|
Post by gornik on Dec 27, 2013 16:04:35 GMT -6
Some of my suggestions for campaign game (sorry if they have been discussed before) DD attack now looks very curious, as they begin evasive manoeuvres before running close enough for torpedo launch, so in battle, big ships launch more torpedoes to each other, than destroyers to them. Maybe DDs should launch torpedoes from longer range, but with less accuracy? AMC Lena is big ship but may be repaired and refitted without spending repairing points, easier than CLs, even easier than DDs. Is there any way to change this? CA Rossya cannot be refitted in Vladivostok, as there is CA Bayan repairing in besieged P-A, this looks curious. Adding steamers trying to pass through Japanese lines to PA and Vladivostok may be interesting and may give Japan some VP for catching them. More merchants near Japan should be neutral (and some of them-with radios), to make hunt harder. Some of them may be fast packetboats and liners as now, you may recognise warships as soon as you see their smoke - for their visually high speed. One of Russian intelligence main sources were "Chinese rumours", which were fake nearly always but influence even military operations. In game this may be modelled with spamming false messages "enemy planning operation near XXX" and strange reports like "Mikasa" suddenly sunk yesterday with Togo and all crew!" It would also be nice to make scuttling merchants more difficult - with stopping cruiser for some time (similar as AV in WWI campaigns) to send boarding party, but I wonder if it would be possible on present engine, and maybe it is not as necessary as I think
|
|
|
Post by randomizer on Dec 27, 2013 19:38:18 GMT -6
Thanks. Some personnel observations follow.
Short launching ranges for torpedoes is doctrinally sound for the period, generally around 1000 yds/metres or less. Torpedo sights of the day lacked the position keepers and target predictors that facilitated long-ranged launches.
This was considered, some 40-steamers were intercepted by the Japanese in the Sea of Japan during the war but not all were prizes. Most of the interceptions occurred in the three main straits that access that sea, Tsushima, Tsugaru and La Peruse (aka the Soya Strait). Of all that tried, only a handful actually reached Vladivostok. It was considered that this added complexity without really adding to the campaign game and created additional potential to pad the Russian VP total.
WAD. Repair capacity is global and not based on the number or capacity of ports. It's a function of the SAI design and while inelegant, does impose reasonable restrictions on the Russian Player. You have very limited repair capacity (one CA at a time) and need to prioritize. In reality there were damaged Russian ships that were never effectively repaired once they incurred damage, cruiser Bogatyr at Vladivostok for example.
This is worthy of consideration. Wireless in civilian vessels, particularly cargo ships in the Orient was, by most accounts pretty scarce though.
AMC's have their own repair queue. Another way to look at it is that Lena was a converted liner from the Russian Volunteer Fleet, the principle Russian state operated shipping line and Vladivostok was one of her peace time ports and so presumably the line had people and spares there. The Russian repair woes are well rooted in the reality of their situation and the overall effect is sound even if the specific execution may appear unreasonable in some cases.
Faster merchants would definitely make the Russian's job more difficult but the Yellow Sea and Sea of Japan were very much commercial backwaters in 1904-05 and a war zone so the expensive, fast liners of the day rarely had cause to go there. It is very unlikely that civilian captains would risk getting shot at once a raider was identified. Indeed, when Hitachi Maru was sunk, her captain had heaved to and attempted to surrender but his ship was taken over by the Japanese soldiers on board; sort of a reversal of the Kowshing incident of 1894. Typically though, merchants had no chance to evade warships in good visibility and the game does reflect this. As for scuttling time, you can stop and wait until they sink and then if a CL or AMC is present, pick up the survivors. Or sail on and leave them in their boats, your call.
SAI does create inaccurate intelligence reports based on what is actually happening. I suggest that canned and colourful phoney messages would very quickly be identified as such and become boring.
