Expanding on doctrine

[hawkeye]

Since you guys said that suggestions are still being considered, I have one too (of course I have, lol)

Could you expand on the doctrine tab?

For example, I regularly get raid missions, where I arrive in the target area at night. 
This is perfectly fine after a/c raise their ugly head, but in, say, 1910, I'd rather arrive there at noon, thank you very much - and since I am the one planning the mission, I don't see a reason why I shouldn't be able to specify at what time I want to reach the target area (doesn't mean I can't run into an enemy on the way in/out during darkness, but the setup should be so that I can arrive at the target area at the specified time-frame)
Note: I am perfectly fine with night engagement when the enemy is the one initiating the mission.

Another example would be those convoy attack missions, where I get a bunch of DDs, even though I have plenty of CA available.
As the head of the navy, I most definitely will NOT authorize raids/attacks with just DDs and every Commodore or Admiral insisting on this will find himself in front of a firing squad before he can say "but, but...".
So can I please specify what class of ships I want to earmark for specific missions?
Maybe allow for one class up/down, so if CAs are specified, if none are available, the mission could be conducted by CL or BC but not DD or BB
I'll be perfectly fine if a mission doesn't take place because the ship I specified wasn't available but a mission that I want to be done with a pair of BB will not be conducted with three DDs!

Anyway, I guess you get what I'm getting at.

Also, anyone have more ideas for what could be added to doctrine, please chime in.

[maxnacemit]

I agree this is very much needed because I hate destroyer engagements(and destroyer attacks on convoys) with a passion. I'd say it could be implemented as a fleet stance favouring smaller or larger engagements(which would be historical, as, say, Japan, the US or GB wanted to destroy their opponents in a decisive battle, while someone like Italy wanted to maintain a fleet in being and not risk destruction of their navy by the Brits. Nighttime raids could be made less frequent by making the effect of night training on the frequency of nighttime engagements more promounced.
Your remarks on determining whose initiative the engagement was also made me remember that surprise raids shouldn't be a thing when you're raiding. You don't just think "hey, let's surprise these Germans by shoving our whole battlefleet in the face of the Luftwaffe without ever thinking about turning back!".

[stww2]

It has always struck me as interesting that in Rule the Waves we have control of the fleet at the extreme macro level (in terms of controlling ship design and procurement) and the micro level (extreme micro level if you play in Captain's mode) but very little control in between. Obviously given inherently scarce resources a full-on SAI or even WITP* operational-level implementation is never going to be in the cards, I do think expanded doctrine options concerning fleet employment as discussed above would go a long way towards providing the player some degree of control over how their fleet is deployed without sacrificing the randomization components that RTW uses heavily.

It is worth nothing that the squadron role mechanics being introduced in RTW3 (at least as of the RTW2 expansion catalogue) should be useful in this area.


*which is probably for the best for the sake of everyone's sanity

[williammiller]

Taking a look at the Doctrine tab is certainly possible, thanks.

[cv10]

I've been thinking about this. Perhaps there could be some form of overall naval stance that is agreed between the naval leaders and the political leaders that could shape what kind of battles the player engages in or what kind of penalties the player incurs in certain circumstances.

For examples:

Fleet-In-Being: Navy and Government agree that the fleet should limit its operations except under favorable conditions. The player could conduct operations at their discretion without prestige penalties and reduced VP loss for declining action. However, individual ship losses cost more VP and defeats incur heavier prestige loss. Victories could yield more prestige gain.

Mahanian Naval Doctrine/Command of the Sea Doctrine/Rule the Waves Doctrine (or something to that effect): Navy and Government agree that the fleet should conduct extensive operations in order to deny the enemy the ability to use the sea or to conduct naval operations themselves. I would envision this as being the default for any nation with the "Global Naval Power" modifier. VP losses in action would be reduced, but declining opportunities to engage the enemy fleet or attack convoys should cost more VP points/incur prestige losses if enough opportunities are declined. Defeats should cost more prestige while victories would earn less (due to tradition/expectation of victory) Seizing enemy colonies overseas should provide additional prestige.

