View Full Version : What would be nice in Jutland?
Lempereur1
26 Jun 08, 16:15
Hmmm....lets see.... Speaking theoretically of course
What would be nice to have in Jutland.
Maybe a scenario editor? You know one that gives you total access to the ship database? With things like ship break off percentages. Maybe the ability to calculate how much steel is in the Eiffel tower?
How about in game OOB access? That would be nice.
Hmmm..... What about a closeup of one of the crew members taking a dump out on the poop deck? Stranger things have happened....
Nationality/Doctrine based fire control?
Torpedo fire control? Is that to much to wish for?
Enhansed ship detail?
Massive ship database?
Hundreds of models?
All that would be to much to ask. Dont you think so?
Jim, I think you need a vacation. :hush:
Lempereur1
26 Jun 08, 17:00
You may be right!
You never know, some of that stuff may be true!!!
Bullethead
26 Jun 08, 17:04
Jim, I think you need a vacation. :hush:
I think you misunderstood his intent :D
MajorDamage
26 Jun 08, 17:36
Good stable multiplayer, preferably with a lobby system... that would be nice. :)
Lempereur1
26 Jun 08, 17:38
Maybe a dedicated server area for multiplayer lobbing?
How about the ability to have 832 players at once? :]
(always read between the lines)
I think you misunderstood his intent :D
Well then I hope the Captain makes that crewman clean up after himself! :laugh:
Maybe a dedicated server area for multiplayer lobbing?
How about the ability to have 832 players at once? :]
(always read between the lines)
I know I need to read between the lines but I'll be serious anyways :laugh:
8 players, 4 a side, the ability to distribute divisions and exchange scenarios from the editor. And if there is time left in the development budget, the ability by the host to save the multi-player game.
If you can do that, you will make me sooooo very happy!! That would be real whipped cream on top of a great pudding!
Hey, maybe we´ll get all of that, except reliable Data of Eiffel Tower Steel mass :hmmm: and the dump-carrier....... Maybe I´m misunderstanding him, but I get the feeling when reading between the lines that he meant exactly that..... Hopefully!!
Hmmmn,lets review this again. Sounds great when can we buy it and start playing?
The ETA is now updated on "Late Summer"
a WELL-ADVANCED scenario-editor is self-evident. This will make the difference for me whether to buy the game or not. No scenario editor = won't buy it. There have been so many requests concerning this scenario editor, ignoring all that would prove a big mistake if you ask me. Almost any decent game gives the player some control over how to create own 'missions' and all that. So it's perfectly feasible.
Scenario editor above all...
@Jim:
Do you know what the Chief Costructor of the pocket-battleship "Deutschland" said as he heard which features they wanted him to realize with this ship (you all know what, "faster than stronger...." and so on):
"After all of that I´m pretty glad that they don´t want me to make it useable as A Zeppelin, either!!!"
I think you know how he felt in this moment....
http://order.elite-games.ru/nexus/images/smilies/icon_sm06.gif
So when can we buy it and start playing?
Lempereur1
27 Jun 08, 01:34
You guys really dont want the Eiffel Tower calculator?:upset:
Nope, and we don't want the sailors crapping either. After all, some of us play this when we eat.
A casualty report would be nice though after the battle.
I am perhaps an oddity in that I greatly prefer the tactical side of Distant guns to the campaign. My interest in a "Jutland" campaign is also very low, I just would like to play out the battle I have been reading about for 15 years or so.
As a consequence, what would thrill me would be to see canned scenarios for the "key" or at least most entertaining parts of the battle.
- I really want to see 6 miles of horizon lit up with gunflashes.
- I would like to turn towards the the the German torpedo attack rather than away.
- I would LOVE to start the "run to the south" with 5BS abreast of 1BCS but 3 miles south (yes, I was rereading Rules of the Game today). I would settle for 5BS turning south with 1BCS
- A couple of the more violent night actions would be fun to fight.
Oh what the hell...
Inspired by the "Quiet Here", thread...
I know it's hardly the right theatre or time, but please Jim, please, can we have Carmania and Cap Trafalgar duking it out? For pure visual weirdness, I can't think of anything cooler. There must be some island in the North Sea that can pass for Trindade? The little guys on deck could carry Mausers and Lee Enfields!
Bullethead
28 Jun 08, 15:28
I know it's hardly the right theatre or time, but please Jim, please, can we have Carmania and Cap Trafalgar duking it out?
It might interest you to know that there was some AMC-on-AMC action in the North Sea in 1916. And you know how I'm a fan of "odds and sods" fights :D.
You guys...Torturous! :yummy:
vertical
It might interest you to know that there was some AMC-on-AMC action in the North Sea in 1916. And you know how I'm a fan of "odds and sods" fights :D.
You give me hope! Maybe a deck hit could be accompanied by flying deck chairs. (I know, I know, the flammables were stripped as part of the conversion, but really, the whole idea of AMC's is just so - comical)
Firestorm
29 Jun 08, 18:16
You give me hope! Maybe a deck hit could be accompanied by flying deck chairs. (I know, I know, the flammables were stripped as part of the conversion, but really, the whole idea of AMC's is just so - comical)
It's interesting considering when they fight each other it seems more like a battle from the age of sail since they have to change course to bring the guns into to their firing arc. Also there is no fire control so the guns just fire when the ship is in their line of sight.
Since the game is set in 1916 makes me wonder if Seeadler is in as well. :) Still with instant identification on sight AMC stand little chance against "proper" warships. Does including raiders mean that there is a better way to manage Identification issues in Jutland as it was in DG? A simulated encounter like Kormoran vs. Sydney on the current DG engine the raider would always lose since the warship just slugs away at a distance. Disguise is the only advantage of the raider while armour, speed, ROF and FC are on the other, so without simulating the raiders only advantage AMC are only waiting to be sunk.
Ever thought about including a seabox where HSF could sent their raiders into and GF had to sent hunters after them to simulate off-map raiding? Encounters could still be simulated on an open sea map.
PS.:
Pity we didn´t win the finals, well the Dons played better today so they deserved it. :smoke:
Bullethead
29 Jun 08, 19:24
but really, the whole idea of AMC's is just so - comical
Actually, AMCs were the most important ships in the RN. I'm not kidding. They pretty much won the war single-handed. They inflicted FAR more damage on the Germans than all the GF put together.
The main problem the Germans had during the war, and the 1st thing they wanted to stop when it was over, was the Brit blockade. That blockade was imposed primarily by the several dozen AMCs of the 10th Cruiser Squadron, and was about 95% effective. 10CS pretty much starved Germany to death. In effect, the GF existed solely to keep the HSF south of Scapa-Bergen line, so they couldn't interfere with the AMCs further north.
For this sort of work--long patrols in the stormy North Atlantic--AMCs were ideal. The Brits mostly used fairly large ex-passenger liners, which were big enough to stand the weather and fast enough to run down most merchants. They tried doing this with older cruisers early in the war, but those ships couldn't stand the weather, so were replaced by the AMCs by Feb 1915.
Without Grand Fleet there will be no AMC left afloat.
'Fleet in being' is a working strategy.
How come the German subs didn't go after the Brits AMC's, were they too fast?
What happened to the German AMC's, interned after being cutoff from home ports?
Bullethead
29 Jun 08, 23:57
Without Grand Fleet there will be no AMC left afloat. 'Fleet in being' is a working strategy.
Quite true. The Brits needed both the AMCs and the GF to maintain the blockade. My point, however, was that the Brit's main weapon was the AMCs, not the GF. In land warfare terms, at the bottom line the GF was no more than a flank guard on a 2ndary axis supporting the decisive force engaged on the main strategic axis, despite all the money spent on it and all the grog attention it garners to this day ;).
