Thought exercise: a re-think of the RtW victory conditions.

[srndacful]

I honestly couldn't think of another way to categorise this - so, excuse the vagueness, but you'll see why in a minute:

It took a while - and a memory of an old game - for me to put things in perspective: 
A navy's duty isn't to win wars, is it? 
No navy on this Earth can conquer the enemy's country (which is usually the object of any war) - after all, the country is on land: and navy can only act on water. 
The only thing that can win a war is Army (since it's the only thing capable of acting on land) and the game we're playing isn't, in any way, connected to the Army.

Ergo: we (as commanders of the navy) have no way in hell of winning a war.
We are just a supporting actor in the main play - hoping our role will get recognised as a major boost in the story - elevating us to the role of the plucky underdog, who (despite all odds) punched above his weight to contribute to the overall narrative. 

Basically, we're playing a game where we're not the main actors: yet we're treated as if we are. 
Sure, it's a bitter pill to swallow: everyone wants to feel like a hero in the story, and no one likes to win the battle just to lose the war (so to speak) but: that's what went down in history, anyway. 
I understand it's not a fun way to make a game - and no yelling of 'it's historical' will make it any better - but the stories of 'last stands' will (and do) live on in histories forever and ever precisely because they have been won against such odds.

We (as the commanders of the navy) have only one job: to allow the Army to it's. 

All the top Air combat games, as well Naval ones (this one included) have been focused on one, most important part of war: establishing Air (or Naval) superiority by annihilating the enemy's planes (ships). 
Why?
To enable all other Air (Naval) action, which serves a single purpose: enabling Army action, and thus helping to win a war.
Reconnaissance, interdiction, bombardment, blockade - these are all simple, mundane tasks with no challenge whatsoever - that wouldn't be possible without Air and Naval superiority, yet which are vital to the Army's continued operations in taking the enemy's territory. 
But, all those boring tasks require Air (or Naval) superiority: and that's why we're here.

This game is all about battles on the high seas - and I'm all for it: 
But, please: recognise why those high seas battles had to happen.
Not one of them happened "just because" - not Jutland, nor Savo Islands, nor Leyte, nor Matapan - all of them have (inevitably) their origins in ability (or inability) to carry freight (military or otherwise - but all in service of war) to it's ports - fuelling it's Army's efforts.

So, basically, what I'm saying is: (TL;DR) 
Make the Army (and it's supply) the basis for our (RtW's) VP's.

Disclaimer: I'm not exactly great at expressing thoughts, so - all comments/praises/criticisms/ecumenicalteachingsinvolvingsinsandhellfire are welcome.

[oldpop2000]

Jan 26, 2023 9:11:18 GMT -6 srndacful said:

I honestly couldn't think of another way to categorise this - so, excuse the vagueness, but you'll see why in a minute:

It took a while - and a memory of an old game - for me to put things in perspective: 
A navy's duty isn't to win wars, is it? 
No navy on this Earth can conquer the enemy's country (which is usually the object of any war) - after all, the country is on land: and navy can only act on water. 
The only thing that can win a war is Army (since it's the only thing capable of acting on land) and the game we're playing isn't, in any way, connected to the Army.

Ergo: we (as commanders of the navy) have no way in hell of winning a war.
We are just a supporting actor in the main play - hoping our role will get recognised as a major boost in the story - elevating us to the role of the plucky underdog, who (despite all odds) punched above his weight to contribute to the overall narrative. 

Basically, we're playing a game where we're not the main actors: yet we're treated as if we are. 
Sure, it's a bitter pill to swallow: everyone wants to feel like a hero in the story, and no one likes to win the battle just to lose the war (so to speak) but: that's what went down in history, anyway. 
I understand it's not a fun way to make a game - and no yelling of 'it's historical' will make it any better - but the stories of 'last stands' will (and do) live on in histories forever and ever precisely because they have been won against such odds.

We (as the commanders of the navy) have only one job: to allow the Army to it's. 

