|
|
Post by doxsroxs on Nov 27, 2019 7:06:53 GMT -6
Hi, these changes might seem a bit extreme since so much of the game is centered around the regions. However, after playing the game for quite some time I have come to the conclusion that they are mostly a hinderance. My suggestion is as follows: Remove regions- Station ships in ports instead (visualize using ship icons and numbers on main map)
- Range is calculated from the port (visualize on main map with circle)
- During ship construction, let the player choose how many tons to dedicate to fuel or to set the range in miles or kilometers
- This opens up new strategies for different nations and playstyles, but also new limitations
Monthly orders
- Allow the player to organize the fleet, squadrons etc. and issue orders, for example these could be how aggressive the fleet should be. Do you spread your fleet wide to increase available information and catch the enemy or do you focus your fleet to avoid smaller elements getting picked off while separated? Do you focus your scouting elements on enemy ports and fleets, to shadow them etc? Perhaps you keep most of your fleet at anchor but at high alert to counter the enemy fleet? (think the British in Scapa Flow WW1 and 2)
- Intelligence gathering and speed of your different scouting squadrons should be important, if you dont know what the enemy is up to, the odds of you getting into bad fights increase. If you ships are too slow, you might not catch the enemy even if you find them
- Enemy and friendly invasions should be part of this, what ships do you dedicate to support your invasion. Do you dedicate fleet elements to stop a suspected enemy invasion?
- Orders for shore leave, training and other things can be included as well, all having an effect on the status of the ships, their effectiveness and the cost of maintenance
- If possible, visualize orders on the map using arrows and other symbols
Logistics - Add dockyards, private or state owned, these should be of a specific dimension and capacity and require upkeep even when not in use (private require work and might accept foreign/private ventures or be shut down). Expanding dockyard capacity requires expansion of existing docks (no ships can be built/serviced during expansion) or building new ones (costly).
- Most small ships receive ammo and fuel from the port they are stationed in, but also repairs etc. Small ports might only enable field repairs, thus it is your decision if you want to send ships to a proper dockyard for repair (perhaps far away) or accept that your ships go into battle with field repairs. There can be a number of events to take into consideration, like barrel wear, machinery wear etc. Do you postpone service to keep them in action, risking reliability?
- Moving fleets might require refuelling in neutral ports if your range is too short, this opens up for internment rules to apply and other interesting events. Route planning should be automatic, but enable the player to change where to refuel, balancing the risk of running low or running out of fuel vs other dangers, perhaps to avoid heavily patrolled waters. (standing with other countries could also affect fuel prices)
- Supply ships can be built to supply ships at sea and extend fleet range, however, they are also prime targets for enemy raiders and should be part of battle events as targets/to be defended, possibly crippling an enemy fleets fuel/ammo supply if too many are sunk, this mechaninc could also be applied to colonies, without enough supplies reaching a colony port, your fleets might be so starved of fuel and munitions that you are forced to limit operations
I realize these are huge changes, but Ill throw them out there anyway, some parts might be easy to implement, others might be harder.
Now that I think about it, Im also starting to think that the monthly turn timer might be a bit too long, weekly turns or even shorter might fit certain scenarios better, but would lengthen the game a lot.
|
|
|
|
Post by akosjaccik on Nov 27, 2019 7:41:11 GMT -6
This sounds very good on paper, and perhaps - I am no expert - it isn't even too difficult to implement, although complicated and probably time-consuming. There is, however, at least one aspect that is most likely why I heavily doubt unfortunately that we will ever see something similar to this system.