Bullethead
30 Jun 08, 00:07
How come the German subs didn't go after the Brits AMC's, were they too fast?
Good question. More AMCs (at least of 10CS) were lost to U-boats than any other cause, but the Germans don't seem to have made a concerted effort to attack them specifically. Instead, they tried to do a retaliatory blockade of the UK. I believe their thinking was that they could starve Britain faster than the Brits could starve them.
What happened to the German AMC's, interned after being cutoff from home ports?
Those interned in US ports sat there until 1917 and the US entry into the war. Then the Germans either scuttled them or the US took them over and used them as transports. Those interned at other neutral places were usually claimed by 1 or other of the victors as reparations and then often sold to other countries, sometimes even Germany.
HMSWarspite
30 Jun 08, 15:29
In land warfare terms, at the bottom line the GF was no more than a flank guard on a 2ndary axis supporting the decisive force engaged on the main strategic axis, despite all the money spent on it and all the grog attention it garners to this day ;).
Bit harsh. More like the AMC were a light outflanking force able to exploit the situation caused by the main armoured units standing each other off over the main front line and interrupt the enemy supply line...:).
Interrupting the seaborne supply lines was exactly what WW1 in the North Atlantic was all about so in that sense, 10CS was the frontline unit with the GF guarding the flanks as well as guarding the homeland.
Bullethead
30 Jun 08, 16:37
Bit harsh. More like the AMC were a light outflanking force able to exploit the situation caused by the main armoured units standing each other off over the main front line and interrupt the enemy supply line...:).
Certainly that was the perception at the time ;).
But seriously, the GF just didn't have a potentially war-winning role, which is the traditional requirement to earn the title of "decisive force on main strategic axis". The GF was built to destroy the HSF, but it wouldn't have won the war even if it had done so. OTOH, as history shows, it couldn't lose the war by failing to destroy the HSF, provided it wasn't destroyed itself. So by most definitions, you'd have to say that effectively the GF was only a supporting force, even though it cost way more resources than anything else the RN had.
HMSWarspite
30 Jun 08, 16:52
Certainly that was the perception at the time ;).
But seriously, the GF just didn't have a potentially war-winning role, which is the traditional requirement to earn the title of "decisive force on main strategic axis". The GF was built to destroy the HSF, but it wouldn't have won the war even if it had done so. OTOH, as history shows, it couldn't lose the war by failing to destroy the HSF, provided it wasn't destroyed itself. So by most definitions, you'd have to say that effectively the GF was only a supporting force, even though it cost way more resources than anything else the RN had.
But it was only a supporting force because of its own existance. Had it been closer to parity with the HSF it might have been very active...
Certainly that was the perception at the time ;).
But seriously, the GF just didn't have a potentially war-winning role, which is the traditional requirement to earn the title of "decisive force on main strategic axis". The GF was built to destroy the HSF, but it wouldn't have won the war even if it had done so. OTOH, as history shows, it couldn't lose the war by failing to destroy the HSF, provided it wasn't destroyed itself. So by most definitions, you'd have to say that effectively the GF was only a supporting force, even though it cost way more resources than anything else the RN had.
Interesting. I always viewed the GF's role in WWI as being directly analogous to the blockading Brit fleets or squadrons of the previous century acting in a deterrent role - such as Nelson's squadron off Toulon during 1805 - while the frigates (this would be the independently operating AMC's and other cruiser type vessels in the North Sea during WWI) ranged inshore scouting and picking off blockade runners.
If that makes the GF a bit player in the North Sea during WWI, then Nelson was a bit player during the 1805 campaign, and Trafalgar just an interesting footnote. :)
You're right about the GF not being the primary "boots on the ground" factor in winning the battle, but as Churchill pointed out, they sure as hell could have lost it in an afternoon. Mahan himself would have smiled and nodded his head in satisfaction had he lived long enough to see this whole thing play out. This is exactly how he described and envisioned seapower's influence upon history.
The "beef", in both cases - and the reason why the strategy worked at all - was the battlewagons.
JD
The main problem the Germans had during the war, and the 1st thing they wanted to stop when it was over, was the Brit blockade. That blockade was imposed primarily by the several dozen AMCs of the 10th Cruiser Squadron, and was about 95% effective. 10CS pretty much starved Germany to death. In effect, the GF existed solely to keep the HSF south of Scapa-Bergen line, so they couldn't interfere with the AMCs further north.
This sounds like it would be a good Jutland campaign objective. :whist:
Oh.. not the transport hunt again...
Hmmm....lets see.... Speaking theoretically of course
What would be nice to have in Jutland.
Téa Leoni ?
Bullethead
30 Jun 08, 21:28
Interesting. I always viewed the GF's role in WWI as being directly analogous to the blockading Brit fleets or squadrons of the previous century acting in a deterrent role - such as Nelson's squadron off Toulon during 1805 - while the frigates (this would be the independently operating AMC's and other cruiser type vessels in the North Sea during WWI) ranged inshore scouting and picking off blockade runners.
I don't see things that way. The strategic situation was completely different. In Nelson's day, the French were trying hard to invade the UK. So there was every likelihood of Napolean's fleet coming out to play, and Nelson's fleet HAD to fight it, and HAD to win the battle, for the survival of the nation. That's definitely "main strategic axis" stuff there. OTOH, in WW1, there was never the least chance of the Germans invading the UK, even if a few Brits worried about it. So as I said, the GF never had to fire a shot to be on the winning side.
The "beef", in both cases - and the reason why the strategy worked at all - was the battlewagons.
I dunno. Suppose some powerful German, after thinking the proposal through, had vetoed the silly "Risk Fleet" strategy, to the great loss of future wargamers. Then there would have been no HSF, and there'd have been no GF, either. Not only would the Brits have built rather fewer dreadnoughts, but they'd have had no reason to concentrate them in home waters. Instead, they'd have probably sent most of them to the Med, leaving the North Sea in the hands of a few predreadnoughts.
However, even in this case, the Brits would still have blockaded Germany, and they'd probably still have done it mostly with AMCs out in the North Atlantic, beyond the reach of German CLs and DDs. Note that this is the same way they did it when both fleets existed. But that's not surprising because the GF and HSF effectively cancelled each other out, so it was somewhat like neither one was there, as far as the blockade was concerned.
You can't turn this around, however. Suppose there'd been both GF and HSF, but no 10CS. Then there'd have been on real blockade of Germany. Instead, there'd have just been 2 strategically useless fleets in a pointless standoff across a stretch of water that neither side regarded as vital to its war aims.
Oh.. not the transport hunt again...
At Jutland the light cruiser screens of each fleet first encountered each other when they both went to investigate the same ship, a Danish tramp steamer, the NJ Fjord. I think it was Napoleon (not sure which one) who said "war is made on supply". Supplies are delivered by cargo ships. It's in the interest of a navy to make sure its cargo ships get through and the enemy's don't. Like it or not transports are a part of any realistic naval campaign.
Will the campaign force the big Jutland battle or will it be up to the player?
I think it needs to be up to the player, just like in DG the player can choose to avoid Tsushima.
At Jutland the light cruiser screens of each fleet first encountered each other when they both went to investigate the same ship, a Danish tramp steamer, the NJ Fjord. I think it was Napoleon (not sure which one) who said "war is made on supply". Supplies are delivered by cargo ships. It's in the interest of a navy to make sure its cargo ships get through and the enemy's don't. Like it or not transports are a part of any realistic naval campaign.
Thats maybe true, but gameplay will suffer for me if i must search-approach-kill-rinse-repeat while cannot find real action... AGAIN.
Where is the challenge in that? It is plain boring.
