|
Post by bcoopactual on Jan 14, 2018 16:53:38 GMT -6
Hello everyone, I recently played Hearts of Iron 3, where you have the ability to designate a ship as a "Pride of the Fleet". While mostly cosmetic in HoI3 (apart from maybe a slight crew XP gain bonus), I think it could turn into an interesting extra immersion mechanic in RtW2.. Here is my idea on how it could work: What it does
- The "Pride" status automatically grants the ship the best crew quality possible given the circumstances (training, overal readiness, unrest..), also quality recovery should be faster.
- Losing the "Pride" should incur a hefty (-5 or so) Prestige penalty.. on the other hand winning a battle where it made a significant contribution (damaged / sunk any enemy CAs or capital ships) will incur an extra bonus (+1/+2) on top of the usual win bonuses
- The "Pride" can't be switched to reserve duty or mothballed for as long as it has that status
- If a ship that held a "Pride" status at any point in its career is scrapped, the odds of getting the museum ship offer are vastly increased.
How a ship is selected
- You're the one selecting the ship, with some caveats and limitations
- It's possible to not have a ship selected, but you might get prompted by your head of state or navy director (designate a ship within X turns for budget/prestige gain, or ignore for nothing/budget cut) - this might depend on your government and if you have bombastic head of state - a liberal democracy might be OK with not having a "Pride", the Kaiser won't.. and he won't react well to a negative answer to that either)
- You can strip a ship of its "Pride" status without naming a substitute at prestige cost (-1), or by naming another ship as a "Pride" (which might get you a prestige bonus depending on the relative quality of the ships in question)
- The "Pride" status should be something that stays with a ship for quite some time - too frequent changes ought to be discouraged (either a prestige loss, or outright 12-30 month cooldown on the change) outside of the "Pride" being lost or special events
The fine print of ship selection and other mechanics
- In order to be eligible, a ship has to be one of the capital classes (B/BB/BC/CVs), if you don't have one of these a large CA (10000t or more) is acceptable too
- Game gives the ships a point score according to size, combat record, armament, age and class, in that rough order. There should be some nonlinearity to the values (for example very little difference between a ship that's brand new and one that's a decade old, but a 25 year old ship isn't seen as a viable pick unless it had a major refit recently)
- If you pick a ship among the available ones that has at least 75-80% of the "top pick" score, you get a prestige bonus, on the other hand a clearly inadequate choice (bottom 20-25%) might incur a penalty and a request from your head of state to change the state of affairs might follow soon.
- If a satisfactory choice is made, that ship gets about 2-3 years of immunity from further "Pride" events. After that, if better ships have been introduced, you might get prodded to change it, depending on your government, head of state and relative quality of your Pride in relation to the new generation. A possible exception might be if your original "Pride" was a clearly inferior ship or you picked a CA originally and then obtained actual capital ships, in which case the prod to change might be immediate.
- the "Pride" should be kept in top condition. Expect your leadership to complain if it gets too worn out (the "o" status) or has very outdated fire control systems (2-3 levels behind) and demand a swift correction.
Also another thing, not related to the above..
When we create (or refit) ships, could we perhaps specify our desired use for the ship in form of a checkbox with class relevant picks? Then when picking ships for battle they'd be picked (or not) and used according to that desired use, if you have enough ships to choose from in the area (If you don't, then you use whatever's available)
So for example for cruisers it'd be: - Solo action (might need a better name, what I had in mind was offensive purpose like convoy attack or shore bombardment - either solo or as a core of small flotilla of minor ships)
- Scouting
- Raiding
- Fleet screening
- Commerce protection (ships for convoy screening are picked primarily from this category, also intercepts raiders)
- Colonial duties
etc..
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Jan 14, 2018 16:54:43 GMT -6
Hello everyone, I recently played Hearts of Iron 3, where you have the ability to designate a ship as a "Pride of the Fleet". While mostly cosmetic in HoI3 (apart from maybe a slight crew XP gain bonus), I think it could turn into an interesting extra immersion mechanic in RtW2.. Here is my idea on how it could work: What it does
- The "Pride" status automatically grants the ship the best crew quality possible given the circumstances (training, overal readiness, unrest..), also quality recovery should be faster.
