When the battle generator is drunk...

[DrunkSailor]

May 14, 2020 2:12:37 GMT -6 polyarmus said:

May 4, 2020 15:29:27 GMT -6 DrunkSailor said:

I cannot accept this case as a simple mismatch (as it indeed has happened historically) since there are 2 BBs and 2 BCs present, both originating from the same place and I do not see why they should have been divided in two divisions of 1 BB and 1 BC each.

The mismatch spartyon mentions has nothing to do with the current issue. It is just a mismatch in naval strength between the two fleets. My complain was not about such a thing.

The mismatch rimbecano gives as example is closer but still, in his example there were only two capital ships and they were put in one division. Here to the example I gave there are two capital ships from each class, originating from the same area, put in two divisions.

You approach it from the point of view of omnipresent arm chair general, who has 100% control of his forces, which is the usual, but highly unrealistic situation in ordinary strategic game.

I think you have to look at it with a bit more imagination. Take in account, that the battle is 1 action per month. For sure, it was not the only activity your ships did in the period. RtW2 simply "simulates" the ongoing activity, uncertainty and chaos of waging war.

For example, what if:

2nd May: aerial search sighted enemy fleet at see. All available forces tasked to pursue - 2 BB and 1 BC (second BC of the division away at the time, transporting prime minister for international conference). 1 BB of the battleship division was not able to take to see due to (repeated) turbine issue, BB + BC departed.
5th May: BC returned from diplomatic mission
6th May: sighting not confirmed, the fleet is returning home
7th May: repeated sighting, all available forces tasked to pursue - task force at see, that is BB + BC reverses course, reserve task force, that is BB + BC sets sail. The task forces were supposed to meet and face the enemy together, unfortunately bad weather precluded coordinated action.  

Actually, no.

While the strategic turn is on a monthly basis, the battle occurring during this turn is on a specific day and usually it lasts less than a day, to be more precise it lasts less than 24 hours - though in some cases it might last a little longer especially in long battles (with a limit of 1800 for example most of carrier and/or fleet battles, some coastal raids etc).

You can follow the date and time on the bottom of the battle screen.

So this example of yours with different dates of sightings and actions does not represent what actually happens in the game.

[polyarmus]

May 14, 2020 4:44:50 GMT -6 DrunkSailor said:

May 14, 2020 2:12:37 GMT -6 polyarmus said:

You approach it from the point of view of omnipresent arm chair general, who has 100% control of his forces, which is the usual, but highly unrealistic situation in ordinary strategic game.

I think you have to look at it with a bit more imagination. Take in account, that the battle is 1 action per month. For sure, it was not the only activity your ships did in the period. RtW2 simply "simulates" the ongoing activity, uncertainty and chaos of waging war.

For example, what if:

2nd May: aerial search sighted enemy fleet at see. All available forces tasked to pursue - 2 BB and 1 BC (second BC of the division away at the time, transporting prime minister for international conference). 1 BB of the battleship division was not able to take to see due to (repeated) turbine issue, BB + BC departed.
5th May: BC returned from diplomatic mission
6th May: sighting not confirmed, the fleet is returning home
7th May: repeated sighting, all available forces tasked to pursue - task force at see, that is BB + BC reverses course, reserve task force, that is BB + BC sets sail. The task forces were supposed to meet and face the enemy together, unfortunately bad weather precluded coordinated action.  

Actually, no.

While the strategic turn is on a monthly basis, the battle occurring during this turn is on a specific day and usually it lasts less than a day, to be more precise it lasts less than 24 hours - though in some cases it might last a little longer especially in long battles (with a limit of 1800 for example most of carrier and/or fleet battles, some coastal raids etc).

You can follow the date and time on the bottom of the battle screen.

So this example of yours with different dates of sightings and actions does not represent what actually happens in the game.

Hmm, how to explain something to somebody who does not want to hear different opinion...


Have you considered, that the battle YOU played, was the action taking place on 7th MAY only and all the rest of the action (or lack of it) is what happens behind the scene?
Or do you really think, that real life navy was on the sea only one the days of battles? Try to read some military history book. Regardless of the period and branch, you will find out that majority of soldier life even during the war, is taken by waiting / actions where nothing happens.

Fighter pilot might see an enemy plane on every second / fifth / tenth patrol. Ships patrolling home waters might not see an enemy ship for the whole year. But they still spend their time on patrol.

So your idea that the ships are waiting, in orderly fashion in the port for the one day, when there will be a battle is irrational and it is more absolutely correct the battles in RtW are not lined up, neat actions. That woulnd make any sense.