Isn't that how sailors of the HSF felt? :D
Will the campaign force the big Jutland battle or will it be up to the player?
So if the AI decides its time for Jutland, it sends my main fleet out, probably right into a minefield (now with working mines ;))?
But i agree that there needs to be a better way in handling merchant battles. Would be nice to have an automatisation that works as good as the player manually doing stuff. That mustn´t involve DG´s Quickbattleresolutionmanager, simply an automatic resolution by marking the Merchant as sunk and subtracting reasonable amounts of ammunition from the AMC/Raider/Sub/whatever when the Player decides to skip the not-so-exciting Merchant-huntworks just fine.
Then again in WWI most Merchants were boarded, had their papers controlled and were then either taken as prize or set up by demo-charges/destroyed by gunfire. I wonder if we get to choose as well whether to take a ship prize and risk losing it on its way home or scuttling it immediatly.
Bullethead
01 Jul 08, 12:57
Thats maybe true, but gameplay will suffer for me if i must search-approach-kill-rinse-repeat while cannot find real action... AGAIN. Where is the challenge in that? It is plain boring.
Wouldn't it be nice if there was a choice of campaigns? Maybe one that's all about kicking butt in fleet actions, without the broader context of the war, and perhaps another where players can pursue multiple paths to victory?
Wouldn't it be nice if there was a choice of campaigns? Maybe one that's all about kicking butt in fleet actions, without the broader context of the war, and perhaps another where players can pursue multiple paths to victory?
Yes it would be nice to see that. It'd also be nice to have some multi-player campaign ability.
Fairweather
01 Jul 08, 14:11
Wouldn't it be nice if there was a choice of campaigns? Maybe one that's all about kicking butt in fleet actions, without the broader context of the war, and perhaps another where players can pursue multiple paths to victory?
That isn't a hint, is it?
Firestorm
01 Jul 08, 14:24
Bullethead is a master of deception isn't he?
I would like to see what if campaings mission like what if the us fleet entered the war early or they were at jutland
Wouldn't it be nice if there was a choice of campaigns? Maybe one that's all about kicking butt in fleet actions, without the broader context of the war, and perhaps another where players can pursue multiple paths to victory?
I like this!:cool:
I always feel limited by a game that only let's me repeat history!
Wouldn't it be nice if there was a choice of campaigns? Maybe one that's all about kicking butt in fleet actions, without the broader context of the war, and perhaps another where players can pursue multiple paths to victory?
Yes. It would be nice.
And a difficulty settings. Like 'Hard', 'Very Hard' and 'Insane'. ;)
To think that US dreadnoughts almost lead the GF into battle in a second Jutland like battle. The HSF narrowly avoided it.
Firestorm
01 Jul 08, 23:41
To think that US dreadnoughts almost lead the GF into battle in a second Jutland like battle. The HSF narrowly avoided it.
You mean when the U.S squadron was escorting convoys to Norway. Right? The Germans messed up on guessing the sail date by 24 hours. So when the German battlecruisers reached the expected intercept position they found nothing. The Germans had restricted wireless communication so much that even Room 40 did not know the HSF was at sea. It was only when the Moltke suffered an engine breakdown and had to signal for a tow that the Brits found out, but by that time the HSF was heading back to the Jade.
Which ships were part of that US squadron at the time? Was it just the coal burners? Now then, picture the US battle squadron appearing out of a fog bank to see the HSF battlecruisers awaiting them.
Firestorm
02 Jul 08, 12:12
Which ships were part of that US squadron at the time? Was it just the coal burners? Now then, picture the US battle squadron appearing out of a fog bank to see the HSF battlecruisers awaiting them.
I think they were the New York, Wyoming, Florida, and Delaware. All coal burners. Only the New York had 14 inch guns, the rest had 12 inchers. Also remember that the American ships had poor rate of fire and gun accuracy when compared to the Brits and especially to the crack gunners of the German Battlecruisers. I think the German Battlecruisers would have won with or without the support of the rest of the HSF.
oz_boater
02 Jul 08, 21:22
To treat this question seriously. None of this is to suggest that Storm Eagle does not already intend to supply this - just lists what I value
1) A commitment to make the game stable and versatile in Multi-Player mode (single player mode stability does not seem to be an issue). Because it requires a huge investment in testing I am not concerned if this does not work or work well on day 1 but a committment to work with the people who care to make it work well would be very good.
2) A really good "battle simulator" at an appropriate level of detail and control that allows us to fight the battle of Jutland in single player mode (i.e. not too much control). DG seems pretty good here and Storm Eagle seems to have its finger on the pulse of what needs to change for the larger scale of engagement
3) Fog of War - even in the tactical battle. Players to have the option to limit themselves as to what they know or to set a limit for a MP game.
4) Enough 'after action' reporting to learn from / debug.
4a) What would be VERY nice would be the ability to essentially replay the battle but with no FOW and a free camera so you can see what was really going on. Even nicer would be the ability to save this 'recording' and externalise it so others can see it as well (and learn from).
4b) A detailed log so when something 'weird' happens it is recorded and can be analysed.
Presumably 4b already exists for internal debugging purposes. With a something so dependent of probability as 'biggun' combat its hard to see how a simulation could be 'verified' or regression tested without having this ability built in.
Exposing this data would be useful
5) Scenario Editor - or at least exposure of the data structures so a scenario editor can be written.
These I personally think are important - the following are just a 'wish list' that matter to me personally.
6) For me, personally, the ability to use the engine as a 'sand box'. I come from a 'Minatures' background and grew up building 'armies' from a set number of 'points' an then getting together with my friends to fight it out on the tabletop. Spent many a youthful afternoon having fun this way. The ability to have a program be the 'table top' has great appeal as it handles the rules, does the FOW, allows us to to be sitting in the same place when we play and makes 'saving your position and coming back to it next week' much easier - less vulnerable to cats and children for example.
Whether this was done by Storm Eagle or a 3rd party does not matter to me - in fact allowing 3rd parties to - well - party could be a win win as Storm Eagle sells more of the base engine and 3rd parties add stuff that matters to a 'niche'. Sort of the whole being more than the sum of the parts. It would be VERY nice to see "Jutland" become the definitive WWI naval game that everyone interested in dreadnoughts will have on their drives and for that to have any chance of happening a certain amount of 'openness' is required in the engine. No onegroup has the time to do all that would be needed.
7) Easy to get into, but rewarding effort to master. With kids and jobs and being on call time is precious. I can spend the time, but I want to be able to play with my friends and getting everyone up-to-speed and able to play needs to require less than a heroic effort.
8) Find some way to make it not 'cost prohibative' to invite 4 or 8 people over for a game. Maybe allow you to run multiple copies on a local set of addresses or allow some sort of site licencing? (pointless without (1) above though)
Regards
Boater
MajorDamage
03 Jul 08, 20:19
^ +1 to boater's post. That's pretty much what I would have said if I was as eloquent as him. :smoke:
Hinchinbrooke
05 Jul 08, 09:34
A third vote for Téa Leoni.............. oh, and a comprehensive scenario editor!
Provide a "distribution of fire" default where ships on the command to "open fire" will always try to shoot at their opposite number in line. When this is not possible due to target aspect or maneuvering lines of battle then automatically go to the shoot at the nearest target option. However switch back to distribution of fire as soon as the battle lines straiten out again. Delete the shoot at the leader fire option altogether. Or approach this issue from the opposite direction, leave the fire commands the way they are, but give ships that are not being shot at a very large increase in the accuracy of their own fire.
