Battleship vs Subs

[Guest Mike]

Baron I agree that the naval vs air system is not good - it never seems to be in these games - mainly, IMO, because they all treat naval units as if they are just land units that walk on water.

There are lots of characteristics of Naval units that just aren't covered....eg you don't have to wipe out a whole TF to kill it.....just seriously damage the 1-2 major ships that are its basis - BB's or CV's or CA's. Often 1 bomb can put a ship away for repair for a few months - in that time it does not operate as a unit that has 5 points left out of 10...it is out of action entirely until the ship(s) is repaired., and hte smaller units that may be part of it such as DD's will go and do something else...but they will not be a 1/2 strength battleship or carrier!!

[Terif]

Originally posted by Baron:

.... I'd also encourage the testing of these ideas or at least would like an answer like "the codeing is not possible".Until such a time as it is put the the test the argument will survive another 4 years.

Actually...this has been tested via Beta-versions - already in SC1 days . Coding is not the problem, but when ships can´t harm land/air units at the coast any more the effect is simply that invasions will be blocked since the land/air units have nothing to fear when they are standing at the coast and invasions can be made impossible - in other words this has a devastating effect on playability. Even more so as then ground/air units can do a lot of unhistorical/unlogical things without beeing punished for it by beeing bombarded from sea...

Besides, like Liam already said: the naval units need a function. If they can´t do damage they are simply useless and the (naval-) war would become pretty boring .

Btw, ships bombarding units at the coast is nothing to worry about - just don´t place your units at the coast, especially if they are already damaged (which is pretty much the only way you can get them killed by naval bombardment...) .

It is even realistic that if you place half dead units directly at the coast, inviting the battleships out there to shoot them that they get actually bombed out of order . In history it has a reason why airfields etc didn´t get built in bombardment range (and when they did they got bombarded..) - so if you as leader of your nation now decide to make this mistake, then you can´t complain about the inevitable result .

In the end the crucial thing is simply to use the own units in the right way and the current system encourages you to do so - if you do not, you pay the price in form of lost mpps.

P.S.: After your first 1-2 multiplayer games you should have learned to keep your units away from direct water contact and then this whole discussion is pretty much redundant - like the discussions concerning this topic during the last years all proved... .

[ September 30, 2007, 04:04 AM: Message edited by: Terif ]

[xwormwood]

Originally posted by Terif:

Besides, like Liam already said: the naval units need a function. If they can´t do damage they are simply useless and the (naval-) war would become pretty boring .

This argument does not count.

You have to create a game system where ships get a function.

Let naval bombing destroy tech levels (IW / AT ...) or / and reduce readiness and morale, let them kill movement points or let them make the unit retreat from the beaches, that would be much better in my sorry eyes.

After all it is some kind of game flaw.

In SC / SC2 you do fight the naval battles on the real map. Think about it: a turn last how long?

One week, two weeks?

A naval battle lasting TWO WEEKS? Yeah, sure...

This is the reason why "Clash of Steel" or even "Storm Across Europe" had the better naval solution: abstract.

As much as i like to sink ships on the real game map, as much does it not fit into the rest of the game. A land battle CAN actualy last weeks, but not a fight bewteen battlefleets. At least not in the way it happens in SC / SC2.

And another thing: in WW2 there was a decent possibillity that enemy taskforces didn't find each other, because radar kind of sucked in the first years of war.

In SC / SC2 you alway find the enemy fleet as long as ONE unit has spotted it. No chance to loose contact after the sighting. In a game turn, which represents WEEKS.

[arado234]

Xwormwood i guess the only way you could force units off the beach with ships is to have it setup in such a way(i dont know if this is possible)that when a unit was being pounded by ships should its morale go down to a certian point it automatically retreats and if it has no where to retreat to its wiped out.I think the problem with that is what if the unit in question is in a fort or city coast hex?Could you force them to retreat from those coast hexes?

As far as naval battles go you, could have it that once ships spot eachother there is a chance after each turn that they loose sight of oneanother?

[SeaMonkey]

You guys have got to get past this relationship of a unit's strength points being the soldiers getting killed, wounded or missing and all their equipment being destroyed. It is simply a measurement of combat effectiveness and it is eroded when you are under heavy bombardment such as that represented by the naval units.

The unit can't return fire, ....as effective, their ability to communicate with higher commands is impeded, they become disoriented, there is much smoke and debris....need I go on? :confused:

As far as the way naval movement is handled. Ever hear about the similarities of tanks moving about the desert compared to ships on the ocean?

