|
Post by Adseria on Mar 19, 2019 1:41:48 GMT -6
Ships moved together, but real commanders often had "unexpexted battles" or encounters where they had to use what was available. I'm going to bring up the same point here that I did in my Weather Forecasting thread; "Unexpected Battle" is already a battle type in the game. Sure, make ship selection entirely random in unexpected battles, but for most battle types, they aren't marked as "unexpected battles." Therefore, we can infer that most battles are ones that were expected and planned for. As part of this planning, you'd be expected to take what ships were available into account, just as you'd be expected to take the weather forecast into account. If you can't select what ships you take to a battle you were expecting, then what's the difference between an unexpected battle and an expected one?
|
|
|
Post by noshurviverse on Mar 19, 2019 2:55:21 GMT -6
I'm going to bring up the same point here that I did in my Weather Forecasting thread; "Unexpected Battle" is already a battle type in the game. Sure, make ship selection entirely random in unexpected battles, but for most battle types, they aren't marked as "unexpected battles." Therefore, we can infer that most battles are ones that were expected and planned for. As part of this planning, you'd be expected to take what ships were available into account, just as you'd be expected to take the weather forecast into account. If you can't select what ships you take to a battle you were expecting, then what's the difference between an unexpected battle and an expected one?
What really gets confusing is unexpected battles where you're attacking a ground target or doing a coastal raid. Did the commander of the fleet fall asleep or something, wake up and be like "Oh God we're off the coast of France, how did this happen?"
|
|
imryn
Full Member
Posts: 156
|
Post by imryn on Mar 19, 2019 5:18:07 GMT -6
I have no problem with the changing perspective throughout the game; from CNO to admiral to Commodore to Captain to Commander. My problem is that the game itself fails to account for that changing perspective. As CNO I have no idea of the exact state of my ships stationed in SEA, but the CNO shouldn't get to accept or decline scenarios in SEA, the admiral in charge of the ships there should and he should know exactly which ships he has available. There is always the possibility that ships will break down after they put to sea, but that should be relatively rare, and we should be told if it happens and offered a chance to abort the scenario.
For me it boils down to exactly what the scenario generator is doing - if it is trying to take the ships in the zone for the battle and create a challenging scenario for the player then it is also punishing the player for superior strategic play or rewarding crappy strategic play. If, due to my planning and preparation, I outnumber the enemy by 2 to 1 in all classes of ship in an area the AI will either strip away half or more of my ships, eliminate entire classes, set the battle in such a way to force a night battle, or give my opponent an easy escape to port, or all of the above. This definitely makes the scenario more challenging, but it is also punishing me for good strategic play.
The designers need to decide if this is a strategic game or a tactical game. If it is a strategic game (as I think it should be) the scenario generator should be changed so it applies ship availability equally to both sides, makes no attempt to make "challenging" scenarios, randomly assigns starting locations, and randomly assigns starting times. That way superior strategic play will reward the player with an advantage in the tactical scenarios, and conversely the player can make better use of his strategic assets because he can rely on having ships available for scenarios and doesn't need to assign 3 or 4 times as many ships as he really needs in the hope that even one of them will be available in a scenario.
Bottom line, currently good strategic play is punished in scenarios which is really bad game design. Good game design would reward good strategic play and allow the player to control the challenge that scenarios present through his strategic choices.