- Losing the "Pride" should incur a hefty (-5 or so) Prestige penalty.. on the other hand winning a battle where it made a significant contribution (damaged / sunk any enemy CAs or capital ships) will incur an extra bonus (+1/+2) on top of the usual win bonuses
- The "Pride" can't be switched to reserve duty or mothballed for as long as it has that status
- If a ship that held a "Pride" status at any point in its career is scrapped, the odds of getting the museum ship offer are vastly increased.
How a ship is selected
- You're the one selecting the ship, with some caveats and limitations
- It's possible to not have a ship selected, but you might get prompted by your head of state or navy director (designate a ship within X turns for budget/prestige gain, or ignore for nothing/budget cut) - this might depend on your government and if you have bombastic head of state - a liberal democracy might be OK with not having a "Pride", the Kaiser won't.. and he won't react well to a negative answer to that either)
- You can strip a ship of its "Pride" status without naming a substitute at prestige cost (-1), or by naming another ship as a "Pride" (which might get you a prestige bonus depending on the relative quality of the ships in question)
- The "Pride" status should be something that stays with a ship for quite some time - too frequent changes ought to be discouraged (either a prestige loss, or outright 12-30 month cooldown on the change) outside of the "Pride" being lost or special events
The fine print of ship selection and other mechanics
- In order to be eligible, a ship has to be one of the capital classes (B/BB/BC/CVs), if you don't have one of these a large CA (10000t or more) is acceptable too
- Game gives the ships a point score according to size, combat record, armament, age and class, in that rough order. There should be some nonlinearity to the values (for example very little difference between a ship that's brand new and one that's a decade old, but a 25 year old ship isn't seen as a viable pick unless it had a major refit recently)
- If you pick a ship among the available ones that has at least 75-80% of the "top pick" score, you get a prestige bonus, on the other hand a clearly inadequate choice (bottom 20-25%) might incur a penalty and a request from your head of state to change the state of affairs might follow soon.
- If a satisfactory choice is made, that ship gets about 2-3 years of immunity from further "Pride" events. After that, if better ships have been introduced, you might get prodded to change it, depending on your government, head of state and relative quality of your Pride in relation to the new generation. A possible exception might be if your original "Pride" was a clearly inferior ship or you picked a CA originally and then obtained actual capital ships, in which case the prod to change might be immediate.
- the "Pride" should be kept in top condition. Expect your leadership to complain if it gets too worn out (the "o" status) or has very outdated fire control systems (2-3 levels behind) and demand a swift correction.
Also another thing, not related to the above..
When we create (or refit) ships, could we perhaps specify our desired use for the ship in form of a checkbox with class relevant picks? Then when picking ships for battle they'd be picked (or not) and used according to that desired use, if you have enough ships to choose from in the area (If you don't, then you use whatever's available)
So for example for cruisers it'd be: - Solo action (might need a better name, what I had in mind was offensive purpose like convoy attack or shore bombardment - either solo or as a core of small flotilla of minor ships)
- Scouting
- Raiding
- Fleet screening
- Commerce protection (ships for convoy screening are picked primarily from this category, also intercepts raiders)
- Colonial duties
etc..
I like the pride of the fleet idea
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Jan 14, 2018 16:55:28 GMT -6
It is an idea with a hint of basis in reality and that would be fun (at least I think so), however I am not a programmer, and this could quite possibly be a lot more difficult than a few hour's typing to put a layer of code over everything. I am not sure how complex the inter-dependencies might be. All that being said, if the Devs say 'oh I can have that up before tea', great & jolly good!
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Jan 14, 2018 16:56:04 GMT -6
I'd look forward to it, but on a more basic scale. Prevent the PoF from being mothballed or put into reserve, no instant prestige gain on picking one, no complex mechanics in picking it, no restrictions on your handling of it (If it's your PoF, it has to be active and is most likely the most powerful vessel you own - why would you disregard fire control on your most important ship? Or let it get the dreaded [O]?). Getting prestige for every major victory with your PoF involved might inflate the prestige gain a tad too much. I'd prefer a 2 prestige gain on sinking the enemy PoF, and a 5 point penalty for losing your own.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Jan 14, 2018 16:56:39 GMT -6
Is there much of a basis for a 'pride of the fleet' historically? While certain bigger ships tended to get more interest, I'm not sure I've heard of any behaviour that would necessarily support the mechanic from that perspective. Of course, there's plenty I don't know, and if it's fun then well and good .