How bout fog being forests of limited intelligence and sea storms that are like mountains, ever hear of waves being like rough terrain?

A one week naval battle...give me a break, this may only represent a chance meeting of naval units on a single sortie in that weeks' time frame.

You have just stated how rare they are.

It could also be a combat patrol that happens upon chance meetings numerous occasions during the week to month game turn period during a longer mission.

Tell me about how this didn't happen in WW2 naval scenarios?

Sorry, I guess our present day education system has completely befuddled the development of imagination, but at least you all know how to be politically correct.

[Colin I]

I think this issue is going round in circles.

We have morale and readyness as indicators of a unit's cohesion and state of mind. So we don't need strength points for this. If we didn't have these factors then I would agree with SeaMonkey.

I think we do need to tackle the question Terif et alraised - if Naval and Air units can't destroy land units then blocking landings becomes too easy. Though in SC2 the rather low unit density does reduce this problem. But if we can get past this important issue (esp relevant for island hopping in the Far East, never mind D-day) then I strongly favour loss of morale and readiness as the major effects of Naval bombardment with just enough unit destruction to make silly blocking maneouvres unwise.

[Colin I]

Thinking some more. Why not allow direct attack by a Seaborne land unit (in Amphib mode) directly against an enemy land unit in an adjacent tile across a coastline.

If the defender is destroyed then you can land the unit into that vacated tile. If defender survives then attacker remains at Sea takes extra combat casualties and/or landing casualties. Levels of Amphib reduce penalties and maybe you can't do this at all without some levels.

Think this is perfect. Now land and air can be used to reduce defender to jelly but it needs the Amphib assault to finish off the shell shocked defender and scramble ashore. This now allows 1 tile islands to be assaulted in Far East scenarios too. As Rambo would probably say, send in the Marines

[xwormwood]

@ Colin I

The grandfather of SC / SC 2, "Clash of Steel", worked exactly like this (because this game had a "retreat" battle result, SC / SC2 unfortunatly not).

You could invade any occupied land hex.

Naval Units could be placed on bombard duty which helped all combat in the specific beachzone, or better: sea zone. Bombardement helped all your units who attacked in the beach hexes of this sea zones.

@SeaMonkey:

I think that entire armies should always be able to return fire against sea units. At least one time. Tac Air, Artillery and Flak can be unsed to fire back, as long as they are not surpressed or have lost the stomach to use their weapons.

The tiles in SC / SC2 are large landscape, not small beachheads. This gets even more important when we talk about air units.

On the regular map air units are way to big to shut them down or kill them through naval bombardement (which would be ok against Henderson Airfield but not against entire air fleets with several airbases in the specific tile (Bombers on the other hand should really be able to bomb & disable air units for a turn, even without destroying the entire airfleet).

At least fortified coastal tiles (engineers!) should create the possibility of return fire.

We all know that some defenders DID have big enough guns in the REAR or in fortified bunkers which were able to damage attacking naval task forces.

Combat patrols? Yes, of course. But letting you damaged task force at sea to continue the patrol?

No way. It was hit an RUN for (at least) the german navy, not hit and stay. But in SC / SC2 there is nothing like run, flee or disengage while your opponent brings his entire fleet.

This is why i always would prefer the way of abstract sea warfare in Clash of Steel. Not because i don't like to move my ships on the map, but because it does much better fit into a game on the level of SC / SC2.

Maybe a combination of both would be the best solution (abstract sea warfare and a pop-up window whenever battle is at hand. In the pop-up you could than move your fleet the way you want until one side has successfully fled or went down to the ground).

Well, anyway, no hard feelings, please.

My english is still way to flawed to always find the right expressions or words.

Hans&Franz by nature, if you understand what i mean.

[ev]

Colin's idea is just perfect. ...and, there is an easy way to get around the retreat feature:

The way to implement the retreat idea is to give the amphibious transport (soft and hard attack values). Under this scheme, the amph transport would be the one actually attacking, prior to desembarking.

If the amph unit succesfully destroys the land unit, the transported land unit may land. If the defending unit survives, the land unit must stay at sea inside the trasport - vulnerable to counter attack either by air or sea.

You do not need retreat... because the amph assault takes place from sea (where the amph transport is located) to land (where the defending unit is located). And, if the attack fails, each unit stays in place.

