Naval Operations - An Abstract Approach

[State Machine]

George LeS suggested in my *classic* thread - Tired Ideas and Old Regime Mentality that an examiniation of approaches to the naval aspect of EU3 must be done. One approach being very abstract, and the other approach being much less abstract. George LeS being of the less abstract school. I being of the more abstract school, and Gollum being the catalyst with the following:

I'd like to see a serious change of the naval system. Everything from exploration to blockades in hostile waters requires micromanagement. I suggest that you abolish sea zones completely, as well as naval attrition. Instead, fleets would be based in ports where they would be given assignments such as patrol, blockade [port], transport troops [origin, destination], privateer or just hide/stay in port. These missions would no longer be tied to sea zones, but be dependent on the distance from the port. Naval combat would occur with a certan probability when such missions where conflicting, and the probability should increase with proximity to base. E.g., it would be easier to sneak through the straits of Gibraltar if the blocking fleet was based in Valencia rather than Gibraltar. The range of these missions would increase with naval technology level and depend on ship type (i.e. a real weakness for galleys). Range should be increased by allied (including own) ports on the way to blockades/transports, but ultimately a strategic positioning of the fleet would be required for its efficient use. This will greatly increase the importance of strategic ports, such as Gibraltar and Malta, as well as eliminate much of the micromanagement involved in fleet action (i.e. keeping it away from naval attrition).

Privateering could be a way to reduce or eliminate maintenance, and perhaps even granting an occasional profit, on expense of a casus belli to the affected country. Unchecked, this should have a strong impact on trade, as would patrolling fleets when two countries are at war.

In addition, naval exploration would obviously have to be changed according to similar lines. First, the current system is both micromanagement intensive and unrealistic, as exploration would only provide a reward if the explorer returned to tell about it (which is no requirement now). Second, the abolishment of sea zones would be incompatible with the current system. Instead, let explorers be a global event where the player merely directs the general directions of the voyage (and have no real control over whether the explorers live to return) and port of origin, if it is a government sponsored expedition. If not, the port of origin and perhaps even the initial voyage would be determined by events. Of course, there should be the option to change history, but without the micromanagement and rewards of suicide explorations.

I like the general idea, and previously suggested something vaguely similar for HoI1...

To give a bit of structure to this 1/2 of the discussion, I'll posit a few things:

1) All game mechanisms are abstract, so the question is "how abstract?". This thread is about very abstract approaches.
2) The must productive argument (perhaps?) is that very abstract = no micromanagement. This is an important gameplay principle if used right.
3) The anti position for #2 is simply that direct player control of all/most aspects of the feature works better, both for gameplay and for realism.
4) Gollum's assertion is that *mission-based orders* will be a better game mechanism than any *direct-order* mechanism. I agree.

So, away we go with another take on EU3...

 

[Bismark776]

Well this certainly is one of the more important aspects of the game to be considered. EUIII will cover the golden age of sail afterall. I think that a system similar to that featured in HoI2 is what Gollum was referring to. In HoI2 the sea zones were not only provinces but also grouped into areas that included multiple sea zones. There were two sizes for these larger areas. Then the player could direct missions like patrol missions that would take place in these larger areas. This system is definetly a best of both words kind of thing.
In talking of privateers I agree that you should not have to pay for them, in fact they should yield a profit to you. However there ought to be a lot of regular piracy involved in the game as well as established trade routes that pirates would use. This would all add new aspects to the use of the navy and the use of privateers.
Lastly there is exploration. I believe that there needs to be serious hindrances to the players ability to use his own fleets to explore or direct exploration at all. This is because historically although most explorers were sponsered by a nation, they were not members of the navy. They were essentially private contractors hired out by governments at great expense in order to find resources. Therefore I think that the player should be able to invest large amounts of money into explorers but should not have any direct control over them. Perhaps as time goes on the player recieves rumours of existing lands and can choose from these places where he wants the explorer to go.

 

[unmerged(6147)]

I seen no reason why we need to choose between "abstract" and non-abstract. We can have both.

We can keep the current system but refine the abstract options.

State Machine, I do not know it if was after you stopped playing EU2, but the fact is that Johan at some time introduced a patrol function. You have check box in the ship window. If you first click a route for the ships to sail and then check the checkbox the fleet will repeat the route into eternity providing it does not encounter hostile fleets or a port on its route is controlled by someone you do not have access to or it succumbs to attrition. This seems to be close to the mark regarding the patrol feature adressed above.

More such features, of the kind suggested, could be introduced.

