|
Post by alsadius on Jul 12, 2019 20:53:22 GMT -6
Looking at the latest blockade thread, I have an idea for how blockade could work more realistically, and address some of the problems they outline. And while I can't say for sure, it seems like it wouldn't take all that much work either. 1) Blockade is not automatic. Instead, ships can be set to blockade (either with a "Blockade" status, or with a button somewhere). If enough ships in a zone are on blockade, the enemy is being blockaded. "Enough" will vary by fleet size setting, and by the geography of the target nation - for example, with Very Large fleets you might be able to blockade Russia with 20 ships, Germany with 30, and the UK with 50 (because of their relative access to the sea). This should only count your raw number of hulls, not tonnage or effectiveness - a KE can stop a merchie just as well as a BB can. An inferior fleet may even choose to blockade if it wants to and has enough hulls(though points 2-3 will make it unpleasant to try). As an optional extra here, you can also make it possible to blockade colonies. If it's implemented, use similar rules, and this should replace the "Dominate sea zones around..." events. 2) New mission types will exist for blockaded nations. I'm thinking of two in particular: - Blockade Runner missions, where the goal is to escort fast transports to a target destination (past the blockade), and break contact with enemy forces - this can use similar logic to invasion missions, but with a different target location. - Blockade Raid missions, which will basically be Coastal Raid missions where the enemy ships you're trying to kill are the blockading forces, not transports and such. These missions could be more variable than most in terms of the force available to the blockading nation - sometimes the blockaders will be light forces with little nearby support, but any battle fleets in the area will have a chance of being available to reinforce the blockade, and a small raid can be outnumbered badly if it hits the wrong place at the wrong time. 3) If the blockading power refuses or loses blockade missions, they may suffer penalties as a result. Implementation can vary, but reasonable penalties would include the loss of prestige, additional VP penalties, loss of ability to blockade for some time, increased tension with third parties (due to frustration at a "paper blockade"), and/or unrest in extreme cases. Certainly it should include the loss of any blockade bonuses for the month. Refusal, in particular, should have large penalties, which are spelled out in the popup asking if we want to accept battles. This prevents the issue of a "blockade" that always refuses battles, creates a pretty realistic system, doesn't add a ton of complexity, and I think it might also be nice to mix up the battle types a bit.
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on Jul 12, 2019 23:03:48 GMT -6
Looking at the latest blockade thread, I have an idea for how blockade could work more realistically, and address some of the problems they outline. And while I can't say for sure, it seems like it wouldn't take all that much work either. 1) Blockade is not automatic. Instead, ships can be set to blockade (either with a "Blockade" status, or with a button somewhere). If enough ships in a zone are on blockade, the enemy is being blockaded. "Enough" will vary by fleet size setting, and by the geography of the target nation - for example, with Very Large fleets you might be able to blockade Russia with 20 ships, Germany with 30, and the UK with 50 (because of their relative access to the sea). This should only count your raw number of hulls, not tonnage or effectiveness - a KE can stop a merchie just as well as a BB can. An inferior fleet may even choose to blockade if it wants to and has enough hulls(though points 2-3 will make it unpleasant to try). As an optional extra here, you can also make it possible to blockade colonies. If it's implemented, use similar rules, and this should replace the "Dominate sea zones around..." events. 2) New mission types will exist for blockaded nations. I'm thinking of two in particular: - Blockade Runner missions, where the goal is to escort fast transports to a target destination (past the blockade), and break contact with enemy forces - this can use similar logic to invasion missions, but with a different target location. - Blockade Raid missions, which will basically be Coastal Raid missions where the enemy ships you're trying to kill are the blockading forces, not transports and such. These missions could be more variable than most in terms of the force available to the blockading nation - sometimes the blockaders will be light forces with little nearby support, but any battle fleets in the area will have a chance of being available to reinforce the blockade, and a small raid can be outnumbered badly if it hits the wrong place at the wrong time. 3) If the blockading