Constant battles in campaign

[Dogbert]

In the campaign, I am finding that whenever a force disengages, it will usually take 4-5 more or less identical battles without a shot being fired, before one side finally gets away... could this not be handled on the campaign map before switching to battle mode?
Also, it seems almost like the campaign AI "forgets" that it just ran away and tries to close the distance again to engage my forces... for instance I have 2 Japanese ACs that keep chasing my Vladivostok force only to run away when battle is joined... pretty annoying really.

[Bullethead]

It's annoying to me to have repeated battles between the same forces when the 1st battle should have made it impossible for the later battles to occur, or at least have altered the starting positions for the subsequent battles. But most of the time I get the same relative starting positions each time, which bear no relationship to the ending positions of the previous battles between the same forces. A typical example is like this:

0853: Just east of Wei-Hai-Wei, Askold meets the IJN PC Sqd of Chitose, Takasago, Kasagi, and Yoshino. Askold is due E of the IJN and runs SE. The IJN follows but Askold pulls away and the battle ends after about 1 hour. Askold is now past the PC Sqd and should never have to worry about them again as she heads for the Sea of Japan. But this is not the case. Immediately after this battle ends, I'm dumped into the next without even a glimpse of the campaign map.

1001: SE of Wei-Hai-Wei, Angara encounters Togo's main battlefleet and the above PC Sqd. Angara is towards the SW corner of the map, Togo's in the middle, and the PC Sqd is slightly NE of Togo. Angara runs SSW and gets away in about 1 hour. She should never have to worry about Togo again, although the PC Sqd could be trouble later. I again go straight into the next battle without a glimpse of the map.

1102: SE of Wei-Hai-Wei, Angara and Askold are both in the same battle this time, against both Togo and the PC Sqd. WTF?!?!? :surprise: Askold was ahead of Angara to begin with, thanks to her faster speed, and did nothing to get behind her, so should already be past Togo as well as the PC Sqd. Likewise, Angara should already be past at least Togo. In real life, the 4 TFs should be in a line running SE-NW in the following order: Askold, Angara, PC Sqd, Togo, and the only battle that could realistically occur would be if the PC Sqd caught up with Angara.

However, the battle begins with the forces disposed as follows: Togo centered E-W but about 1/4 of the way up from the bottom edge, Angara in the center of the map, the PC Sqd centered E-W about 1/4 of the map down from the top edge, and Askold due W of the PC Sqd. How in Hell did Togo get ahead of both Askold and Angara? How did Angara and the PC Sqd get ahead of Askold? :mad:

Anyway, Askold heads E to distract the PC Sqd while Angara runs W with Togo heading for her going NW. The PC Sqd, surprisingly, heads SSW, seemingly more intent on linking up with Togo than running down Angara or fighting Askold. As the chase goes on, [i]Angara curves to the WSW and finally SW, disengaging when well W and a little S of Togo. Askold, after loitering a bit to ensure Angara disengaged first, heads ESE with all the IJN turning NE after her. Eventually Askold exits the E map edge not far from the top, ENE of the PC Sqd and NE of Togo.

When the battle ends, Angara is SW of both IJN TFs and going in the opposite direction, and so should never see either again. Somewhat surprisingly, this turns out to be the case. :o Askold, however, has to deal with them 3 more times, none of which make any more sense than did having Askold in this battle at all, let alone in the position she started. This battle takes about 1 hour, and again I go straight into the next one.

1242: Still SE of Wei-Hai, Askold once again meets both Togo and the PC Sqd. This time, the IJN TFs are both near the center and Askold in the NW quadrant of the map. How in Hell did the IJN, with slower ships, make more easting than Askold and thus get in front of her again?!?!?!? :mad: Anyway, Askold runs W and disengages in about 30 minutes.

