SC WW I – Initial Impressions

[Ludi1867]

Overall the initial version of the game is impressive. The Decision Events and historical context pop ups are extremely well done, and really add to the verisimilitude of the game. The opening moves play out very well, and though the arguments about whether to follow Plan XVII or not can be discussed forever (basically, it comes down to a preference for historical accuracy versus common sense), in general there is a good sense of déjà vu playing the opening part of the war. Is SC WW 1 perfect? Well, not quite yet, though it is off to a good start.

AI

The AI offers a reasonable foe for learning the game system, but there are some issues that should be addressed if the AI is to provide a reasonable opponent. At present the AI is a little unusual – it seems to be better at the offense than the defence. In particular, the AI on defence really seems to make some inexcusable mistakes. It will occasionally abandon key locations – the city of Brussels, for example – and move units back to another location, leaving the city completely empty and therefore a gaping hole in the overall defensive line. The logic behind this is not always clear, and it certainly makes attacking the AI much easier than it should be. I have not played the game a lot – I have played the first, big campaign to a successful conclusion once each way, and only at neutral AI level. But for a first time through it was not particularly difficult to defeat the AI. A big part of the ease was the AI propensity for abandoning key positions – absolutely vital positions on a number of occasions.

Naval War

In the great tradition of other SC games, the naval war is, sadly, less impressive than the other dimensions of the war. Submarines played an important part in this war, and there is an effort to make them an important part of the game. It does not work well. I am sure I heard John Jellicoe rolling in his grave as the Grand Fleet – battleship after battleship – not only ran into a U-boat by surprise but then continued to make repeated and determined efforts to attack U-boats far west of Scapa Flow. Not following Plan XVII is perhaps defensible on common sense grounds. Using Battleships as primary ASW assets is just wrong, not only in the historical sense (and yes, I am aware that HMS DREADNOUGHT sank a U-boat – but DEFINITELY not because she was hunting for that submarine) but also from a common sense perspective. Battleships are very expensive and costly assets. Submarines can not only damage but can actually sink them outright. (The video of HMS BARHAM blowing up, although from WW II, is a vivid demonstration of what can happen when a submarine torpedoes a battleship). What is unlikely is incremental damage to both U-boat and Battleship in an engagement. What usually happens is one of three things: nothing (both fail to use their offensive capabilities effectively, probably the most likely result); or one or the other of the vessels engaged is sunk. Not damaged a point or two, but gone. The argument usually advanced for this incrementalism is that U-boat counters represent a number of submarines and Battleships include their screening units. Well, it doesn’t work. It didn’t happen that way in the war – yes, screening units were provided to battleships but to PROTECT them from U-boats, not to ENABLE the battleships to attack U-boats - and it is really hard to see it happening differently. (Again, unlike Plan XVII, which was rather less than intelligent in hindsight).

I don’t know if it is possible to completely fix the naval war, but the penalty for using battleships against submarines should be more severe, and results of engagements between U-boats and battleships, which did happen in the war and which should happen in the game, should be made to be more extreme: either nothing happens, or massive damage to one or the other (seldom were both badly damaged – either one side succeeded or it did nothing or it was sunk). Doing this would require a massive re-balancing of the naval game engine, probably including the introduction of more dedicated destroyer flotillas, but it sure would help. Arguably, there should be enough destroyer flotillas to provide a screen unit for each battleship unit. Then a player can choose to keep destroyers available for screening a battleship (make a mode ‘screen’ which results in the destroyer becoming effectively attached to a battleship counter until its mode is changed) or for hunting U-boats. This WAS a real strategic dilemma for Jellicoe in the First World War, and it most certainly is not a strategic question in this game now: it should be a key strategic dilemma for British players in particular, and its absence is highly noticeable.

National Morale

This is perhaps the single most inspired aspect of the game. Overall it seems to work well.

