Vom Auflösung: Scrap both CP Battle Fleets!

[majpalmer]

Pardon what is probably poor German, but....

I am back with a new fleet disbandment suggestion. This time it is the Austro-Hungarian battle fleet. Why not? I have already advocated the disbandment of the German and Russian battle fleets. It was only a matter of time.

Here is how I see it as the Central Powers player. I started a new game, on balanced, and on turn 1 I disbanded the AH battle fleet. I kept the German battle fleet until the Russian battle fleet sortied against my German Baltic Fleet, and I destroyed the Russians at sea. So somewhere around Turn 10 I disbanded the German fleet as well. I also disbanded the German naval factory as soon as Germany entered the war.

Total PP savings? 122 PPs. I also save 11 PPs per turn.

What did I do with those savings? I built 2 German and 1 AH artillery units. Net cost 120PPs. Upkeep cost 3 PPs per turn.

So it is the end of 1914 and I have 4 artillery units already. And each country has an extra 4 PPS to spare, a total of 8 extra PPs per turn for the alliance.

With the help of the AH artillery unit Belgrade fell on Turn 6. By Turn 7 that same unit was at Lemberg supporting an AH counteroffensive.

Now all I have to so is start producing more artillery points.

I know that battle fleet upkeep costs the same as that for infantry units. But I do not build infantry units that sit in some city for 20 turns at a crack doing nothing. And, IMHO, I think you get a lot more use from 3 artillery units than 2 battle fleets. (Not to mention the savings of 11 (or 8 net) upkeep points--2 fleets X 4 and 1 factory X 3.)

You don't go anywhere in this game without artillery, especially once everyone gets entrenched. Try to get through Belgium in August 1914 without an artillery unit.

[Smirfy]

" But I do not build infantry units that sit in some city for 20 turns at a crack doing nothing"

Thats the problem with the game the Battlefleets actually did sit about doing nothing, Unfortunately for the Germans the RN sitting on their backsides in Scapa starved their country of resources. I have high hopes the great War 2 will have a better model.

[Amaranthus]

From a purely number crunching perspective, I can't flaw your reasoning, majpalmer. Good analysis. Still, from a game integrity perspective, I refuse to do it - I guess I'm a purist, so sue me

But the viability of this approach (and the potentially unbalancing impact it has on the land war) suggests that, in an upcoming patch, the naval costs need the most review, and/or the morale hit associated with scrapping fleets (which are a huge matter of national prestige).

[majpalmer]

I totally understand your sentiments. And I think we argree on the larger issue--a simulation ought to reward historic gameplay. If it doesn't....

Doing what I do against the AI--disbanding the CP battle fleets ASAP--would never have happened for several reasons, among them: bureaucracy, popular sentiment, and the expectation that the war would be short.

There are things to do with the battlefleets, for example bombarding coastal cities. But the costs--4 PPs for upkeep and 6 ammo points-- seems awfully high to knock out 1 PP for six turns.

Short of a total redo of the naval system, I would suggest two ideas. First, only charge upkeep points for naval units at sea. Second, add a NM penalty for disbanding naval surface units. That would provide players with an incentive not to disband.

[stockwellpete]

I totally understand your sentiments. And I think we argree on the larger issue--a simulation ought to reward historic gameplay. If it doesn't....

Doing what I do against the AI--disbanding the CP battle fleets ASAP--would never have happened for several reasons, among them: bureaucracy, popular sentiment, and the expectation that the war would be short.

There are things to do with the battlefleets, for example bombarding coastal cities. But the costs--4 PPs for upkeep and 6 ammo points-- seems awfully high to knock out 1 PP for six turns.

Short of a total redo of the naval system, I would suggest two ideas. First, only charge upkeep points for naval units at sea. Second, add a NM penalty for disbanding naval surface units. That would provide players with an incentive not to disband.