power refuses or loses blockade missions, they may suffer penalties as a result. Implementation can vary, but reasonable penalties would include the loss of prestige, additional VP penalties, loss of ability to blockade for some time, increased tension with third parties (due to frustration at a "paper blockade"), and/or unrest in extreme cases. Certainly it should include the loss of any blockade bonuses for the month. Refusal, in particular, should have large penalties, which are spelled out in the popup asking if we want to accept battles. This prevents the issue of a "blockade" that always refuses battles, creates a pretty realistic system, doesn't add a ton of complexity, and I think it might also be nice to mix up the battle types a bit. Why complicate things, though? IMHO, there is an existing mechanic already in place to deal with this kind of stuff: Raiding & Trade Protection roles. (No, I'm not kidding - and, please, at least read the next paragraph before rolling your eyes and hitting the 'back' button on your browser) Basically - and as far as I can tell - Raiding and Blockading have the same goal ('eliminating' enemy merchant traffic) which they accomplish by using the same methods (cruise around an area, and 'eliminate' any enemy merchants you find & can intercept) - the only major difference here is that Blockaders are assigned an specific area to Patrol (and are based off a port) - while 'proper' Raiders 'range' across an entire Sea Zone. Similarly, the best way to defeat a Blockade (as mentioned before) is to run Convoys through it (which is nearly the exact same way in which Raiders are defeated - for the most part) so - again, basically - Trade Protection is the role best fit for this. So, what I propose is: 1. Remove the Blockade mechanic entirely, and rely solely on 'amount of merchants sunk causes starvation and the populace is revolting' mechanic. 2. Further amplify the 1. part by the increased amount of Convoy missions (possibly with an auto-resolve button for those among us not taking sadistic pleasure in slaughtering innocent merchantmen) - especially in the Home Area (and possibly major colonies - like India, for example - as well) 3. Have ships with Raiding (on the attacking side) and Trade Protection (on the defending side) orders included in Convoy missions under 2. alongside the ships on Active (Fleet) Duty in that area - which are the only ones that pop up in these kinds of battles at the moment. 4. Have all merchants sunk in battles (Coastal Raids as well as Convoy Defense) counted in the unrest mechanic under 1. 5. (just a cherry on the top, really) Remove the 'two escorting DD's' in convoys - the duty of defending the helpless merchants should fall only on the player's shoulders - not to mention the fact that (when there is no DD's in the Sea Area the battle is to take place in) the battle generator throws in DD's from other areas (like the ones half a world away - just as a random example) 6. Have the (current) blockading modifier represent the difficulty of blockading the nation (i.e.'how many merchants would you have to sink to create a point of unrest?' kind of thing) - USA, for example, would be really difficult since they are capable of sustaining themselves - Japan would be relatively easy, since they need to import just about everything. 7. Show (at least in numbers) the amount of merchant traffic for yourself and the nation you're at war with in each Area - so we can tell what the odds of a convoy mission in any given Area is, and how many Patrol ships to put in there. This could be as easy as tracing the value of each and every colony through sea Areas on the way to Home Area - i.e. India is producing 1000 points, so there will be 1000 points of traffic in Indian Ocean, Meditteranean and Nothern Europe. In this way, you can generate far more actions (which is a huge benefit for all) while reducing the code (IMHO, anyway - Fredrik has sole access to the actual guts, and might disagree) increasing player participation by (actually) 'fielding' a proper colonial defense and removing an annoying, bean-counting and illogical mechanic that created nothing but trouble for a long, long time. Oh, and, in the interest of making things clearer, you might as well rename the roles - Raiding to, say, Interception (Interdiction?) - and Trade Protection to, say, Patrol. This gives the respective 'shorthands' as 'I' and 'P' which (if I'm not mistaken) are easily distinguishable from all the rest. Just my 0.02$ anyway. Cheers!
|
|
|
Post by alsadius on Jul 12, 2019 23:26:10 GMT -6
I'm fine with that in principle, but I have some practical concerns. For one, how will your system will handle geographic issues? It feels like Russia should be easier to blockade than the US, but I'm not sure if it actually would be under those mechanics. Also, raider interceptions aren't really treated like battles right now, so that would likely want to change.
