More on navies . . .

PC/MAC : Commander the Great War is the latest release in the popular Commander series to bring the thrill, excitement and mind-breaking decision making of these difficult times to life.

Moderators: Slitherine Core, The Lordz

stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 14501
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm

More on navies . . .

Post by stockwellpete »

Given that the various naval counters represent fleets rather than individual ships or submarines, I am starting to think that building new naval units, and repairing them, happens too quickly in the game. To build a battleship unit from scratch takes 10 turns which represents just under 6 months in the game, whereas it would probably take a couple of years to build a new single battleship let alone build a whole new battle-fleet with all the supporting vessels (cruisers and destroyers etc). It is also worth noting that there were not very many (if any) new battleships (we are talking dreadnoughts here) built from scratch during the war. There were a number completed during the war that had been begun before the war actually started. Most of the ships built during the war were cruisers, destroyers and submarines.

There are a number of possible "tweaks" that might make the situation more realistic . . .
i) each strength point of a battleship unit should equal 1 dreadnought - so not all battleship units would start the war at 10 points (e.g. Russia might have 2 battleship units of 4 strength points each, one in the Baltic and one in the Black Sea)
ii) and maybe the more recent pre-dreadnought battleship classes (1900-1905 approx) could be converted into battleship strength points at a ratio of 2:1 (so you would not need to create a new unit type). Older pre-dreadnoughts (before 1900) were more likely to be used for coastal defence (represented by green dot hexes) or for patrolling colonial waters so they would not be represented in the battleship unit (although they could be represented in the cruiser units perhaps).
iii) repairs should take longer for all ship types, not just battleships - so 1 strength point per turn could be the maximum repair possible
iv) the building of new battleships could be handled differently so that players would actually be building individual ships (represented by adding extra strength points) for their existing battle fleets instead of building whole new battle fleets from scratch. At the moment each strength point for a new battleship unit costs 8pp's - maybe the new cost might be 10PP's for each individual battleship.
v) the damage inflicted during combat needs to be modified so that units are not so easily completely destroyed. We need more ships being able to limp away from battles and returning to ports for repairs.

From what I am beginning to understand about modding and patching all these suggestions are probably moddable or patch-able too. :wink:
Crazygunner1
Major - 8.8 cm FlaK 36
Major - 8.8 cm FlaK 36
Posts: 959
Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2009 4:13 pm

Re: More on navies . . .

Post by Crazygunner1 »

I think these are good ideas, but first there must be à purpose to keep and expand the central powers navy. As it is now, there is no reson for them to do it. They just need concentrate on land and occupy france or knockout of russia, then the game is pretty easily won.
stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 14501
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm

Re: More on navies . . .

Post by stockwellpete »

Crazygunner1 wrote:I think these are good ideas, but first there must be à purpose to keep and expand the central powers navy. As it is now, there is no reson for them to do it. They just need concentrate on land and occupy france or knockout of russia, then the game is pretty easily won.
One very basic idea - if German fleet controls North Sea or defeats British navy then Allied blockade is broken and convoys start running to Germany. How this might be modelled would need some consideration but it would focus the main naval struggle of the war in the North sea, which would be historically accurate.
Crazygunner1
Major - 8.8 cm FlaK 36
Major - 8.8 cm FlaK 36
Posts: 959
Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2009 4:13 pm

Re: More on navies . . .

Post by Crazygunner1 »

You might be on to something there :)
kirk23
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Posts: 155
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2012 1:23 pm

Re: More on navies . . .

Post by kirk23 »

stockwellpete wrote:Given that the various naval counters represent fleets rather than individual ships or submarines, I am starting to think that building new naval units, and repairing them, happens too quickly in the game. To build a battleship unit from scratch takes 10 turns which represents just under 6 months in the game, whereas it would probably take a couple of years to build a new single battleship let alone build a whole new battle-fleet with all the supporting vessels (cruisers and destroyers etc). It is also worth noting that there were not very many (if any) new battleships (we are talking dreadnoughts here) built from scratch during the war. There were a number completed during the war that had been begun before the war actually started. Most of the ships built during the war were cruisers, destroyers and submarines.

