Controlling the Order of Battle (OOBs)

[tortugapower]

My biggest curiosity (and #1 hope) for Rule the Waves 2 is the ability to control, at least somewhat, your order of battle. I'm a little nervous that I haven't seen anything about this. (Hopefully I didn't see it and it's there.)

There is a nice thread on doing this at the beginning of a tactical battle by Kimmy, found here.

However, my concern is and has always been focused on -- from the first page of the first discussion post on RtW2 -- how the sequel will allow you to manage your composition of forces.

My request/hope is some control of OOBs that are brought into combat. This is a pretty natural request and expectation from the persona/player who also controls the budget allocation (a higher-level management task) and the fleet battle itself (a lower-level management task).


Possible implementations:

- Simple, rigid solution: create task forces at the strategic level. Ships not in TFs are selected in the usual manner for RtW battles (randomly). You can impose a TF limit or not.

- More general: let ship classes have a list of "compatible"/"companion" ship classes, with which they are likely to be paired in combat. For instance, I would pair this CLAA with my CV. I would pair this fleet-role DD with my BBs. I would not pair this coastal defense DD with anything, and would prefer it not be part of my fleets.


I used to form my own "task forces" in RtW by Shift+ and Ctrl+ selecting a bunch of ships to move to a new sea zone together. I hope this can be implemented in a more natural way.

[dizzy]

I'm not sure I'm completely in the know with OOB issues, but RTW has internal code the governs what kind of ships are pulled into a battle and I've learned this code favors BB's over BC's for large fleet battles. So if I wanted to eschew building BB's in favor of BC's, the mission code will pass over my BC's because it's looking to generate a battle with BB's and I don't have any and subsequently fail that mission.

It would be nice for RTW2 to have a setting for ships to allow classes to 'STAND-IN' for other ships if none are available for mission generation. That way I could elect for some classes of BC to 'act' as BB's for purposes of mission requirements.

Thanks you.

[pirateradar]

Mar 13, 2019 19:29:46 GMT -6 dizzy said:

I'm not sure I'm completely in the know with OOB issues, but RTW has internal code the governs what kind of ships are pulled into a battle and I've learned this code favors BB's over BC's for large fleet battles. So if I wanted to eschew building BB's in favor of BC's, the mission code will pass over my BC's because it's looking to generate a battle with BB's and I don't have any and subsequently fail that mission.

It would be nice for RTW2 to have a setting for ships to allow classes to 'STAND-IN' for other ships if none are available for mission generation. That way I could elect for some classes of BC to 'act' as BB's for purposes of mission requirements.

Thanks you.

I don't know about the other way around, but we've been told that in RtW2, sufficiently fast BBs will be able to stand in for BCs in cruiser missions.

[dizzy]

Oh, TY for that. I like the OP Task Force idea. I also like my idea where you can designate a class upon build using a new setting to allow it to 'stand in' for another class, since you say sufficiently fast BB's can go the other way, I dont see why BC's can't also stand in for BB's. Maybe I dont understand the reasoning behind that decision.

[oaktree]

I'd settle in part for at least controlling to some degree how the forces you are given are organized; e.g. who is in a division with who, and so forth. Not to mix types as much as allow for such things as destroyer leaders being mixed with regular destroyers, putting battleships of matching speed/capabilities together, etc.

[Adseria]

I think the best system would be as follows: You place ships into divisions at the strategic level. A division can then be assigned one or more roles (eg. battle line, convoy escort, fleet scout etc.). Ships can be freely moved between divisions, but only with ships in the same location. A division has no limit on the number or type of ships that can be assigned to it (possibly they might have to be restricted to ships of the same type (BB, DD and so on) if different types of ship would confuse the AI; or just base the AI on division role rather than ship type).

Divisions would move and operate a single unit. If, for example, you had a division in one region and wanted one of the ships to join a division in another region, you would have to either transfer that ship to a one-ship division and move it, or move the whole division, transfer the ship and then move the original division back (obviously, the former would be the superior option under most circumstances, but, if you do this in wartime, the lone ship may get drawn into a battle).

When a battle starts, the game will select from available divisions in the relevant area with the correct role(s) assigned. For instance, a convoy defence mission will select from divisions with convoy escort roles. Depending on various factors (eg size of the battle), the game might also occasionally assign a division or two that are assigned to, for example, the battle line. Major battles (like fleet engagements) would select a larger number of ships (all available divisions assigned the "battle line" or "fleet escort" roles, for instance).