The AI. The AI is already having massive, massive difficulties in populating sea areas outside of it's home regions often times. Now imagine that the AI would need to "think" in actual bases, supply levels, supply lines, actual convoys, refueling at neutral locations, underway replenishment, et cetera. I just can't see it happening, realistcially speaking.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fredrik W on Nov 27, 2019 11:25:23 GMT -6
Hi, these changes might seem a bit extreme since so much of the game is centered around the regions. However, after playing the game for quite some time I have come to the conclusion that they are mostly a hinderance. My suggestion is as follows: Remove regions- Station ships in ports instead (visualize using ship icons and numbers on main map)
- Range is calculated from the port (visualize on main map with circle)
- During ship construction, let the player choose how many tons to dedicate to fuel or to set the range in miles or kilometers
- This opens up new strategies for different nations and playstyles, but also new limitations
Monthly orders
- Allow the player to organize the fleet, squadrons etc. and issue orders, for example these could be how aggressive the fleet should be. Do you spread your fleet wide to increase available information and catch the enemy or do you focus your fleet to avoid smaller elements getting picked off while separated? Do you focus your scouting elements on enemy ports and fleets, to shadow them etc? Perhaps you keep most of your fleet at anchor but at high alert to counter the enemy fleet? (think the British in Scapa Flow WW1 and 2)
- Intelligence gathering and speed of your different scouting squadrons should be important, if you dont know what the enemy is up to, the odds of you getting into bad fights increase. If you ships are too slow, you might not catch the enemy even if you find them
- Enemy and friendly invasions should be part of this, what ships do you dedicate to support your invasion. Do you dedicate fleet elements to stop a suspected enemy invasion?
- Orders for shore leave, training and other things can be included as well, all having an effect on the status of the ships, their effectiveness and the cost of maintenance
- If possible, visualize orders on the map using arrows and other symbols
Logistics - Add dockyards, private or state owned, these should be of a specific dimension and capacity and require upkeep even when not in use (private require work and might accept foreign/private ventures or be shut down). Expanding dockyard capacity requires expansion of existing docks (no ships can be built/serviced during expansion) or building new ones (costly).
- Most small ships receive ammo and fuel from the port they are stationed in, but also repairs etc. Small ports might only enable field repairs, thus it is your decision if you want to send ships to a proper dockyard for repair (perhaps far away) or accept that your ships go into battle with field repairs. There can be a number of events to take into consideration, like barrel wear, machinery wear etc. Do you postpone service to keep them in action, risking reliability?
- Moving fleets might require refuelling in neutral ports if your range is too short, this opens up for internment rules to apply and other interesting events. Route planning should be automatic, but enable the player to change where to refuel, balancing the risk of running low or running out of fuel vs other dangers, perhaps to avoid heavily patrolled waters. (standing with other countries could also affect fuel prices)
- Supply ships can be built to supply ships at sea and extend fleet range, however, they are also prime targets for enemy raiders and should be part of battle events as targets/to be defended, possibly crippling an enemy fleets fuel/ammo supply if too many are sunk, this mechaninc could also be applied to colonies, without enough supplies reaching a colony port, your fleets might be so starved of fuel and munitions that you are forced to limit operations
I realize these are huge changes, but Ill throw them out there anyway, some parts might be easy to implement, others might be harder.
Now that I think about it, Im also starting to think that the monthly turn timer might be a bit too long, weekly turns or even shorter might fit certain scenarios better, but would lengthen the game a lot.
Interesting suggestion, but it would take quite a lot of work to implement. Also, it would demand a lot more micromanagement, and not all players would want that. |
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 27, 2019 12:33:57 GMT -6
Interesting suggestion, but it would take quite a lot of work to implement. Also, it would demand a lot more micromanagement, and not all players would want that. While I agree that these are interesting suggestions, I ask that they not be implemented due to the added micromanagement that they would entail. Please keep the game simple and easy to play. This is not a Naval War College game, it is a good, well-conceived computer game. Let's keep it this way. KISS is the operative word. |
|
|
|
Post by cabalamat on Nov 27, 2019 18:40:32 GMT -6
- Station ships in ports instead (visualize using ship icons and numbers on main map)
- Range is calculated from the port (visualize on main map with circle)
- During ship construction, let the player choose how many tons to dedicate to fuel or to set the range in miles or kilometers
Consider if in WW1 or WW2 Germany controlled Iceland and was able to base ships there. It would obviously have given them greater ability to interdict British shipping. (Having Norway and France in WW2 helped Germany in this respect a lot).
