Consultation: Patching the naval game

[Myrddraal]

Dear friendly forum users! We (the LGS) are looking at ways we can improve the naval game in a patch. We've been watching the efforts of some modders on these forums with interest, and thinking of ways we could incorporate some of their ideas into an official patch. We’re trying to finalise a plan for what to change, and your input would be very much appreciated.

NB: Patching a game isn't the same as modding a game.
When you’re modding a game, anything goes. You can rip up the rule book and start again. When patching a game with an official you have to be a lot more careful. For example:
You might create a mod where any unit in the enemy red zone loses 1 hp per turn, to simulate losses due to mines. Anyone who downloads your mod will know exactly what their getting, no nasty surprises. But many more players will download a patch than a mod, and many of these won’t be forum posters. If we include something similar in a patch, we’d have to be very careful about how this new rule was introduced to the player, possibly with a new overlay on the map showing ‘mined’ hexes in such as way as the player is immediately aware that something has changed. Otherwise we’d be much more likely to be flooded with bug reports (My fleet hp is falling every turn, this game is borked!!!) than happy customers.

So what are we considering:
- A new ‘Destroyer’ unit type, as implemented by kirk and xris.
The reason this unit wasn't added originally is that naval units are meant to represent entire fleets (due to a lack of stacking in this game). Destroyer units by themselves don’t make much sense in that context.

- An ‘escort’ ability for all naval units.
This escort ability would be very similar to the air intercept/escort mechanic, where armed fighters automatically protect units which are attacked from the air. For naval vessels, the range of this ‘escort’ ability would be just 1 hex. This means that units adjacent to each other would support each other if attacked. A mechanic like this in a sense compensates for the lack of stacking, and allows for some sort of combined arms approach to naval defense. Three naval units can now sail together, support each other defensively and could be considered a ‘fleet’ (rather than the single unit counter model we had previously).
Different units could provide a different defensive bonus when escorting. Destroyers would provide a very large defensive bonus to ships they escort, but provide very little offensive impact, meaning that fleets without destroyer ‘screens’ would be much more vulnerable to taking casualties.

- Simulate the blockade of German ports
At the start of the game, Germany would have convoys, just like France & Britain. When Britain first attacks a German convoy (usually within the first few turns of the game), a historical event would appear saying ‘Germany’s ports blockaded!’ ‘Britain has intercepted merchant shipping heading for German ports. No more merchant convoys will sail for Germany until the British hold on the North Sea is weakened’.
If entente naval power in the north sea then drops to less than half of German naval power, Germany’s convoys would be ‘re-activated’ and convoys would spawn for Germany.

We’re hoping that these three changes would be enough to make the naval game more meaningful, as well as more tactical. Comments and ideas very much appreciated!

[stockwellpete]

A new ‘Destroyer’ unit type, as implemented by kirk and xris.
The reason this unit wasn't added originally is that naval units are meant to represent entire fleets (due to a lack of stacking in this game). Destroyer units by themselves don’t make much sense in that context.

Not too sure about this idea now - I think the game should just represent capital ships otherwise it might get too cluttered. I think there is a very important distinction to be made between dreadnoughts and pre-dreadnoughts that could be made much more explicit in the game by having two types of battleship units.

- An ‘escort’ ability for all naval units.
This escort ability would be very similar to the air intercept/escort mechanic, where armed fighters automatically protect units which are attacked from the air. For naval vessels, the range of this ‘escort’ ability would be just 1 hex. This means that units adjacent to each other would support each other if attacked. A mechanic like this in a sense compensates for the lack of stacking, and allows for some sort of combined arms approach to naval defense. Three naval units can now sail together, support each other defensively and could be considered a ‘fleet’ (rather than the single unit counter model we had previously). Different units could provide a different defensive bonus when escorting. Destroyers would provide a very large defensive bonus to ships they escort, but provide very little offensive impact, meaning that fleets without destroyer ‘screens’ would be much more vulnerable to taking casualties.

Excellent idea. Despite my reservations about destroyers I can see how this idea would work well with them too.

- Simulate the blockade of German ports
At the start of the game, Germany would have convoys, just like France & Britain. When Britain first attacks a German convoy (usually within the first few turns of the game), a historical event would appear saying ‘Germany’s ports blockaded!’ ‘Britain has intercepted merchant shipping heading for German ports. No more merchant convoys will sail for Germany until the British hold on the North Sea is weakened’.
If entente naval power in the north sea then drops to less than half of German naval power, Germany’s convoys would be ‘re-activated’ and convoys would spawn for Germany.