Once a division is selected for the battle, a check is made; there is a (small) possibility that one or more ships from the division will be unavailable for the battle (because they're busy with other duties or because of mechanical difficulties). This is based on a number of factors, including the size of the battle (a higher chance with a smaller battle), the type of battle (for instance, in a convoy defence mission, some ships from a division may be escorting other convoys, or otherwise busy), and the reliability of ships in the division. This check would be made on a per-ship basis. In some battle types (mostly smaller battles), if a division has a relatively small number of ships available, the division may be discarded and another suitable division selected. However, in other battle types (primarily fleet engagements and other major battles), all divisions will join the battle, regardless of the number of available ships in the division (even if only one ship is available) (In this case, the probability of ships being unavailable would be lower (meaning more ships would be available), because ships are being removed from other duties to take part in the battle (but ships experiencing mechanical difficulties will, obviously, still be unavailable)).

Because of this check immediately before battle, the chance of a ship having mechanical difficulties at the start of a strategic turn (immediately after clicking "next turn") would be lower. However, it would still happen, and ships would be unavailable for more than one month. This is to represent more serious problems (rather than a minor problem that just holds them up for a day or two and makes them miss a battle).

[tc27]

I support the above idea - its allows some control of make up of the fleet but preserves the realism of an admiral not having all the ships he wants available from his OOB at any given time.

[akosjaccik]

I'll be extremely cheap and just add my insights copying them from the pre-relea' discussion topic, as who knows, maybe the topic's mix of ideas can lead to somewhere:

"While I know this has zero reality for RtW2, I always argued for a fleshed out operational block before anything el... okay, I'm done.
Semi-joke aside, while in my imagination maybe the most interesting solution would be running the "battle globe" and the "strategic excel" parallel and at the same time, I do think that some kind of player agency could find it's way into the game without these kind of serious overhaul.
- Everything as usual (accept battle, get random force composition), but right before the battle, the player has a bit of a freedom with a few set rules working in the background to determine the chain of command and the composition of the divisions. It kind of works already, as divisions can be given formation and task orders, but now the player - before the battle, at esentially turn zero - could get a "deployment"-phase. If the standard, default AI-formation is fine, just press "OK" without any changes made.
- As above, but before the deployment phase, let's say the player is given a task to select a fleet (as I can see it being tedious in some cases, there might still be an "Auto select" button) from the ships present and ready to sortie at the given sea region at missions simulating offensive or pre-planned operations. (As such, random encounters or enemy raids are still present.) What could prevent the player simply bringing everything is some kind of ruleset to help the AI, either something simple (cruiser engagement, so let's say, nothing below 25 knots qualifies as a general rule and above that, only one capital ship allowed in this particular battle and seven vessels overall) or more complex (some battle rating system, calculated from the ships' data with a hint of randomness thrown into the mix - think of it like selecting concessions after a war for X amount of points, only this time, it's about ships in a bit more complex way). Constant overworking of ships could even lead to quicker amortization, even on home waters.
- Completely ditch the pre-battle selection, and for pre-planned operations allow the player to compose some task forces even on the strategy screen. To help the AI, some rules could be set, and some "cheating" could be allowed in order for the AI to be able to bring a comparable force strength to the field. In essence, this would mean that the playstyle is very similar to RtW as we know it already (so no pre-battle division forming and deployment and all that jazz), but sometimes the player can get "battle types" apart from the standard cruiser battles, fleet battles, shore bombardments, raider interceptions etc. like "Task force 'WheatBeer' reports a large enemy formation. [Fight battle] [Dismiss]". Some nuances could be made to fine tune, I don't know, for example, task force ships are not available for other battle modes, ASW and trade protection calculations (obviously),no 'foreign stations' points for them, random events could happen with them (two ships collide, X has to head home for engine repairs and whatnot) et cetera, but their presence at a given sea region could influence invasions underway...
Just thinking out loud, really.

Point is, I could even imagine some kind of hybrid solution."

[Adseria]

Mar 14, 2019 5:34:15 GMT -6 akosjaccik said:

- As above, but before the deployment phase, let's say the player is given a task to select a fleet (as I can see it being tedious in some cases, there might still be an "Auto select" button) from the ships present and ready to sortie at the given sea region at missions simulating offensive or pre-planned operations. (As such, random encounters or enemy raids are still present.) What could prevent the player simply bringing everything is some kind of ruleset to help the AI, either something simple (cruiser engagement, so let's say, nothing below 25 knots qualifies as a general rule and above that, only one capital ship allowed in this particular battle and seven vessels overall) or more complex (some battle rating system, calculated from the ships' data with a hint of randomness thrown into the mix - think of it like selecting concessions after a war for X amount of points, only this time, it's about ships in a bit more complex way). Constant overworking of ships could even lead to quicker amortization, even on home waters.

