|
Post by cormallen on May 27, 2023 7:29:33 GMT -6
Is this happening early on? Before destroyers are really common, or all the way through?
Maybe the Battle Generator is using these assorted Sloops and Corvettes to plug a gap?
|
|
|
Post by yemo on May 27, 2023 12:18:00 GMT -6
Just had another one.
Essentially my 15 KE(ms) (and 3 allied DD) against the whole enemy fleet...
1906, my whole fleet in the same sea zone decided to sit this one out. Let's send only ALL the KE(ms) on this shore bombardment mission...
|
|
|
Post by yemo on May 27, 2023 16:40:17 GMT -6
We have mission types like AF for active fleet and TP for trade protection. Id like to have Auxillary with AU or UX as the two letter code. UX is more visually distinct. A minor issue im having is that i have built some corvettes as unarmored minesweepers. This represented by a 0 hull armor. They are 800 tons with 2 x 4" or 2 x 5" main guns and from 0 to 2 secondary 3". That is enough to duel with a submarine. These little wooden fellas have been pulled into a lot of missions they don't belong in. They have been escorting CA and one time 2 wooden minesweepers went out to raid a convoy. I would like to be able to designate a ship as being in an auxillary role. This would have less chance of being involved in a battle. By having this function I might also take a large capital ship on that role to give the crew time to train more. While on AUX duty the ship is: = less likely to be in a battle = provides full minesweeping score = provides only half its zone control = ASW value full as it is moving around in searches though half is also appropriate IF the AUX idea isn't like than can we have Minesweeper MS duty that requires a ship have MS scores. Then I dont have to worry about my little wooden minesweepers having to face 8" cruisers. Perhaps your proposed AUX/UX role can be split and complemented by the WU role: I often find my "second rate" CA and CL ships being much more prominently featured by the battle generator, than the newer vessels. Eg 1900-1905 I have some faster, more capable, much bigger CAs and a bunch of older, slower CAs from the 1890s. Yet the battle generator strongly favors the older ships. I experimented with various division settings, to no avail. And if I put the older ships on TP role (to at least preserve their blockade points), they are missed in the bigger battles as support ships. A proposal based on yours: AUX/UX role:- The ship is less likely to appear in smaller engagements. - It is nearly exclusively a support ship for large battles, especially coastal defense (eg close to own shores). - Full ASW and ms score and blockade value (since it appears in battles intended to break the blockade, just like slow Bs) - Significantly reduced experience gain compared to AF For training ships faster, the player could be allowed to put ships in "WU" role themselves. WU role:For crew level lower than fair: - No changes to how it works now, does not participate in battles or any other fleet activity. For crew level fair and above: - The ship is less likely to appear in smaller engagements. - It is nearly exclusively a support ship for large battles, especially coastal defense (eg close to own shores). - Half blockade, ASW & ms values (the ship spends time training instead of "working") - Significantly increased experience gain compared to AF - Slightly increased maintenance costs compared to AF
|
|
|
Post by carafa on May 28, 2023 3:04:38 GMT -6
Would maybe a check box, similar to "colonial service" do the job? You check "auxiliary service" when building/rebuilding the ship, after that its chance to show up in battle drastically decreases?
That way you wouldn't have to rework the missions you can put your ships on.
|
|
|
Post by blarglol on May 28, 2023 10:45:11 GMT -6
Would maybe a check box, similar to "colonial service" do the job? You check "auxiliary service" when building/rebuilding the ship, after that its chance to show up in battle drastically decreases? That way you wouldn't have to rework the missions you can put your ships on. On paper I like the idea, but code-wise I'm not sure how such a mechanic would work. Having a ship with colonial service simply affects it's tonnage calculation on foreign service. This checkbox would affect it's actual use on the operational-level.
|
|
|
Post by dia on May 28, 2023 17:10:36 GMT -6
Would maybe a check box, similar to "colonial service" do the job? You check "auxiliary service" when building/rebuilding the ship, after that its chance to show up in battle drastically decreases? That way you wouldn't have to rework the missions you can put your ships on. On paper I like the idea, but code-wise I'm not sure how such a mechanic would work. Having a ship with colonial service simply affects it's tonnage calculation on foreign service. This checkbox would affect it's actual use on the operational-level. I can't imagine it wouldn't be difficult code-wise. Back in RtW2, they added in update that made it so light cruisers with DP main armament were more likely to be selected as CV escorts plus the battle generator already checks against ship type and speed.
Though I'm thinking less of a checkmark and more of a drop down menu. It could be combined with the assign role feautre suggestions people have made in past. Personally I like the idea of assigning an auxiliary role in the designer/rebuild screen than as a status option
|
|
|
Post by brygun on Jun 2, 2023 14:06:17 GMT -6
Just had a convoy raid in support of a land battle. On my side: 5 own KE(ms) + 5 DD from my Allies Enemy side: 1 CA + 3 DD I had plenty of other active fleet CA and CL in the sea zone, but no, my 5 KE minesweepers were sent alone (as a core force) for that convoy raid... Honestly, this is bug level broken... Yeah this needs a fix. Minesweepers are generally built slow and often unarmored as the armor being metal has a magnetic field that magnetic detonated mines look for. This doesn't sound like a hard thing to code either. If on MS or AUX duties then get skipped for battle placement
|
|
|
Post by cormallen on Jun 2, 2023 17:01:23 GMT -6
Why not have a minesweeping designation? (And maybe also ones for laying offensive/defensive minefields?) I suspect because they'd have to write new AI behaviour rules for each new mission/ship type?
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on Jun 2, 2023 17:32:19 GMT -6
Lots of suggestions here, thanks!
|
|
|
Post by brygun on Jun 2, 2023 21:42:55 GMT -6
Why not have a minesweeping designation? (And maybe also ones for laying offensive/defensive minefields?) I suspect because they'd have to write new AI behaviour rules for each new mission/ship type? As opposed to the new mission/ship type meaning nothing as they get used wrong? Ill have the update thank you very much!
|
|
|
Post by cormallen on Jun 2, 2023 23:42:59 GMT -6
I suspect because they'd have to write new AI behaviour rules for each new mission/ship type? As opposed to the new mission/ship type meaning nothing as they get used wrong? Ill have the update thank you very much! Oh, I agree! I was just being cynical as to why it prob won't happen...
|
|
|
Post by brygun on Jun 3, 2023 3:06:18 GMT -6
Also... just now Ive had my game generate a battle where the lead of the battle is a single wooden minesweeper of 800 tons. It is the ship be being followed by four CVs 60 to 96 planes each, several CL and many DD. As generated all their motion depends on the MS which is silly.
Personally I think the AX for Auxillary or SP for Support duties would handle a lot of cases vs a specific MS minesweeper role
Basically as yemo presented in the Auxillary/Suppory you get
= Not into silly battles* = May support other units on tactical battles = Full secondary scores ASW, MS and Minelaying... and any others that may be added to the game = Area control aka blockade score... hmmm full or 75%
*: silly things stop happening = Secondary ships leading fleets when other non-secondary ships are around = Only secondary ships being used to attack an enemy convoy (they shouldnt be trying that) = Secondary ships that get to launch an ambush (they shouldnt be trying that)
Secondary ships could still show up as: = Defending from enemy coastal raids ... since yeah... they would be in the target area = Defending convoys = Being ambushed = Supporting the attacks of non-secondary ships
|
|