And it would be cool if you did not get knowledge of newly explored areas until someone comes home and tells about it. But I lack suggestions for how to implement it. There seem to be severe problems here. If a seazone or province is explored it is nice to see where to go next (if nothing else because the conq/expl would), which you to some extent can if you the zone/province is revealed. But if it is not revealed you will navigate your explorer/conq in a white mist. It seems that the mission model must be used in such a case (mission=the abstract model). You could theoretically delete the knowledge if the conq/expl did not get "home", whatever that means, but suppose you send another army/fleet into this new area, then they know it as well and then the program needs to check that as well...

If all naval activities were abstracted the game simply would lose a lot of charm. For each change an analysis must be made regarding its pros and cons.

 

[George LeS]

Thank you, State Machine. I am moving toward starting such a thread, but slowly (illness, alas). I strongly feel they should be separate, to avoid the subject getting bogged down by carping from people like me, so my own posting here would be limited. I do suspect that a number of links, one thread to another, would be appropriate (e.g., refute idea A15 in B22).

I do have one suggestion, though; a purely aesthetic one: avoid the word "mission". In this period, "orders" or "instructions" would sound better.

Daniel A: I suspect you & I will end up on the same side, but I'd ask you not to try to criticise here, for the reasons given.

One more thing. State Machine, your signature is "Marx has taught us that the proletariat must break up the State Machine. -- Lenin"

He certainly set up a system which achieved that, didn't he?

 

[Smirfy]

I feel that mundane tasks can be achieved with abstaction with ships being put into blockade or escort pools. But for specific operations or when combat is joined we need a not so abstract model.

Having said that if you come up with an abstract model which both works and feels good I will be the first to congratulate you.

 

[unmerged(10262)]

seems like an excelent proposal, the naval part has sucked in all paradox games i played so far (have not played HOI2 though)

 

[Symmetry]

State Machine, I do not know it if was after you stopped playing EU2, but the fact is that Johan at some time introduced a patrol function. You have check box in the ship window. If you first click a route for the ships to sail and then check the checkbox the fleet will repeat the route into eternity providing it does not encounter hostile fleets or a port on its route is controlled by someone you do not have access to or it succumbs to attrition. This seems to be close to the mark regarding the patrol feature adressed above.

Unfortunatly, a ship's patrol stops when it runs into a pirate, then requiring two move orders afterwords to return it to its origonal route, so it actually takes more micromanagement to use the partrol feature than to go pirate huntin manually. Patrol is still useful for warding off invasions and using a large fleet to blockade a port.

 

[TheDarkside]

Yeah there is a certain charm with building your fleet and giving them direct orders. Would there even be any graphical representation if it were abstracted so much, or just text? I love seeing the ships move around the map and engage eachother, and being able to send them off to a location to perhaps blockade for a little while, then land troops later or whatever. Not have to plan everything ahead of time and not being able to adapt to new situations.

For example... you decide to send a fleet to some country abroad but upon arrival your ships can see that the enemy has too large a force. So maybe now you try some diplomacy to get military access with the country bordering your target, station your troops there to wait for an opportunity meanwhile your fleet blockades the enemy port. With an abstract system of missions oyu'd have to cancel the mission, wait for the ships to return, then send out 2 new missions and hope you dont change your mind again or new unforseen events occur. This maybe somewhat more realistic but it doesn't sound very fun.

Also it's ironic to point out, you can argue the current method of exploration is already very much abstract... it abstracts away the whole hassle of sending ships to specific locations, waiting for them to return then sending them out again. Instead you just move your ship where you want and instantly see what's there.

 

[cwhomer]

In talking of privateers I agree that you should not have to pay for them, in fact they should yield a profit to you. However there ought to be a lot of regular piracy involved in the game as well as established trade routes that pirates would use. This would all add new aspects to the use of the navy and the use of privateers.

Well, it should be a risk/reward proposition, or if we want to take out the risk part (since most privateers were privately funded), an occasional and infrequent reward. It definitely should not be a steady income stream, because that's ahistorical.

Lastly there is exploration. I believe that there needs to be serious hindrances to the players ability to use his own fleets to explore or direct exploration at all. This is because historically although most explorers were sponsered by a nation, they were not members of the navy. They were essentially private contractors hired out by governments at great expense in order to find resources. Therefore I think that the player should be able to invest large amounts of money into explorers but should not have any direct control over them. Perhaps as time goes on the player recieves rumours of existing lands and can choose from these places where he wants the explorer to go.

Ideas about how to abstract/un-mirco-manage exploration that have been discussed:

-Making exploration a mission that can be targeted to regions (on a HOI II area/region scheme)
-Limiting exploration by factoring in the expedition's morale
-I've also floated the idea of assigning explorers and TIC levels, explorers must be equal to or higher the TIC level in order to explore it

I'd like to see a Galleon convoy system/trade route implemented in EU III. I'd like to see a more area/mission based naval engine. I'd like to see privatees function like an auxiliary navy, cheaper to build but less effective.

