More Randomness in Naval Combat?

[Ottosmops]

Are the results of naval battles to predictable?

There were naval battles, like Midway for example, in which both sides were of approximately equal strength and one side lost all its carriers.

I think such a result can not happen with the current model.

I do NOT suggest to increase the values of the combat table, because there were also battles, often at night, in which both sides fired many torpedoes and shells without much success.

I would rather suggest to increase the randomness of the combat results.

Example:

If the CTV (modified by upgrades) is N, one could produce a random number between 0 and 2N and replace the CTV by this number in the combat formula.

One would have to pay attention when to apply this increased randomness:

e.g.

CV attacks BB --> CV losses normal, (the CV can only lose some planes, it attacks from beyond the range of the BB's guns), BB losses more random (it can be destroyed or damaged or missed).

BB attacks CV --> both more random?

Questions:

Do the above comments make sense?

Would this improve gameplay, because a slightly weaker force could win with good luck?

Or would such a change hurt gameplay, because the chicken-hearted players would leave their fleets in the ports?

Would the players like such a change?

[PowerGmbH]

I completely disagree with your more Random option. Random ist contraproductive in a Strategic Game, and best is to reduce it as much as possible.

Well, must say i thought REALLY long about how to do better the pacific part of the Global Campaign, and at least i came on the maybe easiest solution:

YAMAMOTO was an Excellent Admiral, but is not represented in the Game. so Easiest Application would be to have a possibility of eiter:

1) UPGRADE A SHIP WITH A ADMIRAL ( Similar to Land-HQ ) with effect on readiness

i.e. YAMAMOTO HQ UPGRADE Costs more than any "cheap" Admiral ( similar to Zhoukov - Popov Cost difference...)

or

2) CREATE A NEW UNIT : NAVAL HQ THAT IS PLANTED OVER OR IN ONE SHIP with control over up to 6 Ships.

Because the Best answer to a Strategy Game is not Randomness, but Strategic Thinking.

So the Player can decide where he puts his READY-offensive Naval Units ( US player would think about where to place/upgrade Nimitz, and a Axis Player would think of where to place/upgrade Yamamoto )

[Edwin P.]

I like both ideas - the unit assigned admiral and a Naval HQ.

Admirals might give a unit a specific bonus - either a chance to strike first, a chance to evade combat, a greater chance to detect a sub, a greater chance or a jsut a simple readiness bonus.

One admiral might be highly rated for commanding subs and another highly rated for destroyers.

A naval HQ could give a readiness bonus to all (3 to 5) ships that it supports and the ships that it supports could be assigned/reassigned only when the ship enters port.

Example: Naval HQ mechanics

Ship in Port - select > Assign Admiral (to a max of 3 ships).

Then if you want to change the ship that is assigned an admiral one of the ships assigned an admiral must return to port so the Admiral can be reassigned before being assigned to another ship.

Ship in Port - select > Remove Admiral (if one was assigned to this ship previously)

[pzgndr]

There is an editable parameter for combat variability. You can increase the current +/-1 to something higher. This applies to all combats though. It would have been nice to have a separate variable for land and naval combats, where naval engagements could have higher uncertainty.

[Bill101]

I have thought about having naval combat use a higher modifier (i.e. plus or minus 2, rather than the usual 1). Reading accounts of naval battles during WWII shows that who won or lost was very unpredictable. You only needed a well aimed shell hitting the enemy's ship in a vital place and it would be going to the bottom!

I haven't yet worked through this idea too far, partly because we can't differentiate between naval and land and air combats. Part of me thinks it would definitely be more realistic, but another part worries about how it would affect gameplay.

If it were made possible I would love to try it out.

[Ottosmops]

powergmbh,

I think I can understand your dislike for randomness.

But if SC wants to be a war simulation besides being a game, then some randomness has its place, I think.

Luck played certainly a role in real life. The grenade that sunk the Hood had a determinate trajectory. But if the air temperature or air pressure were different, than its flight path would have been different, and the result of the battle might have been different.

From the view of the admirals in real life, such details are unforeseeable. But they still make their plans, as best as they can.

Randomness and strategic planning are not mutually exclusive, IMO, as long as the randomness is within known limits.