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Jan 14, 2018 16:57:16 GMT -6
Is there much of a basis for a 'pride of the fleet' historically? While certain bigger ships tended to get more interest, I'm not sure I've heard of any behaviour that would necessarily support the mechanic from that perspective. Of course, there's plenty I don't know, and if it's fun then well and good . You can argue the Hood enjoyed that statue, with its sinking being significant to British morale and prompted the hunt for Bismarck. In practice I feel having a ship reaching "Pride of fleet" status is more a liability than benefit tbh. With that in mind I think I think the PoF can simply be something pushed on to you by government or civilian expectations (event), where your best ship( can just be newest ship with largest gun, displacement or some other criteri)'be proclaimed pof, and losing it incurs a penalty. This could maybe simulate some historical navy's reluctance to use their best ship actively, like ign did with the Nagato in ww2(although in not sure if it's really that significant in the actual decision making, I think the nagato case also have more to do with their inability to keep up with carriers)
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Jan 14, 2018 16:57:59 GMT -6
Well, the "Mighty" Hood is... *the* example for it.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Jan 14, 2018 16:58:51 GMT -6
You can argue the Hood enjoyed that statue, with its sinking being significant to British morale and prompted the hunt for Bismarck. In practice I feel having a ship reaching "Pride of fleet" status is more a liability than benefit tbh. With that in mind I think I think the PoF can simply be something pushed on to you by government or civilian expectations (event), where your best ship( can just be newest ship with largest gun, displacement or some other criteri)'be proclaimed pof, and losing it incurs a penalty. This could maybe simulate some historical navy's reluctance to use their best ship actively, like ign did with the Nagato in ww2(although in not sure if it's really that significant in the actual decision making, I think the nagato case also have more to do with their inability to keep up with carriers) While the Hood was indeed a prestigious ship (largest ship in the RN), she was also mostly un-modernised and in desparate need of a thorough refit and more when she went boom. She wasn't considered the best ship in the fleet by any stretch by the Admiralty, as far as I'm aware. It was absolutely a shock to the British when she was sunk, but I'd argue that it was in no small part due to the nature of the sinking (sudden, unexpected magazine explosion early in the encounter leading to complete destruction and loss of all but three of the crew) rather than because she had been specifically labelled the 'pride of the fleet'. Where I'm coming from, I guess, is that Hood was anything but the most modern or capable ship in the fleet when she was destroyed, and had the Prince of Wales gone up similarly, I'd bet (but all counterfactual, so it's a guess) the public reaction would have been the same. That's just my opinion of course, and absolutely contestable .
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Jan 14, 2018 16:59:32 GMT -6
While the Hood was indeed a prestigious ship (largest ship in the RN), she was also mostly un-modernised and in desparate need of a thorough refit and more when she went boom. She wasn't considered the best ship in the fleet by any stretch by the Admiralty, as far as I'm aware. It was absolutely a shock to the British when she was sunk, but I'd argue that it was in no small part due to the nature of the sinking (sudden, unexpected magazine explosion early in the encounter leading to complete destruction and loss of all but three of the crew) rather than because she had been specifically labelled the 'pride of the fleet'. Where I'm coming from, I guess, is that Hood was anything but the most modern or capable ship in the fleet when she was destroyed, and had the Prince of Wales gone up similarly, I'd bet (but all counterfactual, so it's a guess) the public reaction would have been the same. That's just my opinion of course, and absolutely contestable . I definately agree that Hood is probably not the "best" ship of the Royal Navy. But I feel like it is well known enough to the public, and perceived by the public as such. Japanese likewise for a long time presumed the nagato class to be their most advanced ship since there was great secrecy around Yamato class. I don't know if that's the case with the Royal Navy, but given that king George class was fairly new at the time it probably didn't enjoy the kind of renown as Hood? At least on paper king george have less displacement, smaller guns and I believe slower speed as well, so it may not occur to the public they are really more powerful than the hood even if in fact they are. While I feel the higher ups may be just as shocked if any of the new battleships was so easily sunk, I think the public is far more affected by a ship they have so well known and long been told of its prowness. British certainly did not respond quite so badly when, say the royal oak was sunk.(although that was a sneak attack rather than direct battle) also correct me if I am wrong but I don't think the public knew that the Hood was sunk so easily and dramatically, thus I think it has more to do with the fact that the hood was lost rather than the fact that a capital ship is lost so easily.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Jan 14, 2018 17:00:44 GMT -6