The nature of suggestions is that we don't know the code base, so we're just stabbing in the dark. So perhaps yours is better than mine here - I'm willing to let the NWS guys figure out which one seems better. But I'd prefer a fix here, and either of those (if done right) would be fine by me.
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on Jul 13, 2019 0:35:07 GMT -6
I'm fine with that in principle, but I have some practical concerns. For one, how will your system will handle geographic issues? It feels like Russia should be easier to blockade than the US, but I'm not sure if it actually would be under those mechanics. Also, raider interceptions aren't really treated like battles right now, so that would likely want to change. The nature of suggestions is that we don't know the code base, so we're just stabbing in the dark. So perhaps yours is better than mine here - I'm willing to let the NWS guys figure out which one seems better. But I'd prefer a fix here, and either of those (if done right) would be fine by me. If I remember correctly, RtW1's Raiding/Patrol system ran on the principle of Raiding/Patrol points - i.e.each Area was dotted with points where Raiders/Patrols (and merchants?) would be distributed, and the losses/thwartings would be determined by which forces found themselves on which point. So, basically, (as it stands right now) Russia would be just as difficult to blockade as any other nation - since it's all a numbers game. However, if Fredrik is to, say, code in the fact that Raiding forces (especially those supported by Active Fleet - representing actual Blockade instead of just running around harassing sailors) tend to favour points closest to enemy ports (like within 100 miles, for example) - you could quickly see that there are only 1 or 2 points a fleet blockading Russia would have to picket - as opposed to something like 10 (or more likely 20) points you'd need to picket to blockade Britain. So, basically, if (for example) 10 Patrol ships oppose 20 Blockaders in Russia, a typical Raider Interception would be something like 2 Patrollers vs. 4 Blockaders. While in Britain, OTOH, it would be something like 4 Patrollers vs. 1 Blockader (for example - with the same amount of ships) - you see where I'm going here, surely. Again, not sure if I remember correctly - somebody correct me if I'm not. Cheers! P.S. personally, I'd love something like SaI's campaign system bolted into RtW - where you assign the locations of Patrols and Raiders and select missions/targets for your main fleet and have operation points budget to manage - but, then again, I can see it's not everyone's cup of tea.
|
|
|
Post by mycophobia on Jul 13, 2019 0:51:56 GMT -6
my only problem with using large scale raiding to signify blockade is that raider in this game are presumed to have little to no support, which is well and all if you are looking at German raiders of ww2.
Blockade raiders are different, they are often deployed in force to probe large area in a coordinated manner, with heavy unit back up being available for sortie. As mentioned in the blockade post, spam raider can represent the form of long range, dispersed blockade when your main fleet wish to avoid battle with enemy naval force. However, blockades like ww1 Royal Navy blockade enjoyed far more support.
I thought about a “Blockade” role as well, but I feel it can just be part of what ships in active force does, but BBs should have less weight than they do currently., there just needs to be ways for the blocakded party to have various mission that allows them to “tip” the blockade based on results of these missions(like the invasion system ). The blockade ends if the blockading side keep losing/forfeiting blockading battles, but can be set again if ship superiority is maintained after awhile. (This systen should be less random than invasion, without worrying about uncertainty of land battle)
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jul 13, 2019 4:32:02 GMT -6
I have already thought about blockade but I have not posted anything yet because there are a lot of bugs need to be corrected first and some other more important areas.
The second thing is that blockade is quite abstracted and I like it. Question is if there can be better system which will use blockade.