So I think that ordering what port ships are based in should be done, not just sea zone as that is too broad.
|
|
|
|
Post by cabalamat on Nov 27, 2019 18:41:46 GMT -6
Interesting suggestion, but it would take quite a lot of work to implement. Also, it would demand a lot more micromanagement, and not all players would want that. While I agree that these are interesting suggestions, I ask that they not be implemented due to the added micromanagement that they would entail. Please keep the game simple and easy to play. This is not a Naval War College game, it is a good, well-conceived computer game. Let's keep it this way. KISS is the operative word. My rule-of-thumb for micromanagement is: would the person in charge have dealt with this in real life? If not, nor should they in the game either. |
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 27, 2019 19:24:28 GMT -6
While I agree that these are interesting suggestions, I ask that they not be implemented due to the added micromanagement that they would entail. Please keep the game simple and easy to play. This is not a Naval War College game, it is a good, well-conceived computer game. Let's keep it this way. KISS is the operative word. My rule-of-thumb for micromanagement is: would the person in charge have dealt with this in real life? If not, nor should they in the game either. Let's take a look at the games Admiral position. In the manual it says it is a Grand Admiral. A Grand Admiral is in the same level as a Fleet Admiral. It is the rank that German admirals had like Grand Admiral Erich Raeder. In the US, it would be the Chief of Naval Operations held by men like Admiral King, Stark, Leahy. In England it would have been the Admiral of the Fleet. So, did there men have the kind of power that you are asking the gamers to provide for this rank? I am not so certain. Let's eliminate "remove regions" from the discussion. Let's focus on Monthly Orders. Did the Grand Admiral or his equivalent actually organize the fleet, squadrons and issue orders. No he did not. For the US, CinCPac executed those types of orders, not Admiral King. King workedd in the grand strategy with the War Department and the civilian government. His job was to provide his expertise to the civilian government about the capability of the Navy and use that capability to further the grand strategy of our civilian government. So was the British, Japanese and German "Grand Admirals" All those details that you want in the game were executed by other echelons of the Navy departments of each nation. As an example, I will use the Organization of the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations in the US Navy. I have documentation for that, not the others but it would be nice to see that.
Op 10 The Chief of Naval Operations (Op 10-A Personal Aide)
(Op 10-B Administrative Aide)
(Ap 10-C Officer in Charge, Secret-Confidential)
Op 11The Assistant to the Chief of Naval Operations
Op 12War Plans Division
Op 13Central Division
Op 14Radio Liaison Division
Op 15Naval Reserve Policy Division
Op 16Naval Intelligence Division
Op 18-ASecretarial Division (Chief Clerk)
Op 19Navy Department Communication Officer (Under Op 20)
Op 20Communications Division
Op 21Inspection Division
Op 22Fleet Training Division
Op 23Fleet Maintenance Division
Op 30 Naval Districts Division Op 38 Ship Movements Division
I believe almost everything you have asked for is represented by one of those divisions. Did the CNO get into the details of the operation of each division, I know that he did not. He gave general orders and these divisions worked together to do their portion of the work to achieve an strategic goal.
We could go on and on about this, but based on what I have seen and been involved in, this is too much detail for A Grand Admiral to deal with, the AI is the games division authority, it makes those decisions and completes the work. That is my opinion. Others might feel differently. I am not arguing just presenting my case.
|
|
|
|
Post by cabalamat on Nov 27, 2019 23:09:39 GMT -6
My rule-of-thumb for micromanagement is: would the person in charge have dealt with this in real life? If not, nor should they in the game either. Let's take a look at the games Admiral position. In the manual it says it is a Grand Admiral. A Grand Admiral is in the same level as a Fleet Admiral. It is the rank that German admirals had like Grand Admiral Erich Raeder. In the US, it would be the Chief of Naval Operations held by men like Admiral King, Stark, Leahy. In England it would have been the Admiral of the Fleet. So, did there men have the kind of power that you are asking the gamers to provide for this rank? I am not so certain. Let's eliminate "remove regions" from the discussion. Let's focus on Monthly Orders. Did the Grand Admiral or his equivalent actually organize the fleet, squadrons and issue orders. No he did not. For the US, CinCPac executed those types of orders, not Admiral King. King workedd in the grand strategy with the War Department and the civilian government. His job was to provide his expertise to the civilian government about the capability of the Navy and use that capability to further the grand strategy of our civilian government. So was the British, Japanese and German "Grand Admirals" All those details that you want in the game were executed by other echelons of the Navy departments of each nation. As an example, I will use the Organization of the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations in the US Navy. I have documentation for that, not the others but it would be nice to see that.