It might even provide a means to help out the naval war – make the penalties for losing naval units, particularly and especially capital units, much more significant in National Morale terms. Capital assets were much more than hunks of steel. They really were national symbols, and the potential they represented in terms of naval warfare was almost matched by their national prestige. Making the National Morale cost of losing battleships more significant might make players use them more like the real Admirals of the day did – cautiously, only risking them if they considered the situation to their advantage. The cost of losing a battleship in national morale terms should be high and transparent to a player.

Australian Light Horse

This last comment is perhaps not as weighty as the previous, but it is an anomaly I encountered while playing as the Entente. The British chose to acquire the ALH, and paid the 200 MPP (50 per turn) – and nothing ever showed up. I am not sure why, and Germany surrendered not too long afterwards, so it hardly mattered a great deal. But the failure of this unit to appear was curious. The Ottomans had captured Ismailia, and all of the northern Sinai, so that is perhaps why, but it is still curious. (As to why the Ottomans captured so much of the Middle East, well – it was my first game!).

Note: While I was putting this together Worg started his thread of comments. There are some parallels, but my views are, I think, different enough to deserve a new thread. It is clear that the issue of subs has exercised us both. I am not too concerned with the ability of subs to attack or defend - there are some anomalies such as the surround tactic, but swamping an area with ASW assets is a long standing tactic, and I don't think it should be 'removed' from SC. My major concern remains the interaction options between capital ships and subs. Yes, capital ships were USUALLY screened, but the decision to remove destroyers from their assignment to stand by to protect the Grand Fleet was a STRATEGIC decision that caused great angst in the Admiralty in WW 1. This angst cannot be replicated in SC WW 1 because screening units are ALWAYS integrated with capital ships - otherwise they would NOT be able to hunt and kill U-boats the way they do (and should NOT be able to). The only solution I can think of is to DE-INTEGRATE capital ships and destroyers, resulting in more destroyer flotillas, and adding a 'mode' option whereby the escorts are hard linked with a particular capital ship.

[xwormwood]

Hi Ludi1867.

Excellent feedback, well done!

I for myself still haven't played against the AI (at least not in the current, just released version of the game). So i'm glad that you give your feedback here.

Having said this, i would like to encourage you to play this game against a human player (if possible). There you will find exactly the naval behaviour / dilemma you are looking for:

If the Central Powers player sends some subs into the Atlantic, than the Entente player really has do decided what to do: keep most of the destroyers near the home fleet, in case that the german Hochseeflotte shows up to fight it out, or to release those precious destroyers to hunt down the german subs which WILL HURT your british income very much if you don't do anything against them.

On the other hand the Central Power player will weaken his inferior navy even more with every sub he sents away into the convoy war.

Having no subs to defend the german bight might end bad, too.

Thats the german naval dilemma.

Don't get me wrong: please, keep up your efforts to improve the AI, as i will surely return one day to play the AI again once more. And on this day i will be thankful for everyone who made the AI better and better and better.

But since the release of Global Conquest if have been inffected with the multiplayer fever.

These games, against human minds, against fellow wargamers, are awesome.

[Hubert Cater]

Hi Ludi,

Thanks for the feedback and just a quick question as the AI abandoning Brussels really caught my attention as I have never seen that happen in any of my tests.

Can you tell me for which campaign this was for and if you had modified the campaign or were just playing the vanilla version.

Also, just looking at the scripts the only way I currently see it to possibly abandon Brussels is if Ypres was captured first. If this was the case this is an easy fix on my part.

Any info here will be very helpful, thanks,

Hubert

[Ludi1867]

Hi Hubert and XWorm

The games I played were the vanilla engine – I do not make mods, and only play them a little reluctantly (not that the mods are generally bad, but the level of playtesting in mods is ALWAYS worse, in my experience, than with the basic game).

The example I gave of Brussels is just one of many. In this case Brussels fell AFTER Ypres – that is certain. But there were so many examples that I did save a file entitled something like “AI fails to garrison” – if you want I can certainly forward that.

As for playing against humans, absolutely – that is very much my preferred mode. However, I do like to learn the game and the AI should be adequate for that – as this one is. It could even be better than adequate with some tweaks, I would think, which is why I am pointing out problems. I ONLY play SCGC PBEM now, and I certainly hope to go that way with SC WW 1 soon too.