A torpedo attack command for DD and TB types with a bearing rider feature. In this way you can set the target and the attacking ships will adjust course as needed to close within torpedo range. Launch automatically as it is now with DG. However unless ordered otherwise these ships will abort their attack, or launch at long range (slower torpedo speed) if it appears suicidal to continue. Instead of individual ships turning out of line to avoid or comb the torpedo's do this by division
A corresponding "defend" command for one's own escorting ships so that they can be ordered to engage incoming torpedo attacks. Once again using bearing rider to continue to close with an incoming enemy as it maneuvers. In this way ships can be attacking and defending more or less on their own without much input needed by the player.
Provide a "scout" command to light cruisers only. DD's and TB's did not have the signaling ability or the mast head height to be scouts. Give players at least the option of not seeing over the horizon and require them to send ships out to scout. Another possible light cruiser command would be "Repeater". Ships so assigned would steer for a location halfway between it's own command and the task group it was assigned to stay in contact with.
Provide station keeping ability for escorting light ships. All DD/TB/CL types will alter course and speed as needed to remain on the station they were assigned at the start of the scenario. Also provide the ability to assign new stations or adjust the station a group is already on. Light groups that are done with torpedo attack, defend, or scouting missions will automatically head back to the station they were on when given those orders. Stations can be kept simple, bow, stern, Port or Starboard bow, beam or quarter and a range. Also the command for escorts to steer for the engaged or disengaged bow or stern of the battle line.
Give light ships the ability to make smoke.
Provide variable visibility so that targets actually come in and out of view. Give the Germans the ability to find the range faster, but give British ships the ability to hit more often once they get the range. This would re-create the strength and weakness of both sides fire control equipment.
Mark the various flagships for fleet, squadron and division in some small way so they can be seen by viewing the ship. These ships may or may not be the lead ships in line but will always be the guide for station keeping assignments.
Provide macro commands in the OOB so a player can be assigned a squadron or flotilla of divisions. Even a task group like the "Battle Cruiser force" or "Harwich Force". Perhaps even type commands like a CL that is designated as CinC destroyers.
When looking at a ship provide some kind of visual cue when it's fire or flooding reach a certain level.
Finally do not for heavens sake provide a scenario editor. If you look at the North Sea for the years 1914 thru 18 there are dozens of canned scenarios of all sizes you can provide both historical and hypothetical. Let the game work out the inevitable problems and changes first before adding a scenario editor then arguing endlessly about it.
Basically if your going to pull off a Battle of Jutland with just a few players on each side, then light ship actions and combat have to be nearly automatic. Gunnery and target acquisition have to be nearly automatic. Plus realistic, you can't just keep blowing up the lead ship while leaving everything else undamaged. You have to give the weaker fleet a chance to fall on only a part of the stronger fleet which can't happen if you view everything from 10 miles in the air. Along with this scenario's should have missions assigned with real teeth in so far as victory conditions are concerned. So fleets out of sight of one another can at least predict where to head and regain contact.
Regards ANav
ring_wraith
24 Jul 08, 17:58
Hope you'll indulge a momentary de-lurk. I found this forum not long ago, and I can't WAIT until this game is released, and I'm AMAZED by the level of erudition over on the "Quiet here" thread.
I am aware of only a couple of other PC games on the early dreadnought/Jutland subject matter. I actually owned one of them (ran under DOS), which was pretty awful.
There is another offering out there, purely 2-d top down presentation, which looks sort of boring. The prospect of the "Distant Guns" treatment of the WWI period really has me excited. I always craved a WWI version of "Fighting Steel", but that wasn't to be, alas.
Part of the attraction of the WWI period for me is all the "what-ifs?"
So, for me, I'd like to see what would happen if Berkeley-Milne had brought Souchon to action in 1914 instead of letting him slip away. Or if Troubridge had decided, what the heck, let's see if we can't damage him. (River Plate in 1914). Or if Cradock had actually had Canopus close to hand. (Could that ship have actually hit anything?) Or if the admiralty had followed through with the idea of sending him a more modern cruiser, maybe Defence. Or if Von Spee had decided to give the Falklands a miss, only to bump into Princess Royal a bit further North. Or some of the other forces up in the Caribbean region. (Or, shoot, what if Von Spee had run into Settsu in the Pacific?)
Or any of dozens of other intangible things that might have gone the other way. Coins falling tails instead of heads. What if Seymour hadn't been such a nimrod, that sort of thing.
So, I guess, this follows along with the other pleas for a scenario editor.
Resume lurk.
Bullethead
24 Jul 08, 21:00
Welcome aboard, Ring Wraith. New guy buys the drinks :toast:
Part of the attraction of the WWI period for me is all the "what-ifs?"
Those are all very interesting "what-ifs". I'm sorry to say, however, that Jutland's about 1916, not 1914, so your particular candidates won't be in it. Maybe an expansion in the future? No telling yet. So for the moment, you'll have to be satisfied with things like what if Evan-Thomas and Seymour had been more on the ball, etc.
you'll have to be satisfied with things like what if Evan-Thomas and Seymour had been more on the ball, etc.
Permission to salivate - Sir!:yummy:
Hinchinbrooke
24 Jul 08, 23:21
........ I'm still hoping for Téa Leoni. Perhaps she can introduce the scenario editor?:D
........ I'm still hoping for Téa Leoni. Perhaps she can introduce the scenario editor?:D
"Look at all these boys playing with boats."
http://www.lideamagazine.com/linda22-1.jpg
ring_wraith
25 Jul 08, 07:28
Welcome aboard, Ring Wraith. New guy buys the drinks :toast:
Those are all very interesting "what-ifs". I'm sorry to say, however, that Jutland's about 1916, not 1914, so your particular candidates won't be in it.
Okay, noted. Doesn't make me want this release any less. Cheers.
ring_wraith
25 Jul 08, 19:43
I know I said I'd resume lurk, but once you start thinking "what ifs", it seems, you can't stop. So many accidents seemed to stack up to conspire to keep the HSF from being annihilated. Here's a couple more.
What if, the week before, as 5th BS dropped anchor in the Firth, Sir Hugh had been greeted by a sub-lieutenant bearing a message along the lines of: "SOBCF sends his warmest compliments, and kindly requests the pleasure of your company at dinner aboard his flagship this evening, to be followed by a brief session pushing model ships across his billiards table, in order that we might know what the #$*&%$ we are doing should we be called out after the Hun at some point over the next fortnight." (I like to think that's how he might have put it.)
Or, what if, at any point after sundown on the 31st, ANYBODY with rings on his sleeve had bothered to send a midshipmen down to the wireless office to ask the lads to tap out a quick note to the boss. "Excuse me, sir, forgive the presumption, but I do believe I might be seeing Jerry in the haze off to the east. Seems to be heading generally soutwards, from the look of him. And, I know you haven't ordered it, so do forgive me for corking off a couple of rounds in his direction."
There are more.
Heh, can you imagine what a battleship night action would look like? I think it would play out a little like Tsushima does in Distant guns. Probably end with gunless, superstructureless battleships trying to ram each other or torpedo each other (if they have below waterline tubes). It sounds huge fun - can we try?
I would like to have option to lessen crew losses from fires.
Like 5-10 times slower crew losses.
In my opinion it happens way too fast now.
Bullethead
27 Jul 08, 17:12
Heh, can you imagine what a battleship night action would look like? I think it would play out a little like Tsushima does in Distant guns. Probably end with gunless, superstructureless battleships trying to ram each other or torpedo each other (if they have below waterline tubes). It sounds huge fun - can we try?
Sure, you can try it. No telling what will happen in the campaign. And maybe there'll be a scenario editor so you might be able to set up such a thing instead of relying on chance in the campaign.
BB night actions in Jutland are way deadlier than in the RJW. There are more ships, each with more guns, and the guns shoot faster and hit harder. The carnage is an order of magnitude greater at least, and happens much faster. Things can go very wrong for you before your orders have a chance to make a difference.