The navies were absolutely crucial for the maintenance of the overseas empires of the Great Powers too - and this was really what the First World War was all about, in my opinion i.e. which powers were going to dominate the globe? Personally I would just not allow the scrapping of fleets. End of. That would be the most realistic way, I think. (I would also not allow the scrapping of infantry units either, but introduce a way that damaged units might be merged into new units, which again would be historically accurate).

In terms of amending the naval system, I think it was Iain from Slitherine who suggested that there might be a few more naval units in the game. This would be an interesting development. Maybe instead of just having "battleship" - "cruiser" - "submarine", we might have an extra class of unit and a slight re-designation too- "dreadnought" - "battle cruiser" - "destroyer" - "submarine". That still leaves a number of important ship types out altogether including pre-dreadnought battleships (coastal defence and Mediterranean theatre mainly) and torpedo boats. The problem is that the scale of the map is such that to have three or four hexes filled with torpedo boats would just be daft. Maybe though, they might be added as attachments to the main naval units in the way that leaders are attached now. So you would have your dreadnought unit and maybe you could add up to two destroyer attachments to it to act as a screen - and this would give you combat and line of sight bonuses too? Similarly, torpedo boats might be added to either dreadnought or battle cruiser units.

There is another issue about the naval blockade too. At the moment the game just assumes that the blockade is in place in the North Sea/English Channel and the Adriatic. The players are not really asked to do anything to maintain it and they just have the option to attack the main convoys across the Atlantic or in the Baltic. Maybe that is something else that can be looked at as the naval blockade of the Central Powers significantly explains the course of the war (unrestricted submarine warfare; the attempted break-out that was Jutland; the turning of the Baltic region into a vast labour camp for the Central Powers etc). Apparently the blockade was maintained by armoured merchant ships and by mine-laying liners. Whether players might be asked to do more to maintain the blockade or whether blockade runners might be introduced is something that I am not sure about. The big mistake would be to clutter the game up with too much detail so there has to be some level of abstraction, I agree.

[Myrddraal]

I can confirm that we are introducing a morale penalty for disbanding ships in the first patch. More attention o the naval aspect will have to come later.

[majpalmer]

Good point on the blockade.

Here's a mod-able idea.

Add a German convoy coming from the north edge through the North Sea. Let's say for 10 points. Now you have something for the Royal Navy to do. And now you have a reason to keep the German fleet around. Because if you can destroy the British fleet, or even just keep it otherwise occupied, you'd get a big PP bonus. Players might even build more U-Boats to try to chip away at British strength.

I am actually testing a non-historical mod to simulate the blockade effect in a current game. I modded the Baltic convoy to a full ten points. I am using a house-rule to simulate the blockade effect. In 1914 I allow no British subs in the Baltic, in 1915 1, 1916 2, 1917 3, 1918 4.

That I can mod. I see how the convoys are set up, but I have not yet tried to add a new one to the mix.

You can reduce the PP production of Berlin by corresponding points to compensate.

[majpalmer]

Actually, I did just add a convoy worth 10 points to the 1914 scenario. It starts on the north edge and runs down along the coast of Norway to Germany.

I'll have to test it with the Entente AI to see if the British battle fleet goes after it. It didn't on my first try. I probably need to shift its starting point further to the west.

[stockwellpete]

I can confirm that we are introducing a morale penalty for disbanding ships in the first patch. More attention o the naval aspect will have to come later.

Ok, that's good. Is this idea of having attachments to the main units (for smaller ships, and for elite infantry regiments as well) any good at all, do you think?

[Umeu]

I can confirm that we are introducing a morale penalty for disbanding ships in the first patch. More attention o the naval aspect will have to come later.

im sad to hear that :S

[romainpek]

Yes, I like your ideas. I started an MP game against a CP player that sold out his fleets and labs at the beginning of the 1914 game: Germans are all over France, deep in Serbia and Russia and it's not even spring 1915!
Killing his Baltic convoys in exchange doesn't compensate for this huge boost.

