DESIGN: Naval battle

[kaan]

Just thought about naval battle and what to do about it besides from fixing the obvius bug. I am all out of ideas.

Anyone?

Just to bring everyone up to speed on the known bug (or at least the bug i know ) :
If you go to battle with two ship that has the bombard capability against one ship, the two ships will stand side by side instead of one behind the other. The result is a civ3 like system where you have to pray to lady luck not to loose one ship before defeating the enemy ship.

Kaan

[MrBaggins]

When you say what to do... do you mean.. what to do with the bug... or in general?

In terms of the bug... I don't see why the rules of positioning and attack shouldn't be exactly the same as land combat...

I.E. Ranged and bombard capability mean second row... based on the same rules as land combat.

[tyrantpimp]

I disagree

2nd row makes sense for land combat but its compensated by the flanker units ability to attack simultaneously

Naval units should either be given their full attack value on the front line to simulate their mobility and mastery of the open sea

Or given flanker attack values which i believe is half the attack points? (im not certain but seems right hehe)

[MrBaggins]

Well.. imagine the following situation...

You have the following naval fleet:

1 Troop ship
1 Aircraft Carrier
2 Battleships
4 Destroyers
1 Sub


Your opponent attacks you with

4 Destroyers
2 Subs

I think the battle should line up this way.

Non Combatant Row... Troop ship
Ranged/Bombard row... Aircraft Carrier, 2x Battleship
Frontline row... 1 Sub (flanking), 4x Destroyers

vs

Frontline row... 2x Sub (flanking), 4x Destroyers

[tyrantpimp]

I think they just simplified naval combat because think about it. Destroyers would be predisposed to attacking submarines, and they could definitely "flank them"

Naval battles occur at high speeds multiple ships engaging each other all the time.

Think about this

5 Fire triremes against 3 fire triremes

Your gonna loose at least 2 or 3 ships while the others wait their turn in battle. But triremes most certainly have archers on board rams and greek fire. Why are they just sitting around and not engaging?

[MrBaggins]

Well... depends on the type of sub. Old submarines, certainly... but new front line submarines can almost certainly outflank naval convoys... given their longer and higher sensitivity passive sonar.

I absolutely agree about the situation you gave.

I'd want to resolve it by having 3 vs 3 and the 2 others as ranged attackers, I guess.

[tyrantpimp]

Good point modern attack subs would have to be given special consideration.

This has got me thinking about the future naval units how would you approach combat with them?

[MrBaggins]

Well... I wouldn't try getting too fancy. There is a lot of scope for getting detailed, but too much detail will get away from the big picture, and make it difficult for the AI to adapt to.

If I had my way, the modern naval units I'd have would be (provided we had a couple more size classes)...

• Aircraft Carrier - carries 5x naval air (large air?) not land based (huge air)
• Battleship - carries 1x cruise missile/tac nuke (Tiny air?)
• AEGIS Destroyer - Active air defense
• ASW Frigate - carries Helo-usually ASW type, which has 1 round of fuel, and a vision range of 2, which spots subs (medium air)
• Nuclear Sub - Active sea defense, carries 2x cruise missile/tac nuke

Aircraft Carrier would be ranged... so ranged row. Battleship would be (strong ranged) bombard (but do pretty well in front row too). The Destroyers and Frigated would be frontline, but have reasonable ranged attack levels, and the Nuclear Sub would have flanking.

[MrBaggins]

ADDENDUM...

If we're using the basing/mission system for aircraft, you'd need a recon mission for certain aircraft, like the ASW helo.

For example, the ASW Helo might, for one turn, extend the vision range, and add an additional vision class (to see subs) to the carrying unit, if the carrying unit doesn't have it.

[Protra3211]

What if sea units could not attack cities?

By the time you reach the moder age sea units can cause alot of damage to the AI millatry
Example -with just one 12 stack of battleships you can attack most AI cities and wipe out all their units.
Leaving it ready for quick capture. Design change should have a rule that sea units cant attack cites. Also could only have a six stack. Sea units should only attack other sea units.
You then would have to broaded your unit base before sending troops by sea.
Such as subs to clear the waters for ships-Destroyers keeping the way safe for troops ships . Air units on aircraft carriers would soften hard targets

[Martin Gühmann]

Originally posted by Protra3211
What if sea units could not attack cities?

By the time you reach the moder age sea units can cause alot of damage to the AI millatry
Example -with just one 12 stack of battleships you can attack most AI cities and wipe out all their units.
Leaving it ready for quick capture. Design change should have a rule that sea units cant attack cites. Also could only have a six stack. Sea units should only attack other sea units.
You then would have to broaded your unit base before sending troops by sea.
Such as subs to clear the waters for ships-Destroyers keeping the way safe for troops ships . Air units on aircraft carriers would soften hard targets

Well I don't like to reduce the stack size for some kind of units. So cities rather need some buildings that protects them better to sea attacks. Well if modern ships should be able to attack a city is another question, actual ships can only attack the port by entering, but you could also have some mechanisms to guard the port, so a city needs to be bombarded first, before it can be attacked.

-Martin

[Protra3211]

Thats a good point Martain

Maybe building upgrades in cities could help support defence

Now that you have the code it would be best to press ahead for a smarter AI then changing the game rules .

[Martin Gühmann]

Originally posted by Protra3211
Now that you have the code it would be best to press ahead for a smarter AI then changing the game rules.

That was also my thought. But actual it is not wrong to talk about it if it could also improve the AI. And by the way removing the ability of any ship to attack a city is just a change in unit.txt. Nothing that anyone will do by changing a *.cpp or .*h file. Actual of course the obvious bug should be fixed. Namely that the AI has no idea how to group its naval units and use them efficently.

-Martin

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
ADDENDUM...

If we're using the basing/mission system for aircraft, you'd need a recon mission for certain aircraft, like the ASW helo.

For example, the ASW Helo might, for one turn, extend the vision range, and add an additional vision class (to see subs) to the carrying unit, if the carrying unit doesn't have it.

Why bother with an ASW helo? ASW helos are a) extremely specific, unlike other units which are relatively general ("Jet Bomber") and b) essentially inseperable from their base platform (generally a destroyer). It just adds MM to no real benefit to model ASW seperate from destroyers - it's simpler just to make destroyers see subs.

[MrBaggins]

Modern naval battle groups rely on rotary ASW platforms, for them to have adequate protection against submarine threats. Modern nuclear attack subs would engage and attack from outside almost any ships effective detection range.

ASW Helos are a class unto themselves, because they carry and deploy sonarbouys, and can launch torps and depth charges to prosecute subs before a sub can engage the ships. There are myriad ASW Helos... certainly more than Stealth Fighters and Bombers... and they got their own classes...

While you absolutely could abstract the process... just extend the vision range of the frigate, by including an abstract Helo, the point is combined capability... just like the active air defense of the carrier requiring enablers to take effect.

As for adding MM, recon missions are intended to reduce MM... instead of unloading an air unit, flying it around in a pattern, and landing it again, just select recon. You could (and should) have this for planes based at land cities, too.

Automation would be possible... recon this unit/stack until it discovers a previously unseen unit.

Even if we choose not to use the ASW Helo in the main game, we shouldn't limit CTP2 features because something isn't necessarily in the main game. CTP2 is about flexibility, for modification. As for the ASW Helo in particular... we can let a playtest decide, when everything is more finished.