|
|
|
Post by archelaos on Mar 19, 2019 7:26:02 GMT -6
I have no problem with the changing perspective throughout the game; from CNO to admiral to Commodore to Captain to Commander. My problem is that the game itself fails to account for that changing perspective. As CNO I have no idea of the exact state of my ships stationed in SEA, but the CNO shouldn't get to accept or decline scenarios in SEA, the admiral in charge of the ships there should and he should know exactly which ships he has available. There is always the possibility that ships will break down after they put to sea, but that should be relatively rare, and we should be told if it happens and offered a chance to abort the scenario. In most battles you can refuse to engage by turning tail as soon as scouts locate enemy. If Yes/no question appeared on the battle screen, would you EVER accept a night battle? Bad weather battle? Convoy battle with weak escort? Would you EVER accept Samar-like battle? Even the best prepared navies were surprised on many occasions and had to fight in circumstances that were not prepared for.For me it boils down to exactly what the scenario generator is doing - if it is trying to take the ships in the zone for the battle and create a challenging scenario for the player then it is also punishing the player for superior strategic play or rewarding crappy strategic play. If, due to my planning and preparation, I outnumber the enemy by 2 to 1 in all classes of ship in an area the AI will either strip away half or more of my ships, eliminate entire classes, set the battle in such a way to force a night battle, or give my opponent an easy escape to port, or all of the above. This definitely makes the scenario more challenging, but it is also punishing me for good strategic play. It is not punishing player. It is making the game playable as smaller powers. What you see as punishing player, actually works both ways, so player as, say France, has a chance to win against UK or US. Without this smaller powers (Italy, Japan, AH and almost all custom ones) would be unplayable, unless you want to move from one loss to another.The designers need to decide if this is a strategic game or a tactical game. If it is a strategic game (as I think it should be) the scenario generator should be changed so it applies ship availability equally to both sides, makes no attempt to make "challenging" scenarios, randomly assigns starting locations, and randomly assigns starting times. That way superior strategic play will reward the player with an advantage in the tactical scenarios, and conversely the player can make better use of his strategic assets because he can rely on having ships available for scenarios and doesn't need to assign 3 or 4 times as many ships as he really needs in the hope that even one of them will be available in a scenario. See above. Do you want AI do the same to player? So every time AI is superior in numbers in zone, it will bring it's full power on you?Bottom line, currently good strategic play is punished in scenarios which is really bad game design. Good game design would reward good strategic play and allow the player to control the challenge that scenarios present through his strategic choices. That said, I'd love to see improvements to battle generator - give more weight to ship speed in squadron creation, not place old, slow cruisers as scouts esp. for battlecruisers etc, more often create cruiser battle for cruisers rather than battlecuisers (% ratio based on % ratio of Cs to BCs?)
|
|
imryn
Full Member
Posts: 156
|
Post by imryn on Mar 19, 2019 8:05:29 GMT -6
I have no problem with the changing perspective throughout the game; from CNO to admiral to Commodore to Captain to Commander. My problem is that the game itself fails to account for that changing perspective. As CNO I have no idea of the exact state of my ships stationed in SEA, but the CNO shouldn't get to accept or decline scenarios in SEA, the admiral in charge of the ships there should and he should know exactly which ships he has available. There is always the possibility that ships will break down after they put to sea, but that should be relatively rare, and we should be told if it happens and offered a chance to abort the scenario. In most battles you can refuse to engage by turning tail as soon as scouts locate enemy. If Yes/no question appeared on the battle screen, would you EVER accept a night battle? Bad weather battle? Convoy battle with weak escort? Would you EVER accept Samar-like battle? Even the best prepared navies were surprised on many occasions and had to fight in circumstances that were not prepared for.
I have experienced disengaging from both sides. When the enemy wants to disengage their home port is conveniently located right behind them - when I want to do the same my home port is the other side of the map and the enemy has position to intercept me, forcing me to fight even when i want to run. My answer to all those questions is both yes and no. Strategically I try to have a least parity of forces with my opponent, and if I have met that strategic goal, and if I could trust the AI to not randomly strip away my forces but not my opponents then the answer is yes. Under the RTW AI the answer is a resounding NO. I don't object to occasionally being caught out, I object to always being caught out. Proper preparation should have the effect of reducing the number of times you get caught out, but in RTW it has exactly the opposite effect.For me it boils down to exactly what the scenario generator is doing - if it is trying to take the ships in the zone for the battle and create a challenging scenario for the player then it is also punishing the player for superior strategic play or rewarding crappy strategic play. If, due to my planning and preparation, I outnumber the enemy by 2 to 1 in all classes of ship in an area the AI will either strip away half or more of my ships, eliminate entire classes, set the battle in such a way to force a night battle, or give my opponent an easy escape to port, or all of the above. This definitely makes the scenario more challenging, but it is also punishing me for good strategic play. It is not punishing player. It is making the game playable as smaller powers. What you see as punishing player, actually works both ways, so player as, say France, has a chance to win against UK or US. Without this smaller powers (Italy, Japan, AH and almost all custom ones) would be unplayable, unless you want to move from one loss to another.
That's funny because I thought selecting the options for ahistorical budgets and small fleet sizes was what made the smaller nations playable. If you want to play as a smaller nation with historical budgets and large fleet sizes that is ok by me, but it should be a very difficult challenge and if you need the AI holding your hand to do it then you aren't really achieving anything are you?The designers need to decide if this is a strategic game or a tactical game. If it is a strategic game (as I think it should be) the scenario generator should be changed so it applies ship availability equally to both sides, makes no attempt to make "challenging" scenarios, randomly assigns starting locations, and randomly assigns starting times. That way superior strategic play will reward the player with an advantage in the tactical scenarios, and conversely the player can make better use of his strategic assets because he can rely on having ships available for scenarios and doesn't need to assign 3 or 4 times as many ships as he really needs in the hope that even one of them will be available in a scenario. See above. Do you want AI do the same to player? So every time AI is superior in numbers in zone, it will bring it's full power on you?
