Carrier Battles for Guadalcanal Forum Index

Carrier Battles for Guadalcanal


 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Next Priority Surface Ships
Goto page: <  1, 2, 3
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Carrier Battles for Guadalcanal Forum Index -> Topics -> New Features
Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
Bladerunner
Administrateur

Offline

Joined: 25 Jan 2016
Posts: 1,134
Localisation: France

PostPosted: Tue 11 Sep - 07:20 (2018)    Post subject: Next Priority Surface Ships Reply with quote

larsenjp wrote:


Aside from the unrealistic results we already discussed, what i find disturbing in the game is this tendency to have many surface engagements at daylight between forces that battle till almost total annihilation. I think we should think about a mechanism to prevent this.


Yes I agree. Admirals should be quite reluctant to engage at day.
But how is another story


Back to top
Publicité






PostPosted: Tue 11 Sep - 07:20 (2018)    Post subject: Publicité

PublicitéSupprimer les publicités ?
Back to top
Bladerunner
Administrateur

Offline

Joined: 25 Jan 2016
Posts: 1,134
Localisation: France

PostPosted: Tue 11 Sep - 07:41 (2018)    Post subject: Next Priority Surface Ships Reply with quote

I have done this for the 3.1.5
  • when detaching a surface TF from a transport or carrier TF, its surface engagement tactic becomes 1:1


Back to top
USS Archerfish
Beta-testing

Offline

Joined: 16 Mar 2017
Posts: 729

PostPosted: Tue 11 Sep - 19:33 (2018)    Post subject: Next Priority Surface Ships Reply with quote

Yes, I agee.  Most players will just continue to fight until their ships are sunk. In most cases, once a TF engaged in battleand the battle was was over, TF almost alway disengage to return the closest friendly port for repairs unless damage was light.


So, here are some suggestion.


1.  Any ship that has received more that 35% or 40% damage must disengage and return to port.  I would put a timer on this. Let say after 2 turns.  


2.  Any TF that suffers more than a 35% loss must disengage. If a TF is damaged it must move at least two hexes outside of the slot to regroup. Another option would be that ships must move at least 12-15 hexes away to regroup.  This would put it out of range of most aircraft attack. 


As Larsenjp said, the Japanese only attacked at night but random game set up makes his impossible to do.  Some TFs will arrive at night and others won’t. If we want to set it up more historically, Japanese TFs must start around 12-16 hexes away from Guadalcanal.  This will put TF arrivals at G between 2000-0000.  I think the IJN tried to time it to get there around 2300. This gave them enough time to attack or unload and get out before daylight. 


I also, think all warships should be given “Fast” movement except for older ships. Here’s why.  Currently ships move 1 hex every turn = 1:20 hrs.  That’s puts ships moving at 22.5 miles per hour.  That is the average cruising speed for warships.  However during battle, ships increased their speed to 28-30 knots.  So if a hex represents 30 miles and ships are moving at 28-30 knots. That means ship should be moving 30 miles per hour (for simplicity sake). But the game has them moving 30 miles every 1:20. So ship movement is too slow in this game.  


Personally, I think one turn should represent 1hr instead of 1:20. It would also make things easier to calculate but I don’t know if that would create problems with the game mechanics. 


At minimum, CV TFs should be moving at Fast speeds.  This would also make them a harder target for bombers. 


If you want to add a little more realisim. You can allow Fast speeds in open seas but they must drop to cruising speed in coastal waters. 


Back to top
larsenjp
Beta-testing

Offline

Joined: 19 Aug 2017
Posts: 406

PostPosted: Tue 11 Sep - 22:43 (2018)    Post subject: Next Priority Surface Ships Reply with quote

USS Archerfish wrote:
Yes, I agee.  Most players will just continue to fight until their ships are sunk. In most cases, once a TF engaged in battleand the battle was was over, TF almost alway disengage to return the closest friendly port for repairs unless damage was light.


So, here are some suggestion.


1.  Any ship that has received more that 35% or 40% damage must disengage and return to port.  I would put a timer on this. Let say after 2 turns.  


2.  Any TF that suffers more than a 35% loss must disengage. If a TF is damaged it must move at least two hexes outside of the slot to regroup. Another option would be that ships must move at least 12-15 hexes away to regroup.  This would put it out of range of most aircraft attack. 