There are a number of possible "tweaks" that might make the situation more realistic . . .
i) each strength point of a battleship unit should equal 1 dreadnought - so not all battleship units would start the war at 10 points (e.g. Russia might have 2 battleship units of 4 strength points each, one in the Baltic and one in the Black Sea)
ii) and maybe the more recent pre-dreadnought battleship classes (1900-1905 approx) could be converted into battleship strength points at a ratio of 2:1 (so you would not need to create a new unit type). Older pre-dreadnoughts (before 1900) were more likely to be used for coastal defence (represented by green dot hexes) or for patrolling colonial waters so they would not be represented in the battleship unit (although they could be represented in the cruiser units perhaps).
iii) repairs should take longer for all ship types, not just battleships - so 1 strength point per turn could be the maximum repair possible
iv) the building of new battleships could be handled differently so that players would actually be building individual ships (represented by adding extra strength points) for their existing battle fleets instead of building whole new battle fleets from scratch. At the moment each strength point for a new battleship unit costs 8pp's - maybe the new cost might be 10PP's for each individual battleship.
v) the damage inflicted during combat needs to be modified so that units are not so easily completely destroyed. We need more ships being able to limp away from battles and returning to ports for repairs.

From what I am beginning to understand about modding and patching all these suggestions are probably moddable or patch-able too. :wink:
Hi I'm play testing a great many mod changes to the Battlefleet settings,I have increased all defence strenghts so that the ships survive with damage,and we are not having this crazy idea that the entire battlefleets are sunk in one battle,who ever came up with that one needs shot **** sake. I have also be trying out fleets being 10 Capital ships max with destroyer screens as escorts,and your 100% correct battlefleets etc are far to quick to build and far to cheap to create,your average Dreadnought took just over a year to build,in game terms I think thats 20-25 turns.The naval game has not been thought out by the designers of the game,saying that its abstract is being kind,when it is as far from historical fact as I think you can get,I will go as far as say the naval game is terrible!

Don't get me wrong, the game as far as land warfare goes is excellent,and the air warfare is also decent,its just the naval game that sucks!
stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 14501
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm

Re: More on navies . . .

Post by stockwellpete »

kirk23 wrote:Hi I'm play testing a great many mod changes to the Battlefleet settings,I have increased all defence strenghts so that the ships survive with damage,and we are not having this crazy idea that the entire battlefleets are sunk in one battle,who ever came up with that one needs shot **** sake. I have also be trying out fleets being 10 Capital ships max with destroyer screens as escorts,and your 100% correct battlefleets etc are far to quick to build and far to cheap to create,your average Dreadnought took just over a year to build,in game terms I think thats 20-25 turns.The naval game has not been thought out by the designers of the game,saying that its abstract is being kind,when it is as far from historical fact as I think you can get,I will go as far as say the naval game is terrible!

Don't get me wrong, the game as far as land warfare goes is excellent,and the air warfare is also decent,its just the naval game that sucks!
Hello, yes I have seen your threads on the Matrix forum. The developers have already said that they are prepared to look at the naval aspects again so that is good. If you look at this link for the King George class of dreadnoughts you will see that the time from when the ship is "laid down" (presumably this is when the keel is made) to the time the ship is finally "commissioned" (presumably this is when the ship is ready for active service) could be well over 2 years. Obviously the smaller supporting ships like light cruisers and destroyers would not take as long.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Georg ... hip_(1911)
kirk23
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Posts: 155
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2012 1:23 pm

Re: More on navies . . .

Post by kirk23 »

Yes takes alot of money,material and manhours to complete 1 dreadnought,while the game talks about who knows how many ships make up a fleet counter is anyone guess.I don't know why the designers are so stingy with naval units for the game,its not as if the player can't build them anyway.Give the correct number of counters for the size of the different navys from the start,and make building new dreadnoughts really expensive in game,over 20-30 turns and then your talking about what right historically,the biggest problem with the ship counters in the game is that they are so darned fragile,1 major battle and is all over,a whole Battlefleet gone, what total garbage are they trying to palm us of with,not one Dreadnought was lost to gunfire in 4 years of war!