Just ask the sailors on the "Black Prince" about night combat, if you can find any of them. A Jutland after dark scenario would be very interesting. One that starts in the dark as the damaged HSF flees for home, and the GF tries to find it and block its path.
Regards Anav
Firestorm
27 Jul 08, 21:25
Just ask the sailors on the "Black Prince" about night combat, if you can find any of them. A Jutland after dark scenario would be very interesting. One that starts in the dark as the damaged HSF flees for home, and the GF tries to find it and block its path.
Regards Anav
Or the Pommern, Frauenlob, and the poor fellows in tin cans of the British 4th Destroyer Flotilla.
Paradoxically it will not be battleship combat that determines if Jutland succeeds or fails. It will be light craft movement and combat. These ships must perform their function with very little attention paid to them by the players, yet most of them must survive the battle and still be under control.
With a little guidance from the players the AI must be able to both escort and defend the fleet with them. Must be able to scout and signal when enemy contact is made. Must be able to attack when ordered yet not commit mass suicide in the attempt.
Battleship combat in Distant Guns is well developed and won't require much adjustment for Jutland. However Protected Cruisers are blown apart with ease, and Destroyers are simply vaporized. There is some justification for this in the Russo-Japanese war. The Torpedo had very short range. The role of both these types of ships was still being developed, and basically there is no scouting to do in a Distant Guns scenario.
Jutland should be very different for these type ships. If it is not then the game fails. If the Battleships blaze away at each other satisfactorily but when the battle is over none of the Light Cruisers and Destroyers have survived it, then Jutland fails. Torpedos should have a much larger role, but they cannot dominate play. If they do then Jutland fails.
I don't have a clue how to achieve this kind of balance and it seems like a tall order to me. Worth getting right though.
Regards ANav
I just want to blow stuff up. Is that bad?
Bullethead
28 Jul 08, 14:49
Jutland should be very different for these type ships. If it is not then the game fails. If the Battleships blaze away at each other satisfactorily but when the battle is over none of the Light Cruisers and Destroyers have survived it, then Jutland fails. Torpedos should have a much larger role, but they cannot dominate play. If they do then Jutland fails.
In the real battle of Jutland, destroyers seemed to have survived mostly by not getting involved. Those that came within torp range of capital ships usually had a very rough time of it, in daylight or darkness. The Brits, for instance, lost 1 FL and 7 DDs sunk, plus 1 FL and 10 DDs shot up more or less badly, out of a total of 66 present. That's about 29% casualties overall--call it 25% because some of the DDs weren't hurt that badly. That's still pretty severe losses. But when you consider that that a large number of Brit DDs didn't do much of anything during the battle (never did a torp attack, avoided action, or wandered around lost in the dark), the loss rate for those actually committed to action was very high.
WW1 DDs were faster, bigger, and tougher than their RJW ancestors, and their torps had much greater range. However, they faced much more formidable defenses, too. Each capital ship's 2ndary battery on 1 side usually significantly out-gunned a contemporary CL. Compared to the RJW, 2ndary guns were more numerous, often bigger, fired faster, were more accurate, and in some cases were even director-controlled. And it still took only took a single 6" hit to ruin a WW1 DD's day.
The longest-ranged 1916 DD torps could go about 10km more or less, at their slow speed setting. Capital ship 2ndary guns usually ranged about 15km or more, so the DDs would be under fire for some time before they could launch. 5km doesn't sound like far to go at 30 knots, but the geometry of the situation made it take a long time to get there. They weren't charging straight at the enemy, but approaching him at a fairly shallow angle (just a couple of points off of being parallel). That was because the DDs needed to reach a launch position well ahead of the enemy line, to give the torps sufficient lead to intercept the targets.
Thus, DDs at Jutland were under fire for a longer period than their RJW ancestors, even though they could launch from much further away. And at the ranges involved, their high speed still didn't give them much of a bearing rate or range rate from the defenders' POV. As such, the 2ndary battery fire was pretty effective. The DDs would take losses on the approach and those still functioning by the time they reached max launch range were more than happy to fire then and bug out, rather than try to get a better shot. More than a few chickened out under this fire and withdrew without launching at all.
That's about 12% actually lost for several hours of battle including night actions. A couple of these had the bad luck to be shot up, but still afloat when the van of the HSF steamed by and finished them off. The Germans despite some seemingly suicide attack orders by Scheer only lost 5 TB's. The point is sailing a DD or a TB was not considered a death sentence even with aggressive attack orders. They could take a considerable beating by secondary batteries and still survive unless they had an unlucky hit. Larger calibre shells however rarely hit these elusive targets and that includes the Light Cruisers. DD and TB ship drivers would launch (or abort) when they judged that the situation for a shot would get no better, and that incoming fire was becoming lethal. The AI must be able to make that same decision.
Part of the problem though is the no tomorrow concept employed by some players when fighting sea battles. Why not kill off all of ones Destroyer's in a last desperate attack if it will sink just one battleship and win the game. This method pretty much also kills off the "can you do better then the original commander" concept behind historical war games. The original commander had to also think about what kind of a fleet he would have the day after the battle.
That was because the DDs needed to reach a launch position well ahead of the enemy line, to give the torps sufficient lead to intercept the targets.
I hope the AI in Jutland does a good job of this. Having seen many torpedoes miss badly from < 500m in DG I can't imagine firing them from 10km.
Bullethead
28 Jul 08, 18:46
That's about 12% actually lost for several hours of battle including night actions.
Your "actual" Brit DD loss rate is based on the total DDs present so is highly deceptive. Of the 66 total FLs and DDs present (not counting Oak), only 28 had a go at capital ships. The rest either never engaged anything, or only skirmished briefly with light forces. That includes all of 1DF, all of 11DF, the 4 of 4DF with 2CS, the 4 of 4DF with 3BCS, the 4 DDs of 9DF with BCF, and the 2 DDs of 13DF told off to escort Engadine.
As a result, all the Brit DD/FL losses (both sunk and crippled) fell on the 28"active" FLs/DDs. Of these, 8 were sunk and another 11 damaged (often badly). So in terms of forces actually engaged, that's a 29% fatality rate and at least a 60% reduction in effective strength, probably more.
The active DDs were 4DF's main body, 13DF + 10DF, and 12DF. Each had a different experience, but 2 out of 3 took significant losses.
4DF had at most 11 DDs in 1 group because 4 were with 2CS and 4 with 3BCS. In the main group's night action, 4 were sunk and 4 maimed, so they were practically wiped out: 36% fatalities, 73% of effectives. Sounds like an RJW night battle. Of those with 3BCS, 1 was sunk and 1 was mauled in a brief evening action with German light forces. So even though they didn't tangle with capital ships, they still had a 50% loss of effectives.
Part 13DF and 10DF did the daylight attack on ISG, which got interrupted by German DDs coming the other way. The German DDs did no noticeable damage, but this force of 10 Brit DDs got hammered by 2ndary fire. 2 sunk and 3 shot up, for 20% fatalities and 50% loss of effectives. One of 10DF also bought it in the night action later.
Out of all the Brit DDs actively engaged at Jutland, only 12DF got away with it, not losing any ships and actually sinking a BB. This is because they managed to launch a surprise attack. Even so, however, several of them were shot up, although none too badly.
The lessons to draw from this are:
If you attack fully functional, alert BBs at night with unsupported DDs, you're probably going to get hammered as badly as you do in the RJW.
If you attack fully functional, alert BBs in daylight with unsupported DDs, you're going to take fairly high losses, although not as bad as at night.
The Germans despite some seemingly suicide attack orders by Scheer only lost 5 TB's.
