New Ship Pack! Plus... Other Improvements?

[Slider6]

If your wanting just a slugfest with era ships, just a reminder that you can get this from any game made previously. (another game with pretty ships that go boom!) Given the logic displayed, there would be no need for a strategic map, transports, bombard raids, coastal guns, minefields anything but the "big battle".

The draw of DG and Jutland is not the simplified slugfest portrayed here, in my opinion, but the ability beyond that to frame the conflict with a strategic element within a historical goal signficant context. If it was a game with just big battles and lots of things blowing up, I would have been gone long ago..lol...boring...been there..done that.

I have no idea why anyone would think the war would be over in a month of a 2 year campaign. Unless that is what you wanted it or forced it to be. It makes no sense. Nor does the need to change the mechanics so dramatically. We are making this too hard

If the answer is I don't want to...that is different than "its too hard"...lol

BTW as I said in the previous post. You aren't going to recreate reality/history. Given your idea for how to induce the situation on players would mean they sit in port and wait to parade the HSF to surrender..again..boring... but great situational recreation..eh?

I think it might be easier and more fun to make the game around the historical goals within an historical timeframe rather than attempt to induce historical behavior by deleting the game they paid for..lol

 

[Batou]

Any improvements to the campaign?

Campaign
90% of the Jutland campaign game is little more than chasing down merchant ships. Would to nice to auto-complete these battles or have a merchant ship miss identified once in a while and have a real battle. One of the reasons the campaign game comes down to one to two major battles, is because the campaign doesn't model anything else!

Subs
Any better game balance here? Subs in the campaign are unbalanced once their numbers start to grow. Might be nice to have a night time surface battles with subs once in a while and a little randomness to the time it takes them to dive, when caught on the surface at night or during bad weather.

Mission Types
Anything new here, (escort troop convoys, anti-mining, anything)? Escorting troops from England or some type of logistics should be part of the campaign game.

Battle Logs
Any improvements here? A ship disappears and if you don't read the log file or you would never know it was sunk by a sub.

 

[rgreat]

Any improvements to the campaign?

Campaign
90% of the Jutland campaign game is little more than chasing down merchant ships. Would to nice to auto-complete these battles or have a merchant ship miss identified once in a while and have a real battle. One of the reasons the campaign game comes down to one to two major battles, is because the campaign doesn't model anything else!

Subs
Any better game balance here? Subs in the campaign are unbalanced once their numbers start to grow. Might be nice to have a night time surface battles with subs once in a while and a little randomness to the time it takes them to dive, when caught on the surface at night or during bad weather.

Mission Types
Anything new here, (escort troop convoys, anti-mining, anything)? Escorting troops from England or some type of logistics should be part of the campaign game.

Battle Logs
Any improvements here? A ship disappears and if you don't read the log file or you would never know it was sunk by a sub.

I second this.

 

[Derfflinger]

Maybe controllable trade routes to elimate scapa flow or german bight suicide cargo ships.

 

[Lützow]

Maybe controllable trade routes to elimate scapa flow or german bight suicide cargo ships.

This would be a VERY usefull Feature. No non-suicidal Cargo Ship-Captain would steam so close to Enemy´s Harbours.

 

[Crackaces]

This would be a VERY usefull Feature. No non-suicidal Cargo Ship-Captain would steam so close to Enemy´s Harbours.

Hear! Hear! In fact expermenting with lone BC raiding the AMC's strategy ... in a way does not matter. Although routes Blue 1 -3 has a better chance to get through with the AMC's gone -- Routes Blue 7 & 8 always results in capture near Scapa Flow. Is there some historical reference for this stupidity? Does the game want to force a battle with the GF?

 

[Slider6]

I second this.

Yes, good deal Batou, I think those are useful observations and improvements.

Would be nice to have some subs sunk by ramming...it was more common than I expected.

 

[martin worsey]

Yes, good deal Batou, I think those are useful observations and improvements.

Would be nice to have some subs sunk by ramming...it was more common than I expected.

I did a little analysis of sub losses and successes in another post and the response was that, improvements in the simulation of submarines was being worked on; presumably for incorporation in the upgrade

 

[Bullethead]

I In summary, you would need to develop a game that could develop and evolve in a web like fashion and would effectively include fantasy items as well as the historical ones.