Hence the reason I have increased the Defence strenghts in the mod I'm working on,after a big battle the Battlefleet loses about 3 strenght,then returns to port to repair the damage,its not rocket science.
xriz
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz  251/1
Posts: 148
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2008 2:17 am
Location: Los Angeles

Re: More on navies . . .

Post by xriz »

In terms of game play I understand but don't forget the battle of Tsushima were over the course of a 24 hours or so an entire Russian battle fleet was sunk.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tsushima

This kind of what the developers were going for if you ask me and it was the basic battle plan for most of the combatants, ie a decisive navel battle that renders the enemy navy useless. The English and the Germans played cat and mouse the whole war with them while being conservative, the Germans to keep their fleet in being and the English to keep the Germans in port.

For this game, maybe make cruisers weaker, representing lighter ships used for scouting and then cut battleships line of sight down to 1 while bumping up there time to produce and defense. This might keep players sparing with the smaller units while trying to sneak in their battleship units around to achieve a surprise.
stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 14501
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm

Re: More on navies . . .

Post by stockwellpete »

xriz wrote:In terms of game play I understand but don't forget the battle of Tsushima were over the course of a 24 hours or so an entire Russian battle fleet was sunk.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tsushima
Yes, that is true and the guns the dreadnoughts had at Jutland were much bigger than those of the Japanese fleet too although armour had also improved drastically. At Jutland some ships took some dreadful punishment yet still made it back home and were repaired. So I think naval warfare in the game should reflect Jutland rather more than it should reflect Tsushima.
For this game, maybe make cruisers weaker, representing lighter ships used for scouting and then cut battleships line of sight down to 1 while bumping up there time to produce and defense. This might keep players sparing with the smaller units while trying to sneak in their battleship units around to achieve a surprise.
Yes, they are good ideas. I also think that navies cannot be dealt with in units of 10 strength points though. If a player builds another battleship unit he has doubled the size of his fleet (in six months at the moment). So it might be worth thinking of various ways that the size of fleets might be increased more incrementally over the course of the war - and the build-times of the various types of ships should be more accurately represented too.
xriz
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz  251/1
Posts: 148
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2008 2:17 am
Location: Los Angeles

Re: More on navies . . .

Post by xriz »

And some of the ships didn't make it back; remember Beatty's famous quote, "...there seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today..." after two of the British battle cruisers had exploded within half an hour during the battle of Jutland, the HMS Queen Mary and HMS Princess Royal .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Beat ... orld_War_I

I've been able to change the strength points a unit has but you can't vary it in game, just set the max HP for the game and you still get the option to repair it if its below "10", even though it won't repair any higher, which is kind of a problem.

So we have to find a way to work with the navel aspects the way we can, my first inclination is to add more navel units, say.... 2 German battleship, 2 cruiser, 2 submarine against the British, 3 battleship, 4 cruiser and 0 submarine (they start with 1 in 1914) for the European front as an example.

We can still adjust the stats on the units to try and make a challenging play experience for both sides.
kirk23
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Posts: 155
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2012 1:23 pm

Re: More on navies . . .

Post by kirk23 »

The Battle of Tsushima was fought by mostly Pre-Dreadnoughts of these Japan had only 4 Battleships the rest were cruisers and destroyers etc,Russia had 8 Battleships,one thing you also have to remember is that the Russian fleet had sailed over 16,000 miles just to get to Japan,while Japan was fighting in home waters.Also as a side note the entire Russian navy was not destroyed in the battle!

Also the British Capital ship losses at Jutland were three Battlecruisers = Invincible,Indefatigable and Queen Mary!

To change the ship counters survivability in game,you need to change the DEFENCE STRENGHT,as a rule of thumb if the attack stenght is 20,then I make the defence strenght 60,so for all ships in game the defence is 3 times the attack factor.Now the ships will have a chance to return to port and repair damage.
Plaid
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Posts: 1987
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 10:16 pm

Re: More on navies . . .

Post by Plaid »

This build times are tricky. If you make battleship build time 2 years, I am pretty sure, noone will build them at all. 2 years in game is eternity, anything can happen, and remember, units start to consume unpeek once you start building them, not when they are finished.

Assembling infantry unit in a week is also totally unrealistic, but will game become better, if building infantry will take 3-4 month?
stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 14501
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm

Re: More on navies . . .