I say lower the national morale, plus no industry points recovered for terminating labs or scuttling ships. Only manpower should be salvaged (plus the maintenance points saved, of course)

[stockwellpete]

Yes, I like your ideas. I started an MP game against a CP player that sold out his fleets and labs at the beginning of the 1914 game: Germans are all over France, deep in Serbia and Russia and it's not even spring 1915!
Killing his Baltic convoys in exchange doesn't compensate for this huge boost.

I say lower the national morale, plus no industry points recovered for terminating labs or scuttling ships. Only manpower should be salvaged (plus the maintenance points saved, of course)

Yes, scuttling fleets totally distorts the game if one player does it and the other doesn't. I know you get 50PP's for scuttling a battleship unit - I am not sure what it is for cruisers and subs. To my way of thinking all the different types of ships contributed to the effectiveness of each other - the account that I am reading of Jutland 1916 suggests that very strongly.

[nobikaigan]

I can confirm that we are introducing a morale penalty for disbanding ships in the first patch. More attention o the naval aspect will have to come later.

im sad to hear that :S

Why? It is clearly shown in this thread that it is an exploit. It is something the AI cannot counter, it is something that totally skews the MP game to the point that if one side disbands and the other doesn't, then it is a game-winner nearly everytime. I'd really like to know what is making you sad about a logical decision by the devs to improve gameplay!

[Umeu]

im mostly sad to hear that they do this but fix the rest of naval war later. the fact of the matter is that naval warfare is broken and therefor ppl disband their navy in multiplayer, it is a neccesity not an exploit. if naval warfare was a valid option for the CP (and as a consequense would also force the allies to maintain their navies) then ofcourse this would be fine, but it isnt and now neither disbanding the navy is an option, but keeping it is neither. this translates further down the line where the german naval campaign in the atlantic has the same dilemma, they cant not sink the subs but they also cant sink them, because if they sink them the usa will join the allies as early as 1915, and when they do, bulgaria will refuse to join the CP, but if they dont sink the subs then the uk will become unstoppable. this "hotfix" solves nothing and only makes the situation worse, that is why i am sad to hear it.

[nobikaigan]

im mostly sad to hear that they do this but fix the rest of naval war later. the fact of the matter is that naval warfare is broken and therefor ppl disband their navy in multiplayer, it is a neccesity not an exploit. if naval warfare was a valid option for the CP (and as a consequense would also force the allies to maintain their navies) then ofcourse this would be fine, but it isnt and now neither disbanding the navy is an option, but keeping it is neither. this translates further down the line where the german naval campaign in the atlantic has the same dilemma, they cant not sink the subs but they also cant sink them, because if they sink them the usa will join the allies as early as 1915, and when they do, bulgaria will refuse to join the CP, but if they dont sink the subs then the uk will become unstoppable. this "hotfix" solves nothing and only makes the situation worse, that is why i am sad to hear it.

OK I see. I disagree, but I understand your point

I feel it is a step in the right direction for sure, and any step in the right direction elicits praise from me... It doesn't fix the naval game I agree with that, but I have won SP 1914 sdcenarios (as both sides) without disbanding, without taking ahistoric neutrals for a PP boost, and with the current Baltic sub dilema in place. I believe all of those are exploits to make winning easier, and the only counter right now is an honorable MP opponent that will agree to house rules, or a very careful SP game!

Personally I try to sink the UK subs (with mixed effectiveness) and actually I have never had the USA enter the war before 1917. I usually take Paris early though, so maybe the USA is intimidated lol!

[Evans]

Try this in multiplayer however and you'll see French battleships pound your two value 6 coastal cities and any garrison inside, and possibly Entente landings too. I like all the ideas for making the naval war aspect more interesting and historical, but naval power is actually quite useful as is.