Absolutely YES. I want good strategic play rewarded and bad strategic play punishedBottom line, currently good strategic play is punished in scenarios which is really bad game design. Good game design would reward good strategic play and allow the player to control the challenge that scenarios present through his strategic choices. That said, I'd love to see improvements to battle generator - give more weight to ship speed in squadron creation, not place old, slow cruisers as scouts esp. for battlecruisers etc, more often create cruiser battle for cruisers rather than battlecuisers (% ratio based on % ratio of Cs to BCs?)
|
|
|
Post by charliezulu on Mar 19, 2019 8:20:41 GMT -6
Ships moved together, but real commanders often had "unexpexted battles" or encounters where they had to use what was available. I'm going to bring up the same point here that I did in my Weather Forecasting thread; "Unexpected Battle" is already a battle type in the game. Sure, make ship selection entirely random in unexpected battles, but for most battle types, they aren't marked as "unexpected battles." Therefore, we can infer that most battles are ones that were expected and planned for. As part of this planning, you'd be expected to take what ships were available into account, just as you'd be expected to take the weather forecast into account. If you can't select what ships you take to a battle you were expecting, then what's the difference between an unexpected battle and an expected one?
I personally view them as more "surprise battles" when you can't decline without something very bad happening, and divorce it from the concept of choosing ships. It might not be "patrolling ships bumped into an enemy with no warning", but may also include things like "we just got surprise attacked and need shore bombardment NOW" or similar things. In those cases, you can't turn it down without severe repercussions (although the battle results tend not to reflect this, which is a separate issue). Also note that I said unexpected battles OR. Admirals split up their navies into units, and then those units did battle - they didn't have the luxury of taking the ideal ship, provided it was in theatre. To turn the argument around, what possible advantage does "pick and choose what ships you want up to X limit" work better than pre-selected divisions? It's more prone to cheese-y tactics, more encumbering to the player, requires a new AI system, and less immersive, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by Adseria on Mar 19, 2019 9:23:39 GMT -6
I'm going to bring up the same point here that I did in my Weather Forecasting thread; "Unexpected Battle" is already a battle type in the game. Sure, make ship selection entirely random in unexpected battles, but for most battle types, they aren't marked as "unexpected battles." Therefore, we can infer that most battles are ones that were expected and planned for. As part of this planning, you'd be expected to take what ships were available into account, just as you'd be expected to take the weather forecast into account. If you can't select what ships you take to a battle you were expecting, then what's the difference between an unexpected battle and an expected one?
What really gets confusing is unexpected battles where you're attacking a ground target or doing a coastal raid. Did the commander of the fleet fall asleep or something, wake up and be like "Oh God we're off the coast of France, how did this happen?" I figure that "unexpected battle" can mean a lot of different things. Yes, it can mean that 2 opposing patrols just happen to find each other, but it could also mean that the side launching the shore bombardment weren't expecting the enemy to try to stop them, and the surprise is that they do.
|
|
|
Post by akosjaccik on Mar 19, 2019 9:26:52 GMT -6
To turn the argument around, what possible advantage does "pick and choose what ships you want up to X limit" work better than pre-selected divisions? It's more prone to cheese-y tactics, more encumbering to the player, requires a new AI system, and less immersive, IMO. Respectfully, I'd argue that. It does not necessarily HAVE to bring an advantage, (the player could decide poorly, or based on wrong data etc.), the point is that the player has agency, the player is involved, thus motivated and can take clear responsibility. Cheesy tactics - It might be true, but then again, "bombarding" a target out of reach with three 3in destroyers, or forcing the player to try to "intercept" a battleship with light forces at daylight three consecutive times is less "cheesy" on the AI's part? More encumbering to the player - I'm going to pull again my "one battle out of ten" argument, but if the player "has" to give a few seconds to actually plan an operation in a game like Rule the Waves of anything, is it really cumbersome, or is it a welcome gameplay feature? Of course, de gustibus non est dispotandum, but as far as I am concerned, this would be a most welcome "plus task". Requires new AI system - Is it, though? The player could still operate under some constraints, and the AI could decide to bring it's own forces based on some force assessment +-random roll. I don't think it would be horribly difficult to make the system so that it does not visibly give different overall results, not counting in cases where one side is clearly outnumbered for example, which case is already present in the game. And again: in my book at least, the majority of the battles would still go down as the usual spiel. less immersive - Again, I can and will accept your opinion, but mine still differs. I can't see how operational planning, giving the player some ability sometimes to conduct an offensive strike for example, from Pearl to D-Day, you name it, with the ships the player drafted and shaped for the task so dearly, would take away immersion instead of adding it.