Mercifully, there is now a brief lull between battles so I have a chance to look at the campaign map. It shows Angara a couple hexes SSE of Wei-Hai-Wei. I order her to dogleg out more to the SW to stay far away from the Korean coast as she heads for the SW end of the Home Islands. Askold is shown 2 hexes W of Assan Basin heading SE as ordered. Both IJN TFs are between the Russians, 3 hexes W of Assan Basin and 1 hex W of Askold, even though she ran W to disengage from the last battle. :( Still, the relative positions and speeds seem to indicate that neither Russian should have further problems with these IJN units. Right :angry:

1505: 1 hex W of Assan Basin, Askold again encounters the PC Sqd. IOW, the former went 1 hex east despite heading SE, in the same time it took the PC Sqd, in slower ships, to move 2 hexes east!! The battle begins with the PC Sqd a bit NE of the center and Askold to the SW of them. Again, how did the slower IJN make so much more easting than Askold, and how did Askold end up S of them (even though that's where she should have been ever since a little after 0900)? Anyway, Askold takes about 1 hour to escape to the SW, and immediately I'm in the next battle.

1619: 1 hex SW of Assan Basin. Askold once again meets the PC Sqd, but this time Togo's back as well. AARRRGGHHH!! Askold left his slow boats behind several hours ago, and had been running at full speed away from him most of the time since. :eek: :blab: :mad: In this battle, Togo's in the center, the PCs are a little north of him, and Askold thankfully is south of them all. Askold runs S and quickly disengages in the gathering dusk. Even better, this is the last time she sees either of these IJN TFs :laugh:

[BlackVoid]

Especially annoying, when you outrun a slower force and then they engage you again in a few hours. Or the next morning.

I stopped my campaign because of this. I feel I paid $60 to become a beta tester. Well, I will wait a few weeks or months so the game gets fixed up.

[Dogbert]

I'm pretty sure nothing can beat nuisance factor of having your TF chased around the campaign map by a faster enemy TF that keeps disengaging from every damn tactical battle and then resumes the chase when you get back to the campaign map... Ooh shiny! Charge! Argh, run away, run away!... Ooh shiny, charge! Argh, run away, run away! etc...

[Bullethead]

I'm pretty sure nothing can beat nuisance factor of having your TF chased around the campaign map by a faster enemy TF that keeps disengaging from every damn tactical battle and then resumes the chase when you get back to the campaign map...

Actually, while I do find it annoying to be on the receiving end of this treatment, I think it's very realistic and I'm glad it's in the game. To me, this is just the AI shadowing your ships in a very professional manner, to keep itself informed of your location so it can bring more powerful units up to crush you. Just like the Brit CAs following Bismarck around. I'd much rather have the AI be forced actually to shadow my ships than for it to just cheat and look up my location in the game data :D.

HOWEVER, this whole barrage of back-to-back battles, either of this type or what I was talking about, brings up a more ominous issue.... What else is going on in the campaign during the many hours I'm stuck looking at battles without being able to look at the map?

My concern stems from the campaign engine's apparent inability to handle more than 1 battle in the same time period. Let's say that in the morning you have a major fleet action or some sort of long chase battle that will end up lasting 4 or 5 hours. Or a string of start-and-disengage battles with the same forces that keep happening without a break and take up the same amount of game time. But you also have a bunch of cruisers in the shipping lanes at the same time. They could well encounter merchants, which is more important to victory than the long battle/battle string you're stuck fighting.

It seems to me that during the game time that you're dealing with the battle(s) you're looking at, other ships can't fight even if they meet the enemy. By the time you finally get out of the battle/battle string, many game hours later, your other ships can't go back in time to catch the merchants they might have encountered (you have no way to know if they really met any during the battle, of course) while you were busy elsewhere. And hitting the "End Battle" button doesn't really help, because time still passes until everything's over when you do that.

What I'd REALLY like to see is a campaign that can handle several simultaneous battles. While you're fighting 1 battle, if another battle starts, the game should pause and give you a look at the map and a choice of which battle you want to intervene in. And while 2 or more battles are going on simultaneously, you should always have the ability to jump around amongst them however often you want. Then I wouldn't have this nagging fear that long battles/battle strings are preventing me from doing more important things.

