Some Thoughts on Naval Movement & Interception

[Gronq]

On my walk to the super-duper-market earlier I had some thoughts re naval movement that I'd like to share with you all.

In no particular order:

1. It would be useful to have an option where you could turn off the 'Undo Move' feature for naval units only. There's always the temptation to go 'hunting' for subs when this feature is turned on. This, I think, would be particularly useful in multi-player games.

2. Following on from the above, if naval unit moves can't be undone then additional features could be introduced. For example:

- Units being able to spot enemy units along its move path e.g. say an aircraft carrier is halfway through it's move and an enemy cruiser is within the carriers spotting range then halt the move at that point and give the player the option to carry on the move or take action against the cruiser.

- Spotting parameters can also be introduced to make spotting on the move easier or more difficult depending on technology levels, experience levels and weather conditions e.g. a destroyer comes within spotting range of a sub during it's move, a 'spot' may then occur if the destroyer has a good anti-submarine level, weather is good, supply is good, morale is high and the enemy sub has a fairly low advanced sub level etc. + throw in a random spotting likelihood factor.

These are just a couple of 'Starters for 10' (from the UK TV show University Challenge ). I'd be interested in what other people think...

Another possible bug?

When subs attack convoys markers with a '?' appear on the convoy lane in question. The number of these markers tend to vary, however, invariably at least one sub will be located in one of these '?' tiles giving the allies an advantage in trying to find the location of the subs.

All the best!

[Nupremal]

1 - I think you should always NOT play with undo, so I don't think this is necessary

2 - I don't agree, it is already too easy to spot naval units, making it moreso would be a mistake

3 - This shows you where subs sunk some of your ships - something I believe could be found out by anyone who had had their ships sunk

[Bluestew]

When subs attack convoys markers with a '?' appear on the convoy lane in question. The number of these markers tend to vary, however, invariably at least one sub will be located in one of these '?' tiles giving the allies an advantage in trying to find the location of the subs.

Convoys radioed when they were attacked, so I find those question mark markers one of the positive things about the convoy/sub battle design.

Regarding your "undo off" option, fair idea. I'm for anything that permits the players more options to play and enjoy a game the way they want. So more game options is a good thing IMO. For MP games, yeah, thats a superb idea.

[Gronq]

Personally, I think 'undo' works well and is fair with land and air units. However, as I said in my previous post I don't think this is the case for naval units. From my point of view the more choice there is for the user the better.

In terms of naval movement, interception and battle, I've never really liked the current set up where you simply 'run into' other units and then there's action. Remember each turn in SCGC is meant to be over a 2 week period. Naval units can move long distances in two weeks which is not necessarily the case for, say, land units. Hence, I do believe that the naval combat system can be improved. For example in relation to point 3 in my previous post: Subs sink a number of merchant ships off the Spanish coast. If the nearest destroyer unit is off Ireland it would take a couple of days to reach a point off Spain, at best, in reality. The subs could be long gone by then.

Having said all of that there is a danger of making gameplay too cumbersome and complicated by introducing too many variables and parameters.

Moving swiftly on to an entirely different subject matter - intelligence. Another thought had today - I think intelligence results should also show cities etc. where no units are present thereby giving players opportunities to advance unopposed. Also, perhaps not making intelligence 100% accurate. The example that springs to mind is Operation Market Garden where the allies believed, due to intelligence reports, they would be able to air drop behind enemy lines virtually unopposed.

Any views?