Thanks again for the input. In spite of my comments, these are all positive critiques and worthy of consideration for the future.
|
|
|
Post by gornik on Dec 28, 2013 4:13:57 GMT -6
Thanks for your answer! I now better understand game concepts. Problem is that they don't want to launch torpedoes at all now. For example, my night torpedo attack on "Fuso" (ideal torpedo target): 3 manually controlled DDs engaged her 3 times on parallel courses but only one torpedo was launched. Weather was nearly fine - moderate breeze, light rain, 2000 yds visibility. Before running to launch distance DDs always started zigzagging, even if they were not under fire at the moment, it seems to me they try to avoid collision. Strangely, day attack on "Nissin" (completely ahistorical and indoctrinate) was more successful - 3DDs (from 6) lost, 3 torpedo launches, 3 hits All this in single attack. By the way, to simulate chaos of torpedo attack maybe add detaching some DDs - "to manoeuvre independently under enemy fire" as straight line of DD division looks like fantasy. I wrote incorrectly - I mean their possibility to generate spottings, for example when they meet Japanese patrol after watching Russian cruiser. Yes you are right. I wrote about scuttling after Bogatyr's adventure - she run half a day near Tsu Shima coast, "boarding and scuttling" one merchant after another - with Iwate on her tail! Small amount of this would be nice, though The problem is that I never see detailed but false report like "enemy planning bombardment (or blocking) of Port-Artur", though there were dozen of them IRL, especially before Easter. And some more suggestions: Just before (or just after) event "Japanese artillery is bringing the harbor of Port Arthur under fire" may be added another one-with question, whether the player wants to prepare decisive breakthrough as it is last time to try. If yes, ships with minor damage (3-2 weeks to repair) become active, maybe with decrease of damage control and some engine damage (to simulate real "activation" of Peresvet with some superstructure hits and Retvisan with underwater damage), objective appears "reach Vladivostok with X ships" and maybe some OP add. Of course, Japanese commander should get message and some OP to counter this. By the way, it is strange for me, that ship with 2% damage (single 6-inch superstructure hit) should repair for 3 weeks - even with great lack of supplies and repair capacity such damages were corrected faster.
|
|
|
Post by Fredrik W on Dec 28, 2013 5:12:06 GMT -6
And some more suggestions: Just before (or just after) event "Japanese artillery is bringing the harbor of Port Arthur under fire" may be added another one-with question, whether the player wants to prepare decisive breakthrough as it is last time to try. If yes, ships with minor damage (3-2 weeks to repair) become active, maybe with decrease of damage control and some engine damage (to simulate real "activation" of Peresvet with some superstructure hits and Retvisan with underwater damage), objective appears "reach Vladivostok with X ships" and maybe some OP add. Of course, Japanese commander should get message and some OP to counter this. By the way, it is strange for me, that ship with 2% damage (single 6-inch superstructure hit) should repair for 3 weeks - even with great lack of supplies and repair capacity such damages were corrected faster. Good suggestions, thanks!
|
|
|
Post by julianbarker on Dec 28, 2013 12:59:44 GMT -6
Surely the problem is that by the time the Japanese are in a position to bombard the ships in harbour, the ship's crews, along with many of their guns and other stores and equipment are helping defend Port Arthur. For example, according to Russo-Japanese War 1905 Vol 1 by mid September when the last plan to sortie was abandoned, almost all small guns and many guns of 75-152mm had been removed to defend the city, along with the gun crews. Some cruisers were completely disarmed. Ships had given up between 20 and 50% of their crew as front line troops or as mobile reserves. On 15 September a Russian assessment considered only Retzvizana and Pobieda fit to sortie to Vladivostock, with possibly Bayan, rearmed with guns taken from Pallada fit to join them.
In other words, the fleet could only get a prompt to escape when the siege starts, which is what it did in August, not when the ships are prone to damage as by then it is too late as the crews and some guns are committed to defence of the city. By September it was already considered too dangerous to withdraw men from the defences to man the ships.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 28, 2013 13:45:10 GMT -6
Surely the problem is that by the time the Japanese are in a position to bombard the ships in harbour, the ship's crews, along with many of their guns and other stores and equipment are helping defend Port Arthur. For example, according to Russo-Japanese War 1905 Vol 1 by mid September when the last plan to sortie was abandoned, almost all small guns and many guns of 75-152mm had been removed to defend the city, along with the gun crews. Some cruisers were completely disarmed. Ships had given up between 20 and 50% of their crew as front line troops or as mobile reserves. On 15 September a Russian assessment considered only Retzvizana and Pobieda fit to sortie to Vladivostock, with possibly Bayan, rearmed with guns taken from Pallada fit to join them. In other words, the fleet could only get a prompt to escape when the siege starts, which is what it did in August, not when the ships are prone to damage as by then it is too late as the crews and some guns are committed to defence of the city. By September it was already considered too dangerous to withdraw men from the defences to man the ships. We are not supposed to discuss history on this forum, but I would remind everyone that due to tidal activity and Russian inefficiencies, the Russian divisions could not sortie at the same time. Those that were ready would leave on the high tide, wait outside the harbor then on the next high tide sortie the rest if possible. This does slow down the process especially if there was no advanced warning from the officers, who suppressed the information. Only the Bayan was ready to sortie. Also, due to the size of the harbor, five cruisers had to deploy else where, Vladivostok and Chemulpo. IMO, the Russian should have deployed more cruisers and destroyers to Vladivostok because that placed the Japanese fleet on the horns of dilemma, trying to cover all three harbors. This type of action was a standard Russian tactic in the Crimean War, used to great effectiveness to reduce the division size facing the Russian divisions.
