|
Post by tortugapower on Mar 14, 2019 10:06:33 GMT -6
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... <snip>
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.
<snip>
But I think that ability for player to choose from ships for each battle is wrong.
<snip> 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.
Thanks for the comment dorn. I planned to address this in my OP but cut it for brevity. I agree that compositions should not be specified exactly for a battle. However, I disagree (strongly) that players should have no choice on what ships are taken into battle (if that is your point). That's exactly what a player (at the level of military command that we apparently are) should have some influence over. To clarify: I want a system with more control over the assortment of ships that are grouped for a combat event. I am not asking to define the exact ship/division list (that's too gamey and absurd). But ship roles are ignored in RtW. Let's take a real world example: the Atlanta class CLAA. It was meant to serve with fleets, not hunt on its own. They removed the ASW in a later refit, leaving other ships (DDs) to that role. Everything was role-based. And this is perfect to show that, yes!, sometimes they won't be involved in missions that are appropriate for their role (Battle of Guadalcanal which saw two sink in night fights, with no help from the USS San Francisco). It's good to have that possibility -- real life getting in the way of plans. Nonetheless, someone designed the Atlanta to be a CLAA, just like we may design ships with a role in mind. And the Atlanta served as a CLAA in that role for most of its time in WW2, even if that's not as memorable. The player will want freedom to do the same thing: design an ASW DD, perhaps slower and cheaper, and then also a fleet escort DD, perhaps higher speed and more torpedoes. That kind of role-specific fleet composition is missing in RtW. For all I know, it's available in the sequel, but there is no mention of how ships will be chosen from what I've seen. GUI ease of use: The RtW movement system is.. not amazing . It might be nice to avoid Shift and Ctrl clicking tens of ships if we are allowed to group ships as task forces and move them at once. Such a system might pair with this OOB system, or maybe it's a separate issue.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Mar 14, 2019 10:39:53 GMT -6
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... <snip>
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.
<snip>
But I think that ability for player to choose from ships for each battle is wrong.
<snip> 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.
Thanks for the comment dorn . I planned to address this in my OP but cut it for brevity. I agree that compositions should not be specified exactly for a battle. However, I disagree (strongly) that players should have no choice on what ships are taken into battle (if that is your point). That's exactly what a player (at the level of military command that we apparently are) should have some influence over. To clarify: I want a system with more control over the assortment of ships that are grouped for a combat event. I am not asking to define the exact ship/division list (that's too gamey and absurd). But ship roles are ignored in RtW. Let's take a real world example: the Atlanta class CLAA. It was meant to serve with fleets, not hunt on its own. They removed the ASW in a later refit, leaving other ships (DDs) to that role. Everything was role-based. And this is perfect to show that, yes!, sometimes they won't be involved in missions that are appropriate for their role (Battle of Guadalcanal which saw two sink in night fights, with no help from the USS San Francisco). It's good to have that possibility -- real life getting in the way of plans. Nonetheless, someone designed the Atlanta to be a CLAA, just like we may design ships with a role in mind. And the Atlanta served as a CLAA in that role for most of its time in WW2, even if that's not as memorable. The player will want freedom to do the same thing: design an ASW DD, perhaps slower and cheaper, and then also a fleet escort DD, perhaps higher speed and more torpedoes. That kind of role-specific fleet composition is missing in RtW. For all I know, it's available in the sequel, but there is no mention of how ships will be chosen from what I've seen. GUI ease of use: The RtW movement system is.. not amazing . It might be nice to avoid Shift and Ctrl clicking tens of ships if we are allowed to group ships as task forces and move them at once. Such a system might pair with this OOB system, or maybe it's a separate issue. I agree that having some role for ships could help. And some system which will evaluate numbers of ships at exact area, threats and set probability that ship there enough ship to for each role or that the some ships will need to something else that are designed for. Question is if there is possible to have some system which could be in line with current RTW system. And too important will not limit ships to certain role.
Just example of cruisers: - foreign station patrol / patrol
- fleet scout - CLAA - raider
May be in similar how will probably be done destroyers/corvettes and their role between anti-submarine warfare and minesweeping so that ship could have more roles (checkoboxes).
But frankly speaking as we have half of March, they will probably be no major change to release, so may be better is see the first version for RTW2 and after write some sugestions to see it in big picture. We can see how mergin of BC and BB to fast battleship is implemented, how changes in naval warfare is done through half of 20th century. RTW has advantage that it is in one period of naval warfare where technology was rapidly innovated however thinking of fighting admirals to so much.
|
|
|
Post by charliezulu on Mar 14, 2019 10:49:25 GMT -6
To add my two cents...