[DrunkSailor]

May 14, 2020 7:01:36 GMT -6 polyarmus said:

May 14, 2020 4:44:50 GMT -6 DrunkSailor said:

Actually, no.

While the strategic turn is on a monthly basis, the battle occurring during this turn is on a specific day and usually it lasts less than a day, to be more precise it lasts less than 24 hours - though in some cases it might last a little longer especially in long battles (with a limit of 1800 for example most of carrier and/or fleet battles, some coastal raids etc).

You can follow the date and time on the bottom of the battle screen.

So this example of yours with different dates of sightings and actions does not represent what actually happens in the game.

Hmm, how to explain something to somebody who does not want to hear different opinion...


Have you considered, that the battle YOU played, was the action taking place on 7th MAY only and all the rest of the action (or lack of it) is what happens behind the scene?
Or do you really think, that real life navy was on the sea only one the days of battles? Try to read some military history book. Regardless of the period and branch, you will find out that majority of soldier life even during the war, is taken by waiting / actions where nothing happens.

Fighter pilot might see an enemy plane on every second / fifth / tenth patrol. Ships patrolling home waters might not see an enemy ship for the whole year. But they still spend their time on patrol.

So your idea that the ships are waiting, in orderly fashion in the port for the one day, when there will be a battle is irrational and it is more absolutely correct the battles in RtW are not lined up, neat actions. That woulnd make any sense.

LOL ok let me make it simple and speak with easy short sentences...

1. The fact that battles did not occur every single day is represented in the game with the one battle per month (yes in real wars there were not even one major battle per month - but in the game also you may get a small skirmish instead of a fleet battle)

2. Tha the ships do not wait in port for the one major battle is represented in the game by the facts:

a. Not all your ships in the are might participate in a major battle

b. Many battles are lopsided in the fleet composition (as in real life it was also)

c. Many many times the enemy (in the game) will decline the proposed battles resulting in no battle at all for this round/month

2. The fact that there is a significant chain of actions before the actual battle is represented in the game with the facts:

a. One or maybe even no battle per round/month

b. Side actions that affect the ships condition (mines, submarines, engine breakdowns etc)

c. Possibility of fuel shortage, blockades etc

d. As mentioned above, not all ships in one area will participate in a battle

Now, to return to the point of the thread, which apparently passed through your mind but failed to register...

The topic is about how the divisions in battle are organized - NOT WHICH AVAILABLE SHIPS WILL PARTICIPATE

The topic is about mixing an on division ships of different category, type, status, role, speed, armor, armament - NOT WHAT DID THESE SHIPS DO BEFORE

The topic is about the inability of the player to re-organize the divisions - I AM SURE I HAVE READ ENOUGH HISTORY TO KNOW IT WAS POSSIBLE EVEN WHEN THE COMMUNICATION WAS WITH SIGNAL FLAGS BEFORE RADIO ETC

The topic is about the day of the battle and only - BECAUSE THIS IS THE ONLY TIME YOU AS PLAYER HAVE COMMAND OF YOUR SHIPS (the rest of the actions which I described above occur without your consent randomly)

Did I make it clear and plain enough?

[williammiller]

To DrunkSailor & polyarmus -

The 'disparaging' factor in your above replies borders on violation of our TOU for these forums. Laying out the facts as you see them should stand on their own, no need for the tones shown in the above posts - in my experience this tends to lead to ugly and/or destructive behavior that will get posters in trouble.

Please keep this in mind, thank you.

[polyarmus]

May 14, 2020 15:08:23 GMT -6 williammiller said:

To DrunkSailor & polyarmus -

The 'disparaging' factor in your above replies borders on violation of our TOU for these forums. Laying out the facts as you see them should stand on their own, no need for the tones shown in the above posts - in my experience this tends to lead to ugly and/or destructive behavior that will get posters in trouble.

Please keep this in mind, thank you.

Noted and I agree. sorry

[polyarmus]

May 14, 2020 11:33:20 GMT -6 DrunkSailor said:

May 14, 2020 7:01:36 GMT -6 polyarmus said:

Hmm, how to explain something to somebody who does not want to hear different opinion...


Have you considered, that the battle YOU played, was the action taking place on 7th MAY only and all the rest of the action (or lack of it) is what happens behind the scene?
Or do you really think, that real life navy was on the sea only one the days of battles? Try to read some military history book. Regardless of the period and branch, you will find out that majority of soldier life even during the war, is taken by waiting / actions where nothing happens.

