|
Post by vondertann on Oct 9, 2020 4:20:00 GMT -6
I moved about ten battleships in the same area and set the same mission. But everytime when my fleet enter in the battle, it is always one single ship vs the entire enemy fleet.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2020 6:13:10 GMT -6
I moved about ten battleships in the same area and set the same mission. But everytime when my fleet enter in the battle, it is always one single ship vs the entire enemy fleet. There is probably no way to ensure that. Sorry to inform you, but the matchmaker doesnt really work. The only strategy I can recommend is to build less better ships, instead of more worse ships, because having numerical superiority doesnt mean all that much when you still get the same (cca) number of ships in the battle. Its probably easier to summon a jinn than to have all your battlefleet present at the same time...
|
|
|
Post by stevethecat on Oct 9, 2020 7:37:00 GMT -6
Welcome to the games main enemy, the battle generator.
The annoyance of having the British high seas fleet in an area ready to go for battle just for the game to give you an old CL that was just drifting through. The pain of having an attack group of your latest Battleships get through an entire war without firing a shot while a CA is endlessly dragged out to run the gauntlet again and again. You'll get used to it, and remember to save before each battle so that you can close app out and retry for a battle with less BS.
|
|
|
Post by bssybeep on Oct 10, 2020 19:59:32 GMT -6
Why doesn't the developer fix this "feature"? It makes no sense not being able to bring your chosen fleet into battle. This is the primary item preventing a purchase. They really need to change this.
|
|
|
Post by forget83 on Oct 10, 2020 22:56:48 GMT -6
From what I understand the main issue is that the human players are too effective compare to the AI both in term of how they design and use their ship. Ships being long lead items also means that any major victory would slowly snowball until it's impossible for the enemy to fight at all. This led to the sub spam that Rtw 1 always devolve into late game. So putting the player in a numerical disadvantage is the dev current patch work solution.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Oct 11, 2020 1:27:34 GMT -6
RTW tries to simulate a real situation and in history it was quite common that commanders need to fight with what was available, not what they wish to have.
Just one example was Evacuation of Crete. British needs several carriers but only one carrier was available and with just limited fighters on board as there were no more available.
During hunt of Bismarck, Royal Navy has in Atlantic quite a lot of capital ships (2 BC, 2 modern BB, several older BB) and still have issue to catch Bismarck.
Battle generator simulates all things like that but you are forced into this situations.
Think of Battle of Falklands or Battle of Coronel. British has even old battleship and still battle was without any capital ships from British side. If in RTW you have battleship in area and you get no battleship in combat, just think of these situation which happens and can easily happen to any commander.
|
|
|
Post by sittingduck on Oct 11, 2020 13:47:16 GMT -6
If in RTW you have battleship in area and you get no battleship in combat, just think of these situation which happens and can easily happen to any commander. Toatally agree that the game needs to playout with a "fight with what you get" flavor. Absolutely. BUT... What upsets many of us is the situation where you have an overpowering force (like in your Home Zone) and repeatedly get battles of a CA and a couple DD's against several heavier units without your major fleet units in the fight. That seems to lead one to think the battle generator needs a bit of a boost... it doesn't feel the player gets the proportional usage of what he has available in the zone. You do indeed need to use what you are given, but the ratio of what you're given should be weighted with what you have available. Not a knock against the game, just a personal peeve.
|
|
|
Post by akosjaccik on Oct 11, 2020 14:09:56 GMT -6
My opinion regarding the issue did not really change. I still think that by and large the BG does a good enough job - in my limited in scope experience it broadly reflects the forces and the AI is "screwed" roughly as much as the player is. Perhaps the rules of which the BG works with could be fine-tuned to be less exploitable, but that's about it. However, I still believe partial player agency could be a nice feature even if it only concerns say, every 1 out of 10 battles. So, keep 9 battles completely random, but hand the wheel over to the player in the 10th battle as a pre-planned operation. It can even be similar to invasion targets, where it requires money and time and it results in a similar OOB control as the fleet exercise has in one battle, to which the AI needs to react. Even then events could occur, say, "You've selected 12 DDs, but get 10 because of such and such". The point is, Falklands and Coronel is nice, but the player does not _experience_ Pearl Harbor or Midway. They ARE all in the game, but the player experiences all of them in medias res, which can feel off -putting regarding the continuity. In this sense there is no palpable difference between an engagement happened by blind chance and a naval offensive that was planned for months beforehand.
All in all, I'd not advocate for some limited _illusion_ of player agency at least because I'd wish to massively influence the "rolls" of the battles in general (so not the "I have six battleships, so I want six battleships!!4" side of the argument), but for a better immersion and a stronger sense of connection towards one's assets.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2020 9:02:40 GMT -6
RTW tries to simulate a real situation and in history it was quite common that commanders need to fight with what was available, not what they wish to have. Just one example was Evacuation of Crete. British needs several carriers but only one carrier was available and with just limited fighters on board as there were no more available. During hunt of Bismarck, Royal Navy has in Atlantic quite a lot of capital ships (2 BC, 2 modern BB, several older BB) and still have issue to catch Bismarck. Battle generator simulates all things like that but you are forced into this situations. Think of Battle of Falklands or Battle of Coronel. British has even old battleship and still battle was without any capital ships from British side. If in RTW you have battleship in area and you get no battleship in combat, just think of these situation which happens and can easily happen to any commander. Battle of Jutland: 1: Vice admiral Beaty, it seams that the enemy has numerical superiority! 2: How did that happen? 1: They destroyed Queen Mary! 2: Doesnt matter, we still have the Lion class. 1: Sir... they... they did not arrive. 2: And how did that happen?! Anyway, lets use HMS Tiger instead. 1: ... 2: Ah, dont tell me... It did not arrive? Anyway, lets wait for the BB fleet, they will deal with this nasty business. 1: I doubt that sir. Half of the Queen Elizabeth class and half of the Revenge class did not arrive. 2: WTF?! 1: Well, that just happens...
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Oct 12, 2020 11:50:37 GMT -6
2: Ah, dont tell me... It did not arrive? Anyway, lets wait for the BB fleet, they will deal with this nasty business. 1: I doubt that sir. Half of the Queen Elizabeth class and half of the Revenge class did not arrive. 2: WTF?! 1: Well, that just happens... At the time of the historical Battle of Jutland, the three newest classes of battleship in the Royal Navy were the R (Revenge or Royal Sovereign), Queen Elizabeth, and Iron Duke classes.
- Three R-class battleships were in commission. Of these, Royal Sovereign was left to sit out the engagement in Scapa Flow due to being considered unready for battle by reason of the recentness of her commissioning, so only two of the class were present at the engagement. - Five Queen Elizabeth-class battleships were in commission. Of these, Queen Elizabeth was in drydock, so only four of the class were present at the engagement. - Four Iron Duke-class battleships were in commission. Of these, Emperor of India was under refit, so only three were present at the engagement. Thus, 33% of the three newest, 25% of the eight newest, and 25% of the twelve newest battleships of the Royal Navy missed the Battle of Jutland; it would also be accurate to say that 33% of the nine newest battleships of the Royal Navy missed Jutland, as Emperor of India was the last of the Iron Dukes to be laid down (one day later than Benbow), launched (two weeks later than Benbow), and commissioned (a month later than Benbow). "Half" would be an exaggeration, but not by nearly so much as you seem to think.
It is also worth mentioning that period practice was to have four or five ships in a battle squadron so that you could expect three or four of them to be battle-ready when you needed them, and also that it's easier for large percentages of a class of ships to miss an engagement when there are fewer ships in the class - and, at least the way I build ships in the game, two or three ships is much more common than four or five ships in a single class of battleships.
|
|
|
Post by nimrod on Oct 12, 2020 12:42:46 GMT -6
Would mostly second what akosjaccik wrote - particularly on the need for player agency, without it become a player crutch. "All in all, I'd not advocate for some limited _illusion_ of player agency at least because I'd wish to massively influence the "rolls" of the battles in general (so not the "I have six battleships, so I want six battleships!!4" side of the argument), but for a better immersion and a stronger sense of connection towards one's assets."
I like the idea of being able to set a strategic stance, in a given seazone, if nothing else.
For example, and I'm not pushing this exact setup, just the idea...
An aggressive doctrine would increase the chance of fleet battles, shore bombardment and convoy attack battles. Increases the chance of launching a surprise attack, but much higher risk of negative events like ships being torpedoed by submarines / striking mines, etc.