I don't think that anyone wants OOB management on the level of, say, HoI3. Any proposed "OOB management" also has to be simple enough that the AI can do it too, which imposes a more strict cap. RtW can be a relatively arcane game, but basic "OoB management" in the form of grouping units has been a feature of many games for decades now and most players should be familiar with how it works.
I'm personally against the "choose units at match start" approach because it leads to the potential for cheese and isn't historically accurate. If Task Force X wasn't in the vicinity to take part in a battle, it wouldn't participate. The admiral in charge couldn't magically move the ships there. This part of RtW's selection process is largely realistic. As well, it prevents the cheese of "I'll build dozens of cheap second-line BBs (or whatever is most cost effective) to give me tonnage on station and blockade the enemy, but only use my good ships to actually fight". I get why it helps with fleet comp, but it's not the optimal solution IMO.
To express the increased need for non-random fleet comp in RTW2, I'm going to continue Dorn's Implacable/Illustrious example and build off of what Tortuga just posted, but make the speed difference more pronounced - say, 6 knots instead of 2. Let's say the Implacables are in a task force, and the Illustriouses are in another. That means you have 2 TFs, each with their own chance of encountering the enemy. On top of that, let's say the Implacables are a bit old and lacking in AA armnament, so you design a bunch of AA DDs specifically for the purposes of defending them. They're armed with guns that are bad for ASuW work, they're only a few knots faster than the BBs, and they don't have the torps you'd normally put on a DD, but they're good escorts for older ships. As the person in charge, I want these to be escorting my Implacables at all times - they're useless when paired with the Illustrious class because they're barely as fast as the capital ships they're escorting, and I definitely do not want them off on their own since I know they'll get murdered by even enemy DDs. The same thing applies to other roles as well.
With a TF approach, the game would use the same method of assigning units to a match, but it would be on the TF level and not the ship level (for non-independent ships). Making a doom-stack and trying to do Kantai Kessen would ensure you'd have a better chance of winning that battle, but you'll have a lot of "not enough ships" events before then (which AFAIK will be far more punishing in 2). Having small TFs means you could be under-strength or not have the right combo for the job.
There's always the possibility of assigning ship roles, but that means the devs have to predict the player's intent instead, which IMO is a more complicated job if you want that level of flexibility. Basic "AA escort"-like roles could work, but it's a non-ideal solution.
This can be easily perceived by the player on the ship list if they're grouped by TF, and is easy to set up (right click on ship, click assign to existing TF, click on TF). The rules for making TFs are simple enough for the AI to understand - ships in a TF should be close to the same speed, ships of a specified role are added to a TF when it's weak in that area relative to the perceived threat, TFs should roughly mirror the player's size with an adjustment based on the number of "not enough ship" events, and so on.
Obviously, though, there isn't long left in development, so it's unlikely a feature like this could be added in the initial release.
|
|
|
Post by sulu244 on Mar 14, 2019 13:51:25 GMT -6
I'm all for more control of the OOB, especially now that carriers will be a thing. Seeing frankly silly force comps all the time, un-escorted battleships, light cruisers tasked with shore bombardment, etc, makes me wish I could set up Task Forces and dedicated escorts to ensure I have at least somewhat sane fleets. I'm fine with some randomness, ships have engine trouble or repairs and can't fight, sure. Overall I just wish I got a bit more control over which ships are put into which roles, especially as someone who basically stops building BB's by the mid-late game and builds exclusively BC's.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Mar 14, 2019 14:08:42 GMT -6
Look at WW2 as complex, not only for USA after Guadalcanal.
Navies used what they had. Royal Navy - Denmark strait, Battle of the River Plate, the Mediterranean Japan - after they lost Midway USA - till Guadalcanal regularly
It is easy to see that any Navy which was situation not having superiority has seldom possibility to use ideal force.
As any Navy gets superiority it was much easier to have well organized task forces with ships suited for that role.
|
|
|
Post by akosjaccik on Mar 14, 2019 14:21:00 GMT -6
Hm, yes, true. In this spirit, I propose that the player should not be allowed to simply select gun caliber for his designs. Look at the Satsuma, for example. Sometimes you just had to work with what was available at hand, so planning and executing things is historically not accurate globally.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Mar 14, 2019 14:37:36 GMT -6
Hm, yes, true. In this spirit, I propose that the player should not be allowed to simply select gun caliber for his designs. Look at the Satsuma, for example. Sometimes you just had to work with what was available at hand, so planning and executing things is historically not accurate globally. I do not tell that players should not have ability to choose force but it should be limited as in some manner I wrote earlier.
|
|
|
Post by akosjaccik on Mar 14, 2019 14:43:58 GMT -6
I do not tell that players should not have ability to choose force but it should be limited as in some manner I wrote earlier. That I can fully agree with.
|
|
|
Post by Adseria on Mar 14, 2019 20:20:46 GMT -6
Perhaps we could again go back to my suggestion, but there could be a possibility that entire divisions are unavailable to be selected for battle, as well as individual ships ("busy on other duties" or something), forcing you to either select older ships that are less suited for the mission, do without that type of ships and hope you don't need them, or abort the mission for a high VP cost.
