Naval Move/Combat Systems - new idea

[Big Al]

I love SC2. I think its the best overall game out there on a strategic scale. The one aspect of the game I like the least is the naval system. Individual counters moving separately to engage in combat. Its brutal, its bloody, the art of searching is weak. But for all my dislikes of it the system does well for the game. It is very difficult to make an accurate naval system for a game at this scope. I’ve read quite a few books on WW2 strategy and concepts. The few things I know...

#1 Naval combat has to do with so many aspects from intel, to tactics, to guts, and outright luck that in any naval battle huge swings in results can occur.

#2 With the exception of 1 naval battle, hunt for Bismark, all naval combat was fought near a coastline and not in deep sea.

With the Bismark incident, the Royal Navy put to sea dozens of ships and got lucky on a rudder hit to cripple Bismark's movement. Bismark's AA guns were setup to take on modern anti-shipping A/C and not slow swordfish so the aiming was off. She was once found and then lost by shadowing CW cruisers in a nice maneuver the German captain did. On top of that Bismark managed to sink a battle cruiser and damage other ships vs a huge fleet that was spread out searching for her. Intel played a part in knowing that the Bismark sailed. If she wasn’t torpedoed she probably would have made it to France. So many different variables went into this action that made a significant difference. This is the only deep sea battle I know of. With the sizes of the oceans it is very difficult to detect ships, even a large formation of ships.

So with that in mind I pounded my head on the table on how to improve the SC2 naval system. I passed on one idea to Hubert but after some thought I didn’t like it, stacking. So I came up with an alternative to this that would make programming the idea into the game simpler and MOD friendly.

Currently with Global, and its programming, I am incorporating into my mod evasion with naval units to simulate tactical advantages and removing them from air power. When 2 surface ships engage there is a chance 1 or the other takes no damage. This effectively means that side A or side B or both sides take no damage. There were instances in naval battles where the result was so strange one couldn’t explain it without reading about the actual battle and all its components. Japanese destroyers (out gunned) sinking US cruisers without a loss. The scuttling of the Graf Spee when it had the advantage, TF Taffy 3 engagements vs the Japanese. So this represents this kind of variance in naval combat.

So in my mod currently:

surface ships can evade naval damage 30% of the time

carriers can evade naval damage 60% of the time (considering their main function was NOT to engage on the surface)

all naval units can evade air damage 20% of the time

I have to test this to see where the numbers will actually fall.

So how can I incorporate the above thought process further into making SC2 better.

In the editor I believe we have several sea zone hexes which are the same. I suggest making one of them Deep Sea hex and one Coastal Hex.

Deep Sea hexes: When a ship moves it can't be intercepted (run into an enemy). The only way combat occurs is if it ends its movement NEXT to or on top of another ship. This should better simulate the lack of deep sea naval engagements.

Coastal hexes: (light blue) here ships intercept normally as per the current game mechanics.

Air units have a chance to see an enemy unit based on which hex type the naval unit is in. Obviously if a naval surface unit attacks it becomes visible.

---- using deep sea and coatal hexes alternatives

Alternative Method 1: Put in a hardcode that says there is only X% chance a moving ship will be intercepted and place that in the editor for deep and coastal hexes. So lets say the default is 20% for deep sea, 80% for coastal... a check is made when it encounters a ship while moving vs this #. If it is above the number the ship keeps moving to the destination

Alternative Method 2: Add in a right click mode for ships. Movement or Patrol. Each mode sets the % chance for detection and they add up. Defaulted to 10% and 40%.

2 movement mode ships have a 10%+10% chance to find each other 20%

2 patrol mode ships have 40%+40% = 80% chance to find

1 movement/1 patrol 10%+40% = 50% chance to find

You can double implement any of these methods into the deep/coastal hexes. The mod creators can place these hexes where ever they like. If one feels that a certain part of the ocean has to have higher searches they can place that hex there.

The modder can designate whichever hexes he feels should be coastal and which should be deep sea.

Thoughts?

[Snowstorm]

I'm not going to nitpick each of the specifics here, but generally I like the overall idea, Al. Thumbs up.

