight your way through; I don't see evasion, unless it's possible to start the fight & retreat to an adjacent sea zone. (& would the AI ever do this, as things stand.)
I know it's just that, the way i see it, reducing org. would be a representation of reducing the number of ships available to the fleet. Just a more widely applicable representation.George LeS said:
I was misunderstanding you then, i thought you were talking about pursuing a defeated enemy.George LeS said:
Registered said:
It is because of the wider application that I'm not comfortable with org. The reduced # proposal was intended specifically to represent the fact that the RN is just has fewer ships, without having in any way lost effectiveness. Also, if they were really drubbed, only a % of the ships assigned to blockade would be affected--which is what the mechanic represents. At the extreme, it might imply that 4 of 8 ships assigned were wiped out. The other 4 would show up (perhaps after a delay), at the base.
Maybe it wouldn't work, or would be too involved, or something; I prefer it as a way of simulation the reality. But then, it was my suggestion
In HOI2 you load armies onto transports by placing them in the same port province, selecting the army and clicking a button (although it would be nice if that brought up a list of fleets that could take the unit in case there was more than one instead of just loading the troops on the first one). They will unload either by selecting the fleet and clicking the unload button or when you leave port move the fleet into a port (the same or another, IIRC).George LeS said: