|
|
Post by tortugapower on Aug 16, 2016 11:30:24 GMT -6
I'm curious, since there is an auto-resolve function built into the game (for one-on-one battles against either merchant raiders, or ships fleeing a blockade), would it be possible to extend this feature to other battles as well?
I think this could be a big step up in the game which allows people to play it purely for the strategic map mode, but I also understand this may be difficult to implement for multiple ships. It could be helpful for battles like the enemy coastal raids that I do not find enjoyable to fight, but still wish to fight the enemy. Thank you for your attention.
Cheers,
Tortuga
|
|
|
|
Post by thatzenoguy on Aug 16, 2016 11:34:27 GMT -6
An issue...
The auto system is STUPIDLY simple, from what I understand.
As long as your ship is bigger, and/or faster, you will ALWAYS win, with no losses.
By 1920, you SHOULD have 52 kiloton battleships, and thus ergo win every battle from then onwards...AUTOMATICALLY!?
|
|
|
|
Post by Fredrik W on Aug 16, 2016 11:53:14 GMT -6
I'm curious, since there is an auto-resolve function built into the game (for one-on-one battles against either merchant raiders, or ships fleeing a blockade), would it be possible to extend this feature to other battles as well? I think this could be a big step up in the game which allows people to play it purely for the strategic map mode, but I also understand this may be difficult to implement for multiple ships. It could be helpful for battles like the enemy coastal raids that I do not find enjoyable to fight, but still wish to fight the enemy. Thank you for your attention. Cheers, Tortuga I see the utility of such a function, but I'm afraid it would be complicated to implement, and some people would always be unhappy with accuracy of the results. |
|
|
|
Post by joebob73 on Aug 16, 2016 12:32:24 GMT -6
An issue... The auto system is STUPIDLY simple, from what I understand. As long as your ship is bigger, and/or faster, you will ALWAYS win, with no losses. By 1920, you SHOULD have 52 kiloton battleships, and thus ergo win every battle from then onwards...AUTOMATICALLY!? Sometimes strange things can happen. Such as a heavy cruiser sinking an intercepting battlecruiser. But yes, that's usually what happens. |
|
|
|
Post by Fredrik W on Aug 16, 2016 13:10:40 GMT -6
An issue... The auto system is STUPIDLY simple, from what I understand. As long as your ship is bigger, and/or faster, you will ALWAYS win, with no losses. By 1920, you SHOULD have 52 kiloton battleships, and thus ergo win every battle from then onwards...AUTOMATICALLY!? Sometimes strange things can happen. Such as a heavy cruiser sinking an intercepting battlecruiser. But yes, that's usually what happens. Bigger and faster would usually win a ship vs ship duel in reality I would say. But the mechanism for one on one battles is simplified and would not lend itself to fleet battles with far more variables. |
|
|
|
Post by thatzenoguy on Aug 16, 2016 21:26:28 GMT -6
Bigger and faster would usually win a ship vs ship duel in reality I would say. But the mechanism for one on one battles is simplified and would not lend itself to fleet battles with far more variables. Assuming equal tech, yes... But bigger does not equal more heavily armoured! ;D Nor does it mean more heavily armed. My 1899 8 kiloton cruisers were beating 1945 6 kiloton cruisers... |
|
|
|
Post by Fredrik W on Aug 16, 2016 23:59:18 GMT -6
Bigger and faster would usually win a ship vs ship duel in reality I would say. But the mechanism for one on one battles is simplified and would not lend itself to fleet battles with far more variables. Assuming equal tech, yes... But bigger does not equal more heavily armoured! ;D Nor does it mean more heavily armed. My 1899 8 kiloton cruisers were beating 1945 6 kiloton cruisers... You may have a point there. I'll take a look at it. Thanks! |
|
|
|
Post by thatzenoguy on Aug 17, 2016 1:38:27 GMT -6
You may have a point there. I'll take a look at it. Thanks! Yey! |
|
|
|
Post by tortugapower on Aug 17, 2016 2:07:54 GMT -6
I really enjoy this community. This thread is like a microcosm of all that happens here -- people discuss things in a reasonable manner, and the designer takes points in stride.
Fredrik: is the challenge in having the auto-resolve mainly just in having a "fair" one? If so, and if hypothetically speaking someone was able to introduce a fair one, would it be difficult to implement at that point?
|
|
|
|
Post by Fredrik W on Aug 17, 2016 12:44:40 GMT -6
I really enjoy this community. This thread is like a microcosm of all that happens here -- people discuss things in a reasonable manner, and the designer takes points in stride. Fredrik: is the challenge in having the auto-resolve mainly just in having a "fair" one? If so, and if hypothetically speaking someone was able to introduce a fair one, would it be difficult to implement at that point? Thanks!
Well, doing a quick resolve algorithm simulating an entire fleet battle that gives reasonable result is likely very complicated, almost like designing a whole game.
|
|
|
|
Post by dimovski on Aug 17, 2016 14:43:49 GMT -6
I think that some sort of "stance setting" for the AI and the player might be useful. Say "aggressive" - always searching for a battle even if the balance of power isn't exactly advantageous, "neutral" for sortieing mostly for Convoy Defense and the occasional trade interdiction, and "defensive" for a fleet that isn't even being risked to support convoys - (they don't run at all). Obviously the number and type of engagements would be modified by this setting, but the interesting part is the following:
The "aggressive" stance would make battles more... shall we say "volatile". Much higher chance of an unfavourable trade in sunk ships, much more ships sunk on both sides in general, and a small (but still far larger than in other stances) chance to deliver a crushing blow to the enemy. "Defensive" would represent trying to break off from battle under any circumstances (if the fleet isn't far, FAR better equipped and much more numerous than the enemy one) - you'd have CAs or a couple of CLs and DDs sacrifice themselves for the safe escape of the rest of the fleet, with a small chance of damaging the enemy aswell.
|
|
|
|
Post by fredsanford on Aug 17, 2016 15:32:16 GMT -6
Not a fan of auto resolve personally, and I can already hear "My fleet got sunk! So unfair!!!" cries from people that won't like the results. Why buy a naval battle game to not play the naval battles? If you want to design ships without anything else, go get Springsharp.
|
|
|
|
Post by davedave on Aug 18, 2016 13:48:33 GMT -6
Not a fan of auto resolve personally, and I can already hear "My fleet got sunk! So unfair!!!" cries from people that won't like the results. Why buy a naval battle game to not play the naval battles? If you want to design ships without anything else, go get Springsharp. ^^ This x 10000. |
|
theoz
New Member
Posts: 12 
|
Post by theoz on Aug 18, 2016 13:59:52 GMT -6
If auto-resolve is added for more battles (which I would like) then some method of tracking, assigning, and removing admirals needs to be present, so players can reuse successful commanders (who should improve from battle to battle) and fire unsuccessful admirals.
|
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Aug 18, 2016 16:44:08 GMT -6
If auto-resolve is added for more battles (which I would like) then some method of tracking, assigning, and removing admirals needs to be present, so players can reuse successful commanders (who should improve from battle to battle) and fire unsuccessful admirals. What you are describing is an entirely different game. I am also not a fan of expanding auto-resolve. It's a no-win scenario for the developers. The only time I see any issue with playing through a scenario is a mission like a raider interception where I have a CL and the enemy has a CA with a similar speed. I immediately turn to run and there is only so fast the simulator will move forward if there is contact with the enemy even when I'm just running straight away. Perhaps a change to restrict maximum scenario speed when ships are actually shooting rather than just in contact. |
|
