Question about previous campaigns

[kondi754]

To Devs:
Are you planning to go back to the old DLC and polish them?
For example, I'm thinking of adding commanders of the opposite side as you did in the Soviet trilogy
It would be good to see the various camouflages added to some enemy units as well, as you did in the last DLC where the German vehicles had multiple camouflages

I'm playing the US Pacific vanilla game right now and I feel unsatisfied with naval artillery battles when there are no carriers
I think it would be nice to add an element to the mechanics of such battles between battleships, cruisers, destroyers, to make it even more interesting
Maybe some additional skills for different classes of ships or more different parameters.

[terminator]

Isn’t the priority to polish the last DLC Red Storm for now?

[bebro]

I toyed with the idea indeed. But it depends of the overall schedule/workload. Thing is anything we invest to add stuff to older content is less time invested in new content. I'm still overall sympathetic to the idea, since over the years the game has grown a lot, and it would be nice to have that (or at least some of it) potential in earlier cams.

So right now can't give you a final answer on this, I have to see what is doable in what time vs. work on new stuff.

[kondi754]

I toyed with the idea indeed. But it depends of the overall schedule/workload. Thing is anything we invest to add stuff to older content is less time invested in new content. I'm still overall sympathetic to the idea, since over the years the game has grown a lot, and it would be nice to have that (or at least some of it) potential in earlier cams.

So right now can't give you a final answer on this, I have to see what is doable in what time vs. work on new stuff.

Glad to hear you are considering it
Overall, US Pacific is still a great game, very difficult at times, especially in managing so many different units.
I'm playing "big" Guadalcanal scn (50 turns , I almost forgot there were such long missions in OoB) - this is a sensational map, even now after so many years and naval battles are very interesting too, but this is a bit one-sided in the planning layer. There is still one way to proceed during artillery battles - positioning your units in such a way that the enemy enters your field of fire, not vice versa + using destroyers as cover against torpedoes.
OoB has evolved a lot in terms of the gameplay mechanics of land battles, but nothing has been added to the mechanics of artillery naval battles IMO

by terminator » 02 Oct 2020 09:30
Isn’t the priority to polish the last DLC Red Storm for now?

I'm thinking about the future, however Red Storm doesn't require major corrections in my opinion

[kondi754]

To make example what I mean about naval art battles I made 2 screenshots from Guadalcanal scn

Much bigger Japan forces were completely blocked by my range of fire line
I destroyed 3 enemy destroyers quickly, so AI got scared and dumb. The AI has been doing nothing for the last 10 turns of the game.

Banal tactic.
EDIT. You have to line up and hit all the guns. When my volley sank 3 destroyers in 3 turns, the AI gave up

45.jpg (968.27 KiB) Viewed 3452 times

50.jpg (996.77 KiB) Viewed 3452 times

[kondi754]

Re: US Pacific

I came back to it after 4 years, the game is different but it's great. I have definitely learned to make better use of the terrain during these 4 years. I am currently playing New Georgia summer 1943 scenario and I am delighted.
I think that only now I've grown into this game.

[GabeKnight]

Much bigger Japan forces were completely blocked by my range of fire line
I destroyed 3 enemy destroyers quickly, so AI got scared and dumb. The AI has been doing nothing for the last 10 turns of the game.

Not blocked by your "range of fire" or "scared"...

It's just that with DD/CA class of ships: weapons range >= LOS. Even the AI can't fire on something they do not see. They have some defend hex or move to hex orders, and if there are no enemy (=player's) units there to fight, the AI does nothing. Try moving just one of your ships into the AI's LOS and you'll see what happens then...

[kondi754]

Much bigger Japan forces were completely blocked by my range of fire line
I destroyed 3 enemy destroyers quickly, so AI got scared and dumb. The AI has been doing nothing for the last 10 turns of the game.

Not blocked by your "range of fire" or "scared"...

It's just that with DD/CA class of ships: weapons range >= LOS. Even the AI can't fire on something they do not see. They have some defend hex or move to hex orders, and if there are no enemy (=player's) units there to fight, the AI does nothing. Try moving just one of your ships into the AI's LOS and you'll see what happens then...

OK, But I play intuitively, I don't read tutorials on how to play, I just develop my own strategy.
Anyway, this is SOMETHING to fix, am I right?

