DESIGN: Naval battle

[Atahualpa]

There is an old game called "Carriers at war". I think naval combat was modeled quite good there.

Basically you had 3 wings: main, left and right. Main were your heavy ships from Heavy Cruisers over Battle Cruisers to Battle Ships. Left and right wing consisted of Destroyers and Light Cruisers.
You could direct commands for every wing seperately. And all the ships of a wing followed these orders. These commands where: close,fight, open and flee.
Close: Moved the ships closer to the enemy.
Fight: Got you choose your target wing and in next round all your ships would fire at that wing. For different guns you could also choose different targets (primary,secondary guns and torpedos)
Open: Move away from the enemy to the flee lane
Flee: Same as open but if you were in the flee lane ships tried to escape
I think you could also choose to stay and do nothing.

At the beginning of a day battle all ships started in their flee lanes. Main wing could fire at a distance of 4 lanes. Right and left wing at a distance of 2 or 3.
At night ships started at closer ranges.
Though you probably not want to model day and night changes ;-)

I tried to find some screenshot but unfortunately the game is too old and all the screens I found showed different aspects of the game.

[MrBaggins]

Hmmm... a controllable battle game between naval stack battles?

I don't think its a good idea at all.

I just think that the order of battle has to be sorted out.

[J Bytheway]

I agree that a controllable battle would be bad, but judging by that description we could assign appropriate flanking values (i.e. to the Light Cruisers / Destroyers).

[MrBaggins]

Indeed. Flanking

[Gilgamensch]

Don't want to confuse everyone, BUT

Even the old ships used by the greeks and roman already used flanking attacks. At this time it just depended on the numbers.

Similar for the 16th/17th century with the Caribean See (Pirates).

Or the defeat of the Armada.

It was hardly ever a 'bow-to-bow' fight.

This would mean (theoratically) that any ship would have flanking ability.

[tyrantpimp]

Originally posted by Gilgamensch
Don't want to confuse everyone, BUT

Even the old ships used by the greeks and roman already used flanking attacks. At this time it just depended on the numbers.

Similar for the 16th/17th century with the Caribean See (Pirates).

Or the defeat of the Armada.

It was hardly ever a 'bow-to-bow' fight.

This would mean (theoratically) that any ship would have flanking ability.

I concur

[MrBaggins]

Flanking is relative...

A unit that would be able to flank in one era may not be able to in another: E.G. a knight may not be able to flank a mechanized army.

Instead of having a flanking flag, how about a mobility value?

If a unit has a mobility value 50% higher than the average mobility of the opposing forces, and its an attacker, then it flanks for that battle.

I think it should be modified by the relative number of troops, but I'd work on a formula for it.

[tyrantpimp]

How would that work out exactly? Would mobility be taken into consideration for the entire force or on a per unit basis?

[MrBaggins]

Mobility for a single unit would be measured against the whole of the opposing force. Thats my thinking, anyway... and determines if the unit is flanking for that battle.

[Maquiladora]

A unit that would be able to flank in one era may not be able to in another: E.G. a knight may not be able to flank a mechanized army.

But why simulate "mobility" if the Knight gets beaten anyway by HP/FP/A/D/R?

What would mobility ADD to fun factor? is basically my concern.

[MrBaggins]

Another example would be if a large attacking force were attacking a smaller defensive force, then the larger force should theoretically have some attackers flanking, even if they don't have flanking troops.

Infantry can't flank right now... even in superior numbers, and it makes no sense...

You might say well, the larger force (say 5) will overwhelm the smaller force (say 2) anyway... but what if you're talking about the smaller force being tougher troops, like Machine Gunners, and the larger force Infantry... not so terribly far apart in ages.

It allows you to differentiate the movement capability of units, within battle, in more than just 2 states.

One kind of flanking certainly isn't enough for naval units, as has been pointed out... but certain industrial naval units would certainly be able to flank ancient ships, but not modern ships, and modern ships might flank industrial ships but not nuclear subs or the moray striker...

[Maquiladora]

Another example would be if a large attacking force were attacking a smaller defensive force, then the larger force should theoretically have some attackers flanking, even if they don't have flanking troops.

I think combined arms and stats simulate enough already for a realistic result.

Infantry can't flank right now... even in superior numbers, and it makes no sense...

You might say well, the larger force (say 5) will overwhelm the smaller force (say 2) anyway... but what if you're talking about the smaller force being tougher troops, like Machine Gunners, and the larger force Infantry... not so terribly far apart in ages.

I dont get your point... the Infantry would win anyway (vanilla ctp2), with or without "auto flanking".

... but certain industrial naval units would certainly be able to flank ancient ships...

Its already obvious the Industrial unit is stronger with FP/HP/A/D/R would annihilate the ancient ship, so why simulate mobility of the fight?

Again i ask, what fun would mobility add? Because its not necessary for realistic results. I also think it would be easier to balance all units without it.

[Atahualpa]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
Hmmm... a controllable battle game between naval stack battles?

I don't think its a good idea at all.

I just think that the order of battle has to be sorted out.

Well I didnt meant to make it controllable (or just replace a human with an AI). Its just an example on how to model naval combat.
Of course its not optimal since that exampled was tightened around WW2 pacific/indic theatre.

The thing however is that ships like PT Boats did not fight together with Battleships.
Neither did Galleons, so how to model that?

[Gilgamensch]

The thing however is that ships like PT Boats did not fight together with Battleships.
Neither did Galleons, so how to model that?

Kind of true.

It was in the recent time already unusual to have even fleets fighting against each others.

In old times you had sometimes hundred of ships involved in a battle, but later it was only a few ships involved.

Maybe we shall increase the cost for later naval units? Making them a little bit more limited as well (through this) Only an

[MrBaggins]

OK, Maq, you've convinced me... no need for a mobility stat, instead of a flanking flag... just ensure the flag is on every unit in a given era with superior battlefield mobility.