Op 10 The Chief of Naval Operations (Op 10-A Personal Aide)
(Op 10-B Administrative Aide)
(Ap 10-C Officer in Charge, Secret-Confidential)
Op 11The Assistant to the Chief of Naval Operations
Op 12War Plans Division
Op 13Central Division
Op 14Radio Liaison Division
Op 15Naval Reserve Policy Division
Op 16Naval Intelligence Division
Op 18-ASecretarial Division (Chief Clerk)
Op 19Navy Department Communication Officer (Under Op 20)
Op 20Communications Division
Op 21Inspection Division
Op 22Fleet Training Division
Op 23Fleet Maintenance Division
Op 30 Naval Districts Division Op 38 Ship Movements Division
I believe almost everything you have asked for is represented by one of those divisions. Did the CNO get into the details of the operation of each division, I know that he did not. He gave general orders and these divisions worked together to do their portion of the work to achieve an strategic goal.
We could go on and on about this, but based on what I have seen and been involved in, this is too much detail for A Grand Admiral to deal with, the AI is the games division authority, it makes those decisions and completes the work. That is my opinion. Others might feel differently. I am not arguing just presenting my case.
I think that decisions to do with logistics are things the head of the navy would only get involved in when things are going wrong. In WW2, the British and US navies had plenty of oil. The German, Japanese and Italian navies did not, and it was a major headache for them. Indeed it was why Japan entered the war. So I think logistics should come into it at that level.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 28, 2019 0:19:17 GMT -6
Let's take a look at the games Admiral position. In the manual it says it is a Grand Admiral. A Grand Admiral is in the same level as a Fleet Admiral. It is the rank that German admirals had like Grand Admiral Erich Raeder. In the US, it would be the Chief of Naval Operations held by men like Admiral King, Stark, Leahy. In England it would have been the Admiral of the Fleet. So, did there men have the kind of power that you are asking the gamers to provide for this rank? I am not so certain. Let's eliminate "remove regions" from the discussion. Let's focus on Monthly Orders. Did the Grand Admiral or his equivalent actually organize the fleet, squadrons and issue orders. No he did not. For the US, CinCPac executed those types of orders, not Admiral King. King workedd in the grand strategy with the War Department and the civilian government. His job was to provide his expertise to the civilian government about the capability of the Navy and use that capability to further the grand strategy of our civilian government. So was the British, Japanese and German "Grand Admirals" All those details that you want in the game were executed by other echelons of the Navy departments of each nation. As an example, I will use the Organization of the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations in the US Navy. I have documentation for that, not the others but it would be nice to see that.
Op 10 The Chief of Naval Operations (Op 10-A Personal Aide)
(Op 10-B Administrative Aide)
(Ap 10-C Officer in Charge, Secret-Confidential)
Op 11The Assistant to the Chief of Naval Operations
Op 12War Plans Division
Op 13Central Division
Op 14Radio Liaison Division
Op 15Naval Reserve Policy Division
Op 16Naval Intelligence Division
Op 18-ASecretarial Division (Chief Clerk)
Op 19Navy Department Communication Officer (Under Op 20)
Op 20Communications Division
Op 21Inspection Division
Op 22Fleet Training Division
Op 23Fleet Maintenance Division
Op 30 Naval Districts Division Op 38 Ship Movements Division
I believe almost everything you have asked for is represented by one of those divisions. Did the CNO get into the details of the operation of each division, I know that he did not. He gave general orders and these divisions worked together to do their portion of the work to achieve an strategic goal.
We could go on and on about this, but based on what I have seen and been involved in, this is too much detail for A Grand Admiral to deal with, the AI is the games division authority, it makes those decisions and completes the work. That is my opinion. Others might feel differently. I am not arguing just presenting my case.
