Naval ... the next concern

[Shaka of Carthage]

This is the second and last of my major concerns with SC2. There have been a few topics recently that have addressed some of this, so I will try not to go over the same things in detail.

I'm sure most of us do not appreciate how big the oceans are relative to the land spaces. Even the relative difference in size between Europe or Africa.

N.N.E

N.N.

The above "text" map will hopefully help illustrate the problem. N = North Atlantic and E = Europe (SC Map). To accuratly represent the North Atlantic, the European land mass is only about 20% of the total space. So lets compromise a little, and shorten the height of the North Atlantic... to something like this.

N.N.E

In SC2, our "European" map is now 120x38 tiles (I think). With a max tile of 256x256, we have a slight problem. No way can I show the true ratio of the North Atlantic to Europe, even with the shortened version. And you can't take advantage of the 38 tile height, since any expansion in height, simply gives you the Artic Circle and/or Africa. And why is this a problem?

Because the Naval system is a tile (or hex if you prefer) based system. You move tile by tile, you enter a tile with another naval unit, you have combat. No different than our ground system.

And thats the gist of the problem. The supply system for the naval ships doesn't work when you move them across vast distances. So you need some sort of change to the distance a Port can supply ships (representing all those oil tenders and supply ships). You have multi-level combat areas... air, surface and sub-surface. There is the problem with naval ships occupying the same 50 mile tile, in that it doesn't mean they should be able to spot each other. And so on, so on and so on.

Unlike the Air problem, which has a relatively easy fix, the Naval problem is something that requires a redesign. Bearing in mind, that this is not a major theater for SC2, its not like you want to spend an enormous amount of time on this.

There are two basic approaches that can be taken based on what we have...

what everyone else has done ... abstract sea zones

and a different approach ... variable tile sizes

I've already written quite a few posts (along with others) on how to use abstract sea zones, in conjunction with the "entry arrows" (just like the ones we currently use for the loop to the Suez. If there is interest in it, I can summarize them.

The variable tile approach is an attempt to work within the restrictions of what SC2 appears to be. I'll talk more about this in some later posts.

[Edwin P.]

Variable tile sizes seems to be the way to go as you can't change the underlying system this late in the process (and I like sea tiles better than abstract sea zones, just a personal preference).

The key issue here is spotting in the Mid Atlantic.

I would suggest that ships have a chance to move past enemy ships without engaging them in combat or even being aware that they exist. Naturally this chance would increase for subs and be even greater for subs running silent.

Say; 100% to spot naval units in coastal sea hexes and the Med and 80% to spot and engage units in the Mid Atlantic and 50% to spot and engage subs in the Mid Atlantic if they are running silent.

[pzgndr]

and a different approach ... variable tile sizes

Can't we think of the "compressed" North Atlantic as already having variable tile sizes? If we make a trully accurate map, it would be about 30 tiles from Halifax to London or Madrid. A fleet would need about 4 turns to cross. As it is, movement is more or less expedited across the vast expanse of the NA while a bit more deliberate in the ETO where fleets must be more cautious.

If we change to an accurate NA scale, then Shaka's concerns about supply ranges and movement rates would need to be resolved. If we increase naval AP and supply ranges for realistic trans-Atlantic crossings, then movements in the ETO waters may seem unnaturally high. I'm just thinking out loud. Hubert may want to consider these things and comment.

As it is, the SC2 map provides about double the NA area which should allow both sides ample room for maneuver, relative to what we had in SC1. Reduced air spotting and the changes in store for sub and carrier operations should improve the overall naval combat system. We've also experimented with slightly lower naval damage rates which seem to moderate those big blowout battles we've seen. I'm not saying things will be perfect in SC2, but they should be much better. And as important as the naval war was, it was really the air/land war in the ETO which was the main event. We should keep that in perspective.

I believe head-to-head games will prove to be nail-biters with regard to the Battle for the Atlantic. There's just more area to cover than either side has fleets/subs for, so opportunities for strengths and weaknesses should abound. The bigger issue in my mind is getting the AI to implement decent naval strategy, particularly to balance things between the North Sea, North Atlantic, and Med. Convoy raiding versus surface battles versus seaborne invasions. There's a lot on the plate already. Let's keep our fingers crossed and hope for a challenging AI.

[Blashy]

If a sub runs silent, you will NOT spot it in high seas. 50% just does not work.

The sonars on a ship was crap, was only good for when a torpedo was launched, they would say where it came from and then they would have to be RIGHT on top of the subs AND get lucky to hear them, why do you think they carpeted the whole area with explosive barrels? They new the torpedo came from that area, the sub could be well gone from now.

In CLEAR coastal waters an aircraft sub patrol could spot them underwater, you would not have spoted a sub like so in the North Atlantic, Spain and Mid to South USA you could have.