Simply, there are "unexpected" battles, some of us would just like to see a few "expected" ones as well.
|
|
|
Post by Adseria on Mar 19, 2019 9:33:25 GMT -6
I personally view them as more "surprise battles" when you can't decline without something very bad happening, and divorce it from the concept of choosing ships. It might not be "patrolling ships bumped into an enemy with no warning", but may also include things like "we just got surprise attacked and need shore bombardment NOW" or similar things. In those cases, you can't turn it down without severe repercussions (although the battle results tend not to reflect this, which is a separate issue). Also note that I said unexpected battles OR. Admirals split up their navies into units, and then those units did battle - they didn't have the luxury of taking the ideal ship, provided it was in theatre. All the more reason why you should get to choose what ships you get in a battle, with limitations. Admirals split their fleet up into individual units, and they got to choose which ships were in those units. Why shouldn't we be able to do the same in-game?To turn the argument around, what possible advantage does "pick and choose what ships you want up to X limit" work better than pre-selected divisions? It's more prone to cheese-y tactics, more encumbering to the player, requires a new AI system, and less immersive, IMO. This wasn't my suggestion; my suggestion was to be able to assign divisions at the strategic level, and then choose which of those divisions (with limitations) should be in the battle. I never said being able to pick individual ships would be a good thing.EDIT: Oh, and as for "cheesy tactics," 2 things. First, are you honestly going to tell me that people never use "cheesy tactics" anyway, with or without this system? And second, this game is about war, and who ever said war was fair?
|
|
|
Post by charliezulu on Mar 19, 2019 10:20:31 GMT -6
I think we're discussing the same thing from different ends. We both dislike cases where fleet comp is incredibly unsuited to the work being done, presumably both because the ships aren't suited for the job and for each other. We presumably differ on if:
1) ships should be treated individually and manually selected before battle or pre-assigned to groups based on mutually supporting doctrines and
2) selection of ships should occur with high frequency (every not-unexpected battle), with low frequency (only major battles or other pre-planned engagements), or something in between.
IMO, there should be the option of grouping ships. If I want to make Kido Butai or the Second Pacific Squadron, then having a way in-game to make that happen is good without having to repeatedly select them each time. If I want a dispersed force, then I can do that by just not assigning things. Also, I'm of the opinion that the player shouldn't have full freedom of choice in EVERY battle, instead being limited to only some of the ships in the area at most on average to represent that some ships are busy doing other things; that level of choice should only occur when it'd be reasonable to assume so, such as supporting an invasion that had been planned months in advance or similar.
|
|
|
Post by Adseria on Mar 19, 2019 14:19:57 GMT -6
I think we're discussing the same thing from different ends. We both dislike cases where fleet comp is incredibly unsuited to the work being done, presumably both because the ships aren't suited for the job and for each other. Not really. It's a historical game, and, as I already said, war is rarely fair. We presumably differ on if: 1) ships should be treated individually and manually selected before battle or pre-assigned to groups based on mutually supporting doctrines and No, again, as I already said, I think ships should be grouped together into divisions and then these divisions selected, either manually or by the computer, to take part in battles.2) selection of ships should occur with high frequency (every not-unexpected battle), with low frequency (only major battles or other pre-planned engagements), or something in between. Again, see my earlier posts for my opinion on this.IMO, there should be the option of grouping ships. If I want to make Kido Butai or the Second Pacific Squadron, then having a way in-game to make that happen is good without having to repeatedly select them each time. If I want a dispersed force, then I can do that by just not assigning things. Also, I'm of the opinion that the player shouldn't have full freedom of choice in EVERY battle, instead being limited to only some of the ships in the area at most on average to represent that some ships are busy doing other things; that level of choice should only occur when it'd be reasonable to assume so, such as supporting an invasion that had been planned months in advance or similar. And, once again, you smash right into something I've already explained my stance on multiple times before; Build ships, put ships in divisions, choose divisions before battle, some ships/divisions may be unavailable. I don't think I can describe it any more clearly than I already have.I really don't see why you keep making me reiterate what I've already said.