Fighter pilot might see an enemy plane on every second / fifth / tenth patrol. Ships patrolling home waters might not see an enemy ship for the whole year. But they still spend their time on patrol.

So your idea that the ships are waiting, in orderly fashion in the port for the one day, when there will be a battle is irrational and it is more absolutely correct the battles in RtW are not lined up, neat actions. That woulnd make any sense.

LOL ok let me make it simple and speak with easy short sentences...

1. The fact that battles did not occur every single day is represented in the game with the one battle per month (yes in real wars there were not even one major battle per month - but in the game also you may get a small skirmish instead of a fleet battle)

2. Tha the ships do not wait in port for the one major battle is represented in the game by the facts:

a. Not all your ships in the are might participate in a major battle

b. Many battles are lopsided in the fleet composition (as in real life it was also)

c. Many many times the enemy (in the game) will decline the proposed battles resulting in no battle at all for this round/month

2. The fact that there is a significant chain of actions before the actual battle is represented in the game with the facts:

a. One or maybe even no battle per round/month

b. Side actions that affect the ships condition (mines, submarines, engine breakdowns etc)

c. Possibility of fuel shortage, blockades etc

d. As mentioned above, not all ships in one area will participate in a battle

Now, to return to the point of the thread, which apparently passed through your mind but failed to register...

The topic is about how the divisions in battle are organized - NOT WHICH AVAILABLE SHIPS WILL PARTICIPATE

The topic is about mixing an on division ships of different category, type, status, role, speed, armor, armament - NOT WHAT DID THESE SHIPS DO BEFORE

The topic is about the inability of the player to re-organize the divisions - I AM SURE I HAVE READ ENOUGH HISTORY TO KNOW IT WAS POSSIBLE EVEN WHEN THE COMMUNICATION WAS WITH SIGNAL FLAGS BEFORE RADIO ETC

The topic is about the day of the battle and only - BECAUSE THIS IS THE ONLY TIME YOU AS PLAYER HAVE COMMAND OF YOUR SHIPS (the rest of the actions which I described above occur without your consent randomly)

Did I make it clear and plain enough?

What I am trying to say is, that even the 4 topics you mention at the end are fully affected by "fog of war". 

I see definite areas, where the battle generator should be improved, but most of what you complain about is not it... That is all.

[keep]

I'm sorry if this might come across Off-Topic at first but bear with me please.

Since the wreck of USS Nevada has recently been discovered I went to Drachinifel to learn more about the ship.
He says something at the start of the video that reminded me of this particular thread:

"The Nevada-class were the first American battleships of the 'standard-pattern'.
The 'standard-pattern' was designed so that multiple classes of battleship would share certain broad characteristics which would make it easier to coordinate them in a single line of battle.
This included using guns of the same caliber, having the same speed and being designed for the same kind of engagement.

This was to avoid the existing issues with the American battle fleet where their current small collection of dreadnought battleships all had radically different armaments, different levels of protection and different speeds on a class-by-class basis.
Since they did not have enough battleships of any single class to put them into individual battle squadrons which could then be treated as single units, they needed to work together across multiple classes, otherwise you might leave someone behind and they would miss the battle, which of course would make them sad."

SOURCE: Drachinifel - USS Nevada - Guide 041. [Youtube Link - Timestamp 0:34]

SPOILER: Click to show

Taking this into RTW2 and playing as the USA.

"Aah! My standardized, 'standard-class' battleships have now finished construction and is out of drydock! Finally I can easily coordinate maneuvers having these ships in their own squadron and wreck havoc!"

*Enters fleet battle, rub hands*

"Right! Time to whoop some a-. Wait, why in god's name is my dreadnought USS Nevada coupled with this old USS Indiana pre-dreadnought and not with the others of the same class!?". "Who in their ri-. I mean, i wasn't THAT drunk last night was I?" "Please, don't tell the rest of the Admiralty of this!"

Anyways, I'm also of the opinion that the OoB should be customizable or "tweaked". I'm aware that this has happened IRL. However I still believe that; as the admiral i should have the ability/option to change this. If not outside the battle itself, then at least within it.

May 9, 2020 9:47:06 GMT -6 williammiller said:

One of the (possible) things that we would like to add to the game in a DLC would be some ability to adjust/manage divisions prior to battle.

I've got mixed feelings about this. On the one hand i'm really, REALLY happy about a feature like this being implemented! On the other hand, it's quite hard to fully endorse it being a part of a DLC. Though it depends on said DLC in general.
Therefore. I refrain from forming any opinions about this since further context into what a RTW2 DLC might entail is unbeknownst to me.