[Dogbert]

In that case the game engine should be able to simulate that no battle is actually taking place... indeed it would be good if you could set an aggression level or SOP for a TF, so the AI could automatically keep a faster force out of battle instead of an endless stream of non-battles. Similarly, it might be able to do a bit of the chase on the campaign map instead, and only start a tac battle when both sides commit to battle, either through intent or being unable to escape.

[Bullethead]

In that case the game engine should be able to simulate that no battle is actually taking place... indeed it would be good if you could set an aggression level or SOP for a TF, so the AI could automatically keep a faster force out of battle instead of an endless stream of non-battles. Similarly, it might be able to do a bit of the chase on the campaign map instead, and only start a tac battle when both sides commit to battle, either through intent or being unable to escape.

Excellent ideas! They make me think of some ways to maybe implement this sort of thing.

Such as, when ships get close enough during the day, the campaign would pause and zoom in to where they are, and a box would pop up saying something like this:

"(YourTF) has sighted smoke to the (direction). It appears to be from (number) of ships. What do you want to do?

Give chase at best speed, following as necessary even if this takes you off your plotted course.
Turn away at best speed and break contact, even if this takes you off your plotted course.
Maintain contact but try to remain at present range, as relative speeds allow.
Ignore the contact and maintain present course and speed."


The AI gets to make the same decision. The further action depends on both your answer and the AI's. Either there's a battle or the TFs move around on the map in a controlled manner that may eventually lead to a battle or not.

At the end of a battle, you should get a similar pop-up, BEFORE going on to the next battle if one is scheduled immediately. It would give you similar options that would help you make more sense out of how the battle ended and help prevent annoying, unnecessary, and illogical subsequent battles between the same forces.

I suppose there'd have to be something in the game to give you the same questions again every hour or so, however, to keep your ships from going too far away along these paths. That's assuming you're in a long battle/battle string elsewhere and don't have a chance to give more orders on the campaign map to these other ships.

[Dogbert]

I was thinking more along the lines of setting some options on the TF when giving orders, and then have the game engine use those to determine if a force should close in or run away. Both should work fine though.

I think the idea that the smoke would be sighted first is very good... an admiral would not necessarily know what sort of ships he was up against before deciding to close or break off. I suppose taller ships would be identifiable at longer ranges, especially those with distinctive masts or other features.

Would a spotter be able to determine approximate speed and heading from the smoke alone?

[Bullethead]

an admiral would not necessarily know what sort of ships he was up against before deciding to close or break off. I suppose taller ships would be identifiable at longer ranges, especially those with distinctive masts or other features.

Could be, but the initial decision still has to be based on just the smoke. However, if the other TF is spread out, you might only see the smoke of the closest ships when you had to make the initial decision. But as you got closer, you might see more smoke appear before you saw any of the leading enemy ships, which might be DDs instead of BBs. Now you have to make another decision based on updated info.

It would be a pain to have to keep clicking pop-ups ever few seconds as more and more smoke appeared. So I figure it would be simpler overall to just assume that the TFs have gotten close enough together to get a reasonably accurate count on the number of enemy ships, just based on the smoke, but nothing at all about their identification. Then you only have to click on the pop-up once.

Of course, the number of ships listed in the pop-up would have some FOW involved--it would just be a rough estimate. However, I think the amount of inaccuracy should increase with the number of enemy ships, because the more ships there are, the more their smoke blends together, whereas 1 ship would be pretty much obvious as such. Maybe if there were more than about 6-8 enemies, the pop-up would just say "many" ships instead of giving a number. That would also take into account a long line with some of the ships' smoke still out of sight. But you'd still have an idea of relative numbers.

Would a spotter be able to determine approximate speed and heading from the smoke alone?

IRL, I'm a fireman out in a very rural area. I have a hard time finding the location of a stationary brush fire just by observing its smoke above the trees and hills in between :D. Even on a fairly calm day with the smoke going mostly straight up, all I can tell for sure is its direction from me. It's very hard to estimate how far away the fire is. However, my problem is complicated by having to follow existing roads, which might not go in the direction I want, and also by not having the horizon at a known distance away (Hell, the horizon is often 10 feet away thanks to surrounding trees). Things are a bit easier at sea :).