Thus I can quite understand why a 2-year campaign was not implemented by SES. If they were to implement a full 1914-18 campaign some day the strategy map mechanics woiuld have to be completely changed I think, with something like the old turn system, and 1 month per turn, otherwise the war would be over by Christmas and all SES work in designing the other 4.5 years would mostly be wasted

Yup, those are the 2 main points. Actually making a multi-year campaign by creatively SWAGging a joint between the known points in 1915 and 1916 (and solving several technical issues this would entail) is relatively easy in comparison to the above 2 issues. And these 2 issues come into existence upon the implementation of a multi-year campaign.

To have any chance of making a campaign this long work, we'd have to make a Total War-type campaign, giving the player (and AI) control over things like shipbuilding policy, allowing him to complete historically canceled ships, accelerate the production of those that were historically delayed, and build say a few dozen more DDs of a given type than actually existed. All this would be necessary to have some sort of reasonable reaction to the fortunes of war over the long run.

But even if we did all that, it still doesn't change the fact that the starting battlefleets are irreplaceable in even a 4-year period. If you go all-out on their production, within the campaign duration you might be able to commission a half-dozen more capital ships than either fleet had historically (at the expense of most of the CLs, DDs, and subs they actually built instead). That falls far short of what's needed to recover from a bad defeat in major fleet action.

That's why such things are called "decisive battles". It's because the loser has no hope of being able to make up his losses in time to prevent the victor from dictating peace terms. IOW, they decide the outcome of the war. And because everybody wants to blow the enemy to bits, somebody ends up suffering such a defeat at the earliest opportunity. Thus, the effective duration of any campaign is only a few months, however long it takes to wipe one or the other fleet out. Any effort we put into making a longer campaign is therefore wasted.

A more realistic campaign might be generated if your game and lisence were deleted off your PC if you 'lost', and 'losing' would include losing more than 20% of your capital ships. With no ability to load any but the last save game. Then we'd see players play more like their historical counterparts!

Ah, now I like this idea. Any takers?

 

[Bullethead]

90% of the Jutland campaign game is little more than chasing down merchant ships. Would to nice to auto-complete these battles or have a merchant ship miss identified once in a while and have a real battle. One of the reasons the campaign game comes down to one to two major battles, is because the campaign doesn't model anything else!

First off, distant blockade was the RN's main strategy. It did try a few attempts to force a decisive battle but soon thought better of it, realizing that it really didn't need to to win. All it had to do was protect the blockade and avoid being destroyed. The HSF could run around in the lower North Sea all it wanted, but that served no strategic purpose.

Second, there are the well-known time-and-distance constraints imposed by geography. With the main RN fleet based so far north, and the Germans planning their offensive operations to be able to get home during the night, there was little likelihood of the fleets meeting except in mid-late afternoon, as happened at Jutland. Thus, there wasn't probably going to be enough time to fight a decisive battle without doing most of it at night, when the RN's advantages didn't apply.

Third, major fleet operations can't be done on the spur of the moment. They fall into the same sort of category as major land offensives, requiring much preparation and the correct starting conditions. Thus, the tempo of fleet operations was pretty low. We actually have it a bit higher than it was in 1916, and WAY higher than it was in 1915.

Subs in the campaign are unbalanced once their numbers start to grow. Might be nice to have a night time surface battles with subs once in a while and a little randomness to the time it takes them to dive, when caught on the surface at night or during bad weather.

Subs have been brought more or less under control--they were way too successful before, I admit.

Mission Types
Anything new here, (escort troop convoys, anti-mining, anything)? Escorting troops from England or some type of logistics should be part of the campaign game.

Convoys weren't used in the North Sea prior to 1917.

Making logistics part of the game would entail making all sorts of other strategic things part of the game as well, resulting in the game becoming more like Total War and less like a game about operational-level fleet command.

 

[Derfflinger]

Another idea: shipyards with limited size
- Major hull and propulsion damage can only repaired their.
- Not all big ships can be repaired at the same time in one harbour. If a ship is in the shipyard, it can't take part in a fleet operation.
- If you want your ship in damaged status back to a fleetoperation, you must wait 2 days for preparation to get it back.