All the top Air combat games, as well Naval ones (this one included) have been focused on one, most important part of war: establishing Air (or Naval) superiority by annihilating the enemy's planes (ships). 
Why?
To enable all other Air (Naval) action, which serves a single purpose: enabling Army action, and thus helping to win a war.
Reconnaissance, interdiction, bombardment, blockade - these are all simple, mundane tasks with no challenge whatsoever - that wouldn't be possible without Air and Naval superiority, yet which are vital to the Army's continued operations in taking the enemy's territory. 
But, all those boring tasks require Air (or Naval) superiority: and that's why we're here.

This game is all about battles on the high seas - and I'm all for it: 
But, please: recognise why those high seas battles had to happen.
Not one of them happened "just because" - not Jutland, nor Savo Islands, nor Leyte, nor Matapan - all of them have (inevitably) their origins in ability (or inability) to carry freight (military or otherwise - but all in service of war) to it's ports - fuelling it's Army's efforts.

So, basically, what I'm saying is: (TL;DR) 
Make the Army (and it's supply) the basis for our (RtW's) VP's.

Disclaimer: I'm not exactly great at expressing thoughts, so - all comments/praises/criticisms/ecumenicalteachingsinvolvingsinsandhellfire are welcome.

The importance of a navy depends on the geographical location of the nation. The US, Great Britain and Japan are maritime powers. So, in this case, their navies are vital to winning wars. You could include Italy, but I am not so sure.

The mission of a navy is to maintain, train, and equip combat-ready naval forces capable of winning wars, deterring aggression and maintaining the freedom of the seas. Navies have and will support land-based strategies as we know. Invasions like Sicily, North Africa, Normandy, Marianna's, Philippines and more, were all made possible by navies and air power in those navies.  The blockade of Germany and Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire was one of key elements in the eventual Allied Victory.  

I understand your concern, but I stand by the games basic concept. Keep in mind that 71 Percent of the earth is covered by water. So, navies are vital. 

[vonfriedman]

The Japanese won the 1904-05 war thanks to their navy. I agree with what the author of the RJW Wikipedia entry writes: "Although the Battle of Mukden was a major defeat for the Russians and was the most decisive land battle ever fought by the Japanese, [in 1905] the final victory still depended on the navy."

[oldpop2000]

Jan 26, 2023 10:58:43 GMT -6 vonfriedman said:

The Japanese won the 1904-05 war thanks to their navy. I agree with what the author of the RJW Wikipedia entry writes: "Although the Battle of Mukden was a major defeat for the Russians and was the most decisive land battle ever fought by the Japanese, [in 1905] the final victory still depended on the navy."

That's it exactly, but land based nations usually can't have big navies and their survival doesn't rely on trade in most cases.

[TheOtherPoster]

I suggested long ago something quite simple to give us the impression that wars are not just a string of random battles but we're actually fighting this or that navy. I think it would make the game experience more enjoyable if when at war, we get more specific messages, when possible relating to the nation we're fighting. Like if fighting the French "enemy convoy transporting troops from nort Africa spotted" or "Japanese oil tankers from Borneo" if fighting the Japanese, or when intercepting a rider, to include the ships' name like "Graff Spee spotted near the western approaches", or ' High command has ordered an immediate coastal bombardment of an Italian factory/naval arsenal/chemical factory or whatever, and so on.

[zederfflinger]

I do not have the knowledge to completely refute what you are suggesting, but I do feel confident in saying that the navy is certainly not a functionary of the army in many wars.

Most wars can be won by mostly or even entirely naval means, so long as you aren't going full a complete and utter collapse of the enemy in a short amount of time. Some wars will need the army to physically invade the opposition, and in those cases, I completely support the idea of getting VP's for aiding their operations.

The Allies didn't need to invade or even nuke Japan, they certainly could have just settled in the blockade and waited for Japan to starve. Might not have even taken that long.
Germany in WW2 was a different matter, but that is mostly down to its size in my understanding. In WW1, you could even say that the naval sphere was the deciding factor in the war, not the incredible battles on land. 

[srndacful]

OK, I see TheOtherPoster is the only one that managed to actually catch the gist of my drift (so to speak) - so, looks like I did do a terrible job at explaining - again.

