moving from the strategic to the tactical and TP/R defense

[jokus]

Fighting a war and I am frustrated with how little per turn my navy can do per month during a war.  Occasionally, some random battle will pop up and I'm given a choice on whether to proceed or not.  It seems that more often than not, for the entire month, I do nothing but watch my merchant fleet get sunk, even though I have excess TP and several raiders, plus local naval superiority.

Is this the only way I can use my superiority in a sea zone?  It seems odd that I can't really do anything unless the random battle pops up.  

Is there anything that can influence these random battles to come up more often?

And on TP/Raider defense.  Is there any purpose of putting MORE units on TP, or are you better off just going with the required and use the rest as AF or R?  Having a hard time balancing that, as well.  


...It seems to me that such a game should have more input from the player to enact an operational-level strategy, such as a button on the Strategy page that allows you to pursue convoy attack, enemy port attack, seeking a naval battle in one zone or an offensive in one zone, etc.  Seems that this is too random and there seems to be little in the way of strategy once a war commences.

[aeson]

And on TP/Raider defense. Is there any purpose of putting MORE units on TP

Yes and no.

- Against submarines, having more KEs, DDs, CVLs, CVs, and AMCs than required assigned to TP generally improves anti-submarine efforts, but large conventional warships (CL and up) are more or less ineffective against submarines and so should only be included if you have no better option. Be aware that assigning too many of your fleet ASW units to TP may expose your large warships to submarine attack.

- Against surface raiders, KEs and DDs are useless, but large warships and AMCs have a chance to drive off or intercept surface raiders, and that chance is higher on TP than in AF (raider intercept chance also appears to be higher for ships in R stance). Note that this chance to intercept surface raiders is one reason not to use carriers for TP, or possibly to use game-legal hybrid carriers / flight deck cruisers / battle-carriers or whatever you want to call them, as a carrier that intercepts a surface raider will typically be unescorted

are you better off just going with the required and use the rest as AF or R?

Depends on how big of an issue the commerce war is, and whether or not you think you can win the war without responding to it. I will say that surface raiding as done by the computer is typically a nuisance-level threat; the victory points generated by surface raiders sinking merchantmen are generally more or less irrelevant - 5 VP/merchant sunk is hardly anything compared to the ~200 VP/turn (on high fleet size settings) for a blockade or the several hundred VP gained for winning a minor engagement - and the computer typically doesn't put enough effort into raiding to get unrest to escalate to threatening levels, so as long as the VP score isn't particularly close you're probably okay to ignore surface raiders.

Is this the only way I can use my superiority in a sea zone? It seems odd that I can't really do anything unless the random battle pops up.

You could plan an invasion, if there's a colony worth less than 10 points that you care to go after in the area. When the invasion triggers, you have a good chance of triggering an invasion battle against your opponent, and if the invasion battle is successful or the enemy declines to oppose the landings there's a chance to trigger battles in support of the invasion - mostly convoy defense, convoy attack, and shore bombardment missions.

[oldpop2000]

Sept 29, 2020 18:09:18 GMT -6 jokus said:

Fighting a war and I am frustrated with how little per turn my navy can do per month during a war.  Occasionally, some random battle will pop up and I'm given a choice on whether to proceed or not.  It seems that more often than not, for the entire month, I do nothing but watch my merchant fleet get sunk, even though I have excess TP and several raiders, plus local naval superiority.

Is this the only way I can use my superiority in a sea zone?  It seems odd that I can't really do anything unless the random battle pops up.  

Is there anything that can influence these random battles to come up more often?

And on TP/Raider defense.  Is there any purpose of putting MORE units on TP, or are you better off just going with the required and use the rest as AF or R?  Having a hard time balancing that, as well.  


...It seems to me that such a game should have more input from the player to enact an operational-level strategy, such as a button on the Strategy page that allows you to pursue convoy attack, enemy port attack, seeking a naval battle in one zone or an offensive in one zone, etc.  Seems that this is too random and there seems to be little in the way of strategy once a war commences.

I have always used submarines to interrupt the trade lanes for my opponent, they are much more successful. When I start a new game I raise the research level for submarines and torpedoes to high to get to medium submarines as fast as possible. With about 30 submarines, I have defeated the UK at least four times in one game as the Japanese. Surface raiders traditionally, have not been that successful.

[jokus]

Guys,

Thanks both for the advice on my side question regarding TP and R.

I think this could be a really great game if they did a bit of work on the operational level. The strategic layer dealing with procurement, assignment to zones, research and political input is great. The tactical level is pretty good, although the air power part needs some getting used to on my part.

The issue is that there is very little in the way of operational input. No planning involved in how to get your weapons that you worked to build to the tactical battlefield. Very little can be done on using the military as a means to a political end. IF you can invade, that is about it. The rest is simply watching and hoping for the one random meeting per month. Playing as the Japanese v the French, I have numerical superiority in the Northeast and Southeast Asian zones. I developed my airfield in the zone. I had the necessary means to force my will upon the sea zone, for that is the purpose of building a navy, to project power and change the situation on the littoral areas adjacent to the sea. But by relying on random meetings, this superiority and buildup is largely wasted. 36 months of war, I had ONE fleet engagement with the enemy with more than one ship. I couldn't bomb their airports unless a random event put me close enough. So your operational choices are extremely limited, you can't take it to the enemy, except if you can invade. Which the Japanese can't v the French...

I am really disappointed in that, because the operational is where you execute the strategic planning to control the seas, protecting your trade and endangering your enemy's. What would it take for a simple set of operational selection choices be laid out when at war?

[director]

jokus - you make good points. However, RtW was designed as a mission-generating framework with the 'real' game being ship design and construction, with an existing tactical game welded to the other end so that you can test out your ideas. The operational part (the middle) was just glue to get the strategic and tactical together.

And in 'real life', combat also depends upon the willingness of the enemy to engage, with Mahan (and common sense) dictating that an inferior fleet should not run too many risks as it has strategic value as a 'fleet in being' (IE deterrent). The game does force the enemy out occasionally, but glorious death-rides are limited... and, to be fair, the tactical AI is pretty competent.

Bear in mind that it required a couple of years of war for the US to develop the amphibious doctrine it had developed in the 1930s - years to build enough landing ships and craft, improve them, crew them and learn to use them (along with a great deal else). The original invasions (Guadalcanal and Torch) were extremely risky and did in fact fail at a number of points. Also please bear in mind that having sea control does not convey the ability to always invade, as the British learned in WW1 and the Japanese learned in late 1942-43.

I sympathize with your asking for more content in the middle - more icing between the layers of cake as it were. And I agree that the cake is quite good. I'd like that very much... (mmmmmm, cake...) but first the tiny group that makes and tests RtW will fix some bugs, add some already-promised content and perhaps, may it please the Almighty, get around to letting me pick my own flagship and set up my own formations.

Hint, hint.

[jokus]

Oct 1, 2020 11:34:43 GMT -6 director said:

Yes, that would be a nice addition to the tactical game.  If you are the Admiral, you should at least establish the surface groups.

Joe