[geofighter]

I haven't played any of the SC games yet (although I pre-purchased SC-GC). I'll play the game a few times to get the feel of it. However, what you're saying makes a lot of sense to me.

[Timothy]

The main reason that I did not purchase the Pacific version of this game was due to the unrealistic naval combat system. If this is improved in the global version, then I would reconsider my previous decision. I am hoping for the best. Your suggestions are a step in the right direction.

Rest regards.

[LampCord]

Those are all good ideas for the naval I think.

One point though. While its true that large surface battles almost never occurred in the deep blue sea away from land, I believe there were Escort vs. Sub vs. Convoy engagements many mile from land and air cover all throughout the war.

So that part should be handled differently, IMO.

[Colin I]

Big Al - nice ideas.

Think deep sea engagements should allow intercepts if moving fleet has been spotted by air - simulates Pacific encounters which I think were much more likely to be deep sea using carriers to target the action.

An additional benefit of your idea is that light blue coastal hexes and deep blue deep sea will make for a much prettier map!!

Perhaps also transports and amphibious units take more damage from storms in the deep sea to encourage them to coast-hug.

[Big Al]

Ahh subs. Yes I thought IF a sub does convoy attacks it is automatically visible, just like now of course. Still dont think destroyers should intercept their movement. Subs moved individually and formed up when attacking a convoy. They didnt move in 50 sub groups. In fact when you see stats like 100 subs at sea that includes subs going out, coming in, and raiding not exactly how many there are in the ocen specifically doing convoy raiding.

[pzgndr]

Good ideas. I like the evasion percentages. For the intercepts, rather than code changes perhaps suface feet modes like subs have could be considered. Instead of Hunt/Silent they could be Combat/Cruise, with pros/cons. For the bloody engagements, I agree but these can also be offset with lower CTV values.

The fundamental challenge is the abstract nature of naval movements/combat, which many games resolve with sea zones or off-board boxes. Those can be more historically accurate in many ways but just don't provide an operational feel for moving and engaging individual ships. Having played both, I kinda prefer the SC2 hands-on feel.

[LampCord]

Ahh subs. Yes I thought IF a sub does convoy attacks it is automatically visible, just like now of course. Still dont think destroyers should intercept their movement. Subs moved individually and formed up when attacking a convoy. They didnt move in 50 sub groups. In fact when you see stats like 100 subs at sea that includes subs going out, coming in, and raiding not exactly how many there are in the ocen specifically doing convoy raiding.

Right. I almost think we need some sort of notion of escorts so subs actually take damage while attacking convoys instead of being hunted down by destroyers but that probably doesn't really fit into this model.

[Big Al]

So I did a little testing and I believe giving a "silent mode" to ships will work and keep the programming simple.

So here is a further thought process to keep it simple

Suggestion on the new text for "damage evaded" will be "detection evaded"

Deep Sea Hex: All surface units effectively run in silent mode.

Coastal Hex: All surface units effecively run in normal mode.

BB, CA, DD: 30% evasion vs surface, 20% evasion vs air and CV

CV: 60% evasion vs surface, 20% evasion vs air and CV

SS: Remains same

---- OR the following

SS: Remains same

BB, CA, DD: 30% evasion vs surface, 20% evasion vs air and CV

Mode 1: Transit, 1 movement point per hex (works like sub stealth where unless you end your movement NEXT to the unit there is no combat)

Mode 2: Patrol/Raid 2 movement points per hex (works like normal ship movement and detection where if you run into someone along the path there is combat)

CV: 60% evasion vs surface, 20% evasion vs air and CV

Mode 1: Transit, 1 movement point per hex (works like sub stealth where unless you end your movement NEXT to the unit there is no combat)

Mode 2: Patrol/Raid 2 movement points per hex (works like normal ship movement and detection where if you run into someone along the path there is combat)

I believe right now CVs can only spot units after they are done moving based on their range.

Now why double movement for patrol/raid you ask? It takes resources and time to react to an opponent's movement in order to find him. If you are looking to NOT be detected you do not have to plan for these things. Searching involves intel and planes. Each takes time to interpret and use the air resource so reaction will be limited.