I definately agree that Hood is probably not the "best" ship of the Royal Navy. But I feel like it is well known enough to the public, and perceived by the public as such. Japanese likewise for a long time presumed the nagato class to be their most advanced ship since there was great secrecy around Yamato class. I don't know if that's the case with the Royal Navy, but given that king George class was fairly new at the time it probably didn't enjoy the kind of renown as Hood? At least on paper king george have less displacement, smaller guns and I believe slower speed as well, so it may not occur to the public they are really more powerful than the hood even if in fact they are. While I feel the higher ups may be just as shocked if any of the new battleships was so easily sunk, I think the public is far more affected by a ship they have so well known and long been told of its prowness. British certainly did not respond quite so badly when, say the royal oak was sunk.(although that was a sneak attack rather than direct battle) also correct me if I am wrong but I don't think the public knew that the Hood was sunk so easily and dramatically, thus I think it has more to do with the fact that the hood was lost rather than the fact that a capital ship is lost so easily. Public perception is one thing, but in the context of RtW2, where we play 'First Sea Lord' or similar, we wouldn't necessarily have a say in what the public considered the best ship (and my understanding of the suggestion was that players could nominate their "Pride of the Fleet", and that it had to be kept in top condition, and Hood failed both of these conditions (the second quite substantially, and as far as I'm aware the RN never had a 'Pride of the Fleet') - so in the context of the suggestion, Hood didn't really qualify. In terms of public reaction, the loss of life when Hood went down was greater than Ark Royal, Barham, Courageous, Glorious, Royal Oak, Prince of Wales or Repulse, which could easily explain any 'extra' strength of the reaction (although I'm unaware of any comparative studies on the public 'morale' impact of the loss of different capital ships, so as far as I know, the idea that the public reacted more strongly to Hood going down than other ships is conjecture, rather than established fact, but I could have that wrong). That said, I don't want to side-track the suggestions thread, so I'll try not to get carried away chatting about this .
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Jan 14, 2018 17:19:20 GMT -6
I took the initiative of copying the discussion of a Pride of the Feet mechanic to its own thread. I apologize if I overstepped my bounds but it was an interesting idea and discussion. I'm kind of with mycophobia in that there should probably be more maluses with losing it than there would be bonuses for having it. I don't know if there should be a bonus to prestige for sinking ships with it. If for no other reason that it would add a problematic (I'm assuming) programming headache of having to add code to track how much damage is done specifically to each target by which ship. As far as Hood, axe99, is it possible you are only looking at Hood's status in WW2 and not taking into account the 16 years of so that it was the largest and fastest and arguably the most powerful capital ship in the world? It wasn't refit prior to WW2 because they couldn't spare it right, not because the Admiralty didn't want to? What about a one time bonus point to prestige when you commission the largest BB or BC in the game at that time? Or a small bonus to budget representing the public's fascination and the ship's popularity giving good press to the Navy while it's the largest BB/BC commissioned in the game? And then obviously you'd suffer a prestige hit, I think 5 is too much, if it was lost in battle. Maybe a minimum of 2 or if you lost a major battle and would have lost two anyway it would add an extra point for a loss of three?
|
|
|
Post by mycophobia on Jan 14, 2018 20:04:56 GMT -6
In reply to axe99 's point. I am definately with you on the fact that the player, as the commander in chief of the navy has little control of the fact how the public perceives a ship. I also don't think any country in ww1/ww2 officially have any kind of title analogous to "pride of fleet". bcoopactual brings up a good point that the "pride of fleet" status can just be given to a capital ship whose parameters are very high if not the highest amongst the world standard for a extended time to signify public's confidence in that ship. As far as hood's condition, I believe she was due for a refit and had one planned but was interrupted by the need of the war. Even without refit she was still one of the fastest capital ships in the world, which could be very significant given British effort to hunt down German surface raiders early on in the war.