I think that decisions to do with logistics are things the head of the navy would only get involved in when things are going wrong. In WW2, the British and US navies had plenty of oil. The German, Japanese and Italian navies did not, and it was a major headache for them. Indeed it was why Japan entered the war. So I think logistics should come into it at that level.
The Imperial Japanese Navy only had control of the oil that was allotted to them by the Japanese government. They had to compete with the civilian industries and the Imperial Japanese Army for those supplies which included scarce resources like oil, iron ore, nickel etc. The only action that the Grand Admiral can take is to ration the fuel or supplies by providing them carefully to the operations that are going to further the strategic aims of the government. This was true of the Italian Navy and the German Navy. The US, Soviet Union and the British did not have this problem. You can only, as the Grand Admiral, manage the supplies that you have been given, no more and no less. |
|
|
|
Post by doxsroxs on Nov 30, 2019 14:58:28 GMT -6
Hi, these changes might seem a bit extreme since so much of the game is centered around the regions. However, after playing the game for quite some time I have come to the conclusion that they are mostly a hinderance. My suggestion is as follows: Remove regions- Station ships in ports instead (visualize using ship icons and numbers on main map)
- Range is calculated from the port (visualize on main map with circle)
- During ship construction, let the player choose how many tons to dedicate to fuel or to set the range in miles or kilometers
- This opens up new strategies for different nations and playstyles, but also new limitations
Monthly orders
- Allow the player to organize the fleet, squadrons etc. and issue orders, for example these could be how aggressive the fleet should be. Do you spread your fleet wide to increase available information and catch the enemy or do you focus your fleet to avoid smaller elements getting picked off while separated? Do you focus your scouting elements on enemy ports and fleets, to shadow them etc? Perhaps you keep most of your fleet at anchor but at high alert to counter the enemy fleet? (think the British in Scapa Flow WW1 and 2)
- Intelligence gathering and speed of your different scouting squadrons should be important, if you dont know what the enemy is up to, the odds of you getting into bad fights increase. If you ships are too slow, you might not catch the enemy even if you find them
- Enemy and friendly invasions should be part of this, what ships do you dedicate to support your invasion. Do you dedicate fleet elements to stop a suspected enemy invasion?
- Orders for shore leave, training and other things can be included as well, all having an effect on the status of the ships, their effectiveness and the cost of maintenance
- If possible, visualize orders on the map using arrows and other symbols
Logistics - Add dockyards, private or state owned, these should be of a specific dimension and capacity and require upkeep even when not in use (private require work and might accept foreign/private ventures or be shut down). Expanding dockyard capacity requires expansion of existing docks (no ships can be built/serviced during expansion) or building new ones (costly).
- Most small ships receive ammo and fuel from the port they are stationed in, but also repairs etc. Small ports might only enable field repairs, thus it is your decision if you want to send ships to a proper dockyard for repair (perhaps far away) or accept that your ships go into battle with field repairs. There can be a number of events to take into consideration, like barrel wear, machinery wear etc. Do you postpone service to keep them in action, risking reliability?
- Moving fleets might require refuelling in neutral ports if your range is too short, this opens up for internment rules to apply and other interesting events. Route planning should be automatic, but enable the player to change where to refuel, balancing the risk of running low or running out of fuel vs other dangers, perhaps to avoid heavily patrolled waters. (standing with other countries could also affect fuel prices)
- Supply ships can be built to supply ships at sea and extend fleet range, however, they are also prime targets for enemy raiders and should be part of battle events as targets/to be defended, possibly crippling an enemy fleets fuel/ammo supply if too many are sunk, this mechaninc could also be applied to colonies, without enough supplies reaching a colony port, your fleets might be so starved of fuel and munitions that you are forced to limit operations
I realize these are huge changes, but Ill throw them out there anyway, some parts might be easy to implement, others might be harder.
Now that I think about it, Im also starting to think that the monthly turn timer might be a bit too long, weekly turns or even shorter might fit certain scenarios better, but would lengthen the game a lot.
