Very little operational choices makes war way too random

[jokus]

I posted this elsewhere, but thought it would be good here, as well.


I think this could be a really great game if a bit of work was done 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?  The way things are, there seems to be little relationship between the effort you spent building ships and airpower to what happens on the tactical map in battle.
  

Fleet action attack/sweep/meeting enemy or defend in zone, avoiding contact but remaining a force in the area (sea control necessitates removing even an inferior enemy fleet)
Airpower attack against land installations to reduce A2/D of enemy.
Amphibious attacks (in there) or raids
Control of protecting or attacking merchants by zones.

Some sort of operational choices on the map screen could be used to make those random tactical battles appear as per the player's operational choices.  So if I choose to "Fleet action attack in Southeast Asia", I should be given a fleet battle in the SE Asia, taking into account the enemy's decision to avoid contact, attack, retreat, or focus on air power alone.  A "rock/scissor/paper" matrix could determine the tactical actions in line with what the player chose, rather than a totally random event that makes the player helpless at the operational level.

Thanks for listening

Joe

[nimrod]

I really enjoy the game, and I agree that some sort of strategic vision or influence on engagements is warranted. Personally, I would appreciate the ability to at least specify an "aggressiveness" level per sea zone, 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.

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.

Personally, I think the random battles are fairly true to history - particularly pre-airpower. Once you have airpower and the radios that came along around that time (late 1920's), strategic operations seem to be much more heavily directed from HQ in regards to their setup and cancellation or amended goals.

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.

I agree that airpower in the game is a bit weird - the most enjoyable time for me is 1900-mid 1920's. From a historical perspective, ships were torpedoed by subs all the time, and this is well represented in the game. What isn't represented in the game is the air attacks on ships at port or on convoys / merchant ships? An air doctrine or aggressiveness level (like setting sub doctrine) could impact the amount of air-power that is directed against warships at port vs. anti-shipping vs. anti-sub roles during the strategic turns. With similar pop-ups to the subs - BC was bombed / torpedoed and is laidup for repairs / sunk, 20 merchant sunk by air-power this month with 15 planes shot down. I'm not pushing for this change, as again I find airpower and subs a bit weird in game (most people dislike the dreaded "submarine sunk my BB" events) - I'm just supporting your 2nd example of additional strategic doctrines that might be worth looking into.