I agree with both ideas; we may just tune the parameters for optimization.
I think we could also introduce the idea of ammo supplies just like we did with torpedoes; this would prevent players to go to battle restlessly.


USS Archerfish wrote:
As Larsenjp said, the Japanese only attacked at night but random game set up makes his impossible to do.  Some TFs will arrive at night and others won’t. If we want to set it up more historically, Japanese TFs must start around 12-16 hexes away from Guadalcanal.  This will put TF arrivals at G between 2000-0000.  I think the IJN tried to time it to get there around 2300. This gave them enough time to attack or unload and get out before daylight. 


I agree that randomized set up can be problematic and make players spare time in order to organize themselves.
However i already noticed that the AI seems to manage quite well the situation, with its ships in the Slot and at Lunga almost systematically at the beginning of the night. I find its behavior quite realistic regarding this point.


USS Archerfish wrote:
I also, think all warships should be given “Fast” movement except for older ships. Here’s why.  Currently ships move 1 hex every turn = 1:20 hrs.  That’s puts ships moving at 22.5 miles per hour.  That is the average cruising speed for warships.  However during battle, ships increased their speed to 28-30 knots.  So if a hex represents 30 miles and ships are moving at 28-30 knots. That means ship should be moving 30 miles per hour (for simplicity sake). But the game has them moving 30 miles every 1:20. So ship movement is too slow in this game.  


Personally, I think one turn should represent 1hr instead of 1:20. It would also make things easier to calculate but I don’t know if that would create problems with the game mechanics. 


At minimum, CV TFs should be moving at Fast speeds.  This would also make them a harder target for bombers. 


If you want to add a little more realism. You can allow Fast speeds in open seas but they must drop to cruising speed in coastal waters. 


I think this is one of the main problem within the game mechanics: difference of velocities are not well rendered. This is also the case for planes with all of them flying at 180 mph...
I do not think this is a problem of time scale but rather a problem of space scale; 30 miles is just to large for the hexes and i think the size should be broken down to 10 miles that is each hexes should be subdivided into 7 smaller hexes. This would allow much more flexibility to move both ships and planes plus adding more accuracy for solving spotting, shadowing, combats etc
However, i think it should be a major modification to the game and would probably require quite a lot of work for BR...

I agree a much simpler solution for increasing ships velocities is to reduce turns duration to 1 hour.
Normal ships: 1 hex/hour = 30 knots
Slow ships: 1hex/2hours = 15 knots
Very slow ships: 1hex/3hours = 10 knots
I think fast ships should be considered to move at 40-45 knots which is around 1.5 hex/hour hence 1 hex during one hour turn then 2 hexes, then 1 etc.
Not fully satisfactory but most probably better than the current system.


Back to top
Sightreader


Offline

Joined: 09 Aug 2016
Posts: 28
Localisation: USA

PostPosted: Wed 12 Sep - 22:13 (2018)    Post subject: Next Priority Surface Ships Reply with quote

Might one implement extraordinary morale effects to match extraordinary losses as a deterrent? Even 10 percent losses, which may not seem like much to a gamer, are horrific in the field. I can’t imagine forces can lose much more than half before they’re either combat ineffective or they start to mutiny if ordered to attack.  


Naturally, this limit varies with time: some morale effects might cause panic right in the heat of battle while others won’t really make themselves felt until crews have had a chance to reflect on what happened.


You’d almost want to have a popularity rating for your commander at the end... how likely is your career to continue?


Back to top
larsenjp
Beta-testing

Offline

Joined: 19 Aug 2017
Posts: 406

PostPosted: Wed 12 Sep - 22:40 (2018)    Post subject: Next Priority Surface Ships Reply with quote

I think adding some morale/experience or training status (which is different, green crews may have high morale while elite crews may have low morale but the former ones should be more fragile than the latter ones) would be nice. Maybe a future add-on but it does not seem to be top priority for the moment...

Back to top
currymutton
Beta-testing

Offline

Joined: 27 May 2016
Posts: 689

PostPosted: Thu 13 Sep - 06:42 (2018)    Post subject: Next Priority Surface Ships Reply with quote

Bladerunner wrote:
I have done this for the 3.1.5
  • when detaching a surface TF from a transport or carrier TF, its surface engagement tactic becomes 1:1







Done a game, TRS TF still ran, but less. And still attackers fire concentrated more on warships than TRS. Except in one case, IJN torpedoed a CV and sank it.


