Evasion

[mcaryf1]

Hi SeaMonkey

I suppose in my model your objective would be fulfilled if there are a number of warships with an * in the build list at the end of a game as these would represent ships that are available for "cheap" repair but which the player still cannot afford. This has happened in some of my AI v AI runs.

In the real WW2 ships would need refits after a year or so of heavy use so whilst I might argue for a gradual increase in experience I could also argue for an automatic accumulation of damage or morale loss points that take 4 or 5 turns resting in port to come back. However, I am not going to argue too strongly for it because the relative simplicity of SC is one of its strengths.

I have been assembling data on the RN deployment of DDs. They really did suffer quite horrendous losses in the early years but not usually of a whole flotilla in a theatre. They also had a steady rebuilding programme so I think making DD units both harder to hit and instantly rebuildable at something like 50% cost is not too bad a way to model this.

With respect to land based air I am not arguing that it should be impossible for it to sink a BB type unit merely that it should be difficult because it was not often done. It is perhaps unfortunate that air attacks on ships in ports are made more difficult in SC than doing it in open sea by the diversion of hits to the resource. Hitting the ship in port was probably the most effective way to do damage to a BB in WW2 - more were "sunk" in harbour than at sea.

Regards

Mike

[SeaMonkey]

Perhaps you could increase the chance of damage from stormy seas to simulate the wear and tear you've astutely referred to. I think at this time Mike, you're probably the best person to manipulate the many parameters available in SC to produce a more accurate naval model, I applaud your effort.

Actually, I believe it is pretty easy to damage ships in port with CV and TAC strikes in the present set up. As soon as Hubert and Bill design in a more flexible tech upgrades application, campaign designers will have the tools to not only customize the tech selections, but also the connected CTVs with liberalizations & limitations of the slot designations and levels.

Then we'll really see a more sophisticated interaction of the "rocks, paper, scissors" effect and here's hoping the AI will be able to deal with it.

One last thing I would like you to experiment with in your testing, try examining the effect, both ground and naval, of increasing the strikes of TAC to 2, with perhaps a balanced decrease in the number of builds allowed for the unit, same for fighter escort. My observations have been less air units to deal with, more multiple functions, and the players optioning to deploy air elements(operating) much more often to a wide variety of theaters.

[SeaMonkey]

How does everyone feel about having an Evasion % for tiles, set by the editor? Or maybe allow all units a certain percent evasion if the designer deems so appropriate.

And have evasion % displayed in the unit "properties" accessed by the "right click". There is a blank entry box.

[Big Al]

It would be better set for weather and include ships.

I put evasion in ships due to the following

#1 CVs dont want surface combat, they are usually faster than BBs, they have a fast screening group

#2 Even though 2 ships want to fight each other they can miss initial searches giving one an advantage.

#3 Slower ships evade less.

So the only other modification I would make is for weather. You aint finding poop in storm.

[mcaryf1]

Weather is somewhat of a problem in SC when you have sequential turns. You may deploy a CV in good weather during your turn but have the weather quite different when your opponent has the initiative and can attack your exposed units.

I realise of course that weather does change in the real world as well but then there is at least the possibility of forecasting the change although a 14 day forecast would have pushed the boundaries during WW2!

I guess the main effects of weather on naval aspects are an inability to deploy aircraft, reduced spotting and a chance of minor storm damage (slightly more important if you are moving troops). I agree it would be a good feature if weather increased the percentage chance of evasion but I would prefer it to be total evasion of combat not the current one side getting a free hit.

I would imagine building in weather related evasion might be quite a big change so I think I am going to be satisfied by the current possibility of giving both sides some degree of evasion and increasing the general possibility at least of no effective combat although that would not be weather related.

I have not yet completed my allocation of RN ships into TF's although I have completed BB's and CV's. With the RN BB's it proved necessary to allocate some of the old ones e.g. "R" class to a different country (Canada) as I could not easily marry up the characteristics of the KGV's with them in similar BB TF's. Adm Somerville found in the Indian Ocean that he could not really deplot the "Rs" in the same TF as more modern ships when facing the IJN Raid.

Another naval issue that I am also working on is the question of convoys. I am thinking about creating player Decision Events as to whether some hazardous convoys should be run, switched to another route or be suspended altogether. This mainly relates to the Arctic route where I could give the Allies a DE to suspend the convoys, as Churchill did after PQ17, but the price would be morale hits both in the SU and the UK (worker solidarity). I would also like the player to be able to switch the Arctic route to go via Persia instead. I think that can work because my understanding is that a second potential convoy route will become active if the main route is disabled for whatever reason - in this case an adverse DE.

I do not want to overburden players with Decisions so I am thinking of making the choice about which convoys to run once every 6 months.

Ideally I would like the MPPs delivered via the Arctic to be spent in N Russia (e.g. near Leningrad) and those via Persia to be spent in S Russia (e.g. near Stalingrad). I guess I might need USSR to be split into two countries which might be more bother to implement than its worth.

One final point about convoys - the costs of supply and merchant shipping losses are both conspicuous by their absence in SC. One way to introduce them, at least for the Allies, would be to apply an additional MPP charge to a DE relating to continuing the convoys crossing the Atlantic. I would like to give the Allied player a difficult decision as to whether to let the UK starve (modelled by morale hits and after a perid of no convoys perhaps strength losses as well) or continue to fight a difficult and expensive battle in the Atlantic.

Regards

Mike