A non-aggressive doctrine would increase the chance of DD / cruiser battles and convoy defense battles, while negative events would occur at the "normal" level.
A passive doctrine would increase the chance of invasion defense and shore-bombardment defense battles. Increases the chance of ships being attacked in port, but much lower risk to submarine / mine or other negative events.
For example in game, an enemy or player focusing on a fleet-in-being and not actively engaging in battle (passive doctrine), would run the risk of a fleet in port battle (what the game is calling a surprise attack) like the battle of Taranto or Mers-el-Kébir. Airpower in those battles allowed the disposition of enemy fleets to be known to a degree of certainty, while radio allowed the ability to cancel the operation if the enemy unexpectedly sortied other elements of their fleet.
Personally, I think the random battles are fairly true to history - particularly pre-airpower - and force players to overcome weaknesses in their own play style. Weather, unexpected enemy fleet sorties and other randomness need to be taken into play by the battle creator - and these should setup challenges for the player to overcome. Once you have airpower and the radios that came along around that time (late 1920's to mid 1930's), strategic operations seem to be much more heavily directed from HQ in regards to their setup and cancellation or amended goals.
Hawking on airpower for a moment, CV battles starting right before or at dusk dusk with no aircraft in the air giving recon or providing CAP is a different issues than the battle generation. Yes the battle generator can probably run CV battles only from first light, but that would take away some historical conundrums that required decision in RL. I would much rather get some sort of strategic air recon at the start of a battle (i.e. planes already in the air and a few suspect recon reports if the enemy is in search range) than give battle generation control to myself.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2020 12:49:37 GMT -6
2: Ah, dont tell me... It did not arrive? Anyway, lets wait for the BB fleet, they will deal with this nasty business. 1: I doubt that sir. Half of the Queen Elizabeth class and half of the Revenge class did not arrive. 2: WTF?! 1: Well, that just happens... At the time of the historical Battle of Jutland, the three newest classes of battleship in the Royal Navy were the R (Revenge or Royal Sovereign), Queen Elizabeth, and Iron Duke classes.
- Three R-class battleships were in commission. Of these, Royal Sovereign was left to sit out the engagement in Scapa Flow due to being considered unready for battle by reason of the recentness of her commissioning, so only two of the class were present at the engagement. - Five Queen Elizabeth-class battleships were in commission. Of these, Queen Elizabeth was in drydock, so only four of the class were present at the engagement. - Four Iron Duke-class battleships were in commission. Of these, Emperor of India was under refit, so only three were present at the engagement. Thus, 33% of the three newest, 25% of the eight newest, and 25% of the twelve newest battleships of the Royal Navy missed the Battle of Jutland; it would also be accurate to say that 33% of the nine newest battleships of the Royal Navy missed Jutland, as Emperor of India was the last of the Iron Dukes to be laid down (one day later than Benbow), launched (two weeks later than Benbow), and commissioned (a month later than Benbow). "Half" would be an exaggeration, but not by nearly so much as you seem to think.
It is also worth mentioning that period practice was to have four or five ships in a battle squadron so that you could expect three or four of them to be battle-ready when you needed them, and also that it's easier for large percentages of a class of ships to miss an engagement when there are fewer ships in the class - and, at least the way I build ships in the game, two or three ships is much more common than four or five ships in a single class of battleships.