—————


Moral may help about fighting to the last ship. Technically, there are features like disorganisation and rules of engagement already in place to reflect that. But then some may complain, okay it would be me, the enemy goes guerrilla and tocuhes the base by being “gamey”. 


Back to top
USS Archerfish
Beta-testing

Offline

Joined: 16 Mar 2017
Posts: 729

PostPosted: Thu 13 Sep - 11:58 (2018)    Post subject: Next Priority Surface Ships Reply with quote

By the way, Larsenjp.  The fastest IJN DD was 37 knots. There was one that could do 39 knots but only one was built. 


http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/D/e/Destroyers.htm


Back to top
larsenjp
Beta-testing

Offline

Joined: 19 Aug 2017
Posts: 406

PostPosted: Thu 13 Sep - 20:54 (2018)    Post subject: Next Priority Surface Ships Reply with quote

USS Archerfish wrote:
By the way, Larsenjp.  The fastest IJN DD was 37 knots. There was one that could do 39 knots but only one was built.


http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/D/e/Destroyers.htm


Thanks. Actually i was very optimistic and 45 knots is really a lot.
But i know that some WW2 ships had a top velocity above 40 knots. French and/or Italian i think..


Back to top
larsenjp
Beta-testing

Offline

Joined: 19 Aug 2017
Posts: 406

PostPosted: Thu 13 Sep - 20:56 (2018)    Post subject: Next Priority Surface Ships Reply with quote

But this was probably top combat speed and most probably they could not achieve it all the time.
So i think an average of 30 knots is fine.


Back to top
Bladerunner
Administrateur

Offline

Joined: 25 Jan 2016
Posts: 1,134
Localisation: France

PostPosted: Fri 14 Sep - 17:55 (2018)    Post subject: Next Priority Surface Ships Reply with quote

The speed used in the game is the cruise speed


The only exception is the Tokyo Express where DD are sailing at maximum speed
This is burning a lot of fuel but the distance to travel between Kahili and Guadalcanal is ok


Back to top
Sightreader


Offline

Joined: 09 Aug 2016
Posts: 28
Localisation: USA

PostPosted: Fri 14 Sep - 19:07 (2018)    Post subject: Next Priority Surface Ships Reply with quote

What’s the relation between fuel consumption and speed? Is it exponential or something?

Back to top
larsenjp
Beta-testing

Offline

Joined: 19 Aug 2017
Posts: 406

PostPosted: Fri 14 Sep - 20:58 (2018)    Post subject: Next Priority Surface Ships Reply with quote

Sightreader wrote:
What’s the relation between fuel consumption and speed? Is it exponential or something?


Don't know much about the physics regarding motion in water but, in the air, the resistance to motion is a function of the square of the velocity.
Clearly it is not linear.

As the game is considering only cruise speed, i think 10, 15 and 30 knots are OK. I We could even consider 5 knots for badly damaged ships or ships being towed...


Back to top
Bladerunner
Administrateur

Offline

Joined: 25 Jan 2016
Posts: 1,134
Localisation: France

PostPosted: Sat 15 Sep - 01:11 (2018)    Post subject: Next Priority Surface Ships Reply with quote

This article gives very good answers


http://www.combinedfleet.com/guadoil1.htm


Back to top
Bladerunner
Administrateur

Offline

Joined: 25 Jan 2016
Posts: 1,134
Localisation: France

PostPosted: Mon 17 Sep - 22:15 (2018)    Post subject: Next Priority Surface Ships Reply with quote

Forcing heavily damaged ships out of battle might be a good solution


Enforcing a withdraw is not that easy and may be sometimes frustrating because the timing or the direction won't be adequate
Another solution could be to prevent such ships to voluntarily engage into a surface battle (defensive of moving in a hex without knowing that the enemy is here is ok)


Back to top
Contenu Sponsorisé






PostPosted: Today at 01:57 (2018)    Post subject: Next Priority Surface Ships

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Carrier Battles for Guadalcanal Forum Index -> Topics -> New Features All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page: <  1, 2, 3
Page 3 of 3

 
Jump to:  

Index | Administration Panel | Create own nforum | Free support forum | Free forums directory | Report a violation | Conditions générales d'utilisation
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group