|
|
|
Post by charliezulu on Mar 19, 2019 15:24:20 GMT -6
I think we're discussing the same thing from different ends. We both dislike cases where fleet comp is incredibly unsuited to the work being done, presumably both because the ships aren't suited for the job and for each other. Not really. It's a historical game, and, as I already said, war is rarely fair. We presumably differ on if: 1) ships should be treated individually and manually selected before battle or pre-assigned to groups based on mutually supporting doctrines and No, again, as I already said, I think ships should be grouped together into divisions and then these divisions selected, either manually or by the computer, to take part in battles.2) selection of ships should occur with high frequency (every not-unexpected battle), with low frequency (only major battles or other pre-planned engagements), or something in between. Again, see my earlier posts for my opinion on this.IMO, there should be the option of grouping ships. If I want to make Kido Butai or the Second Pacific Squadron, then having a way in-game to make that happen is good without having to repeatedly select them each time. If I want a dispersed force, then I can do that by just not assigning things. Also, I'm of the opinion that the player shouldn't have full freedom of choice in EVERY battle, instead being limited to only some of the ships in the area at most on average to represent that some ships are busy doing other things; that level of choice should only occur when it'd be reasonable to assume so, such as supporting an invasion that had been planned months in advance or similar. And, once again, you smash right into something I've already explained my stance on multiple times before; Build ships, put ships in divisions, choose divisions before battle, some ships/divisions may be unavailable. I don't think I can describe it any more clearly than I already have.I really don't see why you keep making me reiterate what I've already said. Maybe because I wasn't addressing you specifically? No need to get so defensive. However, I will question why you keep bringing up "war isn't fair" - I never suggested having anything of the sort.
|
|
|
Post by archelaos on Mar 19, 2019 15:29:31 GMT -6
The problem is Adseria , that you do not take into account that ships in RTW take part in many different operations than those that become manually played battles. They train, escort convoys, scout, lay mines and bombard land targets. They hunt for raiders, protect blockade runners, perform minor refits, take shore leave or wait for fuel/ammo delivery and many other.
Manually played battle is an opportunity when both navies have ships in same area so engagement is possible. Those ships may be there for many different reasons, and only minor proportion of them plan to find and destroy enemy main force. Very often they will just run into each other while doing other tasks.
If you lock them in strict squadron structure and expect all squadrons available in all turns, then who is doing all the above? Maybe you assign some squadrons to tasks like blockade or trade protection or raiding... but if your raiding squadron has three cruisers and 1 is refitting, 1 damaged by mine and 1 raiding - and you have cruiser battle offered what would you do? use your raiding squadron (single ship that ran into enemy?) No, you ask to be able to pull any other active squadron that do not have task, one that has all the ships available to fight battle.
If your navy is blockading enemy that performs German style BC raid to bombard random coastal city with just a few ships, they run into a patrol force. But you want to be able to pull any squadron from active pool (the best one) and spawn them as your patrol force. Would you EVER use anything that your best BC squadron? No you wouldn't. You would ALWAYS sortie the best force the generator allows.
That's why I like the random generator. It gives the feeling thet my my navy is doing it's own thing, trying to win war. And sometimes my ships run into enemy ships. Not always the best available. Sometimes at major disadvantage for one of the sides. sometimes in bad weather, that could even prevent any fighting.
I agree there should be some checks to remove some of the results that are just bad for gameplay (fe. coastal bombardment when your ships can't bombard de to lacking range or visibility) or make some types of ships not appear in some types of battles - fe. dedicated minelayer should not appear in a fleet battle, convoy defence or coastal patrol but there is no reason it should be excluded from a cruiser battle; small cruiser killing BC should't appear in battles as a part of BC squadron, but either alone or as a scout for bigger force etc. If I create CLAA class, I do not want them all to appear as a squadron against enemy CLs, but rather appear along other cruisers, or as a close escort for capital ships.
Additional problem with grouping ships in squadrons is that for small navies it would be very dependant on the ships available. Only the biggest could afford to put anything except DDs in permanent squadrons. And the level of micro needed to adapt squadron everytime a ship is needed to do sth else or just stay in port would be immense.
Besides, I do not believe it is possible to create AI that would be as efficient as a player in constructing squadrons. As result, player will be given massive advantage, always picking the best tools available to fight enemy. Just as I mentioned above, you will always use the strongest ships available. Similarly, current generation Paradox games give so many tools and customisation to player, that no proper AI was created so far for them (esp. HoI4), and I do not think it could ever be created (unless we employ actual AI or at least effective machine learning).
|
|
|
Post by cwemyss on Mar 19, 2019 16:02:07 GMT -6
Cool. Another shouting thread. I was concerned we'd run out of those.
|
|
|
Post by akosjaccik on Mar 19, 2019 16:33:03 GMT -6
Cool. Another shouting thread. I was concerned we'd run out of those. Which is a shame, because on one hand I feel that the "shouting" is largely based rather on the misunderstanding of standpoints than strong disagreement; and on the other hand the topic brings up an important issue with some good insight and it would be a shame for it to esentially self-destruct.
|
|