 

[Registered]

Well, it should be a risk/reward proposition, or if we want to take out the risk part (since most privateers were privately funded), an occasional and infrequent reward. It definitely should not be a steady income stream, because that's ahistorical.

Agreed that income from piracy should be incidental.
The cost, or risk at least, could be that your privateers might turn pirate if pickings are slim and turn against your own, and your allies traders.

 

[cwhomer]

Agreed that income from piracy should be incidental.
The cost, or risk at least, could be that your privateers might turn pirate if pickings are slim and turn against your own, and your allies traders.

Or start a war.

 

[Bismark776]

I think one thing that people here don't understand is that Privateers were not a military force. They didn't hire large masses of privateers to fight foreign nations for them. The idea is absurd. Privateers were simply pirates. They didn't have warships but merchant ships outfitted for some level of combat. They were just pirates with a government stamp of approval in terms of how they operated. In addition, privateers had legal contracts with the nation they worked for and they had to pay a certain percentage of their gains to that nation. If you use privateers and most european nations did, then you should make some income from if they are successful. Obviously it shouldn't be alot, but as long as they keep boarding ships and taking cargo the player should get an income. That is purely historical.

 

[George LeS]

I think one thing that people here don't understand is that Privateers were not a military force. They didn't hire large masses of privateers to fight foreign nations for them. The idea is absurd. Privateers were simply pirates. They didn't have warships but merchant ships outfitted for some level of combat. They were just pirates with a government stamp of approval in terms of how they operated. In addition, privateers had legal contracts with the nation they worked for and they had to pay a certain percentage of their gains to that nation. If you use privateers and most european nations did, then you should make some income from if they are successful. Obviously it shouldn't be alot, but as long as they keep boarding ships and taking cargo the player should get an income. That is purely historical.

They were not "simply pirates"; their legal status makes that clear. If anyone tried to hang them upon capturing them, he would himself be in trouble. That said, they do resemble pirates, in that they were not a military force; they were out there for profit. The real benefit a player gets should not be a profit to the crown, from their depredations, but (a) an indirect boost to the economy, e.g., the wealth of a port city, & (b) the damage they do the the enemy's economy. Sort of a free blockade, although a somewhat leaky one.

 

[cwhomer]

I think one thing that people here don't understand is that Privateers were not a military force. They didn't hire large masses of privateers to fight foreign nations for them. The idea is absurd. Privateers were simply pirates. They didn't have warships but merchant ships outfitted for some level of combat. They were just pirates with a government stamp of approval in terms of how they operated. In addition, privateers had legal contracts with the nation they worked for and they had to pay a certain percentage of their gains to that nation. If you use privateers and most european nations did, then you should make some income from if they are successful. Obviously it shouldn't be alot, but as long as they keep boarding ships and taking cargo the player should get an income. That is purely historical.

I thought my suggestions, particularly treating them as auxiliaries (or militia if we want to use an HOI 2 example) took those points into consideration.

 

[cwhomer]

They were not "simply pirates"; their legal status makes that clear. If anyone tried to hang them upon capturing them, he would himself be in trouble. That said, they do resemble pirates, in that they were not a military force; they were out there for profit. The real benefit a player gets should not be a profit to the crown, from their depredations, but (a) an indirect boost to the economy, e.g., the wealth of a port city, & (b) the damage they do the the enemy's economy. Sort of a free blockade, although a somewhat leaky one.

All good points, but the Crown was entitled to a percentage of the earnings. I think a small direct profit is historically in line.

 

[Registered]

They were not "simply pirates"; their legal status makes that clear. If anyone tried to hang them upon capturing them, he would himself be in trouble. That said, they do resemble pirates, in that they were not a military force; they were out there for profit. The real benefit a player gets should not be a profit to the crown, from their depredations, but (a) an indirect boost to the economy, e.g., the wealth of a port city, & (b) the damage they do the the enemy's economy. Sort of a free blockade, although a somewhat leaky one.

A percentage of their takings always went to the government, so the player should be able to get income from them if they are succesfull.In the case of privateers sailing for the WIC (Dutch West Indies Company) the government (or at least the Stadthouder) got between 3.5% and 10% of the loot (which could mean a lot of money).
Privateers did not always operate alone either. There were, in the Republic at least, even complete companies whose sole business was privateering. IIRC the last of those companies died as late as the 19th century.

EDIT:

Or start a war.

Meh, shouldn't think so. Though you might get an event along the lines of "one of our privateers has abandoned his charter and attacked merchants of a friedly nation, they demand repparations be paid"
Giving you the choice between paying up like a good boy, or a hit in relations and a temp. CB.