Another excellent idea. It would make the North Sea the main focus for the naval struggle between the Entente and Central Powers.

We’re hoping that these three changes would be enough to make the naval game more meaningful, as well as more tactical. Comments and ideas very much appreciated!

Definitely very good ideas that will improve the naval aspects considerably. Just two other things for the patch are to sort out the Russian ports (Petrograd and Helsinki) - at the moment if the Russians lose Riga then their ships have nowhere to go and are in "red dot" territory - and the excessive cost of the naval upgrades which render them prohibitive at the moment. The only other thing I can think of is how might the Black Sea be "activated". If you introduce destroyers, would Turkey be able to build some? Would, say, two destroyer units have a fighting chance against the Russian cruiser there?

[Umeu]

wow triple post :S

[Umeu]

wow triple post :S

[Umeu]

this is good news

i only have a comment about the last proposal, imo there should be 4 scenario's (instead of the 3 you proposed now).

1) is the neutral scenario, where germany receives convoys, its the status quo of turn 1.
2) the scenario which triggers the convoys to stop, when england moves out to show its power and block the german ports
3) a scenario where england has killed the german fleet (or the germans have decided to disband them), germany also now loses the pp of their port cities? (or something like that)
4) a scenario where germany has the upper hand and the convoys start moving again.

[Suprass]

Second (except destroyers) and third options are very prommising. In my opinion it should be enough.
I think that there is no need to add new unit.
Only one sugestion (proposition to thimk about- I'm not expert in naval warfare in CTGW): I think that subs are not so good and there will be more defence potential against them... Will they be usfull enymore?

[xriz]

To implant Destroyers as a separate unit with in the games present mechanics, I think that only destroyers should be able to intercept. If you look at the exiting units, cruisers are scouts with the LOS of 3 , battleships are the big attacker but limit their LOS to 1, the destroyer as the only intercepting unit that's cheep and faster to produce with LOS = 0, yea that s right, they can't attack anything unless its spotted by either a friendly Cruiser or Battleship but they intercept attacks on any Cruiser or Battleship they are adjacent too.

You pair this with a constant German convoy moving thought the "North Sea" to German ports, the British player can easily intercept and sink the convoy but it pulls the Royal Navy out of its protected harbors for a chance for the Kriegsmarine to intercept, maybe get the better of the Entente Allies and at some point an advantage to help win the war for the Central Powers.

This requires the British player to keep a lot more of his fleet at sea both for killing the north sea German convoy and protecting his own conveys from the west. Limiting LOS to cruisers forces the players to use their units in a group, the destroyer units adding the chance of cheaply sucking up navel attacks, with in reason, with some tactical FOW because of each units strength and limitations.

Subs should still be able to do more damage to Convoys to make Submarines a more effective strategic weapon, more playable now that destroyers can intercept, even convoys, and with better anti-sub tech it becomes harder to attack convoys with out the corresponding Sub techs.

[FOARP]

1) Looks good, but you need to change the abilities of cruisers and battleships as well to keep them relevant. Cruisers should be given a modest bombardment ability and better scouting and range stats so there's still a reason to build them, both battleships and cruisers should have their anti-submarine ability attack reduced to the minimum and only destroyers should receive anti-sub upgrades. Yes, battleships represent battlefleets including escorts, but these escorts should be busy escorting the battleships and shouldn't have time for sub-hunting. Destroyers should definitely has at least 1 LOS and at least some kind of modest attack ability, otherwise they'll be somewhat annoying/useless.

2) An escort ability is fine for transports and convoys, but will battleships escort battleships - meaning the first attacker one a formation of two battleships is likely to be at a disadvantage? So long as battleships and cruisers anti-sub ability is reduced I don't see why they shouldn't also be able to intercept attacks by subs as well as surface units - its just that destroyers should be the only effective anti-sub escort, becoming especially effective in the late game.

3) Not sure how this is going to work. A yearly morale malus for the Central Powers happening as long as an allied battle-fleet remains at sea makes sense, but Germany doesn't need/can't use the kind of convoys the UK/France has. The importance of dominating the Baltic is assured by their convoys there - I don't see why this should be removed from the game.