I'm not arguing that the Navy isn't important within the game (or at all) - far from it: I'm only arguing that (from the game's point of view) the Army is unimportant.

oldpop2000 and vonfriedman : yes, the Japanese navy in 1904-05 was vital (and I'm not here to argue differently) - precisely because it kept the Russian fleet bottled up and unable to prevent Japanese troops and supplies from reaching Manchuria. 
What I'm saying is: where in the game (as it stands right now) is that represented? Where is the Japanese conquest of Korea? or Manchuria? 
Why is the Japanese Army acting like a lazy SoB - sitting on the couch with beer in hand, watching news on TV and cheering the Navy on? 
Am I (as Navy) supposed to do the Army's work, too? 

Historically, the Navy kept the Russians bottled up right up until the Army came up and stormed Port Arthur - capturing the Russian Fleet in the process. 
Where is that represented in the game? 
Where are the Japanese troop and supply convoys I should be defending? (Preferably on the edge of my seat)

Yes, to some countries Navies are vital - because they are the first line of defence - and the first opportunity for offence.
But, defence against what? Answer: any possible invasion. And invasions are done by Armies.
Offence against what? Any enemy nation - and while simply Blockading it might work, it won't work against any land-based nation with sufficient rail network and a nearby friend willing to trade. So, what then? Invasion? You need an Army - and not just the Marines (awesome as they might be)

OK - I hope that made my point a bit more clear - if I came out as aggressive, I apologise - that was not my intent. 

[vonfriedman]

I assume that we all agree that naval warfare is only one part of the war phenomenon and that the instances where the fleet alone is capable of determining the outcome of a war are limited.
Our problem, however, consists in imagining what further step forward NSW can take (let's say in a future RTW4) in order to better simulate the war phenomenon, without however becoming a kind of monstrous reconstruction of all its aspects.
Perhaps we could start from the extension of the procedure with which, in RTW2, colonies or possessions are invaded, so as to also involve the homelands. The success (or failure) of a landing in the territory of the enemy homeland, the conquest (or loss) of bases and, finally, the victory (or defeat) could also be made to depend on the outcome of the "convoy battles" and, to a lesser extent, coastal bombardments.
That said, and recalling "the battle of the Atlantic" in ww2, it would also seem necessary to rethink the way submarine warfare is handled.

[cormallen]

Mostly I think the existing system is OK, where it starts looking a bit silly is where large european land wars are being fought... France vs Germany / Russia vs Germany are very unlikely to be swung (or even much influenced?) by naval fighting! The game would never produce the sort of large land grabs as seen in the World Wars for example...

[TheOtherPoster]

I think srndacful made a fair point asking how wars are won or lost in RTW2. Because to win a war, the land war needs to be part of it somehow (including air campaign over land). Yes, this is a naval game, and very good at that and it must remain so. I totally agree.
And land campaign is sort of taken into account already, only that it's hidden but for a few very generic window messages informing us our army has been defeated or victorious.

To keep it focused as a naval game, those few messages on how the land battles go may be just enough. But, as I did in my previous post regarding our own naval battles, I would suggest these messages were more specific. Instead of the repetitive "the army's offensive has come to a standstill with heavy casualties" over and over again, we would get something more precise like "The 8th army's offensive towards Lyon has failed", or in Korea or wherever, or" surprise RAF air raid has rooted the northern army" etc. Not really reflecting a true land campaign, only to give us the impression (through some specific events on land) of being in a distinctive war. And that I think would make the war more easy to remember and the game experience more enjoyable. It shouldn't be difficult to create a list with many different texts the AI could choose from and maybe tailor to the nations at war: same texts but changing the city/region name according to who is the enemy (Dusseldorf instead of Lyon, or the Pripet marshes instead of Korea, etc and also different armies’ or generals’ names and so on). This way the necessary land campaign would be more meaningful without becoming a burden or a distraction to us.