Interesting suggestion, but it would take quite a lot of work to implement. Also, it would demand a lot more micromanagement, and not all players would want that. Thank you for your reply, I think this short video explaining HOI4 fleet orders might be a good additon to my points regarding monthly orders above: www.youtube.com/watch?v=uam-ncJ67BEIn short: - Player organizes ships in different squadrons/fleets or whatever is most appropriate. This is quite easy with fast pick in the interface and a hierarchy is quickly set up. In this example they use patrol forces and striking forces, other missions such as convoy raiding, assisting invasions etc. should be available
- Fleets with patrol orders will patrol the seazone and engage or shadow targets depending on enemy strength (if your patrolling ships are too slow, your forces might be the ones cought instead). Perhaps allow the player to preselect the behaviour, as in, how aggressive should your patrols be?
- Strike forces will sit in port to conserve fuel and will move to engage major enemy fleet elements when called upon (if they can catch them in time...)
- Patrol fleets/squadrons are generally made up of lighter/faster ships to conserve fuel costs and to be able to catch/outrun enemies and cover more ground
- Strike forces are generally where most of your heavy ships are
- To make this system more interesting, maintenance costs might have a fuel cost component added. This is more realistic and makes it expensive to have battleships at sea vs in port
- A short report could be compiled describing your fleets activites during that turn to better help the player set up and design his fleet for the future. For example, are your patrolling forces too slow to catch the enemy etc.
This should help with player frustration from the current system since it means you can set up your fleets for better engagements, currently I have issues where I repeatedly have 15-20 fast battleships/battlecruisers in a region and get thrown into battle against enemy invasion forces with only my light cruisers and some destroyers facing the full enemy fleet including the enemy battleships. In this system I envision that faster main fleets or heavier units in your patrol fleets (BCs) could help alleviate this issue, but at a cost, or perhaps just cause new issues instead  Ill add a few words regarding shipyards here as well. Currently you have a maximum shipyard capacity and it is assumed that you have infinite capacity for anything that fits the tonnage limit. Perhaps this can be reworked as follows without adding too much micromanagement: - Make shipyards separate buildings, similar to other improvements and give each shipyard a tonnage limit
- A player can build single or multiple ships in one shipyard up to its tonnage limit, for example 5 CL or one BC, or 2 CL and 1 CA at the same time
- This forces the player to choose, do I build multiple smaller shipyards or do I expand my largest shipyard
Overall I think this is more realistic and I also think it would naturally limit the ship sizes a bit in the game without getting too complex. With that said, these are just suggestions, Im pretty sure you have a huge list of things to fix anyway, but maybe some of our ideas are worth trying and might help the game get better  |
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Nov 30, 2019 16:23:54 GMT -6
doxsroxsYour suggestions are good ones but main advantage of RTW is simplicity and relatively small variety but there is real large variety in path chosen and each part chosen is important decision, not miryad small unimportant ones. Your suggestion is complexity, it could be easy for player to manage, but horrible to implement for AI. You give example of HOI4 but it has horrible AI and main reason is complexity and simplification in AI decision process. Another thing is how RTW is done. Simple strategic layer with reasonable detailed ship designer and tactical layer. I will use Antoine de Saint-Exupery. Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away. I am quite happy that RTW was done in similar way, most game will profit with this simple true statement.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 30, 2019 22:04:53 GMT -6
doxsroxs Your suggestions are good ones but main advantage of RTW is simplicity and relatively small variety but there is real large variety in path chosen and each part chosen is important decision, not miryad small unimportant ones. Your suggestion is complexity, it could be easy for player to manage, but horrible to implement for AI. You give example of HOI4 but it has horrible AI and main reason is complexity and simplification in AI decision process. Another thing is how RTW is done. Simple strategic layer with reasonable detailed ship designer and tactical layer. I will use Antoine de Saint-Exupery. Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away. I am quite happy that RTW was done in similar way, most game will profit with this simple true statement. I support your position completely. I believe in the KISS principle. But the ideas expressed are good and would make the game more interesting, but much too complex to program. |
|