 

[Mustang03]

Any chance of getting control over shore batteries?

 

[SMS Biene]

Most campaign players are here to precipitate and win a crushing victory in a major fleet action. And judging by the last couple years of posts and my own experience, it seems that such a battle usually happens, win or lose, in the 1st 6 months or so. After this happens, what's the point of the other 18 months of a 2-year campaign? IOW, having 2 years available in the campaign would almost certainly be wasted effort because the issue would not be in doubt for most of that time; most folks would quit playing once they'd achieved complete domination.

Accept this – provided that a multihemispheric 1914 raider campaign will follow some day. Dresden, Emden, Königsberg – those were the days ...

Or in other words: Wattwanze wants to go to hollywood. ;-)

 

[Slider6]

accept this... all game companies follow the money

 

[saddletank]

But even if we did all that, it still doesn't change the fact that the starting battlefleets are irreplaceable in even a 4-year period. If you go all-out on their production, within the campaign duration you might be able to commission a half-dozen more capital ships than either fleet had historically (at the expense of most of the CLs, DDs, and subs they actually built instead). That falls far short of what's needed to recover from a bad defeat in major fleet action.

That's why such things are called "decisive battles". It's because the loser has no hope of being able to make up his losses in time to prevent the victor from dictating peace terms. IOW, they decide the outcome of the war. And because everybody wants to blow the enemy to bits, somebody ends up suffering such a defeat at the earliest opportunity. Thus, the effective duration of any campaign is only a few months, however long it takes to wipe one or the other fleet out. Any effort we put into making a longer campaign is therefore wasted.

Thank you, BH. That was the point I was making and which someone else wasn't getting and was making light of for some reason.

 

[Slider6]

Guys you are too much. I got it long ago. I'm trying my best to be nice, but sometimes the absurd is actually funny.

The points made are not compelling to me at all would be putting it as nicely as possible. Of course battlefleets are irreplaceable...lol. Of course decisive battles are "decisive"..lol. These statements and many others are completely irrelevent statements.

To make the point that the "decisive battle" has to be in a 6 month timeframe is simple fantasy and an enormous leap. (most generals, admirals and yes, even game players are adverse to exposing themselves to complete annilation)

I see some things being tried very hard to be ignored. Sometimea a "battle" need setup to work- which might include many smaller action ..lol, along with--the is need for a long term strategy, that there is actually some relevent builds completed during wartime.

I say whatever...have fun..you win...you're right, I'm wrong, fine....lol. I won't ever post about it again..lol

(starts the jedi mind trick movements) There is no need or desire for a "real" campaign. It is not possible. Nobody wants it. All SES customers want is the big battle.

The request for more german ACs met a similiar reaction years ago, as did the compliants about DRM scheme. Eventually what comes out is what will sell, seperates the product from competition, and makes money.

 

[Crackaces]

Guys you are too much. I got it long ago. I'm trying my best to be nice, but sometimes the absurd is actually funny.

To make the point that the "decisive battle" has to be in a 6 month timeframe is simple fantasy and an enormous leap. (most generals, admirals and yes, even game players are adverse to exposing themselves to complete annilation)

I see some things being tried very hard to be ignored. Sometime a "battle" need setup to work- which might include many smaller action ..lol, along with--the is need for a long term strategy, that there is actually some relevant builds completed during wartime.

That is how my campaign has gone thus far. Planning for the big battle though a series of strategic and operational decisions decided in tactical outcomes. For example, sinking all light ships south of Harlich. As a consequence the AI does split the fleet and has sent more light ships south offering dynamics to the original plan.

We have a unique market in war gaming. There is this spectrum that ranges from wanting simulation to wanting game play. A true simulation will reproduce like results. Game play is a series of decisions that interact through combinations and permutations that have various outcomes. These are two different and competing forces that are a conundrum for the industry. Stalingrad was a fun and playable game Drach Nach Osteen was a simulation that I never completed.
On the WWI theme AH 1914 was always criticized for its ability to simulate the boredom of trench warfare and not a very popular nor playable game. (Although I always liked it because many very small operational decisions accumulated into the final result).