[julian239]

First, thanks for the great game.
On topic:
1) I like the idea of German convoys (2x10, one from the US and one from the South (South America and the colonies)) that have to be stopped to simulate the
blockade)
2) There should also be a Russian convoy as soon as the Bosporus is in the hand of the Entente.
3) I do not like the idea of adding destroyers. Too much micromanagement for the scale of this game.
4) There should be a notification if the other side disbands or builds a Battleship (would not have gone unnoticed and would benefit the gameplay; I would even say there should not be any fog of war for the same reason.)
5) Two adjacent fleets protecting each other is a good idea.
Regards,
Julian

[kirk23]

Well anything that makes the naval game better,has my backing.As for destroyers they are a must have,for the naval game,the Battleship & Cruiser units,with their abstracted destroyer screens are historical,the destroyers with these forces were there,to protect the bigger ships, from enemy destroyers attempting mass torpedo attacks,the Battleship and Cruiser fleets were also all moving to fast, for any submarines to get into firing positions.

To have a game with any sort of anti-submarine deterent,then only destroyers can do this job,they should be the only type of vessel, allowed to benefit from upgrade anti-submarine technology.

[zokk]

I really like the idea of German convoys and the British blockade. I'd also add a political cost to the blockade. At the beginning of the war, the USA wanted to continue trade with all of the combatants. By enforcing the blockade of Germany, the allies angered the USA. Enforcing the blockade should hurt US relations with the allies, although nowhere near as much as the German U-boat campaign does.

Perhaps you could tie some of the British/French convoys to the USA's relations with the allies? By enforcing a blockade of Germany, the USA cuts back a bit on the number of convoys sent. If the allies really annoy the USA (most likely by invading neutral countries), the US could stop sending convoys altogether.

Also, I think that it's strange that countries like France and Germany often times need to be almost completely overrun before they surrender. It seems that territorial losses don't impact morale very much. Perhaps there can be an event for major countries that triggers a serious morale loss when a country loses 25% of it's cities, a critical loss at 50%, and a deadly loss at 75%? I don't think either side had a policy of unconditional surrender in WW1 and countries seemed to be willing to offer surrender when things looked grim (Russia, Germany, Austria-Hungary, etc.)

[FOARP]

The problem with adjacent fleets escorting each other can be seen from this example: Imagine two fleets of 2x Battleships within striking range of each other. At the moment, what happens is that one fleet attacks, concentrating its attack on one of the battleships, with the first attack resulting in even loses and the second attack favouring the attacking side. If battleships escorted each other, what instead would happen is that the first, and likely the second attack, would both favour the defender since the defender would essentially have two battleships defending against the attack of a single battleship. The results would get even more silly the more adjacent defending units there were.

[Myrddraal]

So perhaps the 'escort' function should be limited to destroyers only? Perhaps also it could be limited to one escort per turn (a bit like fighters)

[xriz]

So perhaps the 'escort' function should be limited to destroyers only? Perhaps also it could be limited to one escort per turn (a bit like fighters)

That's my vote, though I think you should allow multiple escorts or interceptions, each destroyer can intercept once per turn and they can't intercept attacks on other destroyers. I know other people have complained about the fighters only intercepting once on a front.

I still think limiting their LOS is a good way to keep people from spamming them, your going to want them to be cheep since you expect to lose them in battle. With a LOS of zero they can't attack anything with out it being spotted first by a friendly capital ship, that way they can't be sent out in droves to scout or raid by them selves. Their only use is to protect your Battleships and Cruisers.

[FOARP]

So perhaps the 'escort' function should be limited to destroyers only? Perhaps also it could be limited to one escort per turn (a bit like fighters)

Well, this would raise the question of why destroyers were able to intervene against attacks on transports/convoys, but not battleships or cruisers, but as a game mechanic I can see it working, especially if the number of escort attacks are limited to one per turn.

[Myrddraal]

Actually that might be completely justified:

The threat evolved by World War I with the development of the submarine, or U-boat. The submarine had the potential to hide from gunfire and close underwater to fire torpedoes. Early-war destroyers had the speed and armament to intercept submarines before they submerged, either by gunfire or by ramming. Destroyers also had a shallow enough draft that torpedoes would find it difficult to hit them.