Historical Note: This type of harbor situation was almost identical to the Pearl Harbor situation. The Japanese had assumed the harbor was identical and that the ships could not sortie together. They assumed that this was the same as Port Arthur. It was not, as the channel leading to the harbor had been widened and deepened to allow a ship to be sunk in the path but other ships could easily sail around her. The Russians never took that opportunity to widen the channel. I wonder if we could try it in the game, use the map editor and widen the channel to allow the exit of the whole fleet. Might be interesting.
|
|
|
Post by randomizer on Dec 28, 2013 14:39:32 GMT -6
One of the critiques levelled at SAI-The Great War at Sea campaigns were that nothing the Player could do would affect the land war. As Commander of the Russian Baltic Fleet, he gets to watch Russia slip into revolution and defeat and there is absolutely nothing that can be done about this result. As Fleet Commander of the HSF, regardless how many shiny British dreadnoughts get blown up, Germany still loses the Great War. This fact is one of the central design paradigms of the SAI Campaign system and I believe is historically sound and an entirely correct approach.
Playing SAI-RJW however, either Player can affect the land war and thus national victory or defeat; again a central design decision that I think is soundly based upon the peculiarities inherent in the belligerent's war aims and capabilities in the Russo-Japanese war.
There may be some game balance issues; some of the above comments point to this and calibrating the variables without Player input is difficult. There are those finding the Russian role too easy, although one report demonstrated that the AI was severely disadvantaged by the initial Player selection of difficulty and turn length. I for one would like to see Russian victory highly improbable as a matter of course but applying restrictions to do this would probably be unpopular with some Players and they would certainly have a case. Still, all constructive feedback is helpful.
I agree that the history and the events of the War should be discussed elsewhere but I would ask that the Community give some thought as to what can be done within the existing architecture of the game that might serve to improve balance or the challenge of the Campaign from either side. At this stage, adding additional significant features may not be a practical development option but it is up to us to define what that might be and I would doubt that any viable idea is automatically off the table.
As I wrote about the campaign elsewhere, Russian victory can be easily achieved if you do not act like the Russian Navy of 1904-05; the benefits of historical hindsight to the gamer is relentless and un-extinguishable.
So please keep the feedback and ideas coming and you may consider posting your specific thoughts in their own thread so that they do not get lost. Everything gets read and there is discussion of your input going on behind the scenes.
Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 29, 2013 11:00:51 GMT -6
My thoughts on the game are simply that I think we need to play the game more and develop better strategies. I am not certain there is a game balance issue, that will be for others to determine. Let's all just play the game from both sides and keep a note about questions of balance and game play. We are working with a war that is over 109 years old with little information that I can find, in English from the Russian side. It appears to me, we are using mostly British and Japanese documentary evidence of how the naval war was prosecuted. I could be wrong but this would put the Russian's at a disadvantage. I would like to see the SAI team focus on game mechanics and ship accuracy then once those area's are improved if needed, then let's get back to the issue of game balance. The game is interesting and I get to talking to the opponent saying things like "Hey, stupid, you turned the wrong way. Now I really will blow you into the next time zone." Let's all remember that technology was very rudimentary, during this war. No cell phones, satellites, radar, aircraft, fire control was the Mark one eyeball etc. From all the information I've read, this war exemplifies that old adage of the side that will win, is the side that makes the fewest mistakes. Russian's lost and did make most of the mistakes. Great game and we can all make it better..... with more game play and time.
|
|
|
Post by Fredrik W on Dec 29, 2013 11:16:40 GMT -6
Thanks for the support. You are right and we must also always remember that we have 20 20 hindsight. The Russians probably did not utilize their resources as well as they could have in the real war, and a player will be quick to realize that. There is always in game design a balance between the game as a history simulation and the game as a game with play balance issues.