I hope that PBEM addresses the naval aspects a bit, although I remain to be convinced. I still think battleships are too powerful against subs, and while I think the probability of a sub hitting an escorted battleship should be low, I also think the damage should be substantial, even with basic (non upgraded) submarines. (Western submarines scored some significant successes too – Max Horton built his reputation in this war). I think the only way to address battleships hunting U-boats is to remove the integrated escort, but I also realize that is not easy. If a battleship escort was NOT integrated, then a battleship encountering a submarine should be MUCH more vulnerable to torpedo attack and catastrophic damage.

[Bill101]

Thanks very much for taking the time to post this great feedback!

I've just checked the scripts for the Australian Light Horse and they should deploy on the 5th March 1916 at Suez.

If Suez had fallen then I think they would deploy at another friendly location, so I am wondering whether they either did so, or your game ended just before that date?

If not then I'll have to dig a bit deeper. Thanks!

[xwormwood]

Hi Hubert and XWorm

I hope that PBEM addresses the naval aspects a bit, although I remain to be convinced. I still think battleships are too powerful against subs, and while I think the probability of a sub hitting an escorted battleship should be low, I also think the damage should be substantial, even with basic (non upgraded) submarines. (Western submarines scored some significant successes too – Max Horton built his reputation in this war). I think the only way to address battleships hunting U-boats is to remove the integrated escort, but I also realize that is not easy. If a battleship escort was NOT integrated, then a battleship encountering a submarine should be MUCH more vulnerable to torpedo attack and catastrophic damage.

Hi Ludi.

Believe me: you won't feel good when you dare to attack a humans players sub with your battleship. It might get hurt in the attack. And than suddenly your opponent shows up with his undamaged battlehips...

Repairing battleships is exepensive. At least I for myself would always avoid a "battleship attacking sub" situation. Let do the little ones fight the subs. Destroyers and subs are way less expensive to repair.

Don't forget that the AI might get some help in their combat results (nothing i know of, i'm just speculating here) and that this too might help the impression that battleships are effective against subs (and vice versa). In a human against human player those combat results might vary, as neither side gets the AI help (which i don't know of, again, just purest speculation).

[Wushuki]

About the naval warfare, I agree that there might be a problem there. Although I don't actually have the game yet and can only go with my experience on the demo and earlier SC games, I can imagine what will happen. From what I have seen in the demo submarines now have a naval attack of only 2. Considering that ASW upgrades both damage and defense and improved subs techs only increase damage it is likely that end game submarines will have little chance. The combat results between a fully upgraded cruiser and a fully upgraded sub would be as follows for example:

Sub attacks cruiser: cruiser takes 2 damage, sub takes 1 damage

Cruiser attacks sub: cruiser takes 1 damage, sub takes 6 damage

If we add this up we get: cruiser takes 3 damage, sub takes 7 damage

A fully upgraded sub would cost 300, a fully upgraded cruiser (naval technology included) would cost 465. The difference in cost is about 50%, but the cruiser deals about 2.5 times as much damage! And it is not even a dedicated anti-submarine unit.

The reduced attack of submarines makes a problem from SC:GC, that submarines are getting progressively worse late game, much worse and seems to make submarine based strategies useless as ASW is far more useful than improved submarine techs. A solution for this seems obvious: ASW should ONLY improve the defense values of ships and not the offense values. This would keep the statistics of naval units equal throughout the entire game as long as the technology remains equal. I could imagine it would be a decent idea to let ASW increase the sub attack value of destroyers in addition to their sub defense value. Other surface ships however should not be able to effectively counter submarines, which they are currently doing when submarine and surface ship have equal technology.

[Bill101]

I think I see the issue here. However, I do wonder whether if ASW only improved ships defence values that it would make sub hunting a rather frustrating experience if even with high ASW, your DDs aren't really doing anything to the enemy subs.

Plus subs will dive more frequently if attacked the higher their sub tech.

