Time at Sea

[unmerged(58571)]

I think the game would benefit greatly if naval ranges are done away with and replaced by a maximum time at sea, which could be modified by technologies and events. If a naval unit stays at sea longer than its maximum time it should suffer attrition, but if a unit stays in port for at least 24h its time at sea is reset .

Interface wise, players should select port call frequency when giving orders to naval units (obviously, the maximum time at sea for the unit with the lowest such being given orders should be displayed and would make a natural default) and whether the unit(s) should make automated calls at its home base or just pick the closest friendly port. A message type for alerting players when units make automated calls should be available; for instance, something like "CV TF 5 has set course for Pearl Harbour to refuel. [OK] [Select]".

The most obvious advantage of such a system would be getting rid of the peculiar situation where ships can stay at sea for five years but not be ordered to enter a province next to their patrol area, or get trapped in the Baltic or Mediterranean Sea with no friendly port and stay there for the remainder of the war.

 

[unmerged(34050)]

Like this idea very much. e.g. British units would have relatively short ranges (historically, anticipating combat in relatively narrow areas of N. Sea/Med, and depending on availability of many bases worldwide) meaning few + range techs to start, while US/Japan would have longer-legged navies (anticipating engagements in open Pacific).

Could research techs like "fleet train" to get time-at-sea bonuses. e.g. UK fleets generally did not stay at sea for more than a week until the British Pacific Fleet in 44-45 picked up on US practices like the fleet train and side-by-side refueling.

Of course time at sea limit would give a range limit too as if your max time at sea is 7 days, your range/combat radius equals how far you can move from your base in 3.5 days.

And, you can only rebase naval units to friendly naval bases within 7 days travel.

 

[sbr]

Very good idea.

 

[henryjai]

or a proper system of supplying warships have to be implemented.

 

[pizi]

I like this idea.

 

[naqada]

Good idea. IIRC it was like this in EU2.

 

[Myth]

I also support this idea.

 

[Bhaal]

This would be sweet and would counter the ai having no range limit, as long as there would be supply techs to improve it. This really would be a great idea.

 

[unmerged(56754)]

Like this idea very much. e.g. British units would have relatively short ranges (historically, anticipating combat in relatively narrow areas of N. Sea/Med, and depending on availability of many bases worldwide.

Huh? Britain didn't play a role in the Pacific nopt becuase they didn't have the ability to, they couldn't becuase the few ships they did have were in the Atlantic.

You even say not until '44/'45 did Britain start performing long range actions, which is becuase, German defeat allowed Britain to transfer ships to that theatre.

When they had as many ships as the USN, they performed in the same fashion, Britain shouldn't be restricted

 

[Bhaal]

the british sent the Repulse and the Prince of Wales to malaya in 1941, which were both promptly sunk by japanese aircraft. So they had the ability just not the ships. By the time the british could send the ships, they were not needed as the US had wiped out the IJN as an effective offensive fleet.

just my 0.02$.

 

[David29]

The British Pacific Fleet played a role in the latter stages of the war. Mainly, it supported American operations (both at sea and also on land) and was really only there for political reasons rather than practical reasons (ie. the protection of Britains overseas interests).

Although the name 'British' Pacific Fleet is actually misleading, as it comprised of ships from many different commonwealth nations.

 

[unmerged(58571)]

Arrgh, please don't use my thread for a discussion about the performance of specific navies or ships that is bound to turn into a flame war

 

[unmerged(104110)]

Flaming is just the way we here say we love each other

 

[Chaplain]

Another vote in favor of this concept.

 

[unmerged(71941)]

I support this concept also, good idea. I'm assuming that the resupply popups could get turned off or pushed to the log as in HOI 2.

Len

 

[MaximusII]

I like this idea
But there should be like maybe "resupply ships" or brigades, like the german subs that increased the range of the Kriegsmarine. Don't remember their names though....

 

[Shadow Master]

I like the idea of having ships having to stay near, and return regularly to, their home base. Basically, go out on whatever mission, and return to base as needed, then automatically resume the mission! Great idea!

I do have a couple questions, though.

First, OP said port (as opposed to) naval base, is this a typo or intentional? In other words, do the ships need any port to meet up with a supply ship and re-supply from it(them), or would a naval base be needed?

Second, How would the replenishment ships be represented? Actual ships (convoys), or abstracted? So in other words, a nation would send a 'naval stores' convoy to a forward province (exactly like a normal supply convoy is assigned), but these ships would carry naval stores instead of regular supplies.

My thinking is that without implementing the 'naval stores', you would otherwise be able to base your fleets anywhere in the world, regardless of naval bases, which wouldn't serve to improve things at all.

I guess what I am trying to say is, you either need a naval base, OR a port with a dedicated 'naval stores' convoy keeping it able to supply the fleet.

************************************ EDIT ************************************

Upon further reflection, I would actually prefer a hybrid system, one that doesn't do away with naval range at all, but uses OP's idea to enforce it, so to speak.