We should give ourselves several question to make a better system. 1. Q: What influence ability to blockade enemy? A: Geographic. It is quite a difference if you need to blockade European Russia which need to go through Skagerrak and Kattegat and opposite blockade France in large North west Europe and South France or USA with East and West coast. As we can see important is number of ports in each area which can be used by merchants. This means how many ships are needed to blockade such area in case of close blockade. In case of distant blockade that important is choke points. In case of Russia Skagerrak and Kattegat is easily blockaded by very few ships if there is no opposition. Distant blockade of USA on other point does not work. Blockading Germany can be done through North Sea and Channel.
2. Q: How blockade works? A: There are a lot of light ships mostly cruisers or any other small ships with enough range, speed and firepower to patrol area and stop any ship try to pass. The heavy ships as battleships, battlecruisers, carriers are used to attack any enemy force try to stop blockade. But in case of distant blockade it is much easier as enemy fleet needs to protect convoy all the way (real world example: Mediterranean convoys, Arctic convoys) which means that traffic is limited even if blockading fleet does not interfere.
3. Q: How blockade can be stopped? With fleet large enough, especially countering light forces really commencing blockade to force them out. The main fleet (heavy units) can lighten blockade but cannot complete stop blockade itself especially if it is distant blockade.
4. Q: What about colonies? Colonies can be blockaded too, it is usually much easier as there is less ports to be blockaded. But effect of such blockade is minimalized only for such colony and in case of some colonies (India, Australia), effect could be negligible.
So I suggest system which is by module. Every part of module add more realistic view on blockade but not all are needed.
1. BLOCKADE OF HOME AREAS In RTW blockade is based on nation. I suggest do it differently and based on areas. So each home area gets several variables. using variables for each home area: Minimal value of blockade - It means that nation that blockade another home area needs number of ships to start blockade. It is based on geographics. So for North Europe Russia number will be minimal, for USA east coast or UK number will be quite high. This number is scaled by fleet large (small, large.. very large) I suggest use same system as in game for point value. For simplification I suggest that effect of blockade is calculated as: % effect of blockade of particular area = MIN (100 % ; (value of ships commencing blockade / minimal blockade value ) ^ 2); note or something similar Effect of blockade - from 0 to 100 %. It is effect of blockading nation. If it has only one home area it is 100 %, othterwise is 100 % is divided between both areas. It is simplification as it not allow transfer of trade between areas meaning blockading Northern France does not allow trade to be diverted to southern France. Blockade ratio: Best thing would be table where rows are nations and columns are home areas. It is similar to actual coefficient for nations. It should have been based on geographic of home area and distance of blockade nation. So Germany blockading European Russia should have better coeffficient than UK blockading European Russia and it shoudl be better than USA blockading Russia simulating that ships need to regurarly withdraw as distance matter. To do it even better every home area can have blockade point and distance between blockade point and nearest port of nation who blockade could be measured and taken as changing this coefficent. So it could be: coefficient = geographics * function of distance
Than there is several check similar to today system: 1. if blockading nation has enough force to force blockade using blockade ratio. If yes, go to point 2
2. if blockading nation has enough "minimal value of blockade" if not calculate decreased effect 3. apply "Effect of blockade" 4. sum all home areas to have total effect on unrest or anything else
2. BLOCKADE of colonies Each colony can be blockade in similar manner. However I suggest that in this case it has no effect on unrest but it can have on of several effects: 1. increase of desire to be free (I do not now how RTW2 simulates this but if it is possible it could be nice effect) 2. decrease available funds from colonies
The system to decide if colony is blockade can be similar to home areas. Each colony can have variable "minimal value of blockade". For simplification there can be only one overall variable "blockade ratio colonies" to be used compare blockade strenght of both fleets in area. I would add variable "Effect of blockade" which for colonies is variable effectiveness of blockade. Some colonies would not have full effect of blockade as Australia or India.
3. Blockading nation refused all battles If nation who blockade another nation refuses all battles the effect of blockade is decreased by some % in home area.