Actually, the Germans only made 2 real torp attacks on Brit capital ships: 1 in the Run to the South, and 1 in the battlefleet phase. There was a small-scale affair that also brought 4 German DDs briefly into contact by accident with Brit capital ships, which really doesn't count, and other attacks were planned or ordered but miscarried for various reasons. But anyway, it wasn't "suicidal orders". And note that Scheer wasn't even present at the 1st attack.
Neither German DD attack was very big, due to a number of "frictions". IX Flotilla was involved in both of them, the 1st time alone and the 2nd time wiht VI Flotilla. These attacks totalled 11 and 10 DDs, respectively.
Of the 5 German DDs lost, 1 hit a mine on the way home after surviving the battle, so doesn't count for purposes of this discussion. 1 was lost in what turned out to be a light forces-only scrape between III Flotilla and the CLs and DDs screening 3BCS (which wasn't itself involved). So that leaves only 3 DDs sunk in real attacks on capital ships, all from IX Flotilla. However, considering the small number of German DDs involved in these attacks, that was still a significant number.
IX Flotilla lost 2 out of 11 DDs in the Run to the South. That's 18% fatalities. None of the others had serious damage. Note, however, that these losses were inflicted by Brit DDs--the capital ships didn't fire enough at them to count.
The 3rd DD was lost in the combined attack on Jellicoe's line, which involved only 10 DDs. Only 1 was sunk (by 13.5" hits) but 5 more were crippled. So while that's only 10% fatalities, it was a 60% loss in effective strength. That's comparable to the Brit daylight torp attack. Even though the German DDs were making smoke all the way in, and the visibility wasn't good to start with, they still got hammered.
Part of the problem though is the no tomorrow concept employed by some players when fighting sea battles.
That's the difference between playing a stand-alone battle and a campaign. Play each by whatever rules you think help you win.
We seem to be talking around each other here. DD and TB drivers, (the ones who got into attacks on capitol ships) did not feel it necessary to kill themselves and their crews in order to shoot a torpedo. In the German case even when virtually ordered to do just that in what looked like a critical situation. Had all the DD's and TB's at Jutland been able to get in torpedo attacks then many more of them would have been shot up, and more would have been sunk, but most would still have lived to fight another day. In DG whenever a DD presses home an attack it dies. If this carries over into Jutland then it is wrong.
What I'd like to see is a game that accurately reflects the non Kamikaze view of naval warfare. That allows the player to pick the target and give the attack order, but lets the ship drivers themselves (represented by the AI) ultimately decide when it is worth the risk. The decision to be based on a number of things brought up in this thread. Target speed, course, angle on the bow, how much fire the attackers are taking. I don't know if this can be programmed or if the designers are even on this tack, but we are here to wish are we not?
As for playing by whatever rules you think help you win. Why not make how much of your fleet is ready for sea the next day a part of the victory determination? Tactical and strategic victory determination perhaps? Then fight even stand alone battles like they were a part of a campaign.
Regards ANav
Bullethead
28 Jul 08, 21:33
We seem to be talking around each other here. DD and TB drivers, (the ones who got into attacks on capitol ships) did not feel it necessary to kill themselves and their crews in order to shoot a torpedo.
I can't figure out where you're getting that opinion. The situation under discussion is DDs attacking alert, fully functional capital ships. Apart from the Battle of Surigao Strait, where the attacking DDs had radar on their side, I'm finding it very hard to think of any historical example of such a case where the DDs took less than 50% losses in effectives, even if a smaller fraction actually sank. 12DF has surprise on its side, and Bismarck wasn't exactly fully functional when under DD attack. The guys serving in DDs at any given time were well aware of this.
Destroyers are expendable units whose main purpose is dying so that more valuable units can live. In WW1, this translated into forming "human shields" around BBs to suck up mines and torps meant for the BBs, and to serve as "tripflares" for the BB gunners at night. Just the daily grind of screening the battlefleet on sorties that didn't result in fleet battles resulted in DDs dying frequently, expectedly, pretty much unmourned, and without much chance to hit back at the enemy in a really meaningful way.
As a result, destroyer skippers worthy of the name didn't shrink from doing torp attacks on capital ships. They didn't expect to survive the experience, but they didn't have much hope of survival anyway. So it was better to die at least trying to really hurt the enemy than as just being a mine bumper for the friendly BBs.
In the German case even when virtually ordered to do just that in what looked like a critical situation.
Most of the German orders for DD attacks were issued by flotilla or light force leaders on their own initiative. If Scheer ordered an attack, usually the DDs were already doing it by the time they got his message. And apart from the Run to the South, nobody, neither Scheer nor the guys who actually ordered the attack, knew the overall situation.
In DG whenever a DD presses home an attack it dies. If this carries over into Jutland then it is wrong.
What part of the historical record leads you to this conclusion? As I showed in my last post, DD survival odds at Jutland when facing alert, functional capital ships, weren't very good. At night, they weren't noticeably different from those seen in RJW battles, and they weren't very good in daylight, either.
If you send DDs into a torp attack on alert, functional capital ships, you should expect heavy losses. That was true in the RJW, it was true in WW1, and it was true for most of WW2. In the later wars, longer-ranged torps allowed daylight attacks at fairly long range, where the chances of surviving were better, but the odds of success lower. A higher number of DDs might have "lived to fight another day" in daylight, but a good portion of them would do so only as a hostage to fortune. All those crippled DDs limping around after attacks at Jutland would have been dead had the main battle come their way, as it did for some of them. But as for the bulk of DDs "being able to participate further in the current battle", though, that wasn't likely.
As for playing by whatever rules you think help you win. Why not make how much of your fleet is ready for sea the next day a part of the victory determination? Tactical and strategic victory determination perhaps? Then fight even stand alone battles like they were a part of a campaign.
You're perfectly free to access your stand-alone battle results on whatever scale you find appropriate. If you're into multi-player, however, I suggest you only play with people who share your value system.
BTW, your criterion above is IMHO the best argument that the Brits won Jutland :).
oz_boater
28 Jul 08, 22:17
More than a few chickened out under this fire and withdrew without launching at all.
Reading through - this seems to be the area being raised. The question is not the physics but the moral - do the individual units have any sense of self preservation in Jutland?
My reading of the suggestion is that it would be good if they did.
The key word (for me) that was used is "kamakazi". Here
What I'd like to see is a game that accurately reflects the non Kamikaze view of naval warfare. That allows the player to pick the target and give the attack order, but lets the ship drivers themselves (represented by the AI) ultimately decide when it is worth the risk.
You have made a good case that losses should be very very heavy when attacking prepared BBs. The idea being suggested seems to be that the full (to the death) execution of such attacks should not be routine.
We have the 'hard kill' modelled I expect. Do we have the 'soft kill' modelled where ships abort because of the intensity of fire or fire at less than optimal positions?
For me whether this is critical will depend on how the game works. For me it is more important that I do not NEED to micromanage the screen and what that means is that I will not lose if I don't micromanage while my opponent does.
Achieve this (within limits - making all screen ships totally useless would achieve this but still be a miss for me) and I would be happy. The details of how are less important than it works.
Regards
Boater
Assuming for a moment that the historical outcomes at Jutland actually fell within a reasonable range of statistical probability...
If the model (game) is a perfect reflection of reality, then the historical application of forces will yield historical levels of success and loss. However, if the model is unbalanced one way or another, then deviations of one or the other (success or loss) from the historical outcome will have to be accepted.
Given that the latter scenario (a less than perfect model) is most likely, the question is how will we choose to play the game?
Once the player learns what the game mechanics will and will not allow vis-a-vis the rock/paper/scissors thing that's at the heart of all these wargames, the player can make informed decisions to either be conservative and preserve his light forces, or be aggressive and "expend" them... or something in between.