|
|
|
Post by Airy W on Jan 15, 2018 11:03:07 GMT -6
I'd rather have the ability to nominate flagships then nominate pride of the fleet. For every five B/BB/BC/CA/CV you have, rounded down, you pick one to be a flagship. If any of these ships are in battle, they are selected as your flagship over your other ships. (This would mean that you could make your flagships BCs or CAs in order to have a fast flagship in a fleet containing BBs.) A sunk flagship would mean an extra prestige point gained or lost because dang, there goes a fleet admiral.
K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Jan 15, 2018 16:42:27 GMT -6
As far as Hood, axe99 , is it possible you are only looking at Hood's status in WW2 and not taking into account the 16 years of so that it was the largest and fastest and arguably the most powerful capital ship in the world? Nice one BCoop . I was reluctant to discuss too much more in the other thread, because I didn't want it to get derailed, but we can go crazy here, and with me being all contrarian* I should be able to keep it going a while . On HMS Hood, my (limited) understanding is that the Admiralty were aware of the deficiencies in her design (pre-Jutland design, adapted a bit in stages but not a 'cohesive' post-Jutland design, like the Nelsons, Nagatos or Colorados) and that (sadly, I can't remember where I read this, so take it with a grain of salt) she was barely capable of making 28 knots when she was sunk (so by this stage no faster than a KGV). She was used for 'showing the flag' in the 1920s to good effect, and she was absolutely the largest warship afloat for a good while, so had time to settle in the public imagination, but in terms of 'powerful', but as best I can tell (and this is a rough estimation - hopefully someone better informed will chip in) she was probably about as capable as an un-modernised QE in terms of 'line of battle' fighting capability (my understanding is that the two most powerful British ships, once their gunnery problems had been worked out, would have been Rodney and Nelson - which were significantly more capable in a capital ship to capital ship throw-down than Hood). She was still much quicker than those two, even in her more run-down state in 1941. On the 'not available because of the war', she absolutely wasn't once war had broken out, but I would have expected a 'Pride of the Fleet' in a practical sense to have received substantial modernisations (Hood, for example, didn't have the 4.5inch DP secondaries of the modernised QEs, and relied on a relatively small number of 4" DP and a few octo two-pounder mounts, and her engines were getting pretty long in the tooth by the time war rolled around). Once the 're-arming for war' program began in earnest, why wasn't Hood either already largely modernised or first in line? I'd want to see some serious analysis of the press coverage and public reaction after the loss of Glorious or Courageous, compared with the loss of Hood (I'd list Barham, but the British covered this up for months afterwards, in no small part because of concern over public reaction - treatment Hood didn't get). I've seen ideas of 'pride of the fleet' in many places, but I've never, ever seen any serious analysis along those lines, so it feels to me a bit like a 'pop culture' thing (if 'naval geek pop culture' than something particularly realistic - but there's plenty I haven't read and seen, and I may have just missed this . Noting that, I do agree that the idea of 'Pride of the Fleet' is very popular in strategy gaming circles at least, and there was a public perception of Hood as powerful (everyone likes the 'biggest', regardless of actual capability - and Hood was still a capable ship), so there's enough to justify a mechanic even if (and I'm not saying it isn't, just that I haven't seen any evidence to this effect) it's not necessarily terribly realistic. However, if there was some kind of 'Pride of the Fleet' mechanic, then I don't think if we're using Hood as the example it should be set by players, but rather something the game automatically decides. An event along the lines of 'enthusiasm about our new ship USS Enterprise, combined with her considerable capabilities, has seen the press and public take quite a liking to her - she has informally been christened the 'Pride of the Fleet', and then the prestige losses you suggest for losing her sound pretty good (I agree that -5 is far too much, in a game where a 'Tsushima' like result is -2). * Not and never intentionally .
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 15, 2018 19:16:45 GMT -6
|
|