 

[Symmetry]

Hmm, I seem to remember that in times of actual war the regular navies of warring powers would frequently engage in privateering as well. Not the line of battle of course, but the lesser rated ships.

 

[unmerged(8830)]

I must disagree with the idea presented in the opening post. If you've ever played the Civilization series, you will know that in the later games, they have decided to make the air combat missions more abstract...

Well, I've played those games, and I sincerely dislike the abstract missions. The interface is hard to use simply because you have little graphical representation of where your units are, and at the same time it often prompts more micromanagement than it saved. Personally, while the air missions are cleverly designed, they are still not at all fun to use, and I sincerely dislike them.

Instead, I would suggest the old approach be used, with a few twists. It worked well, except for a few key problems: the AI didn't use it effectively, and everlasting explorers.

Well, the naval AI could be much improved if they actually had something to focus on, rather than running happily around the seas, gaily attacking your ships whenever they happened to bump into them--this is easily solved by the addition of supply and trade routes onto the map in between ports. Not only does this solve the problem of how to have trade between CoTs represented, it also creates realistic lines that the trade follows, it makes it so that where the privateers sit makes sense, and it gives the naval AI something to focus on, so that they can have a real thing to interdict... Of course, effects will have to be implemented if they ARE interdicted, which, if trade routes are done well, is easy enough; in addition, if they cut off trade routes to colonies, essential supplies could become scarcer.

As for the everlasting explorers, simply make them mutiny if they go too long without docking, and make the AI recognize and account for that fact. Realistic, and if done right, will stop you from just roving around the map without a care in the world.

Of course, I did go a little off topic there, however, I simply will say: don't make it more abstract. No matter how realistic that might be, it is one of the most irritating things in an interface to deal with, and it makes the learning curve much higher, makes the game less fun, since you can't direct your navies, and furthermore, I don't think it's that realistic in the first place anyway.

The current system just needs tweaking.

 

[ulmont]

Well, the naval AI could be much improved if they actually had something to focus on, rather than running happily around the seas, gaily attacking your ships whenever they happened to bump into them--this is easily solved by the addition of supply and trade routes onto the map in between ports. Not only does this solve the problem of how to have trade between CoTs represented, it also creates realistic lines that the trade follows, it makes it so that where the privateers sit makes sense, and it gives the naval AI something to focus on, so that they can have a real thing to interdict...

Galactic Civilizations had (and II probably still has, but I haven't gotten far enough in the campaign to see it) this. Trade routes were represented by little ships that flowed to / from your planets from / to the alien planets. If at war, you could attack trade ships; if enough trade ships were destroyed, the trade route would be broken and you would lose money.

 

[State Machine]

State Machine, I do not know it if was after you stopped playing EU2, but the fact is that Johan at some time introduced a patrol function.

Yes I know, but as Symmetry mentions, there is a price...

I do have one suggestion, though; a purely aesthetic one: avoid the word "mission". In this period, "orders" or "instructions" would sound better.

One more thing. State Machine, your signature is "Marx has taught us that the proletariat must break up the State Machine. -- Lenin"

Firstly, I think that whatever words we use in argument will suffice - ie, mission. Whatever words/terms and such are used in the game should reflect the period and generally add to the gaming experience.

Secondly, my sig is happenstance... I adapted my nick long before I found that quote, Though I obviously get a kick out of the quote. My major sig, over time, has been, "The public, the public... How many fools does it take to make a public?" Though, I have a new, cool quote from Abba Eban - "History teaches us that men and nations behave wisely once they have exhausted all other alternatives."

I feel that mundane tasks can be achieved with abstaction with ships being put into blockade or escort pools. But for specific operations or when combat is joined we need a not so abstract model.

Having said that if you come up with an abstract model which both works and feels good I will be the first to congratulate you.

My vague HoI suggestion was that patrols, convoys, escorts, general naval superiority expression, etc. would be done very abstractly. But, obviously, an assault at a given place would require direct orders by the player/ai...

Well, I've played those games, and I sincerely dislike the abstract missions. The interface is hard to use simply because you have little graphical representation of where your units are, and at the same time it often prompts more micromanagement than it saved. Personally, while the air missions are cleverly designed, they are still not at all fun to use, and I sincerely dislike them.

I don't know whether you have seen HoI2. I have not. But, I'll say what I said in the HoI beta. Namely that air (and sea) missions should be mostly no-brainer type things. You set up what your exceptable loss is, and you set up what your target priorities are, and voila things are done and such... I think you should have a very clear mechanism to see what is going on, so I agree with you...