These are the only two I can think of in detail off the top of my head. I'm sure there's a good one for the jeune école or a commerce warfare doctrine.

Players should be able to switch doctrines, paying prestige to do so in certain circumstances. Governments could request the Navy to switch doctrines or even demand that they do so with budgetary and prestige incentives for agreeing or disincentives for refusing.

[aeson]

Jun 15, 2022 23:45:58 GMT -6 cv10 said:

These are the only two I can think of in detail off the top of my head. I'm sure there's a good one for the jeune école or a commerce warfare doctrine.

Commerce warfare is basically a sea-denial doctrine - I'm not trying to control the sea lanes and open them up for my own use, I'm just trying to prevent you from using the sea lanes for your own purposes. In practice, it's often combined with a fleet-in-being doctrine (Germany in both World Wars, though more so in the First than the Second) because, well, raiders have much better odds of denying someone the use of the sea if the bulk of the enemy's fleet is tied down somewhere else and you also don't want your enemy to kill your raiding efforts by steaming up and seizing or blocking up your ports, or with a sea control doctrine (US in the Pacific during the Second World War) because if you have one big fleet then that one big fleet can only be in one place at a time and that isn't necessarily the only place that matters. The jeune ecole is basically a sub-school of sea denial which says that you can use torpedo boats instead of battleships to prevent the enemy from employing their battle fleet to block or seize your ports.

I don't really see what you'd give an in-game sea denial / commerce warfare / jeune ecole doctrine, unless maybe it's fewer "you need to build battleships"-type events.

[maxnacemit]

Jun 16, 2022 9:14:20 GMT -6 aeson said:

Jun 15, 2022 23:45:58 GMT -6 cv10 said:

These are the only two I can think of in detail off the top of my head. I'm sure there's a good one for the jeune école or a commerce warfare doctrine.

Commerce warfare is basically a sea-denial doctrine - I'm not trying to control the sea lanes and open them up for my own use, I'm just trying to prevent you from using the sea lanes for your own purposes. In practice, it's often combined with a fleet-in-being doctrine (Germany in both World Wars, though more so in the First than the Second) because, well, raiders have much better odds of denying someone the use of the sea if the bulk of the enemy's fleet is tied down somewhere else and you also don't want your enemy to kill your raiding efforts by steaming up and seizing or blocking up your ports, or with a sea control doctrine (US in the Pacific during the Second World War) because if you have one big fleet then that one big fleet can only be in one place at a time and that isn't necessarily the only place that matters. The jeune ecole is basically a sub-school of sea denial which says that you can use torpedo boats instead of battleships to prevent the enemy from employing their battle fleet to block or seize your ports.

I don't really see what you'd give an in-game sea denial / commerce warfare / jeune ecole doctrine, unless maybe it's fewer "you need to build battleships"-type events.

I think a sea denial doctrine could make use of higher chances of convoy attack/cruiser engagement-type battles, while jeune ecole is less of a doctrine and more of an approach to naval construction, which is, and should be, entirely in the player's hands.

[tbr]

I think the third doctrine choice could reflect jeune ecole in combination with a pre-Tirpitz German Navy doctrine: Combine commerce raiding with a focus on coastal defence. Loose less VP due to being blockaded, minimal VP loss for declining "big/high seas" battles (Fleet, battleship engagement, offensive coastal raids/bombardments), neutral effects on cruiser actions/engagements, some increased gain from merchant sinkings and increased VP loss from declining/loosing defensive coastal raid/bombardment missions.

This would be the most "defensive" of the three doctrines with the major difference to "fleet in being" that with the latter there is an actual fleet for which an expectation exisst to eventually USE that fleet under favourable conditions (or at least threaten to do so).