A sub running silent might as well just not exist, even in todays high tech world, a sub runs silent by going so deep the atmospheric pressure hides all sounds it makes, while it lets a passive sonar trail up 2000+ feet and hears everything. The passive sonars are just a cable with microphones in them, they creat no noise in the water and active sonars (the ping you hear) will not bounce off, it is too small.

Run silent = 99% undetectable, but in WW2 when they did so, they also could not spot the enemy as well.

[ May 07, 2004, 10:21 AM: Message edited by: Blashy ]

[SeaMonkey]

Can't we just apply an abstract thought tothis process.

1. Imagine that all sea tiles are larger(in area/distance) than land tiles apply the appropriate multiplication factor X2, X3 to movement cost per sea tile for units traversing, sea and air.

2. Apply the appropriate division factor to unit's APs when traversing sea tiles.

3. There must be some mechanism (search)or randomizing factor to allow units the possibility of not spotting each other

[Blashy]

I like what SeaMonkey says about making Sea tiles cost more AP, because they are bigger.

[Desert Dave]

Can't we think of the "compressed" North Atlantic as already having variable tile sizes?

Yep, we sure can.

IF... the Player is not satisfied with the designer provided... "abstracted size" of the Atlantic, ALL they have to do is go into the Editor and REDUCE the APs for each naval vessel.

NOW you have a larger Atlantic!

The EXACT size that you think it should be.

(... or even, make another Map altogether!)

EVERYTHING extent, and all that is created, is... an abstraction.

IF... the Player wants to insure that there are extended naval battles, all he needs do is go into the Editor and reduce ALL of the combat target values, so that each of the occasions for combat will be... less consequent and less bloody.

Also, you can reduce the COST for the Subs and the Cruiser-Destroyer groups, so that there WILL be much more action in that deep and ever unforgiving Atlantic.

***As for the "spotting"... you don't want so VERY much "invisibility" that you will spend IMMENSE amounts of time searching and searching and searching every single tile for that elusive Sub or ASW unit.

This is already and necessarily a game of "abstraction" and it is merely for the individual Player's IMAGINATION to fill in all the tiny details of sub-to-ship encounters, yes?

Thank God, once again! For that most amazing Editor!... so that EACH WW2 GS Player CAN "tweak" the naval game, or the Air game, or the Land game or the Research game, or the Diplomatic game or the Industrial Production game... to suit his very personal requirements. :cool:

One thing that will be VERY interesting... when you set up a TCP/IP or PBEM game... DECIDING on which of the 100s & 100s of variations/scenarios to use?

That alone might engender endless (.. but, merry!) debates raging from... Amsterdam to Baltimore to old Idaho!

And, why ever not, each Player will surely muse... use MY very own variation?

Which I think, ah, ahem, to be the very BEST re-creation that there is or EVER could be... other than the DEFAULT game,

Which will be so finely honed and sharp edged that you could cut Atoms... quite exactly in half with it... but of course!

[SeaMonkey]

Only one problem DD. Air will have different APs for movement across land compared with movement across sea tiles that are considered abstractly larger. This(movement cost) needs to be coded into the tiles themselves.

[Desert Dave]

Air will have different APs for movement across land compared with movement across sea tiles that are considered abstractly larger.

Good point SeaMonkey.

I would say this: just how easy was it for ANY sea-going WW2 Air unit to spot a very, very tiny fleet or sub out in the Atlantic?

The old idea of having an Air Fleet or Strat Bomber be able to see for 100s & 1000s of miles around is liable to be changed somewhat.

Perhaps... maybe... the new! naval bomber capabilities could partly, or even MOSTLY solve this dilemma?

Some aspects of FoW are not decided yet, and I'm sure that Hubert will reveal his decisions where and when appropriate.

Besides, and again, you CAN edit just about anything a'tall, to include spotting ranges. :cool:

[Edwin P.]

The old idea of having an Air Fleet or Strat Bomber be able to see for 100s & 1000s of miles around is liable to be changed somewhat.

This is especially true as the area to be covered increases geometrically as the radius of the circle increases.

I am most interested to learn how HC plans to handle this. Me, I would favor a reduced chance of spotting as the range increases. One method is: Range 4 - 100%, 5 - 90%, 6 - 80%, 7 - 70%, 8 - 60%. Another method is to say that the chance of spotting at the Maximum spotting Range = 25%, Max Range minus 1 = 50%, Max Range minus 2 = 75%, Max Range minus 3 or less = 100%. Of course the chance for spotting subs should be reduced to reflect their lower profile.

[ May 07, 2004, 12:47 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[SeaMonkey]

My main concern is not the spotting range, but the attacking range that aircraft will exhibit. If the air has a range of 5 tiles over land = 250 miles, then they will have a range of 750 miles over sea if tiles are considered 3X land scale. That is a grossly unrealistic use of my abstractly deviant mind no matter how far I push it. :eek:

[Desert Dave]

... then they will have a range of 750 miles over sea if tiles are considered 3X land scale.