I did, however, spend some time at sea. At sea, the closer the other ship is to the horizon, the more info you can get from its smoke. At first, you just see the dispersed cloud of old smoke high above and far downwind of the ship that produced it. This really doesn't tell you anything about the ship's movements, but it does tell you something about where the he should be relative to the smoke you see. You can look at your own smoke and see where relative to you it looks like the smoke from the other ship. Assuming the wind is the same for both of you (by no means a certainty), you have an idea of the bearing of the other ship. Now you can turn that way if you want. Let's assume you do, and are closing the range.

As you get closer, you start to see fresher smoke that's closer to where the other ship really is. Now you start getting a very good idea of the other ship's bearing to you. You're also going in a straight line, so you can observe how the bearing to this smoke (and thus the bearing to the other ship) changes over time. You know more or less how far away the horizon is, and by observing your own smoke you can guesstimate how far beyond the horizon the other ship must be. You can also note how much fresher the smoke is getting over time. So now you've got a rough range estimate (from the appearance of the smoke and the distance to the horizon), a rough bearing rate (from how the smoke moves along the horizon), and a very rough range rate (from how quickly the smoke is getting fresher). This gives you a set of possibilities for the other ship's location, course and speed, only some of which are within the realm of reasonable probability.

As you get even closer, you might be able to get some idea of identity of the other ship. You can tell how hard the other ship is pushing his machinery from the amount and appearance of the smoke which, combined with your rough idea of his course and speed, and the assumption that he sees your own smoke, tells you something about his ship type and his intentions. You can now maybe narrow down his possible identity into a range of probable types, based on where you are and the fact that we're in a war here. Again, let's say you're a commerce raider. You're observing smoke that's coming from apparently hard-pressed boilers, with no bearing rate to speak of and a medium closing range rate. This is probably a merchant. OTOH, you observe a lot of very hot smoke that's rapidly closing, with little bearing rate, but only from 1 or a few ships. This is probably a cruiser squadron looking for you. Stuff like that.

Anyway, just before the other ship comes over the horizon, you might even be able to tell how many funnels he has, just from the smoke. This will further help you identify the other ship, helping you decide between the possibilities that the other factors have led you to during your earlier approach. And by then, any other ships in near company with the one you've been chasing will be be noticeable by their smoke, so you'll have a good idea of the enemy's numbers and probably their formation.

[Dogbert]

Excellent stuff. Do you have a degree in smokology? :D

[Hud]

I've managed to get to August in the campaign as the Russians with some glitches. The main one being Torpedo Boat Div at Vladivostok suddenly taking themselves off to Maizuru and making it their home base. Decided they must be able to see the future and have defected as I can't seem to get them back. Sweeping up lots of neutrals and being told Russian victory but no idea of how many merchants I have disposed of and what is happening on land. Also have continual "running " away battles from Japanese. Great game though.

[Fishey...)()]

Great stuff Bullethead! :laugh:

I finally started a campaign and while spending countless hours (game & real) running my cargo ships away from the Russians I thought this very same thing:

"My concern stems from the campaign engine's apparent inability to handle more than 1 battle in the same time period. Let's say that in the morning you have a major fleet action or some sort of long chase battle that will end up lasting 4 or 5 hours. Or a string of start-and-disengage battles with the same forces that keep happening without a break and take up the same amount of game time. But you also have a bunch of cruisers in the shipping lanes at the same time. They could well encounter merchants, which is more important to victory than the long battle/battle string you're stuck fighting."

I also encountered the 'Leave' gliche. When I managed to trap one Russian TF between 3 sizable TF's of my own, each 'battle' the Russian TF would start in the same place and run into the trap again and again...lol

I expect some minor problems, but this kind of stuff seems pretty fundamental to how the sim plays....