4. Special
Doing it even more realistic it could be added some special choke points as Suez, Gibraltar for Mediterranean, Sicily or Malta against A-H which if under control allow blockading all possessions in that area decreasing needed force to blockade such home areas.
But this would need more thinking how to implement.
CONCLUSION Such system will be still abstracted in similar way as it is now. But system itself is not complicated adding 3 variables to all home areas and 2 variables to all colonies. All other calculation is based on this and all information which is already in game. And at the end effect of blockade is much more realistic because of taking considaration geographic between nations and distance.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jul 13, 2019 9:46:44 GMT -6
You can already get Convoy Defense missions while blockaded and Convoy Attack missions while blockading your enemy. It's not explicitly stated, but it's likely that such a mission represents an attempt to force a convoy through the blockade. On Very Large Fleet Size, a blockade will probably generate between about 200 and 300 victory points per turn in force; declining a single large battle can cost well over a thousand and losing a large battle can cost tens of thousands of victory points and a point or two of prestige. I do not see any good reason to make a special mission type which carries increased penalties for decline/loss; the existing mission types' penalties for the same already typically outweigh the victory points generated by a blockade, and do so by a significant margin in the case of larger engagements.
|
|
|
Post by dohboy on Jul 15, 2019 11:54:56 GMT -6
They lose VPs for declining the battles, but that doesn't help keep the people fat and happy. I would happily trade a few thousand victory points in return for my opponent getting added unrest every turn.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jul 15, 2019 12:09:07 GMT -6
They lose VPs for declining the battles, but that doesn't help keep the people fat and happy. I would happily trade a few thousand victory points in return for my opponent getting added unrest every turn. UK would be happy if German fleet was in sea as it gave Royal Navy chance to sink some ships in WW1. Does it mean that UK can force that situation?
|
|
|
Post by dohboy on Jul 15, 2019 12:37:15 GMT -6
Was Germany blockading the UK?
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jul 15, 2019 12:59:53 GMT -6
Was Germany blockading the UK? It works either way. If UK did not respond Germany cannot force it. They cannot try to hunt light forces easily as they will get themselves in very bad situation. They would be outnumbered, far from port to save any seriously damaged warship.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jul 15, 2019 13:02:00 GMT -6
They lose VPs for declining the battles, but that doesn't help keep the people fat and happy. I would happily trade a few thousand victory points in return for my opponent getting added unrest every turn. Most wars end long before unrest matters, even if the enemy refuses just about every battle.
|
|
|
Post by dohboy on Jul 15, 2019 13:29:23 GMT -6
In order for a blockade to be binding it has to be maintained by a force that can actually prevent access to the enemy coast. If the blockading forces withdraw to deny battle the blockade is no longer valid.
|
|
|
Post by dohboy on Jul 16, 2019 7:55:40 GMT -6
I was thinking about this some more last night. A blockade is a political exercise as much as a naval one. I think that Germany, with the unrivaled German talent for stomping on their own wieners, should be just as easy to blockade as Russia. The United States initially strongly protested the blockade of Germany in WW1, until German actions (like the submarine warfare policy that resulted in incidents like the Lusitania) hardened public opinion against their cause. The U.S. looked for legal loopholes in the blockade, like food being shipped to civilians not being contraband, so the Germans declared food a strategic resource vital to the war effort and seized all stocks.
Blockading a country should immediately increase tensions with all neutral countries. It should also be easier to blockade a country that has high tensions with those neutrals and more difficult to maintain as your own tensions with them rise.
|
|
|
Post by dohboy on Jul 16, 2019 11:20:59 GMT -6
It actually might make sense to have different types of blockades that you could choose to enforce.
A close/loose blockade would require less superiority and give less tension with neutrals, but on the flip side be easier to break as they could not avoid battle without giving up the blockade. Also would drag the blockading force into range of land based aircraft.
A distant blockade would require a lot more superiority and give more tension, but be much harder to break because you can't bring a large part of the force to battle at once. Have to break it up a few cruisers at a time.
|
|