Perhaps this idea could be combined with mine; the same as my suggestion, but rather than the AI selecting divisions based on pre-defined roles, you get to manually select which division(s) you want in the battle. Then, it goes through the availability check I described (and possibly gives you the chance to change your mind if any ships are unavailable). That's probably even better than my original suggestion; selecting which ships engage in a battle is more historically accurate than having them selected largely at random, while still not letting you have every ship you want. It also means that there would be no need to program an entirely new AI just to select which divisions join the battle (or maybe the existing system could be adapted super easily; I'm not a programmer!). And it's better than just using your idea alone because you just have to select groups of ships, rather than individual ships. Of course, you could still add an auto-select option for those people who don't mind letting the AI handle it.

[dorn]

I would just point out part of the RTW manual.

The battle generator is made to put the player in various situations that can arise in real life. Real admirals seldom had the luxury of fighting with the ideal forces they would like to have. Some of the best ships might be in dockyard, off refueling or have suffered a mechanical breakdown. Somebody might have issued stupid orders or misleading intelligence might have sent ships off to where they are not available. There are lots of examples of the least modern ships in a navy having to fight battles, and that is what the game seeks to simulate.

I completely agree what is written in manual. I am worried that doing some system which is in line with real life and not too much micromanagement would be difficult.

Just think about the roles. If you put some ship into role what about other threat arising in this part of world. What about 3 new raiders in area and you have no force for antiraider duty. In real life all divison combination was answer on threat and what ships were available. We cannot take as example last 2 years of WW2 when allies has much superior force.

What could be available is to dismiss ship before battle itself but even before knowing what type of battle it is. But in this case the ship itself could be in reserve fleet. What could be better to have type of missions/battles and each ship can have checked/unchecked that type of mission increasing/decreasing probability that ship will apear at this type of battle.

But I think that ability for player to choose from ships for each battle is wrong.

Example: You have 4 battlecruisers of 2 classes, Invincible and Illustrious with 25 knots and Indomitable and Inflexible with 27 knots. Logically you will create 2 divisions, one with speed of 25 knots, the second one with 27 knots. There is operating enemy raiders in area. Logically battlecruisers are used to hunt these raiders one by one as they are too powerfull against cruiser. Now what can happen. Enemy send force to coastal bombardment mission. Intelligence inform about that and navy is assambled to intercept. But what battlecruisers are available is dictated by location of batlecruisers not their quality. So it is normal that only eg. Invincible and Indomitable is available and creating division at this battle.

May be there can be some better algoritmus that in case there is no raiders, minimul another threat that there is increased probability that divisions will be in better order. But doing everything manually will be terrible.

EDIT: game point of view

If player is available to choose what ships will be available it would make game much easier as his division would not have weaknesses, I do not thing it is way to go.

[dizzy]

Mar 14, 2019 7:33:04 GMT -6 dorn said:

I would just point out part of the RTW manual.

The battle generator is made to put the player in various situations that can arise in real life. Real admirals seldom had the luxury of fighting with the ideal forces they would like to have. Some of the best ships might be in dockyard, off refueling or have suffered a mechanical breakdown. Somebody might have issued stupid orders or misleading intelligence might have sent ships off to where they are not available. There are lots of examples of the least modern ships in a navy having to fight battles, and that is what the game seeks to simulate.

I completely agree what is written in manual. I am worried that doing some system which is in line with real life and not too much micromanagement would be difficult.

Just think about the roles. If you put some ship into role what about other threat arising in this part of world. What about 3 new raiders in area and you have no force for antiraider duty. In real life all divison combination was answer on threat and what ships were available. We cannot take as example last 2 years of WW2 when allies has much superior force.

What could be available is to dismiss ship before battle itself but even before knowing what type of battle it is. But in this case the ship itself could be in reserve fleet. What could be better to have type of missions/battles and each ship can have checked/unchecked that type of mission increasing/decreasing probability that ship will apear at this type of battle.

But I think that ability for player to choose from ships for each battle is wrong.

Example: You have 4 battlecruisers of 2 classes, Invincible and Illustrious with 25 knots and Indomitable and Inflexible with 27 knots. Logically you will create 2 divisions, one with speed of 25 knots, the second one with 27 knots. There is operating enemy raiders in area. Logically battlecruisers are used to hunt these raiders one by one as they are too powerfull against cruiser. Now what can happen. Enemy send force to coastal bombardment mission. Intelligence inform about that and navy is assambled to intercept. But what battlecruisers are available is dictated by location of batlecruisers not their quality. So it is normal that only eg. Invincible and Indomitable is available and creating division at this battle.