[John DiFool the 2nd]

Originally posted by Baron:

I certainly hope WAW addresses these issues. The naval war aspect of this game has always played second fiddle to the land campaign - rightfully so in my opinion. That is not an excuse however to leave such glaring errors as is in the premier strategic level WW2 game on the market.

This is the main reason I have not fired up SC2 in several months. I do intend to buy the expansion, but the naval side of things is just so meh for a sailor type like me that I have no impetus that makes me want to boot it up again. There's a reason (well several as Baron has pointed out) that nobody has made a Pacific-only campaign for this game (which is what? 2 years old now?). Any modder who tries it (and is honest with himself) knows that the result won't do the Pacific theater any justice, at all. Part of that is how invasions work in the game and how you cannot assault from a sea space in SC, but it's mostly that we just hit up against hard limits which are hidden in the .exe which we can't change.

The navies have been abstracted to hell and it just makes for an unsatisfying gaming experience for me personally at least. I also don't like how all these tactical aspects (diving subs) are integrated into the game, where they simply don't make sense. Now that doesn't mean I want to see things swing to the other extreme (I've voiced my dislike of sea zones at length before), but that sea combat needs some more "oomph" or something. That's why the new game from NWS which comes out this year (?) has my interest because it is a strategic level game with tons of such stuff and hasn't abstracted all fun and detail completely out of the system.

[ October 01, 2007, 02:40 PM: Message edited by: John DiFool the 2nd ]

[SeaMonkey]

You know we're never going to get this expansion out if you guys keep coming up with such great ideas.

Let's leave it for the Pacific SC and maybe some patches to WaW to try out.

Now bring on WaW!

[SeaMonkey]

And xwood, WtH, we're all family here. I respect your opinion as well as everyone else's here, and you have been the origin of many excellent ideas.

I especially like the idea of coastal fortifications having the ability to return naval fire.

Besides, your English is excellent, much better that most of these so called Americans running around here. Anyway us Texicans don't speak English, so I'm not much of a judge.

[Liam]

Coastal Batteries would rock though you'd have to be cautious not to make them too powerful

[jon_j_rambo]

My English is good, kind of like Ebonics. I call "Rambonics".

[Baron]

Colin,

Buddy - you hit it on the head! amphibs attacking directly on the beach(can you say USMC) - what a simple and yet great idea at the same time! Now you can have a real invasion and 1 tile islands can be invaded. Opens up a wide range of posibilities for the Pacific theater also.

All of the changes that have been suggested would be viable and more historically accurate with the change you have suggested. It would still have to be play tested to find the correct mix but I think you are on the right track!

[Juergen2SSDR]

Thats what im talking about, I think SC would be even sweeter with new Unit applications.

I know the expansion will cover DD, maybe they could re-vamp the Large Battlefleets vs Subs and such. Also maybe include coastal batteries that you could buy, or make with engineer units. Buy Marine Units, and AA defense zones.

Juergen

[jon_j_rambo]

@Veronica --- Ah, you a chick playing SC-2? If so, that would be a first, at least female by birth.

[Juergen2SSDR]

To Jon_J_Rambo

I have read alot of your posts, and you rarely have anything good to say....mostly sarcasim.

Yes my Fiance plays Shock Force sometimes, she has a BA in History, ancient history, and was a prior US Marine..and hot.

We post using the same account... if that confuses you... well then your simple.

Juergen

[jon_j_rambo]

@Veronica --- I don't want your woman. Question is still, are you a woman? It's the 21st Century, all kinds of "couples" out there. I'm hoping it's a correct set-up, you're married, & saved.

You want a game Veronica? Pick your side, or just send the Bunta. No joking around.

jon_j_rambo@yahoo.com

[Iron Ranger]

Low tech rockets = coastal battarys. Put them in a fortress and they can dish back just as good as they get.

[xwormwood]

Rockets don't fire back, or have i missed something?

Just give fortifications a very small anti-naval ability, and we are golden.

Next best thing would be to realize Colins suggestion about attacking amphibs.

Mr. Carter should simply add to our beloved SC2 all the remaining nice features of Clash of Steel (retreats, political pressure points, switching sides abilitiy when playing the AI, mulberrys, after-the-war movie (see what happend on the map in YOUR war in a fast and compact movie).

And please more statistics: how many units of every kind bought, on the map, destroyed, how much resource or convoy points destroyed or shipped in the game, and so on, and so on.