That way, you still get the ability to choose your OOB, but you may not be able to select the perfect divisions/ships for the battle every time.
Of course, when a major fleet battle was imminent, there would obviously be an effort to make every ship available for the battle, and I think that should be represented in some way. For example, just before the Battle of Midway, the US, knowing that they'd have less carriers than the Japanese, managed to repair Yorktown much faster than was predicted. On the other hand, the Japanese, thinking they had a greater superiority than they actually did, made no serious effort to get Shokaku (damaged at Coral Sea) or Zuikaku (undamaged, but with a depleted air group) into the battle. This turned out to be decisive; all of the Japanese carriers at Midway were sunk, and Yorktown ate both counterattacks, something she couldn't have done if the US hadn't managed to get her into the battle.
|
|
imryn
Full Member
Posts: 156
|
Post by imryn on Mar 18, 2019 9:24:30 GMT -6
I just think it is absurd that I have to decide whether to accept or decline battle without knowing which of my ships are available. I would have to be a particularly incompetent admiral to not know exactly which of my ships are available for duty at any time. In RTW I have seen far too many scenarios where 50% or more of my ships are unavailable - I would shoot an admiral who accepted a fleet engagement when 50% of his ships were back in harbor.
I have played too many scenarios when the only thing I can do it try to get my fleet into a harbor before the whole lot are sunk. This might represent "historical" accuracy however it does not represent enjoyable gameplay. In RTW the game appears to be designed to "punish" the player by screwing him or her over in every scenario. If you don't have half your ships stripped away, you get a scenario that starts 10 minutes from twilight, or puts the enemy right outside their safe harbor - or all three at once.
Never do you get a scenario where you get all the ships you had the forethought to build and position for the battle, at a time of day when you can fight the battle against an enemy who can't just click "enter harbor" and disappear. If the variations in the scenario generator were random then half of them would favor the player, but none of them ever do so it isn't random its malicious.
The game should show us the actual OOB, the time of day, and the location before we accept or decline.
The best thing would be to have an option to turn off all the "random" stuff. All scenarios start at dawn with all ships present in open sea equidistant from home ports. It might be unrealistic but it beats getting shafted continually.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Mar 18, 2019 10:52:59 GMT -6
I just think it is absurd that I have to decide whether to accept or decline battle without knowing which of my ships are available. I would have to be a particularly incompetent admiral to not know exactly which of my ships are available for duty at any time. In RTW I have seen far too many scenarios where 50% or more of my ships are unavailable - I would shoot an admiral who accepted a fleet engagement when 50% of his ships were back in harbor. I have played too many scenarios when the only thing I can do it try to get my fleet into a harbor before the whole lot are sunk. This might represent "historical" accuracy however it does not represent enjoyable gameplay. In RTW the game appears to be designed to "punish" the player by screwing him or her over in every scenario. If you don't have half your ships stripped away, you get a scenario that starts 10 minutes from twilight, or puts the enemy right outside their safe harbor - or all three at once. Never do you get a scenario where you get all the ships you had the forethought to build and position for the battle, at a time of day when you can fight the battle against an enemy who can't just click "enter harbor" and disappear. If the variations in the scenario generator were random then half of them would favor the player, but none of them ever do so it isn't random its malicious. The game should show us the actual OOB, the time of day, and the location before we accept or decline. The best thing would be to have an option to turn off all the "random" stuff. All scenarios start at dawn with all ships present in open sea equidistant from home ports. It might be unrealistic but it beats getting shafted continually. I am looking at it different way. I am not accepting or declining battle but I am deciding if I want fleet in being or I use ships actively. You do not know if exactly this time you will encounter enemy or not. Sometimes inteligence report helps however it could be false or not complete. Look at Indian Ocean and Somerville, he miss his opportunity after several days waiting for Japanese and finally withdrawal just before Japanese appeared.
|
|
|
Post by charliezulu on Mar 18, 2019 11:02:23 GMT -6
Whereas I disagree with both of you, since it's basically ahistorical cheese. Ships moved together, but real commanders often had "unexpexted battles" or encounters where they had to use what was available. They did not have the luxury of picking and choosing; if they had it, it would fight. IMO, such a system would be a detriment to what let's RtW work without keeping track of where things are beyond the current sea zones and if ships are in service or repairing.
|
|
|
Post by sittingduck on Mar 18, 2019 11:04:18 GMT -6
With respect to everyone who has commented here, I think the "problem" underlying this issue is that the game places the player in an Adminstrative Position dealing with governmental policy, fleet composition, and ship design (which is what I bought the game for). This is a Paper Pushing Administrator sitting way up in the Ivory Tower; Zeus on Mt Olympus.