May be there can be some better algoritmus that in case there is no raiders, minimul another threat that there is increased probability that divisions will be in better order. But doing everything manually will be terrible.

EDIT: game point of view

If player is available to choose what ships will be available it would make game much easier as his division would not have weaknesses, I do not thing it is way to go.

Dorn, I also agree with the manual, all the RL bits and pieces and that's real nice and all... HOWEVER! This game, imho, is FLAWED when it generates a mission calling for BB's and you have refused to build them, instead building BC's, and have ample BC's in mission sea zone, but the mission won't use them because it's calling for BB's and so your 12 or more BC's sit there in that sea zone puttering around doing nothing. THAT part needs a fixin imo. We can argue on the rest all day, but I do think that there should be a class setting you can toggle to let a class 'substitute' for another. What's the downside? Maybe I'm missing it.

[dorn]

Mar 14, 2019 7:46:43 GMT -6 dizzy said:

Mar 14, 2019 7:33:04 GMT -6 dorn said:

I would just point out part of the RTW manual.

The battle generator is made to put the player in various situations that can arise in real life. Real admirals seldom had the luxury of fighting with the ideal forces they would like to have. Some of the best ships might be in dockyard, off refueling or have suffered a mechanical breakdown. Somebody might have issued stupid orders or misleading intelligence might have sent ships off to where they are not available. There are lots of examples of the least modern ships in a navy having to fight battles, and that is what the game seeks to simulate.

I completely agree what is written in manual. I am worried that doing some system which is in line with real life and not too much micromanagement would be difficult.

Just think about the roles. If you put some ship into role what about other threat arising in this part of world. What about 3 new raiders in area and you have no force for antiraider duty. In real life all divison combination was answer on threat and what ships were available. We cannot take as example last 2 years of WW2 when allies has much superior force.

What could be available is to dismiss ship before battle itself but even before knowing what type of battle it is. But in this case the ship itself could be in reserve fleet. What could be better to have type of missions/battles and each ship can have checked/unchecked that type of mission increasing/decreasing probability that ship will apear at this type of battle.

But I think that ability for player to choose from ships for each battle is wrong.

Example: You have 4 battlecruisers of 2 classes, Invincible and Illustrious with 25 knots and Indomitable and Inflexible with 27 knots. Logically you will create 2 divisions, one with speed of 25 knots, the second one with 27 knots. There is operating enemy raiders in area. Logically battlecruisers are used to hunt these raiders one by one as they are too powerfull against cruiser. Now what can happen. Enemy send force to coastal bombardment mission. Intelligence inform about that and navy is assambled to intercept. But what battlecruisers are available is dictated by location of batlecruisers not their quality. So it is normal that only eg. Invincible and Indomitable is available and creating division at this battle.

May be there can be some better algoritmus that in case there is no raiders, minimul another threat that there is increased probability that divisions will be in better order. But doing everything manually will be terrible.

EDIT: game point of view

If player is available to choose what ships will be available it would make game much easier as his division would not have weaknesses, I do not thing it is way to go.

Dorn, I also agree with the manual, all the RL bits and pieces and that's real nice and all... HOWEVER! This game, imho, is FLAWED when it generates a mission calling for BB's and you have refused to build them, instead building BC's, and have ample BC's in mission sea zone, but the mission won't use them because it's calling for BB's and so your 12 or more BC's sit there in that sea zone puttering around doing nothing. THAT part needs a fixin imo. We can argue on the rest all day, but I do think that there should be a class setting you can toggle to let a class 'substitute' for another. What's the downside? Maybe I'm missing it.

I agree with you it should be solved. But I do not think that it should be solved by choosing what ships you will choose.

The main issue is that players build BC are usually battleships with higher speed not historically inferior battlecruisers. May be some advances of belt armour for battlecruisers through the time simulating historical view of that ships in similar way as ABL design would not be allowed for some time and need to be invented.

[akosjaccik]

Mar 14, 2019 7:33:04 GMT -6 dorn said:

I would just point out part of the RTW manual.

The battle generator is made to put the player in various situations that can arise in real life. Real admirals seldom had the luxury of fighting with the ideal forces they would like to have(...)