[PowerGmbH]

Ottosmops: well must admit that the "per-Excellence" Strategy game i know is Chess, and in some way SC2 is some modern Upgrade to that.

A Certain Randomness is a must in this game (see Research or Politics chits ) but the idea behind the Admirals-HQ idea is just a similar approach to your inicial statement of WHO will win a Seabattle.

And for this i think a Calss 9 Naval-HQ

(Yamamoto) could be the best "triggering" effect, for e decisive battle ( as well as may be a Class 9 Naval-HQ called Nimitz)

i simply think the approach is better under control of the player.

Edwin P.: great idea, but where shall the Naval HQ be located? on a land field, only with capacity of assign ships in ports near to it , or "inside" a ship, which means it can be sunk, or simply a Class 1-9 Upgrade, looking like one of these little Numbers below the Units?

I think For Programming the Engine, the easiest version would be a Upgrade for the ships,

applied to a i.e. Global Scenario, this would mean for example, you Upgrade the BB YAMATO with one of i.e. 4 existing "Admirals" or in fact say Naval HQs,

this "Upgrade" costs between 210 and 320 MPP, and now you have the BB YAMATO upgradetd with a Admiral (i.e. Call him Yamamoto) and up to 4 ships in Range of this Leading Naval Unit are now possible to be assigned to the Admiral (maybe automatic), having in consequence a better Motivation ( and i.e. may win a decisive Midway battle)

Now if the BB Yamato sinks the "Naval-HQ" is lost but could i.e. be built (or Upgraded) in another ship with the reduced cost.

What about such a version?

Other suggestions?

[Edwin P.]

I would also like to see naval combat affected by a ship's experience, speed and gun size.

Example: A Battleship that has a surprise encounter with a destroyer should have a chance to attack first; in good weather, due to its much longer range guns.

Example: A destroyer that encounters a battleship fleet, in good weather, should have a chance to evade combat that round by running away due to the faster speed of destroyers. In bad weather the destroyer would have a greater chance of evading combat.

Example: Likewise a submarine with a more experienced admiral that has a surprise encounter with a battleship fleet should have a chance to strike first or evade combat totally.

Essentially, naval fleets should have combat modes to choose from;

1. Evade Combat

2. Engage Surface

3. Engage Subs

4. Engage All (default)

Encounter Example:

Battleship (8AP)

Destroyer (10AP)

Chance for Destroyer to Evade Combat with Battleship = 2AP x 15 = 20% (if in Evade Combat Mode)

Experience Affect = 10% per experiance advantage

Destroyer (Medal 1) encountering a Battleship (Medal 0) has a 30% (20% for speed and 10% for experience) to evade combat.

Gun Range Effect

Battleship Gun Range Rating - 4

Cruiser Gun Range Rating - 2

Destroyer Gun Range Rating - 1

A Battleship attacked by a Destroyer has a 30% to make the first strike. (Gun Advantage x 10%)

A Cruiser attacked by a Destroyer has a 10% to make the first attack.

A Destroyer attacked by a Battleship has a 0% to make the first attack.

[ January 04, 2008, 06:02 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[arado234]

I like that idea Edwin.

[Ottosmops]

Edwin P.,

I appreciate your proposals to make the model of naval warfare more accurate.

However, one must not forget that 50% of the time of a turn in the game is at night.

If a DD meets a BB at night, the smaller ship can see the bigger first, fire its torpedoes at long range and retreat.

A result (in SC terms) of 10:0 in favor of the weaker side could not be ruled out.

I also like the idea of upgrading ships with admirals.

But I cannot see how this could explain extreme combat results.

Admiral Nagumo was the same (probably competent) commander at Pearl Harbor and at Midway.

Still he achieved an overwhelming victory at one occasion and suffered a crushing defeat at the other.

[U8led]

Essentially, naval fleets should have combat modes to choose from;

1. Evade Combat

2. Engage Surface

3. Engage Subs

4. Engage All (default)

New to the game but I have started playing a lot of pbem. Just want to say that the above idea sounds very interesting.

Idea I would like to add is that naval units that have not moved yet this turn have there naval spotting range increased by 1 untill they move then it goes back to default.