I agree, but only when it affects both sides, which it currently doesnt (or not equally). -> For example: My (German) navy has in june 1910: 6BBs, 4BCs, 10Bs, 8CAs, 12CLs, 48DDs, 12KEs and 12 subs Enemy (Soviet {yes, already Soviet}) navy has at the same time: 2BBs, 3BCs, 6Bs, 4CAs, 6CLs, 6AMCs, 28DDs, 5KEs, and 16 subs So, my point is that if Im not gonna get 3 of my 4 BCs into the battle, the enemy should also get at least 1 or 2 less than he has. And moronic matchmaking like 1BC vs all 3 enemy BCs should be absolutely impossible. Especially since all my BCs are made to operate either in pairs, or both 2 pairs together. The same point applies to both larger and smaller battles.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2020 13:13:32 GMT -6
Would mostly second what akosjaccik wrote - particularly on the need for player agency, without it become a player crutch. "All in all, I'd not advocate for some limited _illusion_ of player agency at least because I'd wish to massively influence the "rolls" of the battles in general (so not the "I have six battleships, so I want six battleships!!4" side of the argument), but for a better immersion and a stronger sense of connection towards one's assets." I like the idea of being able to set a strategic stance, in a given seazone, if nothing else. For example, and I'm not pushing this exact setup, just the idea... An aggressive doctrine would increase the chance of fleet battles, shore bombardment and convoy attack battles. Increases the chance of launching a surprise attack, but much higher risk of negative events like ships being torpedoed by submarines / striking mines, etc. A non-aggressive doctrine would increase the chance of DD / cruiser battles and convoy defense battles, while negative events would occur at the "normal" level. A passive doctrine would increase the chance of invasion defense and shore-bombardment defense battles. Increases the chance of ships being attacked in port, but much lower risk to submarine / mine or other negative events. For example in game, an enemy or player focusing on a fleet-in-being and not actively engaging in battle (passive doctrine), would run the risk of a fleet in port battle (what the game is calling a surprise attack) like the battle of Taranto or Mers-el-Kébir. Airpower in those battles allowed the disposition of enemy fleets to be known to a degree of certainty, while radio allowed the ability to cancel the operation if the enemy unexpectedly sortied other elements of their fleet. Personally, I think the random battles are fairly true to history - particularly pre-airpower - and force players to overcome weaknesses in their own play style. Weather, unexpected enemy fleet sorties and other randomness need to be taken into play by the battle creator - and these should setup challenges for the player to overcome. Once you have airpower and the radios that came along around that time (late 1920's to mid 1930's), strategic operations seem to be much more heavily directed from HQ in regards to their setup and cancellation or amended goals. Hawking on airpower for a moment, CV battles starting right before or at dusk dusk with no aircraft in the air giving recon or providing CAP is a different issues than the battle generation. Yes the battle generator can probably run CV battles only from first light, but that would take away some historical conundrums that required decision in RL. I would much rather get some sort of strategic air recon at the start of a battle (i.e. planes already in the air and a few suspect recon reports if the enemy is in search range) than give battle generation control to myself. I have no problem with the: "I have 6 battleships, so I only got 4". My problem can be summarized as: "I have 12 battleships, and I only got 8, but my enemy has only 9 battleships and he got all of them, so he has numerical superiority, even though he is constantly blockaded and cannot compete with my numbers". And the solution is: "My navy has lacks between 1 and 3 ships, so the enemy navy should also lack between 1 and 3 ships". But currently, the only time I remember when the enemy fleet lacked some ships is when I seriously damaged them just a month or two before that.
|
|
|
Post by nimrod on Oct 12, 2020 14:33:31 GMT -6
Understood, I get those same battles. Usually with my oldest ships showing up and the new ones being in "dry-dock".
Unless significant AC are involved I almost invariably win those battles as the computer generally isn't properly aggressive. The random and obsolete CA vs the entire blockaded enemy fleet is one I almost invariably lose.
I hope the following doesn't come across too bluntly. Personally, I don't have an issue with the enemy fleet being blockaded and arriving with his whole strength with me missing some ships. I see it as the enemy launching a strategic (planned) mission to break the blockade - Battle of Leyte Gulf, Unternehmen Zerberus aka Operation Cerberus or the Canel Dash, various battles around Guadalcanal among others come to mind. Many times these offensive operations were delayed or canceled due to the un-availability of a ship or ships and weather. The attacker, gets to choose when and where the blow falls. So they wait until everything is as perfect as they can get it.
Likewise it was and is fairly common for the defending fleets with large numerical superiority to be caught flat footed due to miscommunication and having to be on the defensive. In the case of the Canel Dash the defending fleet never showed up. The defending fleet is by definition defending something be it CV, TR or other assets like enforcing a blockade and as such are often away from where the battle is fought. The assets still needed anti-air, anti-submarine and anti-raider protection - so ships stay back and defend while elements are sent out to engage the enemy fleet. A blockade isn't all that different as the blockading ships are spread out to cover numerous enemy ports and shipping lanes and the might not be in a position due to fuel status or otherwise to make it to the battle. This simply is an attempt to restate that large defending fleets generally couldn't bring their full power to bear on where the enemy was bringing their full power to bear.