The question then, is not so much about guns v armor or DD attack vs Capital ship defense... but whether the AI will act rationally (ie, act within a believable range of the two extreme choices presented above) given these same factors to work with.
JD
Firestorm
28 Jul 08, 22:38
The question then, is not so much about guns v armor or DD attack vs Capital ship defense... but whether the AI will act rationally (ie, act within a believable range of the two extreme choices presented above) given these same factors to work with.
JD
So one of the questions will be: If the AI's DD's come under heavy fire from capital ships will they A: retreat? or B: press their attack while losing several ships in the process. Then again most of the time when two fleets meet the BB's and BC's will be concentrating fire on each other while their light forces concentrate on their opposites as well. Most of the time the light forces are just going to get out of the way of the big boys. (See Jellicoe's deployment of the Grand Fleet at Jutland and 'Windy Corner')
In a lifetime of reading naval history and spending a considerable part of my adult life in the US Navy I have never come across any reference that would lead me to think of DD's as expendable units. Of course DD's were expected to expend themselves in an effort to save a battleship. Of course it is a dangerous job and many died. However to expand this idea into the notion they were a virtual suicide corps is really a stretch. Sailors, from Western cultures at least, are taught to sell their lives and the lives of their ships dear. If an attack does not have a high probability of success a DD captain would break it off. He would not expect to be cashiered for doing so.
If Jutland is like DG, then a player would send his DD's and other then looking in and perhaps adjusting course would not be able to spend very much time watching. In all likelihood the DD's would continue to close no matter what till they all died. That is a function of the game with two many ships and not enough players, not of naval history. All I've been trying to say all day long is that I hope Jutland contained a mechanism to prevent it. What your apparently saying is that 100% DD casualties were expected by the sailors who rode them and are to be expected in the computer game. I think our wrong in the first case, and I fear your correct in the second.
The British did win the battle of Jutland (Strategically). :)
In a lifetime of reading naval history and spending a considerable part of my adult life in the US Navy I have never come across any reference that would lead me to think of DD's as expendable units.
Well, I was referring to the way a game player chooses to play a game.
That said, off the top of my head I can think of two incidents during WWII where a group of DD's intentionally crossed the line between reasonable risk and ventured into "expendable" territory while conducting a coordinated attack:
Komandorski and Samar. The latter was covered in The Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors, which referred to the action as a "suicide attack".
I'm sure there are others...
JD
Bullethead
29 Jul 08, 01:21
Assuming for a moment that the historical outcomes at Jutland actually fell within a reasonable range of statistical probability...
Got anything else to go on?
At Jutland, there were 4 "deliberate attacks" (in the land warfare sense) by DD flotillas on capital ships. Simultaneous Brit and German attacks during the Run to the South, the German attack in the battlefleet phase, and 12DF's attack at the end of the night. There were also 2 "meeting engagements" in the night, as the Germans encountered 4DF and 13/10 DFs in succession, and 1 in the battlefleet phase.
On the "deliberate attack" side, the Germans ordered a couple more but either they canceled them or had no DDs in position to do them. So of the 4 that actually had the opporunity to be carried out, all were executed "to the death". As in, the DDs pressed on until they reached launch range, regardless of fire. In 3 of these attacks, the DDs took rather heavy casualties in the process, but in 12DF's they had the benefit of suprise so were launching by the time they were spotted and recognized as a threat. Most ships in these attacks carried on; they had their orders and discipline held. Some do seem to have bailed, though.
On the meeting engagement side, in the battlefleet phase 4 German DDs sent to assist the crippled Wiesbaden suddenly found themselves close to the Brit line and launched a few torps hurriedly as they ran away under heavy fire, abandoning their mission. The Brits called this the 1st DD attack in this phase, but it was never intended to be so by the Germans. So does this bailing out count as such?
Of the Brit DDs, 4DF stumbled into the Germans and tried to fight, but got wiped out. 13DF OTOH ran away rather than fight, although some of its hangers-on got caught up in the death of 4DF.
The question then, is not so much about guns v armor or DD attack vs Capital ship defense... but whether the AI will act rationally (ie, act within a believable range of the two extreme choices presented above) given these same factors to work with.
It seems to me that on the balance, most DDs ordered to the attack pressed on regardless, and got hammered. Some, however, do seem to have lacked the usual spirit expected of DDs, especially in the case of 13DF. But 13DF wasn't ordered in to an attack, it happened to stumble into battle.
In a lifetime of reading naval history and spending a considerable part of my adult life in the US Navy I have never come across any reference that would lead me to think of DD's as expendable units. Of course DD's were expected to expend themselves in an effort to save a battleship. Of course it is a dangerous job and many died. However to expand this idea into the notion they were a virtual suicide corps is really a stretch. Sailors, from Western cultures at least, are taught to sell their lives and the lives of their ships dear. If an attack does not have a high probability of success a DD captain would break it off. He would not expect to be cashiered for doing so.
You must not have served in DDs. Destroyers are the "poor bloody infantry" of the navy. They're not a "suicide corps", but their men know they're going to get hammered in any fleet battle, just as infantrymen always get hammered in land battles, win or lose. It's a dirty job, but somebody's got to do it.
Would you say that the US DD/DE attacks at Samar had a "high probability of success"? I wouldn't, and nobody participating did, either, nor did those in command of the fleets. But off they went anyway, and got mauled. What about Komandorski, or 1st Guadalcanal? Same thing. In all cases, the physical results achieved by the DD attacks were negligable in terms of hits scored for damage sustained. Despite this, these actions have been enshrined as the highest examples of what is expected from destroyers. The officers got medals and the men achieved a place in the destroyer tribal ancestor spirit pantheon.
The basic rule in wartime is that if DD skipper survives getting his tincan blown out from under him while acting in an aggressive manner, they give him either a new DD or a whole division of them, or some other career-enhancing reward. He's not cashiered, because destroyers and their ilk, more than any other classes, are expected to sail in harm's way. For a Jutland example, look what happened to Tovey. He got his DD trashed doing something apparently foolhardy, but nevertheless what was expected, and therefore ended up being the admiral in charge of sinking Bismarck. DD skippers not "lucky" enough to have been in such a situation take note and seek opportunities to emulate the performances of the recognized heroes.
oz_boater
29 Jul 08, 02:12
On the "deliberate attack" side, the Germans ordered a couple more but either they canceled them or had no DDs in position to do them. So of the 4 that actually had the opporunity to be carried out, all were executed "to the death". As in, the DDs pressed on until they reached launch range, regardless of fire.
Lauch range or optimal lauch range? There is a substantial difference. "To the death" would be that they pressed the attack - regardless of casualties - to optimal launch range - and I don't recall that happening very much against a prepared opponent if at all. What do the DDs in Jutand do, lauch when they can, or lauch when they should?
If they can be spooked into lauching when they can rather than when they should then they are working reasonably.
On the meeting engagement side, in the battlefleet phase 4 German DDs sent to assist the crippled Wiesbaden suddenly found themselves close to the Brit line and launched a few torps hurriedly as they ran away under heavy fire, abandoning their mission. The Brits called this the 1st DD attack in this phase, but it was never intended to be so by the Germans. So does this bailing out count as such?
Yes, they responded to the threat appropriately and abandoned their mission - would DDs in Jutand do this?
The basic rule in wartime is that if DD skipper survives getting his tincan blown out from under him while acting in an aggressive manner, they give him either a new DD or a whole division of them, or some other career-enhancing reward. He's not cashiered, because destroyers and their ilk, more than any other classes, are expected to sail in harm's way. For a Jutland example, look what happened to Tovey. He got his DD trashed doing something apparently foolhardy, but nevertheless what was expected, and therefore ended up being the admiral in charge of sinking Bismarck. DD skippers not "lucky" enough to have been in such a situation take note and seek opportunities to emulate the performances of the recognized heroes.