And as I said earlier, the messages we receive about our battles at sea should be more specific too. For example, instead of “Fleet Battle”, something like “our submarine Rubis has spotted the Italian fleet west of Sardinia. Our Fleet from Toulon scrambled to intercept”. You change the names to U79, Grand Fleet, Skagerrak and Wilhelmshaven and you got another message for a Fleet battle in a war between the British and German Empires. And so on.

I think in RTW there’s always the danger of wars being reduced to repetitive meaningless shooting boom, boom, in random battles. Adding varied, more specific information about the war events can help to dispel that danger.

[oldpop2000]

Jan 26, 2023 23:32:59 GMT -6 srndacful said:

OK, I see TheOtherPoster is the only one that managed to actually catch the gist of my drift (so to speak) - so, looks like I did do a terrible job at explaining - again.

I'm not arguing that the Navy isn't important within the game (or at all) - far from it: I'm only arguing that (from the game's point of view) the Army is unimportant.

oldpop2000 and vonfriedman : yes, the Japanese navy in 1904-05 was vital (and I'm not here to argue differently) - precisely because it kept the Russian fleet bottled up and unable to prevent Japanese troops and supplies from reaching Manchuria. 
What I'm saying is: where in the game (as it stands right now) is that represented? Where is the Japanese conquest of Korea? or Manchuria? 
Why is the Japanese Army acting like a lazy SoB - sitting on the couch with beer in hand, watching news on TV and cheering the Navy on? 
Am I (as Navy) supposed to do the Army's work, too? 

Historically, the Navy kept the Russians bottled up right up until the Army came up and stormed Port Arthur - capturing the Russian Fleet in the process. 
Where is that represented in the game? 
Where are the Japanese troop and supply convoys I should be defending? (Preferably on the edge of my seat)

Yes, to some countries Navies are vital - because they are the first line of defence - and the first opportunity for offence.
But, defence against what? Answer: any possible invasion. And invasions are done by Armies.
Offence against what? Any enemy nation - and while simply Blockading it might work, it won't work against any land-based nation with sufficient rail network and a nearby friend willing to trade. So, what then? Invasion? You need an Army - and not just the Marines (awesome as they might be)

OK - I hope that made my point a bit more clear - if I came out as aggressive, I apologise - that was not my intent. 

First of all, if the Japanese Army was sitting on the couch, it would be with Saki or Rice Wine.... which is actually beer. Just having fun. Second, I, for one, understood and agree with your ideas and thoughts. I just don't want the game to be more complex than it is. I agree that land-based operations could be added, with the AI controlling it; that would be good but not if is going to make the game larger and more complex. Those land-based operations have to be simple with some coordination with the Navy and eventually the air forces. 

[srndacful]

Jan 27, 2023 9:32:44 GMT -6 oldpop2000 said:

Jan 26, 2023 23:32:59 GMT -6 srndacful said:

OK, I see TheOtherPoster is the only one that managed to actually catch the gist of my drift (so to speak) - so, looks like I did do a terrible job at explaining - again.

I'm not arguing that the Navy isn't important within the game (or at all) - far from it: I'm only arguing that (from the game's point of view) the Army is unimportant.

oldpop2000 and vonfriedman : yes, the Japanese navy in 1904-05 was vital (and I'm not here to argue differently) - precisely because it kept the Russian fleet bottled up and unable to prevent Japanese troops and supplies from reaching Manchuria. 
What I'm saying is: where in the game (as it stands right now) is that represented? Where is the Japanese conquest of Korea? or Manchuria? 
Why is the Japanese Army acting like a lazy SoB - sitting on the couch with beer in hand, watching news on TV and cheering the Navy on? 
Am I (as Navy) supposed to do the Army's work, too? 

Historically, the Navy kept the Russians bottled up right up until the Army came up and stormed Port Arthur - capturing the Russian Fleet in the process. 
Where is that represented in the game? 
Where are the Japanese troop and supply convoys I should be defending? (Preferably on the edge of my seat)

Yes, to some countries Navies are vital - because they are the first line of defence - and the first opportunity for offence.
But, defence against what? Answer: any possible invasion. And invasions are done by Armies.
Offence against what? Any enemy nation - and while simply Blockading it might work, it won't work against any land-based nation with sufficient rail network and a nearby friend willing to trade. So, what then? Invasion? You need an Army - and not just the Marines (awesome as they might be)

OK - I hope that made my point a bit more clear - if I came out as aggressive, I apologise - that was not my intent. 

