Keep sea provinces add naval tac map

[kionas76]

I think that especially a naval tactical screen whould make the naval combat very interesting.It doesnt has to be anything specific.Just a map with a lot of small one side hexes in which the players will enter in combat when 1 of them has managed to find the others presence.No specific graphs needed,just sea.This way a lot of things like better detection,longer range and other things will have a meaning.Big ships will represent 1 ship per unit,while DD and subs more.
It doesnt even has to be different depending on the different sea province combat occurs.Its use will be only for naval combat including CV stikes against enemy task forces(not in port).

 

[Dievs]

Have you ever tried to manage the UK fleet in HoI, where there is no involvement on tactical level?

If anything, fleets should be more autonomous and strategic than before.

 

[Shadow Knight]

This is not going to happen. If you want a naval tactical game there are plenty out there. HOI and HOI2 are grand strategy games, that level of tactical has no business showing up. Besides if the navy got a tactical map like that there would hundreds of people wailing and much nashing of teeth because ground combat didn't get it.

 

[kionas76]

I know that HoI is a strategic game and that it shouldnt involve a to much tactics.BUT since i am a player of which 90% games were JAP you might understand that i have a certain interest on the fact that naval combat till now-HoI1 was 1 of the most problematic figures and still is no matter 1.06 or whatever.Why is that?Well lets say this.A nice task force of CV/BB/CA/DD up to 12 units moves to a certain area.There it happens to meet an enemy surface force with no CV air power thought.No i real life what should have happened is that CV are out of gun range an send sortyafter sorty untill enemy force is either destroyed or damaged enought for a safe gun practise from friendly ships.In HoI reallity this never happens and in fact CV get a really heavy damage by ships that shouldnt even manage to approach.
The other issue is range.If you take a group of lets say 4 BB with 15inch. weapons and meet a Cruiser force 2/3/4/5 times stronger BUT armed with 10-12 inch. guns what whould you do?Yuo whould fire long range and keep a distance from enemy guns.Even if you didnt manage to sink all the Cruisers you only losses whould be ammo for weapons.In HoI a same senario will in the end lead to losses form you as well since range is not aplied in any way exept better stats.
Do you see my point now and why i ask a general naval comabt map.Is it to much for a naval power in the game to be able to deploy its strenght as it should?
In other words why to build Yamato if with many more cheap cruisers i will eventually win the day?Why build CV if they get hit by ships in a TOTALLY unrealistic aproach?
So unless the dev. team figures out something different i think a naval tac. combat map is the best idea.

 

[unmerged(15623)]

Well, I'm also a player who likes to loiter along the sunny shores of the pacific around 90% of the time (the remaining 10% being spent at North Atlantic, Med and along the South American coastline hunting wayward panzershiffes).

However I definetly do not want see any kind of "tactical combat screen" for naval combat. I'd actually prefer them to get rid of any kind of naval combat screen altogether and replace it with lively, generated after action reports.


As for your reasonings on naval combat, I'll just kill two birds with one stone and say that Scarnhorst scored one of the (if not the) longest naval combat hits on a moving naval target when she fired her 11" guns at the CV Glorious. So no, carriers weren't totally beyond the threath of surface attacks (Glorious being sunk in that engagement) nor did the largest gun mean the longest range. You also have to keep in mind that any kind of naval weapon needs to be within reasonable range from the target to score a hit, and that range is rather similar for CAs and BBs alike.

And for the cruiser vs. battleship thesis... I think battle of Tassafaronga serves as a good example here. The battle saw 8 Japanese destroyers overloaded with supplies manhandle an American taskforce of 5 cruisers and 6 destroyers (one CA sunk, three heavily damaged for one sunk Japanese DD). Battlelines and heavy forces may rule the waves during daylight, yes, but during the uncertainity of night (and most Pacific surface actions happened during night) even a lowly destroyer can be a battleships demise.

 

[kionas76]

Well lets see the facts.I said that i am not talking about a lone CV in a cruise of Pasific and in case that you paid attention to it the example whould be enought since i mentioned a TASK FORCE with surface combat units.BTW how many CV were sunk because of SURFACE guns and how many from airplanes.Well i suggest that instead of looking the exeption try see the majority of cases.As about the naval combat you mentioned it is what we can call an naval ambush.Something HoI dont include till now.
One last thing.JAP gunners were by far more superior to USA crews untill the later introduced radar techs in finding and firing.Till then the Japs could handle naval gunnery especially at night the way they wanted.They also had a very good weapon named long lance-a torpedo with excelent characteristics.All that matters.Unfortunatelly the way it is now in HoI and without a nav.tac. map none of them will so naval combat will continue to give trouble.
So much for the birds you killed.

 

[unmerged(15623)]

No need to get upset, I mean you no harm.

You should by no means assume that I was suggesting the surface forces should be able to actively engage carriers. It happened only twice during the entire duration of the war, afterall. I just pointed out it was possible, but you apperantly knew that already.

You are correct in assuming that battle of Tassafaronga was an ambush though. Your post didn't reveal whether you knew that the Americans were the ambushers there, however...

I naturally know about high (if short term) quality of Japanese training and their excellent torpedos. But if you knew this, why did you suggest that battleships alone could defeate a cruiser force as much 5 times larger? Japanese started making these improvements in the quality of their torpedos and night fighting training/equipment after the Washington naval treaty left them into an unfavourable position BB wise. They wanted to create cruiser and destroyer force that could engage battleships on even terms.

 

[kionas76]

Ok i am not upset and if it seem like that then sorry.
Now as you might already have understood i play a great deal of naval combat in HoI and with some countries this is the most important aspect like JAP.Unfortunatelly in HoI 1 this is quite troubled issue and till now still is.Some of the examples i offered in my postes so far are only a part of it.
Now lets see the things the right way shall we?
If you have a passage or a straight(therefore not big naval area)with multiple small island or hide places for a small ship to hide like DD before radar era and manage to make an ambush probably this punny DD will destroy even the bigger and stronger BB evr made.Why?Well with superior speed,good training,torpedo functioning ok,surprise it will be hitting an elephant in a middle of a classroom(even the worst shoter can do that).
My post however was not refearing to that case.I talk about naval engagment in strenght of TF atleast.These battles that in minutes can decide a war or almost one.Naval ambushes from small units do happen but JAPs didnt loose the war at sea because of that.
Now dont get my wrong but in HoI 1 naval combat is bad(to say the least)and since i dont know how it will be treated in HoI2 i made a suggestion.If the dev. team has better idea then ok with me.I will test and then see what happens.Right now with no info only think we can do is to wish and hope.
I guess no problem with that?

P.S. Yes i knew who ambushed whom.