Real admirals also did not sortie with three destroyers to shell land-based targets that are protected by minefields ranging over the visual range, let alone the gun ranges - or if that's not an issue, real admirals did not sortie at times that pitch black darkness concealed the target in the duration of the mission. Let's not forget: Behind all the historical and physical accuracies, this is a software people like to play and experiment with - a game. Truth be told, in certain cases I tend to not put too much emphasis on these sort of arguments, because sometimes "It's historical" comes forth when it suits the game conveniently, and - as seen above - it does not, when it doesn't. It's a very-, sometimes too comfortable way out.

As I read the topic, we are not arguing for player omnipotency, we are arguing for control in limited cases both for consistency, and both for better gameplay involvement/experience. So, if you have read the notions, "But I think that ability for player to choose from ships for each battle is wrong." - is not the case. Personally as I stated, I'd let the majority of the battles stay RNG, but I'd give the player more authority on at least battles simulating pre-planned, offensive situations.

Finally, about the game being too easy with player-prepared engagements: you can already exploit the system. A lone pre-dreadnought gets into your territory. Battle selection throws your destroyers and light cruisers against it all the time, in broad daylight, month after month. Realistic? It's up for you to decide, but sub-optimal? Certainly. So, what do you do? You take all your destroyers and cruisers and move to a neighbouring sea area. BAM! Next turn, the lone AI has to engage whatever the battle generator can select from: your remaining ships - all of them being pre-dreads.

Is this any better than actual force selection? Or let's approach from a different angle: you can already judge with enough experience from small/large sizes and engagement types if a battle will favour you or not. ...and most of the battles are not "unexpected", meaning you can just decline them. Question still stands.

For the sake of clarity and transparency, I am aware that some of those problems (unreachable targets, low-cost declining battles etc.) are being worked on, but the principle stands.

Even if we don't get this far, "simply" re-arranging the OOB in the "usual" AI-selected fleets is I presume a reasonable wish for any stretch of the imagination.

[noshurviverse]

Many of the suggestions here involve a rather involved process, one that many players may find frustrating to deal with and I think may take a significant amount of effort to balance. If I may present an alternative idea to the OOB issue:

Expand the "pre-battle" screen to two stages. The first is largely the same as in RtW1, with battle type, size and location presented as well as an estimate of what forces are available. Declining results in a minor VP loss.

Accepting the mission, however, would lead to a second screen where the player again may choose to accept or decline the battle. This screen gives an updated estimate on enemy forces, one that may or may not be more accurate, depending on any number of factors. The real interesting part of this screen would be in regards to the player's fleet. The game would select ships that were viable to take part in the battle and inform the player of circumstances affecting them that may prevent them from taking part in the engagement.

For example: Let's say I am presented with a "Cruiser Action" and my fleet looks something like this:

The secondary battle screen might present me with the following information:
BC Lepanto engines acting up!

CA Marco Polo uncertain orders!

CA Varese unable to sail due to _____!

CL Bari difficulty sailing in rough seas!

So in this scenario, Lepanto is a rather iffy matter. Her engine trouble might get solved, or she might be unable to attend or be forced back. Marco Polo and Bari are somewhat more likely to show up, but are still definite maybes. And Varese is a no-go. At this stage I'd have a better idea of what forces I can expect, while the uncertainty is still there. Of course if I decided I don't like the look of these forces I can decline battle, but at a higher VP cost to represent the resources put into the now-abandoned mission.

I don't think this is a perfect solution by any means. For large fleets you might end up with dozens of notices and it would be of somewhat dubious value for small engagements. I also feel that ships that gave no 'warning' might not be present, but that the player might feel cheated in that case. At which point we need even more notices and the player gets to know very well what they can expect.

[akosjaccik]

Mar 14, 2019 8:42:01 GMT -6 noshurviverse said:

Many of the suggestions here involve a rather involved process, one that many players may find frustrating to deal with and I think may take a significant amount of effort to balance.

Respectfully, I beg to differ. If the player can pre-plan his operation in 1 of 10 battles (9 is the usual "random") in a game where planning is The Thing, I would not think it would require more dull attention than maintaining the coastal patrol number. Balance - yes, I can see that, but limiting the player in a way that the AI can cope with is still a better solution than denying the player any input.

Besides, frankly, it is very hard to shrink the issue of "balancing" to these battle selections in RtW, where overall fleet size, fleet sizes and compositions in areas, economic power, tech levels etc. are all fair game. I can't see a reason why just because the player might be able to put his own fleet together sometimes under certain limitations can't be beaten back to kingdom come.

In fact, it will be even more humiliating for the player. No more "tough luck with the ship selection dice roll" excuses.