Naval Unit Air Combat Suggestions

[Edwin P.]

I would like to see players able to apply AA tech improvements to Battleships. In WWII some battleships had strong AA defenses, while the AA defenses for other battleships were antiquated and minimal.

In the same vein I would like to see players able to use Naval Warfare tech extended to increase the increase the NA and CA ability of air attacks by Carriers, not just tactical bombers. This would reflect the profound impact of training for attacks on naval surface ships.

[ November 30, 2007, 10:25 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Liam]

Good idea, those Ships were bristling with massive AA guns. Usually the end result is that a determined group of planes will get the job done but AA would cost a lot of lives.

P.S. Certain kinds of planes are more vulnerable to AA attack from ships. Bombers certainly aren't but DBs yes and Torpedo planes yes... So Carrier Born Aircraft and DBs should be penalized with such a tech. Similarly you could have a tech, Naval Bombing that increased their accuracy and equipment

[Edwin P.]

I would also like to see the naval spotting range of a surface naval unit influence the outcome of a surprise encounter.

Example: If a Carrier Group has a surprise encounter with a battleship it should have a chance to surprise the enemy, and not always be surprised itself, as its air units would likely, but not certainly, spot the batteship fleet first.

How would I do this?

10% per Naval Spotting Range Advantage to strike first when a surface fleet has a surprise encounter with another surface fleet and if positive a 5% bonus per experience medal (as more experienced commanders are better at keeping keep air units on patrol for enemy ships and air units ready for attack on ships (vs attack on other air units)

Example: Clear Weather

Carrier has a naval spotting range of 4 encounters a battleship with a spotting range of 2. The Carrier unit has a 20% (4-2 x 10%)to make the first attack during this encounter.

Example: Stormy Weather

Carrier has a naval spotting range of 2 encounters a battleship with a spotting range of 2. The Carrier unit has a 0% (2-2 x 10%)to make the first attack.

Example: Clear Weather

Carrier with 2 medals has a naval spotting range of 4 encounters a battleship with a spotting range of 2. The Carrier unit has a 30% (4-2 x 10% + 10% for 2 Medals)to make the first attack during this encounter.

[ November 30, 2007, 12:53 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Lars]

Originally posted by Edwin P.:

I would like to see players able to apply AA tech improvements to Battleships. In WWII some battleships had strong AA defenses, while the AA defenses for other battleships were antiquated and minimal.

In the same vein I would like to see players able to use Naval Warfare tech extended to increase the increase the NA and CA ability of air attacks by Carriers, not just tactical bombers. This would reflect the profound impact of training for attacks on naval surface ships.

Er, what training during the war do you consider raised it's pre-war effectiveness?

Other than the fact that they added slightly better planes (the Helldiver wasn't that great a leap over the SBD, for instance), I can't really see any large effects from training alone. Certainly not profound ones.

[Edwin P.]

Before Pearl Harbor the Japanese trained at attacking suraface naval ships and developed bombs that hit below the waterline just for this purpose.

Air units that didn't train for naval combat were were less likely to make critical hits.

[Lars]

I understand that.

What I was asking for was the changes in training after the war had started.

I think you'll find they pretty much had it down already. Get close, pickle off, and get out.

[Liam]

If a pilot matured at the age of 18 in 1944, he was trained during the war. Experienced Gained During the war mattered a great deal to Naval Aviators and any type of Aviator, I'm sure. I do not see how it could be any other way. As you see WW2, was unlike current times, Pre-WW2 the study of Airforce-vs-Navy was in it's enfancy. As for spotting I'm not sure if Experience would effect that. Certainly a better pilot spots better. Perhaps Increased LR capability should enhance spotting rather than Experience. Meaning Longer Up there more likely to spot Good ideas guys but I'm thinking this likely going to go into a patch wayyyy down the road

Originally posted by Lars:

I understand that.

What I was asking for was the changes in training after the war had started.

I think you'll find they pretty much had it down already. Get close, pickle off, and get out.

[Lars]

Immaterial if he was trained the same way as a pilot in 1938.

The Japanese were very good at the beginning, as were the Americans at Midway. They didn't exactly run the hitting percentage up afterwards by much.

All I'm saying is, you're not going to find a change in the training doctrine alone that will justify changing the tech tree to reflect that. You might justify it based on simply more planes, carriers and pilots.

The real edge for the Allies on training is they had the luxury of actually doing it, as the war progressed. The Germans and Japanese didn't.

[Edwin P.]

As for spotting I'm not sure if Experience would effect that. Certainly a better pilot spots better.