First of all, if the Japanese Army was sitting on the couch, it would be with Saki or Rice Wine.... which is actually beer. Just having fun. Second, I, for one, understood and agree with your ideas and thoughts. I just don't want the game to be more complex than it is. I agree that land-based operations could be added, with the AI controlling it; that would be good but not if is going to make the game larger and more complex. Those land-based operations have to be simple with some coordination with the Navy and eventually the air forces. 

Correction accepted - Sake it is.
It would also, IMHO, be sitting behind a tatami - but that's just my western bias: any and all Japanese readers, I humbly beg for forgiveness.

But, seriously: yes - I totally agree.
Land campaign should not be over-complicated nor make too much more of a burden on the Naval part than it already does:
A couple of values working behind the scenes is more than enough - hell, it could even be a coin-flip (although I'd take it as a kindness if it weren't) - which we (as Navy) can further nudge in the right direction to help the war effort along ...
And that's not even taking into account the Army Air Force - which is a whole 'nother ball of twine all by itself.

In any case - that's my pitch: any thoughts?

[oldpop2000]

Jan 27, 2023 10:58:32 GMT -6 srndacful said:

Jan 27, 2023 9:32:44 GMT -6 oldpop2000 said:

First of all, if the Japanese Army was sitting on the couch, it would be with Saki or Rice Wine.... which is actually beer. Just having fun. Second, I, for one, understood and agree with your ideas and thoughts. I just don't want the game to be more complex than it is. I agree that land-based operations could be added, with the AI controlling it; that would be good but not if is going to make the game larger and more complex. Those land-based operations have to be simple with some coordination with the Navy and eventually the air forces. 

Correction accepted - Sake it is.
It would also, IMHO, be sitting behind a tatami - but that's just my western bias: any and all Japanese readers, I humbly beg for forgiveness.

But, seriously: yes - I totally agree.
Land campaign should not be over-complicated nor make too much more of a burden on the Naval part than it already does:
A couple of values working behind the scenes is more than enough - hell, it could even be a coin-flip (although I'd take it as a kindness if it weren't) - which we (as Navy) can further nudge in the right direction to help the war effort along ...
And that's not even taking into account the Army Air Force - which is a whole 'nother ball of twine all by itself.

In any case - that's my pitch: any thoughts?

The land campaign should depend on geography. For many nations, it would be a complex series of operations and geostrategies. For some maritime nations, it would be more naval than land.

[TheOtherPoster]

I wouldn't add anything new to the land campaign other than specific messages as I mentioned before, to give the impression of a real land war going on. Because it could take the focus too much off the naval war and maybe more importantly because the strategic level in the naval war is not so much developed in RTW2. That should certainly come first than any new features on the land war. There are many things that could perhaps be improved. What's the war plan? Surely cannot be the same if we're fighting the Austrians or the USA. Or if we're Japan or Italy. But actually it is. No island hopping is possible in the game to cross the Pacific and defeat Japan, for example. Or snother example, we do not know how the war against the British merchant navy is going either. We have an empire to defend but most of it is too far for any naval invasion so it's not point to leave too many or too good ships defending it. We can install coastal guns in islands we know they will never be attacked. Large range and extreme range ships could have a new roll in making more areas within invasion range. For example at the moment there's no way Midway can be attacked. Likewise the British cannot be totally expelled from the Caribbean by the Americans because they hold a tiny island and is too far to invade it. Gibraltar does not have any strategic value and neither does Singapore.
Now, I'm not saying they must fix all these things and many other suggestions from you guys. There's been many and their resources are limited. I'm only saying that maybe before looking too much into the land war, they could look to other things that would develop the naval game further. Anyway, RTW3 is still a bit of a mistery but with hundreds of suggestions to choose from, I'm sure Fredrik has gone for the best/more feasible ones now. One way or another I'm sure RTW3 will be superb.