A different solution might be to just cap ASW at (say) level 2, thus higher level subs will always have an advantage when attacking, and should hopefully (due to the trade off between extra diving ability and the enemy's increased sub attack values) lead to a more equal battle later in the game.

This is just off the top of my head and any changes would need a bit more thought and consideration, but let me know if this might be a step in the right direction.

[Wushuki]

As I understand from your post there would be 2 requirements of the progression of sub warfare.

1) Destroyers should be able to effectively counter submarines, especially late game.

2) Subs should be able to effectively counter surface ships, even late game.

In my opinion the best solution for this problem would be to let ASW do something different for destroyers than for other surface ships. That is, for destroyers ASW increases their sub attack and sub defense, whereas for other surface vessels it only increases their sub defense. However, this does not seem to be possible with the current engine and so something simpler is required.

I did some calculations and made some graphs about this. In figure 1 below you can see the current situation. The line depicts (damage ratio / cost ratio), where cost ratio is the cost of the sub / by the cost of the surface vessel. Damage ratio is calculated by the following formula:

Damage Ratio = (damage to surface vessel when sub attacks + dmg to surface vessel when surface vessel attacks) / (damage to sub when surface vessel attacks + dmg to sub when sub attacks)

Long story short, it shows the effectiveness of subs compared to other units, where a number below 1 shows that the surface vessel wins for cost and a number above 1 shows that the sub wins for cost. The left side of the graph shows the situation for the lowest tech level and the right side shows the situation of the highest tech level. A intermediate situation is added in between. Note that I used cruisers without the naval warfare upgrade for the calculations.

As you can see, the red line is significantly lower than 1, showing that cruisers beat submarines for cost quite easily when fully upgraded, but submarines beat cruisers quite easily when not upgraded.

The graph for the idea in your post is as follows:

As you can see, it works in the sense that the red line never falls below 1. This means that subs will always defeat cruisers for cost. A downside of this method is that midgame subs will be marginally effective, while they will be very effective both at the end of the game as well as in the beginning of the game. This forces you to either spend enormously in the technology of submarines, or not at all. There is no option in between.

An alternate solution that does not require any coding and does not have the above downside is by making all of the following changes:

1) Reduce upgrade cost for subs from 10% to 5%

2) Increase submarines naval attack from 2 to 3

3) Increase destroyer sub attack from 2 to 3

4) Increase submarine naval defense by 0.5 point per upgrade level

5) Decrease the maximum ASW from 5 to 4

6) Decrease the maximum AS from 5 to 4

This results in the following graph:

This removes the downside that submarines are not useful halfway through the game and makes sure that submarines are still a viable counter at the end of the game against surface vessels. The main idea here is the same as is used with bombers in SC:WW1, a small increase in defense prevents them from being destroyed too easily late game. Of course, you don't want submarines to become too powerful defensively, so upgrading their naval defense by 0.5 point makes more sense then upgraded it by 1 point. This is change 4 from the list above.

Change 5 and 6 make sure that ASW doesn't end up doing 1 more point of extra damage at tech level 5 due to rounding issues. Change 1&2 ensure that submarines do not fall behind on cruisers late game. These are not absolutely necessary, but without them submarines will be just as strong as cruisers when both are at tech level 4 and that should ideally not happen. Change 3 is to compensate for the early boost of submarines to make sure they are still reasonably easy to destroy at the beginning of the game despite their improved damage against surface vessels.

These are my suggested changes, to prevent having to do any extra coding. Of course, testing would be required to see how they will actually turn out.

[Hubert Cater]

Hi Ludi, yes please send me any of the saved turns that you might have.

support@furysoftware.com

Thanks,

Hubert

[Bill101]

These are my suggested changes, to prevent having to do any extra coding. Of course, testing would be required to see how they will actually turn out.

Hi Wushuki

This is a very impressive and useful exposition of the pros and cons of various changes, thanks!

All I can say for the moment is that I am thinking about this, it's too early to say exactly what may come of it at all. I'm also following the discussions in other threads about the same subject, so we'll see.

Bill