This sort of stuff, I think a sea zone level setting of aggressiveness would help. Honestly, we have AF, R, MB, TP etc. settings for ships right now; so I think it would be fairly easy to make AF mutli-tiered. AFE = aggressive stance, 1.3 roll on engaging in battles, events and cost modifier. AFP = passive stance, current rolls on engaging in battles, events and costs. Assume it is a 1. AFB = fleet in being, 0.5 rolls on engaging in battles, events and 0.8 in monthly costs. Does not count towards blockading an enemy, but counts towards the strength requirement needed to blockade the player.
This lets old ships be of value but not show up in battles very often while setting an aggressive stance would help get more ships into the battles.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2020 15:16:44 GMT -6
Understood, I get those same battles. Usually with my oldest ships showing up and the new ones being in "dry-dock". Unless significant AC are involved I almost invariably win those battles as the computer generally isn't properly aggressive. The random and obsolete CA vs the entire blockaded enemy fleet is one I almost invariably lose. I hope the following doesn't come across too bluntly. Personally, I don't have an issue with the enemy fleet being blockaded and arriving with his whole strength with me missing some ships. I see it as the enemy launching a strategic (planned) mission to break the blockade - Battle of Leyte Gulf, Unternehmen Zerberus aka Operation Cerberus or the Canel Dash, various battles around Guadalcanal among others come to mind. Many times these offensive operations were delayed or canceled due to the un-availability of a ship or ships and weather. The attacker, gets to choose when and where the blow falls. So they wait until everything is as perfect as they can get it. Likewise it was and is fairly common for the defending fleets with large numerical superiority to be caught flat footed due to miscommunication and having to be on the defensive. In the case of the Canel Dash the defending fleet never showed up. The defending fleet is by definition defending something be it CV, TR or other assets like enforcing a blockade and as such are often away from where the battle is fought. The assets still needed anti-air, anti-submarine and anti-raider protection - so ships stay back and defend while elements are sent out to engage the enemy fleet. A blockade isn't all that different as the blockading ships are spread out to cover numerous enemy ports and shipping lanes and the might not be in a position due to fuel status or otherwise to make it to the battle. This simply is an attempt to restate that large defending fleets generally couldn't bring their full power to bear on where the enemy was bringing their full power to bear. This sort of stuff, I think a sea zone level setting of aggressiveness would help. Honestly, we have AF, R, MB, TP etc. settings for ships right now; so I think it would be fairly easy to make AF mutli-tiered. AFE = aggressive stance, 1.3 roll on engaging in battles, events and cost modifier. AFP = passive stance, current rolls on engaging in battles, events and costs. Assume it is a 1. AFB = fleet in being, 0.5 rolls on engaging in battles, events and 0.8 in monthly costs. Does not count towards blockading an enemy, but counts towards the strength requirement needed to blockade the player. This lets old ships be of value but not show up in battles very often while setting an aggressive stance would help get more ships into the battles. I would even prefer the AI to be more aggresive. My current experience is that even numericaly superior AI fleet is very likely to run away once I form the battleline. Once I even managed to scare off united Russian - French fleet as a germany (the forces ratio in that battle was on average about 3:2 in their favor, which should be an easy win). However their ships got hit quite fast and after about 15-20 minutes they decided to call it a day and charge full spead towards their ports. I wanted to follow them, however their grates probably doesnt get fouled and their stokers are robots that have no problem with showeling in coal for half a day on their way from Jutland to Calais. So my forces with their only +1kts speed advantage soon fell behind and returned home with a score of 1 capital ship sunk. Not great. I certainly expected the AI to at least finish forming of the battleline, and not decide to "each on his own, everyone towards home" at the first sight of my fleet. The most common AI tactics used in 90% of battles (the 10% is only when their numerical superiority is simply brutal - 3 to 1 or more) is to run away and deploy DD smoke screen and flotilla attacks (while my DDs are somewhere behind, instead of covering my capital ships). Thats why I mostly end up with all-forward designs. No matter what is my nation, my end game BB is something like 60k tons, 8x16in all forward, 16in or 17in inclined belt (in case that the enemy decides to get closer), and a hell lot of secondaries in case that my DDs will be constantly hidden behind my capital ships, which they will if I dont control them manually.
|
|