Fair enough, so DD skippers tend to be more aggressive than other skippers, but that is not really the question. The question is whether ships (skippers) take action to protect themselves (i.e. preserve there effectiveness vs throw themselves away) or whether they act like Kamakazes/lemmings.
What do they do? Do they have any regard for their own skins or will they follow orders regardless?
Incidentally, forces that have >>some<< regard for their own skin are normally more effective that ones that just charge guns blazing till they are wiped out.
The Japanese Banzi charges were not a terribly effective tactic after all.
Regards
Boater
I think we have to differentiate between historical DD's of up to the 1960's and todays Destroyers and frigates.
While the Charles F. Adams DDG's BH and I sailed on were still classically "expendable" units like WWI and WWII DD's, up to and including the "suicide" transponder setting intended to draw of cruise missiles with radar seekers from more "valuable" targets, todays Destroyers and frigates are viewed somewhat differently.
Call it the effects of their vastly higher relative cost or of Luttvaks "postheroic age", todays DDG's and FFG's are not any more considered expendable, have in effect become todays capital ships. This is especially visible in the ridiculously high standoff ranges current USN doctrine prescribes for naval gunfire support, in effect depriving the Marines from it until the new (tremendously expensive on a per round basis) long range 5inch munitions come into usage.
The true "expendables" in the German Navy during the Cold War were the Schnellboote. The crews were fully conscious of the fact that their survival chances were probably the worst of any speciality in the armed forces, their attacks on the Soviet amphibous forces would have been near suicidal and the return to base after the expemse of the missiles/torps unlikely in the face of Soviet/WP air forces, but motivation and morale, "esprit de corps", was high throughout. Still, even the Schnellboote were hardened over time by the addition of RAM missiles for anti ship missile defense, improved EW etc.
Edit:
Historically, in modern wafare the "light" frontline naval forces had the highest fatality rates on a per capita basis of all sections of the armed services (but for true "suicide corps"), this is especially true for submariners.
Lauch range or optimal lauch range? There is a substantial difference. "To the death" would be that they pressed the attack - regardless of casualties - to optimal launch range - and I don't recall that happening very much against a prepared opponent if at all. What do the DDs in Jutand do, lauch when they can, or lauch when they should?
If they can be spooked into lauching when they can rather than when they should then they are working reasonably.
Yes, they responded to the threat appropriately and abandoned their mission - would DDs in Jutand do this?
Fair enough, so DD skippers tend to be more aggressive than other skippers, but that is not really the question. The question is whether ships (skippers) take action to protect themselves (i.e. preserve there effectiveness vs throw themselves away) or whether they act like Kamakazes/lemmings.
What do they do? Do they have any regard for their own skins or will they follow orders regardless?
Incidentally, forces that have >>some<< regard for their own skin are normally more effective that ones that just charge guns blazing till they are wiped out.
The Japanese Banzi charges were not a terribly effective tactic after all.
Regards
Boater
Lets face it, some DD skippers were more into survival and tended to act in that way. Others were glory hounds and charged off to die gloriously in battle while trying to torpedo an enemy BB/BC. Many, many more fell somewhere in between. That is a lot of factors to take into account and I don't think any game has ever quite got it right yet.
Got anything else to go on?
I'll give you an example of what I'm talking about. War gaming naval surface combat c. WWII, using only historical performance and outcomes as your guide, would have big ships blowing up far too often. That's because the very limited pool of experience is disproportionately affected by low probability outcomes, such as Hood @ Denmark Strait, to the point where the whole thing becomes seriously skewed.
This, IMHO, is the mistake Alan Zimm - the guy who really defined the genre - made, as well as every game designer I'm familiar with before or since (Ed Bever being a notable exception).
Of course, most game players wouldn't recognize this as a mistake as they expect Hood to blow up 9 times out of 10 (or some ridiculous number) when they play the scenario... because that's what really happened.
OTOH, most detailed analysis of the action, as I'm sure most here realize, show pretty much conclusively that the historical outcome was the result of an extremely improbable occurrence. If you replayed history 1000 times (the general consensus points to even lower probabilities), it probably would not happen again.
So how do these analysts arrive at such conclusions? Yeah, exactly! That's where I would start with my game design... and I'd probably fail miserably from a customer sat perspective because I didn't deliver the expected bang for buck.
I don't know what the right answer is for game designers, but I suspect is has to do with balancing between several of these perspectives. You need to satisfy those looking for that famous historical aberration to validate the accuracy of the game, yet you don't want your grognards complaining about unrealistic carnage over the long run.... which gets us back, in a really round about way, to the topic at hand :D
Game designers have a tendency to... force their perspective down the game player's throats may be a bit over the top, but it's the best way I can describe it right now... regardless of how right they are. We see this all the time. DG is rife with it. And when challenged, the argument invariably centers around one of the perspectives I mentioned above. I think this is a mistake... and, if I may inject a little hyperbole (or not), may have contributed to the down fall of the genre as a whole.
This is why I advocate for OPTIONS in game design... meaning the ability to flavor game mechanics and game play to the individual's taste. Difficulty levels, levels of AI control, and stuff like that. The more the better. I've never met a game option I did not like!
Bottom line: it would simply be better all around to let the game player decide how he wants to play the game, and how the game will play out.
And even where options, as such, aren't actually built into the game interface, in many cases game mod'ers provide what the game designer failed to do. Again - and at the risk of raising another dead horse to beat on - it is unfortunate that SES will not even allow for that.
JD
oz_boater
29 Jul 08, 23:27
This is why I advocate for OPTIONS in game design... meaning the ability to flavor game mechanics and game play to the individual's taste. Difficulty levels, levels of AI control, and stuff like that. The more the better. I've never met a game option I did not like!
Unfortunately OPTIONs greatly complicate design - especially the design of the AI. Its one of the basic rules of system design that the exceptions (and options sit here) consume 80% of the project time.
The challenge is to make the game work with any combination of options and as the number of options increase the number of combinations that need to be tested increases exponentially.
Options are nice, but they are not easy. One risk is that you can have so much time sucked off into the programming of options your core engine suffers - and its the core engine that will make or break Jutland in the medium to long term so personally (speaking from the perspective of a programmer) I would prefer they got that right, robust and versatile and add options later.
Bottom line: it would simply be better all around to let the game player decide how he wants to play the game, and how the game will play out.
Sure, but this is not cost free. Hopefully the core engine is being built in such a way to accept options in the future (cause if its isn't - your screwed) but I will be happy if we get somethign that moves, manouvers, responds shoots and takes damage in a reasonable way.
Sometimes you need to walk before you run.
And even where options, as such, aren't actually built into the game interface, in many cases game mod'ers provide what the game designer failed to do. Again - and at the risk of raising another dead horse to beat on - it is unfortunate that SES will not even allow for that.
JD
Lets see what we get.
Regards
Boater
Unfortunately OPTIONs greatly complicate design - especially the design of the AI. Its one of the basic rules of system design that the exceptions (and options sit here) consume 80% of the project time.
All valid points I'm sure. But I'm not suggesting that anyone invent or introduce something that has never been done. Although not "real time", some of Grigsby's games, Uncommon Valor and WITP for instance, have such features. And while not war games, per se, many combat flight sims have these types of options as well.
It may not be the simplest thing to do, as you suggest... but I don't think we're talking about a bleeding edge concept here. This is something that's actually well within the box as far as general PC game design goes.
JD
vBulletin® v3.7.4, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.