[Nupremal]

Under the current system, Al, I don't believe you can differentiate between Naval Defense evasion from surface ships vs. a Carrier Attack - am I correct? Both would be considered a Naval Defense evasion, right?

I would also suggest evasion for smaller ships be higher - maybe 20% for BB, 25% for CA and 30% for DD

The BB was a big target

[Big Al]

Evasion represents intel, luck, search planes, tactical advantage, crossing the T. Any group consists of many types of escort ships. So lets take a BB unit. It has 3 BBs + some CLs + some DDs which can screen and make a torpedo run to make a BB escape possible. A DD unit represents many smaller vessals like CLs and DDs and DEs.

I did think about basing the evasion on size but it would turn each ship into a math formula for combat and complicate the system IMO. But with any mod players can change it to their liking.

But I did err as to there is no air evasion, only land and naval. So air would basically always hit.

[Nupremal]

Air counts as Land - so you can do Land evasion for that. Or, Carrier Air counts as Naval. I don't think Air should be evaded.

[Big Al]

The reason why air could be evaded is because of searches and luck.

In midway the US attempted to coordinate a bunch of a/c to attack the japs. The forces didnt meet and the 1st wave of torp bombers got wiped by AAA.

When the Japs used their last carrier to attack US carriers they by chance found an air group they could follow back to hit the carriers.

2 German BCs ran from Brest to Germany right under the UK's nose in 41.

Just because a naval group is spotted it doesnt mean that it is an auto kill. Now if SC2 had a different variable for naval from land to consider the luck factor then I would agree. +2 to -2. But there is only 1 variable for everything.

Also consider that SC2 doesnt have search. An air unit 100% finds a naval unit if it comes within range. If SC2 implemented search then yea I agree with you.

Now you might say well now land units might miss attacking a sea unit at port. Well usually a navy has plenty of time to scatter from a port if enemy units are approaching to capture that port.

But its just a test. Really we have to see what the balance is. 1/2 the AI is done for my mod. When I release it people can test and see how it all fits together. And you can always modify any mod to your liking

[SeaMonkey]

I like where you're taking this Al and IMO evasion should even be greater at sea, perhaps 40 to 50%.

I've long been an advocate for "the search" feature. It is the one thing, plus the evasion variable you've hit upon, that could bring SC in line for an accurate naval game. I imagine its a pretty tough coding problem or Hubert would have instituted it by now as its been a long road(relatively) getting SC to this point. Anyway it'll be very interesting how your theory tests out on this evasion parameter and I agree air should be evaded to a certain degree, naval combat is way to bloody. Oh and that Japanese anti-air effectiveness at Midway was also a product of a lower CAP altitude due to adjustments from the Coral Sea encounter, that's why the SBDs had their day(no Zeros).

I should also mention that if this pans out the naval repair feature will need to be tweaked also, like maybe two strength points in a major port per turn and one in a minor facility(depending on turn length). A reduction in the unit density could also be in order.

[Snowstorm]

Sea Monkey,

Good point about the naval repair feature. How fast a ship is repaired in this game seemed to need some adjustments from what it currently is now, IMHO.

[Big Al]

Yea naval repair is important. Some powers simple couldnt build or repair ships as fast as others. Be lots of testing to see if Im right. The human vs human mode is working. Im still converting the AI.

[Ludi1867]

Interesting thread. My assessment is that naval evasion is underrepresented in the current SC system.