Then, when a battle begins, the player becomes the commander on the scene who, in the Captain's Level of command, tells each vessel where, when, what to do. Micromanagment at it's best.
These two levels of play are nowhere near each other but the game tosses the player between them every month. As the Adminstrator you design and position the ships, and as the Fleet Commander you tactically manipulate what you have to the best outcome you can obtain.
I think all of us have had occasion to stomp on the AI and have also had our butts handed to us by that same fickle AI. The "problem" is that each of us have built the best ships we can, placed them where we hope they do what they were designed for, then instantly we're in charge of whatever the AI has given us to deal with for that scenario.
I don't know how many times I've been assigned three DD's on a Coastal Patrol and had to deal with CL's and larger, and my whole fleet is in port, in the same zone. I just have to place myself in that Lead Destroyer, as that Captain, in that moment, and deal with what is happening there, with what I have.
So, from The Big Cheese in staff meetings with other Old Fuddy-Duddies to a Commander, on the spot (figuratively and literally), either wetting his lips or wetting his pants, facing the current situation at hand. The level of player responsibility is not the same and many of us seem to have an issue with that. The game mechanics can toss us from Omnipotent to Overwhelmed each turn, but that is what gives RTW such a replay factor. You don't know what you get, game to game, so you come back to see how you can cope in the next game. It's just easier to play if we accept we go from Administrator with all the power to a Commander playing the hand the Powers-That-Be have dealt him.
I can think of no "fix" but perhaps a simple thing like a point system. I.E., this battle will consist of ten points. This can be one BC vs one BC (10 pts each) or two CA vs one CA, one CL, and two DD (5+5 vs 5+3+1+1). A combination of ships adding up to an equal number points for the opposing sides. But I personally accept the current system as is. The "Oh My" scenario is what could happen to any Commander on the scene at any time. The Commander can't do anything to control what he is saddled with, just his best in that situation.
Rant over. No offense intended. And Tortuga - your YouTube vids convinced me to buy the game. Thanks.
(My biggest peeve is a Bombardment Mission where you need ballistic missles to reach a target unrealistically beyond your gun range. Hope that gets fixed in RTW2.)
|
|
|
Post by akosjaccik on Mar 18, 2019 11:15:37 GMT -6
Writing my opinion down again would not feel like an elegant thing to do (I did so on the first page), but I do think that it's important to not lose the baby between two midwives so to speak - and stress that there is a middle ground. While I'd very largely keep the random-ish battles as we know them, I'd give in some cases more agency to the player both for historical and for gameplay purposes. The two approach (random vs. controlled) can coexist at the same time and make sense, bringing in more flavour and more meaning for the ship design and management, while at the same time in most caes not lose valuable experience on simulating the chaos of the battlefield.
|
|
|
Post by tortugapower on Mar 18, 2019 17:35:14 GMT -6
<snip> Ships moved together, but real commanders often had "unexpexted battles" or encounters where they had to use what was available. <snip> Yes, charliezulu . For RtW2's system, ships that move together should be more likely found in a battle together, but still with a chance for them to be caught separated. A reminder that some of the biggest battles in the the 20th century involved two sides seeking combat with a fleet more-or-less of their choosing: e.g. Jutland and Midway. I fully agree akosjaccik . We should have a happy mix between the designed elements (creating a ship in the CLAA role) and random elements (that CLAA getting involved in a cruiser brawl). sittingduck yes, we don't want to lose the randomness. I'm not arguing to do away with that, but I'm hoping for a small amount of non-randomness: *some* player influence.With the added features to the sequel (like carriers), you have an added reason to design role-specific ships. In the original RtW, you can design general-purpose ships for everything, and based on my (many) hours in the game, that seems like the optimal choice. Besides having less replayability, the all-general-purpose solution might fit even worse in RtW2 specifically, with the extended timeline, carriers, and more deadly submarines. Perhaps allowing ships to somehow attach themselves to a role (and, subsequently, a place in fleet composition) will add to the variety of ship designs, and so the replayability.
|
|