EDIT. if possible
EDIT2. I've only played land campaigns for the last 2 years, I didn't realize that there is such a "gap" in the game

[kondi754]

There is a lot to do with this DLC
However, the game is still fantastic after all these years
What I like the most is that the game imposes historical choices
EDIT. 55 turns! Another long scenario

munda.jpg (977.42 KiB) Viewed 3412 times

[Erik2]

Do you guys remember the old naval battle mechanics? The defending vessel would return fire similar to air and land units.
I miss this....

[kondi754]

Do you guys remember the old naval battle mechanics? The defending vessel would return fire similar to air and land units.
I miss this....

I forgot it completely, thanks Erik for reminding it

I have to admit that I don't even remember if I liked that mechanic after so many years - it would certainly be more difficult than now
But also battles like those at Guadalcanal SCN would last much shorter and more RPs would have to be spent on rebuilding the fleet after such a battle

by GabeKnight » 03 Oct 2020 00:55

Not blocked by your "range of fire" or "scared"...

It's just that with DD/CA class of ships: weapons range >= LOS. Even the AI can't fire on something they do not see. They have some defend hex or move to hex orders, and if there are no enemy (=player's) units there to fight, the AI does nothing. Try moving just one of your ships into the AI's LOS and you'll see what happens then...

If I understand correctly this is an editor issue?
Should the Japanese fleet have a destination point set closer to the island's shores, more to the south of the map?
Forgive me, I have absolutely no knowledge of editing the behavior of units on a map, I can only do simple things in the editor.
That's why my description was straight from some AAR

[kondi754]

Re: naval artillery battle

I believe that this behavior of AI ships is a serious mistake, because the basic tactic of classic naval battles is Crossing the T, when one side uses its form to conduct broadside fire (all towers are used), while the other side can only use 1 bow turret .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossing_the_T

Crossing_the_T_(naval_movement)_animated.gif (372.79 KiB) Viewed 3350 times

In the event of a quick destruction of the ships leading the enemy formation, the remaining ones stop and do not enter the trap.
In fact, the AI didn't scare my line of fire, but it definitely went dumb.

I suppose my tactic can be considered a variant of this T-tactic, because the first 3 destroyers I sunk went in a linear formation, the other ships rather too, only 2-3 parallel tracks

[prestidigitation]

Sure, but the tactical concept of T crossing is from two or three centuries prior and doesn't really hold when you've got bow and stern guns with around 270 of rotation. You can easily get an angled approach that brings all guns to bare against an enemy, and a broadside foe is going to be unable to use angles to increase effective armor.

Also, like, aviation blows all of this out of the water. Literally in some cases.

[kondi754]

Sure, but the tactical concept of T crossing is from two or three centuries prior and doesn't really hold when you've got bow and stern guns with around 270 of rotation. You can easily get an angled approach that brings all guns to bare against an enemy, and a broadside foe is going to be unable to use angles to increase effective armor.

Also, like, aviation blows all of this out of the water. Literally in some cases.

A tactic from 200 years ago, Nelson used it , but artillery ships used it effectively during World War I and often in World War II as well, of course later it wasn't used for the complete annihilation of the enemy fleet (as in Nelson's times ), but for taking a favorable position in relation to the enemy, so that some of his units were already within our firing range to create at least a temporary advantage in firepower, position, and effective range of the atillery.
In general, warships at sea are the art of taking the right position in relation to the enemy, taking into account the range of our and enemy's combat resources

EDIT. I read a lot about the battles of ships during the Solomon Islands 1942-45 campaign and it is often repeated there that one of the sides took advantage of a better position and had a surplus in the number of active guns compared to the enemy who, due to an unfavorable position couldn't use some of the their turrets
(Example: the famous night battle at Guadalcanal in August 1942)

[Erik2]

Tsushima in the Russo-Japanese is maybe the most classic exemple of using 'crossing the T' for annihilatin an enemy fleet.
The Russian fleet moved all the way from Europe (using months?) only to be completly crushed in the strait between Korea and Japan.

[kondi754]

Tsushima in the Russo-Japanese is maybe the most classic exemple of using 'crossing the T' for annihilatin an enemy fleet.
The Russian fleet moved all the way from Europe (using months?) only to be completly crushed in the strait between Korea and Japan.

Yes, indeed
This great Japanese victory certainly influenced the tactics of classic naval battles for the next decades, why reject something that still works great?

[prestidigitation]

A tactic from 200 years ago, Nelson used it , but artillery ships used it effectively during World War I and often in World War II as well, of course later it wasn't used for the complete annihilation of the enemy fleet (as in Nelson's times ),

Crossing the T is the opposite of what Nelson did. Naval tactics in the 17-18th century relied heavily on the idea of getting ahead of the enemy line and using raking fire aka crossing the T. Usually this resulted in not much at all as both sides simply fired away inconclusively in broadside lines until one got bored and sailed off with minimal losses. Or somebody ran out of ammunition. Losses of ships were rare unless someone really screwed up.