That said I am working on an update that will address some of the issues raised above and probably make things more difficult for the Russian player.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 29, 2013 12:06:23 GMT -6
Thanks for the support. You are right and we must also always remember that we have 20 20 hindsight. The Russians probably did not utilize their resources as well as they could have in the real war, and a player will be quick to realize that. There is always in game design a balance between the game as a history simulation and the game as a game with play balance issues. That said I am working on an update that will address some of the issues raised above and probably make things more difficult for the Russian player. One change I would like, for myself, is the ability to examine the picture once I assign it in the ship design form. In other words, once I assign the picture name, have the ability to review it in form as a pop up. Hopefully, that wouldn't be much of a change. But its just a request. Don't take away from your current projects. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 14, 2014 9:43:44 GMT -6
I've noticed in the scenarios that I've played(Elli, Goeben, Chemulpo, Sea of Japan) that ships tend to blow up quite a bit. This seems to occur mostly with turret hits and we know that at Jutland this was a problem because of British powder and handling procedures, but when I see the Scharnhorst blow up I am wondering whether either I am that good or the program is the problem. I frankly can't say whether this is a problem, so I am throwing out to the rest. This involves both SAI standard and RJW, but this is where I put it.
|
|
|
Post by julianbarker on Jan 14, 2014 13:11:26 GMT -6
Seydlitz at Dogger Bank proves it was not just a British problem. The game reflects that.
|
|
|
Post by randomizer on Jan 14, 2014 13:14:38 GMT -6
Modelling catastrophic magazine explosions in any game is probably a no-win for the game designer.
At Jutland, SMS Pommern blew up due to a single torpedo hit. SMS Karlsruhe blew up for reasons that had nothing to do with action damage. There's a mythology out there that German ships were immune from catastrophic destruction largely because of the use of brass cartridges to house the ammunitions in the breech. This logical fallacy is easy to disprove and the list of ships using fixed and semi-fixed ammunition that suffered fatal ammunition explosions is significant and includes SMS Prinz Adalbert, Tirpitz, USS Atlanta and USS Shaw. At effective and shorter ranges the prospect of ship's blowing up in SAI is, I believe reasonable but the historical sample size is small and the number of potential samples that Players see in SAI is probably an order of magnitude or more than what the record provides us with.
There is a reason why modern fixed and semi-fixed artillery calibre ammunition is a 1.2 Hazard Class for shipping purposes - Mass detonating with fragmentation hazard.
I have played out SAI fleet actions where nothing has blown up and on a another occasion seen multiple catastrophic explosions in a short space of time so I think that the algorithms and variables are basically sound from a historical and technical standpoint but it appears that this opinion is not widely shared. That said, I cannot see how the potential for disaster in the wake of a penetrating (or even non-penetrating, large calibre hits as the probable behind-armour spalling effects would be both incendiary and lethal) can represent a game design flaw or an exaggeration of naval gunnery terminal effects.
So back to the Player base, please post your views regarding this clearly important issue.
Explosions too many?
Explosions too few?
Explosions just right?
Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Fredrik W on Jan 14, 2014 14:01:08 GMT -6
The risk of turret flash fires represent the best assessment we could make as to the actual risk of such things happening. Note however that as a result of previous discussions of the subject, there is an option in preferences to reduces the risk of magazine explosions. If you think it is too high, just check the box.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 14, 2014 14:21:59 GMT -6
The risk of turret flash fires represent the best assessment we could make as to the actual risk of such things happening. Note however that as a result of previous discussions of the subject, there is an option in preferences to reduces the risk of magazine explosions. If you think it is too high, just check the box. Ok, that makes perfect sense. I was just asking a question. I might leave it the way it is, actually enjoy things going boom. Shame you can dramatize the explosion with a video, that would be cool.
|
|