[TheOtherPoster]

Regarding the player: once war is declared, maybe we could choose, like in the venerable Supremacy at Sea, if we want to have a very cautious, cautious, aggressive or very aggressive strategy (doctrine). So if we play cautious or very cautious it is more likely, for example, that we won’t risk our main fleet in an all-out battle, (so that scenario will not come or not so often) but we will have stronger convoy defense (maybe using capital ships or the developer setting up a more favorable advantage over the enemy. In any case, making it easier to protect the convoy when that scenario comes out).

So the strategy (or doctrine) we choose would affect the type of battles we fight and the likelihood of certain types of ships being part of them (only to a certain degree, in a war we cannot always choose when and how to fight).

I’m not sure if that could be applied to the AI nations to give them a doctrine too. Maybe not. But there are other things that can be done: for example, if the AI nation is clearly weaker than its enemy, it could more likely resort to unrestricted sub warfare…

[benjamin1992perry]

Something that would be interesting to see implemented is if you are using prize rules seeing captured ships boost your economy and or captured ships showing up after battles.

[aeson]

Jun 17, 2022 13:46:48 GMT -6 benjamin1992perry said:

Something that would be interesting to see implemented is if you are using prize rules seeing captured ships boost your economy and or captured ships showing up after battles.

"Prize rules" - particularly with regards to submarine commerce raiding policy, which is the only place where prize rules comes up in the context of the game - doesn't mean that you're capturing merchantmen, it means that you're making a reasonable effort to ensure that everyone on the merchantman gets off of it safely before you sink it and also trying only to sink ships actually carrying contraband.

[zederfflinger]

Jun 17, 2022 14:10:21 GMT -6 aeson said:

Jun 17, 2022 13:46:48 GMT -6 benjamin1992perry said:

Something that would be interesting to see implemented is if you are using prize rules seeing captured ships boost your economy and or captured ships showing up after battles.

"Prize rules" - particularly with regards to submarine commerce raiding policy, which is the only place where prize rules comes up in the context of the game - doesn't mean that you're capturing merchantmen, it means that you're making a reasonable effort to ensure that everyone on the merchantman gets off of it safely before you sink it and also trying only to sink ships actually carrying contraband.

Are there any 20th century examples of a navy capturing enemy warships intact during a war? I don't think it happen very often, if at all.

Even merchants weren't captured often, and raiders don't usually have the extra crew to operate the captured vessel, let alone get it home in one piece.

[aeson]

Jun 17, 2022 19:26:35 GMT -6 zederfflinger said:

Are there any 20th century examples of a navy capturing enemy warships intact during a war? I don't think it happen very often, if at all. 

I believe a number of Russian ships, including a fairly intact if relatively old and small battleship (Imperator Nikolai I / Iki), surrendered to the Japanese Navy in the immediate aftermath of the Battle of Tsushima, some of which were taken into Japanese service shortly thereafter; there's also U-570 / HMS Graph and U-505, though I don't know if those are intact enough at time of capture for you. There might be other examples, though the other purpose-built warships I can think of off the top of my head that were impressed into service by the opposing side are ships sunk, scuttled, or wrecked in areas where the opposing side was able to recover them, for example USS Stewart DD-224 / Dai-102-Gō shōkaitei.

[gurudennis]

Jun 17, 2022 19:26:35 GMT -6 zederfflinger said:

Are there any 20th century examples of a navy capturing enemy warships intact during a war?

I AM U571 -- SINK ME

[avimimus]

I think being forced into a choice of scenarios is a good way to simulate the chaos of war.

However:

1) I would like the ability to delay implementing new doctrines and/or have a doctrine 'tree'.

2) I'd like to keep attempting shore bombardments into the era of improved mines, aircraft, and torpedo boats and be punished for it. Or choose to keep equipping my light carriers with biplanes in order to avoid the need for larger decks (even as my main fleet carriers get more up-to-date equipment).

3) It would also be good to plan major operations someday (e.g. Midway).

I'm not sure how easy any of that is to implement though. I do think a doctrine 'tree' might be good for RTW IV though!

P.S. While I really support forcing players into scenarios - I also think that micromanagement could be allowed if the game simply penalises the player for too much micromanagement by reducing ship availability!