The naval repair issue is interesting, but it cuts both ways – some repairs take FAR LONGER in the game than could be done by some powers in the Second World War. Try moving the Yorktown from the Battle of the Coral Sea in early May 1942, repairing it in Pearl Harbor (both hull and air component) and then deploying it to Midway by 4 June 1942 in SC Pacific. Of course, giving countries realistic repair capabilities would almost certainly penalize the Axis powers even more, as Japan – the best ‘bad’ example – had a very limited and slow repair capability, while shipyard effectiveness was a major US strength. One of the positive reasons for keeping the current repair system is that it helps to keep the game more balanced, even if it is unrealistic. The other reason in favour of the current system is that it can be argued that massive sudden repairs reflect adjustment of force levels by moving forces out of reserve and into action. The Allied wartime fleets were far, far larger than is ever possible to achieve in Patton Drives East, for example, yet force pool constraints keep the number of units in action relatively small. If the Allied player repairs a 1 point USN destroyer to strength 10 in one turn, arguably he is simply choosing to reinforce his unit with units that were in reserve (available in historical reality), but are constrained in the game for (I am speculating here) balance reasons. A similar argument can be made for U-boats – the Kriegsmarine deployed operationally over 100 U-boats at sea in May 1943 (peak strength) out of a total in commission that was approaching 250. Again, this is hard to achieve in the game – and the game is also rather odd in that starting U-boat strength is actually quite large given the small number of ocean going boats available to the Kriegsmarine (something like 21 out of a total 57 when all the small Type IIs are counted). So the current approach to naval repair, which is really an MPP allocation issue, may seem odd, but actually kind of works.

Of course, the other major factor that will preclude any game naval unit replicating actual historical feats is naval movement, or more precisely the incredible inability of naval units in SC to move at anything close to reasonable speeds. Big Al suggested that ships be forced to move more slowly when looking for combat. This is not an unreasonable suggestion, except that current speeds are already effectively defaulted to very slow movement in search of combat. Even worse, there is no other possibility, and ALL ships CRAWL across the map. To anyone who has studied naval history, or has actually travelled the oceans in a grey funnel cruise line ship, the ponderous pace at which naval units plod across the map is the WORST aspect of naval operations in SC. Putting naval speeds closer to reality might penalize the Axis a little, although Japan in the early war period might certainly benefit, but allowing reasonable naval speeds would result in a far more realistic strategic planning process than now exists, as the hobbled naval units found in SC result in naval operations being so slow and ponderous as to bear no resemblance to historical reality.

The other issue that SC fudges in naval operations is supply. This is a tough issue, but fundamental to naval operations. The ETO approach makes supply dwindle as you move away from port (except for submarines, which can retain supply by mode choice). The Pacific Theater supply model links supply expenditure only combat. NEITHER model works very well.

Naval HQs might be one way around this. The USN developed a number of naval HQs during the war, and used them to operate large Task Groups very effectively – the Third and Fifth Fleet is the best example of the same ships being commanded by different HQs to maximize their effectiveness. The Kriegsmarine never really developed a sea going HQ capability, although U-boats did have a fairly effective shore based HQ. Japan did have HQs, but not really very many, and as Midway showed had some challenges in using them. Working the details out might be challenging, but this may be an approach that offers some way out of the great limitations in either current naval supply model.

[Snowstorm]

Ludi,

I must say, you put alot into that post.

But could you put it just a LITTLE more simplistic for us without a PH.D. in World War II? I think I just overloaded a few brain cells trying to understand what you just said. :eek:

No offense intended.

I think I better take a few Advil. It hurts too much.

[Ludi1867]

Simplified Version (As per Snowstorm’s request)

Naval Repair – current SC model, despite some questionable aspects, is good enough.

Naval Movement – current SC speeds are far, far too slow and need to be AT LEAST doubled. Once this is done consideration to adding a combat search mode (along the lines proposed by Big Al) can be considered.

Naval Supply – Neither port-centred nor combat-usage supply (ETO and PT models respectively) works very well. Consider adding Naval HQ capability (that could be embarked perhaps?) to the counter mix to provide a supply point at sea (could also provide readiness bonus – Yamamoto versus Spruance some day, perhaps?)

[Snowstorm]

Ludi,

Here's my simplified answer:

I agree with you on all points.

Very good point on the naval supply idea of a naval HQ.

I think that would work very well. The current way of supply at sea leaves a lot to be desired. A HQ seems better (think of it as supply ships at sea).

[Big Al]

While limiting repair might be good... yes the current system works because the costs to reprair are pretty high. I had some problems with the Japs repairing ships.

As for movement... well thats the point of increasing movement cost when in search mode. Now you can 2x the movement for ships that are simply moving. And 2x the cost when searching.

There are lots of options but it has to fit neatly with the game mechanics and keep its playability high. The system should be simple and hidden from administration. All the thoughts on this subject are good.