I wouldn't want some 2000 km ranged ships being able to hunt my 3500 km ranged ships down. If I have the newer, faster, longer ranged ships (and longer and more expensive to build as a result), I don't want to eliminate my biggest advantage (strategic, not tactical) by replacing naval range with time away from port.

Lets remember that older ships had older power plants, that had less power, burned more fuel, and thus had lesser ranges than the modern ships that cost more to build, but had more efficient, more powerful power plants made available later on. If we allow an old DD-I to sail for as long as the more expensive DD-II's, wouldn't this lead to abuse by just ignoring the newer ship models? Does speed figure into positioning at all? If not, then combat would come down to whether the guy building the obsolete DD-I's had enough more of them to offset the slightly better stats on the later, more expensive model DD-II's.

Instead, take a look at these screen shots:







If we took these to represent an in game feature that would show two possible deployment area's, with the yellow line showing the radius of operation that would maximise time 'on station', and the red line representing the maximum radius of operation from base.

What if, while selecting an air or naval unit, the player could choose to have such a display come up (read this as, use if you want, ignore otherwise), and could then 'see' where his forces could operate, and roughly how much time would be spent on station vs traveling to and from.

So naval range would still be a factor, but the time away from port idea is what would enforce the ranges.

Any thoughts?

 

[Lazy_Boy]

Love the idea. Makes so much more sense. Most all ships could easily cross the ocean just not stay out for more than a month or so.

Troop transports could have a short time frame. Should be more than one troop transport too. Cheap long range one like there is now but it can only drop off in friendly ports. And a new expensive landing craft one with a time frame of only like 2 days so it forces you to have a planned invasion with realistic logistics.

And maybe just auto force the ship to the nearest allied port if the time is exceeded by an order.

 

[unmerged(58571)]

First, OP said port (as opposed to) naval base, is this a typo or intentional? In other words, do the ships need any port to meet up with a supply ship and re-supply from it(them), or would a naval base be needed?

Quite intentional; one generally does not need full-fledged dry-docks and military facilities to refuel a ship and they offer very little in terms of rest and recreation for the sailors.

Second, How would the replenishment ships be represented? Actual ships (convoys), or abstracted? So in other words, a nation would send a 'naval stores' convoy to a forward province (exactly like a normal supply convoy is assigned), but these ships would carry naval stores instead of regular supplies.

My thinking is that without implementing the 'naval stores', you would otherwise be able to base your fleets anywhere in the world, regardless of naval bases, which wouldn't serve to improve things at all.

I have no idea how the logistics system will look like in HoI3, but I do imagine it is rather hard to resupply anything if one has no supplies to resupply it with - indeed, I found the HoI2 naval supply system rather lacking. Remember, however, it was possible for the real WWII navies to operate ships just about anywhere as long as they could get supplies (look at the German anti-shipping activities in the Indian Ocean, for instance), but then there is a long way back when repairs are necessary...

I wouldn't want some 2000 km ranged ships being able to hunt my 3500 km ranged ships down. If I have the newer, faster, longer ranged ships (and longer and more expensive to build as a result), I don't want to eliminate my biggest advantage (strategic, not tactical) by replacing naval range with time away from port.

I don't understand what you mean here... lower maximum time at sea does give a shorter operational range; if a ship sails 500 km a day and has a maximum time at sea of 14 days, operating more than 3000 km away from port means an operational time of less than 2 days per 12-day transit (a very poor ratio, I would say), while a ship with a maximum time at sea of 28 days can stay in the same operational area for 16 days per 12-day transit, giving a rather poor chance for the obsolete ship to hunt it down (unless the operational area is very small, of course).

Lets remember that older ships had older power plants, that had less power, burned more fuel, and thus had lesser ranges than the modern ships that cost more to build, but had more efficient, more powerful power plants made available later on. If we allow an old DD-I to sail for as long as the more expensive DD-II's, wouldn't this lead to abuse by just ignoring the newer ship models? Does speed figure into positioning at all? If not, then combat would come down to whether the guy building the obsolete DD-I's had enough more of them to offset the slightly better stats on the later, more expensive model DD-II's.

I certainly agree that ship speed ought to play a role in naval combat, but if the vanilla version of the game comes with equal maximum time at sea regardless of technological level (doubtful) I for one will modify that rather quickly.

 

[Rommel 459]

i like this idea very much. in addition to the "fleet train" tech, it would give some techs from hoi2 a reason to be reincluded and with much more reason to research them. like the "at sea replinishment" tech

EDIT : it'd possibly even be a good idea for this to be implemented into the air combat system, though with far lower operational values, but the time on target modifier would affect how much damage bombers could do by modifying the time that they are able to attack before withdrawing. thus making it a little more important on where your airfeild that your operating out of is located. though i already know this would require a much different system of interceptions. hmm