Just my 2 cents.

[christian]

May 15, 2020 2:32:24 GMT -6 polyarmus said:

May 14, 2020 11:33:20 GMT -6 DrunkSailor said:

LOL ok let me make it simple and speak with easy short sentences...

1. The fact that battles did not occur every single day is represented in the game with the one battle per month (yes in real wars there were not even one major battle per month - but in the game also you may get a small skirmish instead of a fleet battle)

2. Tha the ships do not wait in port for the one major battle is represented in the game by the facts:

a. Not all your ships in the are might participate in a major battle

b. Many battles are lopsided in the fleet composition (as in real life it was also)

c. Many many times the enemy (in the game) will decline the proposed battles resulting in no battle at all for this round/month

2. The fact that there is a significant chain of actions before the actual battle is represented in the game with the facts:

a. One or maybe even no battle per round/month

b. Side actions that affect the ships condition (mines, submarines, engine breakdowns etc)

c. Possibility of fuel shortage, blockades etc

d. As mentioned above, not all ships in one area will participate in a battle

Now, to return to the point of the thread, which apparently passed through your mind but failed to register...

The topic is about how the divisions in battle are organized - NOT WHICH AVAILABLE SHIPS WILL PARTICIPATE

The topic is about mixing an on division ships of different category, type, status, role, speed, armor, armament - NOT WHAT DID THESE SHIPS DO BEFORE

The topic is about the inability of the player to re-organize the divisions - I AM SURE I HAVE READ ENOUGH HISTORY TO KNOW IT WAS POSSIBLE EVEN WHEN THE COMMUNICATION WAS WITH SIGNAL FLAGS BEFORE RADIO ETC

The topic is about the day of the battle and only - BECAUSE THIS IS THE ONLY TIME YOU AS PLAYER HAVE COMMAND OF YOUR SHIPS (the rest of the actions which I described above occur without your consent randomly)

Did I make it clear and plain enough?

What I am trying to say is, that even the 4 topics you mention at the end are fully affected by "fog of war". 

I see definite areas, where the battle generator should be improved, but most of what you complain about is not it... That is all.

i think you misunderstand this whole thread/topic 

this whole thread/topic is about how the battle generator sets up the divisions rather poorly severely limiting ship performance and tactical flexibility 
the whole problem here is that when a BC and BB are in the same division you cant individually control either of them making the BC practically loose all its advantages of being well
a BC making it a less armored BB with presumably fewer guns on a similair tonnage because its limited to 1/3rd of its max speed


this is how tortugas fleet should be set up
- Div1 BB1 (26 knots)

- Div1 BB2 (26 knots)

- Div1 BB4 (26 knots)



- Div2 BB3 (21 knots)

- Div2 BB5 (21 knots)

- Div2 BB6 (21 knots)

this is how its actually set up
- Div1 BB1 (26 knots)

- Div1 BB2 (26 knots)

- Div1 BB3 (21 knots)



- Div2 BB4 (26 knots)

- Div2 BB5 (21 knots)

- Div2 BB6 (21 knots)



this limits 3 of tortugas ships to a 5 knot slower speed than what they are actually capable of
severely limiting tactical flexibility
while the 26 knot BBs are not BCs they very much could be in the 1910-15s and they should not be in the same division as bbs like they are

here is a good example of how the division should be set up and how it is actually set up

Attachments:

[hawkeye]

Agreed.

I mean, I'm no naval expert, but I'm pretty sure 5th Battle Squadron at Jutland didn't get an old Pre-Dreadnought shoved into their formation, just because HMS Queen Elizabeth was missing.

[seawolf]

May 15, 2020 7:59:54 GMT -6 hawkeye said:

Agreed.

I mean, I'm no naval expert, but I'm pretty sure 5th Battle Squadron at Jutland didn't get an old Pre-Dreadnought shoved into their formation, just because HMS Queen Elizabeth was missing.

God I want SAI fleet building for RTW, I know tactical operations would be out of the current realm of possibility, but just using the fleet manager would improve RTW battle generations so much

[cv10]

This was my proposal for a divison organization system:

nws-online.proboards.com/thread/3625/proposal-player-generated-divisions

I think this would be a good method of biding things over while a more detailed function for fleet organization is developed. The big problem I have with my own idea is that having to create and organize divisions at the start of each tactical scenario would get tedious very quickly.