RE: Spotting,

I was thinking in terms of experience reflecting the fleet commander knowing how to better use the resources he had, knowing when not to go by the book, and being experienced with enemy fleet tactics. In my view this experience gives him a better chance to detect and surprise the enemy fleet.

[Bill101]

The thought of a battleship with level 3 or higher AA is quite frightening, and despite the existence of dedicated Anti-Aircraft cruisers and the increase in AA armaments on many types of ships throughout the war, I find it hard to believe that such a level of AA would be realistic.

If it were possible to allow level 1 AA as an upgrade to all naval units (why stop at battleships?) then I'd be keener, but anything more than that seems to be overkill.

Another thing is that the best defense against air attack on shipping was always having fighters of your own on hand. Although AA did do really well on occasions it also failed abysmally on others, so not too much weight should be assigned to it (same goes for fighters but air superiority or supremacy is a much better defense than more AA).

On a technical note, would it be possible to allow ships to have AA level 1 while resources and AA batteries on land could have higher limits? I don't think that the engine currently allows it, but it would make me feel happier about this idea.

I do like the carrier spotting idea, and I can't think of any problems with it offhand.

[ December 01, 2007, 04:02 AM: Message edited by: Bill101 ]

[Liam]

Fleet Commander Experience would play a role with the overall individual and some luck. You assume since there are no Fleet HQs that the Fleets are automatically lead by the best men available. Midway was about tactical, recon, errors, luck, etc... The Japanese code was broken, the Americans deployed perfectly. The Japanese were not expecting to face off with 3 Carriers and I don't believe from what I recall, had any expectations of a carrier-carrier duel

Really in spotting, AirSupremacy-Longe Range-Intel would all play a greater role than Command Experience, not to say it wouldn't play a role, it would

As for AA on BBs... A limit would be okay, since Level5 AA on Ships would not quite work well. Resources are large as are cities and can pack up. But some protection from the Air could be afforded by improved AA guns... And believe me many MANY men lost their lives trying to attack Ships in WW2. Fleet Escort Carriers played a role too... Their air supremacy as Bill mentioned or their mere presence meant spotting alone! Let alone a few fighter planes to battle of NavalBombers

[Baron]

Actually as the war progressed so did the AA practice on the American ships. Proximity fuses and radar controlled gunnery increased the kill ratio tremendously against attacking aircraft. If AA tech were to be applied to ships I’d say it should be applied to all types of ships and I’d limit it to a max of two at most. The Yamato was bristling with AA guns and it did her no good at all – she still became an artificial reef.

LR air would be my suggestion to increasing surprise in the naval encounters although I admit I find it hard to rationalize this tech though when it comes to any ship other than an aircraft carrier. The other ships (some of them) did carry aircraft but these were rather short legged as aircraft went. Maybe the use of Radar on these aircraft could be taken into account but if I remember correctly the only radar equipped aircraft in the war were night fighters. I would like to see aircraft of all types have increased spotting of ships at sea especially the bombers as these units Liberators, Condors were used in that role extensively.

[xwormwood]

I think the whole naval battles need a different approach.

Maybe it would be best to give the player the ability to build his own taskforces out of a ship pool.

Everything else just ends up flawed the one way or the other as long as you want to fight the battles on the map (instead of an abstract naval way).

Example: Even a single sub would be enough to sink

5 capital ships as long as they are in the harbor and the sub meets them there.

You don't need an antire wolfpack to do it.

A single carrier can sink as much ships in a harbor or at sea if he can surprise the enemy fleet (out of the sun or the mist).

A single battleship can sink dozens of ships it the weather doesn't allow planes in the air or if the enemy gets spotted in the night.

The concept that works for the land war doesn't have to work at sea (and for honest: it doesn't, even though it is nice to move your ships).

[Ottosmops]

The model of naval war as it is now can have strange consequences.

I've often read that a naval unit represents more than one ship.

Now imagine, that a unit is down to strength 1 after combat. It can go to the next port and have strength 10 the next turn.

Since it takes longer than one turn to build new ships, the only interpretation is, that only repair work was done.

Consequently, the fate of all ships in a naval unit depends on the last strength point. Either they survive all together, or they sink all together.

An intermediate result - a part of the task force is sunk, a part survives - can not happen in the game.

Maybe the game mechanics should somehow distinguish between losses that are replaceable and losses that are permanent.

If some of the ships in a task force rest at the bottom of the sea, the unit could hardly regain full strength in its next turn in a port.

This problem seems to be mainly relevant for naval units, because land and air units consist of many more units, so that the reinforcement mechanism works better there.