The desire to attack submarines underwater led to rapid destroyer evolution during the war, which were quickly equipped with strengthened bows for ramming, depth charges and hydrophones for identifying submarine targets. The first submarine casualty to a destroyer was the German U-19, rammed by HMS Badger on 29 October 1914. While U-19 was only damaged, the next month Garry successfully sank U-18. The first depth-charge sinking was on 4 December 1916, when UC-19[31] was sunk by HMS Llewellyn.

The submarine threat meant that many destroyers spent their time on anti-submarine patrol; once Germany adopted unrestricted submarine warfare in January 1917, destroyers were called on to escort merchant convoys. US Navy destroyers were among the first American units to be dispatched upon the American entry to the war, and a squadron of Japanese destroyers even joined Allied patrols in the Mediterranean. Patrol duty was far from safe; of the 67 British destroyers lost in the war, collisions accounted for 18, while 12 were wrecked.

[kirk23]

I have also noted in my games at least,that the AI always attacks the weakest target in naval combat,this might be a standard practice as per land combat,but at sea this should not happen,in naval warfare Battleship's should attack the enemy Battleship unit as its first priority,and leave the cruisers to fight the cruisers etc where possible.

Apart from escort duties, Destroyers main roll was as Anti-Submarine protection due to their obvious attributes,IE shallow draft making them hard to hit with submarine torpedos,So that the Submarines best form of defence, against Destroyer attacks was to submerge as fast as possible, in an effort to escape.

Destroyers are very fast and highly manouverable,added to the fact that they are small ships, which all makes for a small target,Battleships & Cruisers found them to be a nuisance,and a very hard target to hit with thier bigger guns,so all Admiralties soon realised, that the best defence against Destroyers,were Destroyers off there own.

[julian239]

Some more points:

1) The Western Entente should be able to enter the Baltic (afaik they just did not enter, not to face the German Navy in home waters (danger of mines and torpedos)). It would add more options to use the British fleet (bombard, convoy, landings).

2) There should be far less PPs recovered from scrapping the fleets, since it gives an unrealisitc advantage, especially early on in the game.

3) fleets in port should have lower upkeep.

4) To give the Russian fleet anything to do, there should be a Turkish fleet in the black sea, Turkey should have sea transport and cruisers should be able to bombard. There was some naval fighting (bombardment and sea battles) in the black sea.

[majpalmer]

Here's an alternative idea to adding destroyer units to the game: add two elective functions--CONVOYING + ESCORTING!

Convoys reduced the effectiveness of submarines, but at a cost in shipping efficiency. Delaying merchants to form a convoy cost efficiency. Having multiple ships reach a port at the same time cost efficiency. That was one of the main reasons why the British were slow to adopt convoying. There was a cost to it in that it reduced the efficiency of the use of available shipping.

How about allowing the player to turn on "CONVOYING" as an option? For example, if the Entente player turns on "CONVOYING," his defense capability of his convoys improves, reducing losses and increasing the possibility that the convoy will inflict losses on the attacking submarine. BUT, as soon as you turn on convoys, the PP value of the convoys declines from 10 to 9.

As a second step the Entente player could elect to "ESCORT" his convoys, which would further increase defense capability and the chance of attacking submarine losses, but now the value of convoys declines from 9 to 8. In other words, the costs of those escorts is paid for by reducing the PP of the convoys, without adding additional units to the mix.

Election of these options should be permanent. In other words, if you turn on the convoy function you cannot turn it off later.

I know this could not be done easily by modding, but I suspect that you could do it in a patch.

[majpalmer]

I like the idea of the German convoys in the North Sea. I actually tried to mod the game to do that, but I couldn't get the Entente AI to go after the convoys.

I think to make your idea work, you also need to add more BB units to the force pools. The powers ought not to all have a single BB unit.

Another way to implement it would be to designate a hex between the Shetlands and Norway as the blockade hex (immune from submarine attack; subject only to surface attack). To stop the German convoy, the Entente would have to keep a CA or a BB in that hex. If the Germans could destroy the Entente blockader, the convoys would start running again.

My reasoning is that if you follow your suggestion about the British needing to keep a certain level of strength vis-a-vis the Germans in the North Sea, you can game it. What's to stop the Germans from building additional units and parking them right off their own coast? The Germans could have built 100 Dreadnoughts, but if they kept them in the Jade they would have ZERO impact on what was happening further north where the British implemented their blockade.