[nobikaigan]

Try this in multiplayer however and you'll see French battleships pound your two value 6 coastal cities and any garrison inside, and possibly Entente landings too. I like all the ideas for making the naval war aspect more interesting and historical, but naval power is actually quite useful as is.

I must disagree, at 4pp per turn upkeep plus 6 ammo per bombardment, I do not believe that this is going to end in favor of the Naval power... I agree, fleets are useful (I am kicking tail in a MP game where I landed a UK force and took Wilhelmshaven an used the Fleet for full supply) but in the end I think that the math shows that disbanding them is more effective... If your opponent doesn't disband them and destroys your 6PP costal cities, you should be taking some expensive inland cities with all the extra ground forces that should be at your disposal. With all the 6 ammo BB bombardments, your opponent will have a very hard time maintaining any sort of ground offensive as well.

Bottom line, some tweaks need to happen for fleets to be truly useful. So far, in MP, it is a gentlemans agreement, or house rule, that makes Naval warfare useful.

[Umeu]

im mostly sad to hear that they do this but fix the rest of naval war later. the fact of the matter is that naval warfare is broken and therefor ppl disband their navy in multiplayer, it is a neccesity not an exploit. if naval warfare was a valid option for the CP (and as a consequense would also force the allies to maintain their navies) then ofcourse this would be fine, but it isnt and now neither disbanding the navy is an option, but keeping it is neither. this translates further down the line where the german naval campaign in the atlantic has the same dilemma, they cant not sink the subs but they also cant sink them, because if they sink them the usa will join the allies as early as 1915, and when they do, bulgaria will refuse to join the CP, but if they dont sink the subs then the uk will become unstoppable. this "hotfix" solves nothing and only makes the situation worse, that is why i am sad to hear it.

OK I see. I disagree, but I understand your point

I feel it is a step in the right direction for sure, and any step in the right direction elicits praise from me... It doesn't fix the naval game I agree with that, but I have won SP 1914 sdcenarios (as both sides) without disbanding, without taking ahistoric neutrals for a PP boost, and with the current Baltic sub dilema in place. I believe all of those are exploits to make winning easier, and the only counter right now is an honorable MP opponent that will agree to house rules, or a very careful SP game!

Personally I try to sink the UK subs (with mixed effectiveness) and actually I have never had the USA enter the war before 1917. I usually take Paris early though, so maybe the USA is intimidated lol!

its hard to really sinks subs in the 1914 scenario and generally its not really worth it unless you get atleast 1 more sub + the 1st upgrade. in the later scenarios it is worth it in the sense that you really do criple the uk eco (also because they are less strong in the later scenarios) but at the same time its not worth for the reason i mentioned, if you are so succesfull that you criple the uk eco (which is like 15-20 points of dmg aka 150-200 pp) then the use will join after you reached that cap within 6 turns, once the usa joined the timer for bulgaria will freeze at whatever turn it was at, effectively preventing them from joining the war (atleast untill it goes in favor of the CP again) the USA got like 2000MP and 50pp a turn so they will field 4 artillery easy + get like +20 ammo production without any problem.

in sp its definitely possible to beat your opponent without disbanding the ships and even in mp it is possible but i doubt its very likely vs a good opponent. but it could be so that my experience so far has been not representative of reality, i dont know and as i said, protecting the baltic convoy in the 1914 scenario is simply not worth it, its not or barely cost-effective.

[colberki]

I hope the developers comes up with a minor tweak to support having the fleets e.g. NM loss for disbanding fleets. Lowering support and bombardment costs could result in an unintended non WWI use of fleets.

[kirk23]

There is a mission that I have yet to see written about regarding using the German Battleship counter,it was a tactic used early in the war by Admiral Hipper Battlecruisers,and that was doing bombardment missions to the English coastal towns,in an attempt to get the British admiralty to spread out the Grandfleet into squdrons to protect the coastal towns,Giving the Germans a possible chance to engage parts of the Battlefleet on equal terms.