[Bill101]

Originally posted by Ottosmops:

...Consequently, the fate of all ships in a naval unit depends on the last strength point. Either they survive all together, or they sink all together.

It is possible in the editor to allow destroyed naval units to be repurchased at less than 100% cost. Land and air units are set to be repurchased at 60% of their initial cost providing their supply value was at least 5 when destroyed, perhaps destroyed naval units could be repurchased at 80%?

As they do represent a whole flotilla it would be extremely unlikely for them all to be sunk, and this way it would still cost quite a large amount of MPPs to prepare them for battle again.

[John DiFool the 2nd]

Originally posted by Ottosmops:

The model of naval war as it is now can have strange consequences.

I've often read that a naval unit represents more than one ship.

Now imagine, that a unit is down to strength 1 after combat. It can go to the next port and have strength 10 the next turn.

Since it takes longer than one turn to build new ships, the only interpretation is, that only repair work was done.

I'd like to see it where ships can only repair one point per turn, which some Yorktown-like miracles aside makes much more sense historically. With an exception for subs of course.

[Edwin P.]

In Naval Warfare, warships with larger guns (i.e. Battleships vs Destroyers) can strike first, and faster ships can run away from battle with larger ships.

I would like to see,

1. The the range of a ship's guns affect the chance for it to strike first in battle. I.e. If a destroyer attacks a battleship there is a % chance that the larger and longer range guns of the battleship will fire first in combat.

Example:

BB - Battleship Gun Range: 3

Cruiser - Gun Range: 2

DD - Destroyer Gun Range: 1

Battleship has a 40% (20% x (3-1)) to fire first if attacked by a DD.

Battleship has a 20% (20% X (3-2)) to fire first if attacked by a Cruiser

2. Naval modes; Evade BB (avoid combat with battleships), and Evade BC (avoid combat with cruisers and battleships) that gives faster ships a % chance to evade combat. The chance would be 10% x AP advantage.

[ December 02, 2007, 11:18 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Liam]

However that is not naval combat may turn out. Some Ships, like Destroyers are specialized and carry Torpedoes and moving at fast speeds and are meant to sneak attack Ships. I.E. What they did in the Naval Battles in the Leyte, I think it was the Surigao Straits where the Japs brought up this massive fleet and the US Sent in their fast moving Torpedo Boats to just launch endless waves of Torpedoes and the big ships never had a chance. Would be like seeing the Italian/German Fleet in SC2 Smoosh itself against a Metal reef

Various Weapons of War are varied... Even at sea, what might be used may be a Mine, it might be a torpedo, it might be a Naval Bomb... Lots of ways to die...

Originally posted by Edwin P.:

In Naval Warfare, warships with larger guns (i.e. Battleships vs Destroyers) can strike first, and faster ships can run away from battle with larger ships.

I would like to see,

1. The the range of a ship's guns affect the chance for it to strike first in battle. I.e. If a destroyer attacks a battleship there is a % chance that the larger and longer range guns of the battleship will fire first in combat.

Example:

BB - Battleship Gun Range: 3

Cruiser - Gun Range: 2

DD - Destroyer Gun Range: 1

Battleship has a 40% (20% x (3-1)) to fire first if attacked by a DD.

Battleship has a 20% (20% X (3-2)) to fire first if attacked by a Cruiser

2. Naval modes; Evade BB (avoid combat with battleships), and Evade BC (avoid combat with cruisers and battleships) that gives faster ships a % chance to evade combat. The chance would be 10% x AP advantage.

[Colin I]

Edwin, you are making tactical assumptions for a srtrategic game. Realistically, a battleship group is a number of big ships and escorts. If it engages an enemy surface fleet with lighter ships, other factors equal, it tends to win. This may be a single clash or a series of battles. So, 4 loss to the lighter force and 1 to the attacks is an OK outcome. Probably, much of this success it longer range guns. As Liam says, it is possible for other outcomes. But, the game covers surprise encounters (this is what I would consider the ambush with Torpedoes to be) so I think that's enough.

Ship repair is another issue. I think you can imagine its not just repair but reinforcement. So, if your battleship group limps home at STR 1 it has lost ships and has a damaged core of capital ships. Part of its returnm to full strength is likely to be reassignment of ships in the same way that rebuilding an army involves new bodies, not just return of wounded troops. Its just these ships are below the resolution of the game until you spend the MPP - taking the time and effort to getting them operational.

Some times I think we think too hard about this game

[Retributar]

When looking for 'Perfection!!!' ,... 'Thinking Too-Hard!!!' is a "Necessary Extrapralatory Course" required to achieve the desired outcome/result's!.