Well, the tiles are 1X and not 3X.

Speculation about "abstract Atlantic" doesn't necessarily CHANGE any specific and tile-by-tile game dynamics, other than... on a sort of imaginary scale.

In general, I would say this... so long as you are having a great deal of FUN, and fairly closely replicating the difficulties that Britain had in fending off the U-boot menace, then the game succeeds in providing a pretty doggone good Battle of the Atlantic.

After all, as pzgndr has mentioned, this IS an incidental part of the over-all game, and not to be too finely parsed.

[SeaMonkey]

"In general, I would say this... so long as you are having a great deal of FUN, and fairly closely replicating the difficulties that Britain had in fending off the U-boot menace, then the game succeeds in providing a pretty doggone good Battle of the Atlantic."

True

I submit.

[ev]

Originally posted by SeaMonkey:

My main concern is not the spotting range, but the attacking range that aircraft will exhibit. If the air has a range of 5 tiles over land = 250 miles, then they will have a range of 750 miles over sea if tiles are considered 3X land scale. That is a grossly unrealistic use of my abstractly deviant mind no matter how far I push it. :eek:

One way to handle this could be to have two types of sea squares, call one of them deep sea. Deep sea squares would be far away from land squares. Regular sea squares (light blue) would represent 50 x 50 miles. Deep sea squares (dark blue) would represent 3X the size of regular sea next. Air units are land based, and, we would design the map so that deep sea is far off land. Air units would not reach into deep sea. And, therefore we would not have to worry about air units having 3x the range at sea than inland.

...except for carriers. I am sure there are ways we could deal with carriers. However, I would like to know a bit more about how will Carriers work in SC2 before I start talking about them ...else I probably make a fool of my self. :cool: Anyway, if any of the insiders would shed some light into this subject, I will do my best to contribute to this subject matter as well.

[pzgndr]

At the risk of quoting myself:

As it is, movement is more or less expedited across the vast expanse of the NA while a bit more deliberate in the ETO where fleets must be more cautious.

This appears to address many of the concerns stated here without resorting to complicated movement cost schemes for different sea tiles. Land based air coverage from Europe and North America will extend only so far into the middle Atlantic. And it is here in the middle grey area that the abstraction of the great ocean can play out.

I won't disagree that a sea zone concept or variable tiles may work better or more realistically. But it just doesn't seem to fit with Hubert's design. The relatively simple map (with editor, for custom games!) has its limitations, but also offers a nice contrast to zones (which usuallly need to be hard wired into games). Here we can maneuver individual fleet types and have some sense of "battle." Game strategy may not simulate real naval strategy to the nth degree, but it should be challenging and fun. We all hope so anyway.

[John DiFool the 2nd]

NO Zones. (I'm not worried because I don't think,

as Panzer said, HC has enough time to rewrite

the entire naval system ).

And it isn't ONE lowly little sub out all alone

in the vastness of the Atlantic Ocean-it's a group

of them. The way I envisioned it was running

"silent" (as the press release calls it) would

be more akin to running "spread out." This would

allow subs to transit to and from combat zones

in a very loose group, avoiding detection to a

certain extent but also not benefitting from

a force of numbers at a crucial point.

A summary table:

"Silent" [spread-out] Mode:

1. Lowered chance of being detected

2. Lower average amount of damage received AND inflicted if brought to battle [with a small outlying possibility of greater damage on a capital ship, representing a lucky torpedo run by a lone sub-it DID happen quite often, in both oceans]

3. Possible _increased_ chance of detecting enemy ships [from being spread out]

"Wolfpack" Mode:

1. Increased chance of detection by enemy (esp. if enemy Radar/Radio tech is high-this is key IMO)

2. Greater damage received and inflicted

3. [Optional] less chance of detecting enemy ships-this would have to be playtested [among other things...]

Thus it becomes a tradeoff, with Wolfpack mode

becoming less and less useful as Allied sonar/

radar tech increases, until the only way to win

is to get your own tech high to where the Type

XXI's can do their thing (they were designed to

be lone wolves). The centimetric radar on planes

would also cause sub casualties to rise in areas

covered by enemy air, even IF in silent mode.

A lot depends on whether convoys are abstracted

or represented by real ships: the former may be

more workable and less micromaniacal , the

latter more fun perhaps, at least for those with

an interest in the Atlantic campaign. Thus a

spread out pack detects a convoy, next turn the

pack is tightened, and the convoy is attacked.

Then cruiser (H-K) groups counterattack, as does

any air within range, and coolness ensues.

All I know is I'll have a damned good time playing

around with all this when the game is released. :cool:

John DiFool

[Skanvak]

I totally support shaka post. Naval warfare as very few in common with land warfareand require a different system.