Nelson conducted a columnar attack in two lines, meaning he allowed his T to be crossed in order to close with the enemy and decisively defeat them at short range and with boarding actions. This allowed him to capture or destroy 22 of the enemy's 27 ships of the line. His tactic was literally revolutionary but relied heavily on seamanship and crew skill.

but for taking a favorable position in relation to the enemy, so that some of his units were already within our firing range to create at least a temporary advantage in firepower, position, and effective range of the atillery.
In general, warships at sea are the art of taking the right position in relation to the enemy, taking into account the range of our and enemy's combat resources

EDIT. I read a lot about the battles of ships during the Solomon Islands 1942-45 campaign and it is often repeated there that one of the sides took advantage of a better position and had a surplus in the number of active guns compared to the enemy who, due to an unfavorable position couldn't use some of the their turrets
(Example: the famous night battle at Guadalcanal in August 1942)

Positioning already matters. If your ships move fast, you get a defensive bonus. If they maintain position relative to the enemy they can move great distances while keeping the same accuracy. If you close with enemy ships both of you do more damage. If you remain at range both of you do less damage. If you move away at speed the enemy will do minimal damage. If you allow enemy destroyers to close with your heavy ships you will receive enormous damage from torpedoes, necessitating screens for these ships.

So as you can see positioning, movement and proper use of screens are essential to conducting surface fleet actions and in ways that are relevant to WW2 surface fleet actions.

[prestidigitation]

Tsushima in the Russo-Japanese is maybe the most classic exemple of using 'crossing the T' for annihilatin an enemy fleet.
The Russian fleet moved all the way from Europe (using months?) only to be completly crushed in the strait between Korea and Japan.

The Russian fleet was defeated at Tsushima because it was outgunned, outnumbered, had slower ships, had less armor, had worse fire control, had worse communications, had worse ammunition (no explosive filler, just solid shot AP) had far less experienced crew and captains and just for fun they were also running low on fuel and crew (many had gotten sick in the disastrous voyage). The Japanese tactic was a pretty standard broadside attack with parallel lines at a range beyond that of the Russian guns with turning movements to pull away whenever the Russians came into range.



No crossing of the T.

Honestly the dominance of the Japanese ships was absolutely enormous relative to the Russian fleet and the Russians knew it which was why they were trying to sneak into Vladivostok and avoid battle.

I encourage checking out the battle further. It's interesting but the only shock in the outcome was to the racist beliefs of European powers who simply assumed that their racial superiority would allow them to win every war against "inferior" races. Seriously. For a modern reader, the shock is that the Russians thought sailing a fleet 18,000km to fight an enemy that had already beaten them multiple times with zero friendly bases between was at all a good idea.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of ... Background

As far as impact on tactics for WW2, it was to not build things like this with loads of little bitty broadside guns



And to instead build things like this:



With a few really huge guns that could shoot the enemy hard from out of range in pretty much any direction.

[kondi754]

Okay, but that's not all of Nelson's strategy, there was another group of ships
However, that was actually a bad example
I'm not a naval historian, I probably drew the wrong conclusions from what I once read

EDIT. But no, this tactic was T I'm right
Look at battle map you posted - this is even a double T, because when cutting the French formation, Nelson's ships crossed the letter T both for the French ships arriving from the south (British South Column) and for the French ships sailing north, which were at the fore (British North Column)

[GabeKnight]

If I understand correctly this is an editor issue?
Should the Japanese fleet have a destination point set closer to the island's shores, more to the south of the map?
Forgive me, I have absolutely no knowledge of editing the behavior of units on a map, I can only do simple things in the editor.
That's why my description was straight from some AAR

Well, you know how it is with "should" and "could"...

But yeah, it all depends on the AI orders set in the scen editor. Similar situations can happen on land maps, as I've shown on many examples: blocking a hex with mines that the AI needs to capture in order to advance. If it can't capture the hex, all follow-up orders in the triggers are ignored and the AI units just "dance around" some hex and do nothing (unless attacked).
Or just do not capture some city hex to not trigger an AI counterattack... and so on. There are just too many editor/scen design "exploits" on either land and naval maps - and if you know them, you can use them, like you did.

Same thing here. The ships were send to that location, because it's where usually the player's forces should be...