Post by stockwellpete »

kirk23 wrote:The Battle of Tsushima was fought by mostly Pre-Dreadnoughts of these Japan had only 4 Battleships the rest were cruisers and destroyers etc,Russia had 8 Battleships,one thing you also have to remember is that the Russian fleet had sailed over 16,000 miles just to get to Japan,while Japan was fighting in home waters.Also as a side note the entire Russian navy was not destroyed in the battle!

Also the British Capital ship losses at Jutland were three Battlecruisers = Invincible,Indefatigable and Queen Mary!
Yes, if you look at this interesting chart it shows that no dreadnought or pre-dreadnought battleships were actually sunk by gunfire during WW1 . . .

http://www.worldwar1.co.uk/sunk.html

. . . so I think this supports your idea of increasing the defence values of capital ships. Smaller ships like cruisers and destroyers were still vulnerable to gunfire so their defence values should not be so high.
stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 14501
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm

Re: More on navies . . .

Post by stockwellpete »

Plaid wrote:This build times are tricky. If you make battleship build time 2 years, I am pretty sure, noone will build them at all. 2 years in game is eternity, anything can happen, and remember, units start to consume unpeek once you start building them, not when they are finished.
It would be more accurate though and it would force the Central Powers player to decide if he wanted to reduce the gap with Britain with regards to capital ships, or whether he was going to opt to build more submarines. These were the last class of dreadnoughts built by the Germans in the war and only 2 out of 4 were finished . . .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayern_class_battleship
kirk23
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Posts: 155
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2012 1:23 pm

Re: More on navies . . .

Post by kirk23 »

Yes Building Battleships was a luxuary during the war,production turned to Submarines,Cruisers & Destroyers,I wish they would fix the lack of ship counters in the game,whoever was in charge of play testing especially the naval game before this game was released,should get there balls crushed with pliers,the naval game sucks there is no way of getting away from the fact!
Plaid
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Posts: 1987
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 10:16 pm

Re: More on navies . . .

Post by Plaid »

Submarines are another problem. They score 0 against convoys like 70% of time.
Plaid
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Posts: 1987
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 10:16 pm

Re: More on navies . . .

Post by Plaid »

kirk23 wrote:whoever was in charge of play testing especially the naval game before this game was released,should get there balls crushed with pliers,the naval game sucks there is no way of getting away from the fact!
Well, if they want to simulate, what actually happened, battleships should stay in ports 95-100% of time and consume upkeep. Is not it more or less what we've got in fact?
kirk23
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Posts: 155
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2012 1:23 pm

Re: More on navies . . .

Post by kirk23 »

Plaid wrote:Submarines are another problem. They score 0 against convoys like 70% of time.
This is an easy fix by altering the stats in the Units lua file.
kirk23
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Posts: 155
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2012 1:23 pm

Re: More on navies . . .

Post by kirk23 »

Plaid wrote:
kirk23 wrote:whoever was in charge of play testing especially the naval game before this game was released,should get there balls crushed with pliers,the naval game sucks there is no way of getting away from the fact!
Well, if they want to simulate, what actually happened, battleships should stay in ports 95-100% of time and consume upkeep. Is not it more or less what we've got in fact?
The British Grand Fleet was in constant action during the Great war,it was the fault of the Kaiser that prevented the High Seas Fleet from leaving port,not the ships themselves,ship for ship the German Dreadnoughts were superior to the British Dreadnoughts,at least defence wise.As for what can be achieved with the game naval wise,take a look at this thread over at the Matrix forum.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.as ... =&#3245691
impulse101lehr
Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
Posts: 25
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 6:18 pm

Re: More on navies . . .

Post by impulse101lehr »

i feel the biggest issue with naval warfare is the cost to build units. you spend so much just upkeeping the frontlines and there is hardly anything left to give for naval upgrades or new ships, and even if you did, naval warfare is almost pointless. you need three submarines just to sink 1 Entente convoy. come on. it's just not worth it. either Entente convoys need to be weakened so they are more susceptible to submarine ambushes, or the Central Powers need a boost in income so that they can afford a submarine fleet capable of attacking these over powered convoys.
Post Reply

Return to “Commander - The Great War”