Turning down battles 'knowing' there are more to choose.

[dizzy]

Here's a novel idea, when you turn down a battle, that notification box should say at the bottom it's 'One of one', or One of Two, Two of two, or Two of Three etc., letting you know how many battle opportunities there are that month without telling you what battle opportunities they are, just that there are or are not more than one.

This would obviously make the game more enjoyable knowing you can skip a particularly unfavorable/undesireable mission for the chance to play a different one. 

[aeson]

I disagree that this would make the game more enjoyable, and you can already skip mission types that you don't like for a chance at a different mission type.

[dizzy]

So aeson, let me get this right, you're FOR having the game generate the SAME mission over and over (which has been reported and is a horrid drag) and against us knowing that there is or is not another mission possibility when a battle notification pops up cause that'd make the game less enjoyable? Okay, hehe. Edit, could be a checkmark box option for this feature at the start of a new game so we'd both be happy. But I can't fathom why you'd not want to know because RTW is notorious for offering the same mission again and again ad nauseam...

[aeson]

you're FOR having the game generate the SAME mission over and over (which has been reported and is a horrid drag) and against us knowing that there is or is not another mission possibility when a battle notification pops up cause that'd make the game less enjoyable?

Do not put words in my mouth. I meant exactly what I said, and I did not say any of this.

But I can't fathom why you'd not want to know because RTW is notorious for offering the same mission again and again ad nauseam...

What about your suggestion would affect this? Knowing the number of chances at an engagement shouldn't affect the types of engagement offered; if you would've gotten six destroyer actions off the Dalmation coast under the present system, you'll get six offers of destroyer actions off the Dalmation coast under the suggested system. It makes no difference; if you want to decline destroyer actions, you'll decline them under either system.

[dorn]

I completely agree with aeson. It is not historical (Admirals did not now what will happen tommorrow) and it will not help the game.

The issue is elsewhere, I have already thought about it and write it later in details to be useful.

- carrier warfare missions (short range, unlogical place of battles in time of air power, battle started near coast when have enemy air superiority etc.)

- completely inadeqate forces for the mission (in this case I do not mean getting 1 crusier to attack convoy as it is could sometimes be - eg. Battle of the Falkland Islands, but more unable to finish mission beause game design - eg. not having enough range to hit land target)

[dizzy]

aeson, that's not true. Don't presume to know what battles I'll accept and which I won't. You offer no reasons to back your nay on this. I offer several.

[williammiller]

Real-life theater commanders had no solid idea how many battles their forces would face in the next month or two, so for that reason alone we would not be likely to add such a mechanism.

[dizzy]

May 27, 2019 8:38:22 GMT -6 williammiller said:

Real-life theater commanders had no solid idea how many battles their forces would face in the next month or two, so for that reason alone we would not be likely to add such a mechanism.

Ok, williammiller, let's tackle the issue a separate way. How about you setup a check to where when a mission has been offered the previous month, it cannot be offered again as a first mission for the following month if there are other missions?

Edit: the goal is to help provide the illusion of mission variety, which of course is at issue here as some missions tend to trigger over and over ad nauseam. So if the missions could do this, then I think everyone would be happier.

[williammiller]

May 27, 2019 9:33:50 GMT -6 dizzy said:

May 27, 2019 8:38:22 GMT -6 williammiller said:

Real-life theater commanders had no solid idea how many battles their forces would face in the next month or two, so for that reason alone we would not be likely to add such a mechanism.

Ok, williammiller, let's tackle the issue a separate way. How about you setup a check to where when a mission has been offered the previous month, it cannot be offered again as a first mission for the following month if there are other missions?

This suggestion has been noted - thank you!

[dizzy]

Thanks.

[slipstream]

I don't know how the game mechanics work in deciding what missions come up and in what sea areas, but maybe this idea might work. We could have a checkbox for all of the sea areas, and in the ones where we have ships based, we could check off each box for the kind of battle that we want in that sea area. The more aggressive our posture, the greater the chance of having some kind of action take place. Raiding is a more offensive action than patrolling, and conducting an invasion is by far the most aggressive action of all, and will be met with fierce resistance.

Here are the following checkboxes and how they apply:

A) Patrolling - meaning, we are protecting any of our convoys from raiders (not counting escorting DD's); protecting our territories from attacks by small groups of raiders; protecting territories against invasions; and generally, protecting the sea area from enemy ship harassment; (performed by designated "patrolling" ships based in that area);

B) Raiding - meaning, we are looking for enemy convoys to attack; or are attacking and bombarding enemy bases; or are seeking out enemy naval forces to attack at sea (fleet action); or are striking against enemy invasion; NOTE: any invasion conducted by the enemy will automatically be countered by all patrolling ships on defense, and all raiding ships on offense; (performed by designated "raiding" ships based in that area);

C) Invading - meaning, we are targeting an enemy territory for an attack and invasion that turn with a number of our raiding ships in support, against an unknown number of the enemy's active ships in defense; NOTE: any time a box "C" is checked, this "battle" WILL HAPPEN in that sea area, if there is an invasion force available, and it will be the only battle in that sea area to take place that turn; an invasion might take more than one turn to succeed, or it may be called off if it doesn't; (performed by designated "raiding" ships assigned to the invasion, plus the invasion fleet);

D) All ships stand down - meaning, we are not seeking action against the enemy in this sea area, nor are we even defending against any enemy action. Our ships, for whatever reason, are all in port (there are no active defenders - and a bad idea, unless you like losing prestige!!)

E) No ships available - meaning, no ships are available in this sea area (well, DUH!!); automatically selected for all sea areas in which we have no ships present; (a negative prestige loss chance only if we have any territory to protect in this sea area);


Whatever we have checked is the type of battle that will be possible in that sea area. Now it might be lop-sided if the AI has its whole fleet in the same area where we just have a few cruisers, but then we don't have to accept the battle and may choose to accept the the VP loss instead. I just think that it would be nice if in certain sea areas, we could only have harassing action ("convoy attacks", or "raider vs patroller"), while in others where we have most of our navy focused, we would only see "fleet action" combat, and indeed, could even force the AI to accept fleet-action battles or suffer the VP loss, which would be better, I think, than seeing my fleet sitting in port turn after turn for lack of a suitable battle opportunity.

I just thought this might be one idea to help break up the monotony of always having to fight the same battles turn after turn. You get to choose the type of battles instead. I hope Fredrik can implement something like this without toooo much trouble.

[dizzy]

So in summary, the SAME mission shouldn't be offered as the first mission every turn, rather, last months mission, if offered, needs to get in the back of the line of any other mission offers, if any, for the next turn. Anything else to add?

[pcasey]

I'm fine with me, as the admiral, being able to decide which battles I want to take part in.

I'd agree with others that, once ships are right up next to each other in combat ranges, a fleet admiral isn't able to unilaterally opt out of an engagement ... his/her opponent is going to have a say in things though.

For most of the time period covered here though most battles were specific operations where one side or the other made a choice to produce a battle.

Germany is bombarding the south coast, and the British choose to rush south in an attempt to intercept ... Dogger Bank. But there were other German bombardments where the British chose not to react and/or didn't have sufficient intelligence to react in time.

I think its reasonable to be able to opt in/out of the battles.

I'm not sure I'd support being able to peer into the future when I made that decision though and have knowledge of what additional battles are coming up later in the month.