The role of the Navy

User avatar
jonas165
Brigadier
Posts: 3109
Joined: Sun 13 Oct 2013 06:01
Contact:

Re: The role of the Navy

Postby jonas165 » Thu 6 Mar 2014 09:22

admiral9 wrote:Wasnt the kongo also an american ship? that might explain it as the design philosophy might have been the same.


the Kongo is basicly an Arleigh Bruke class, which is an American ship.

Once again, I must disagree with everone saying navy will work better on a coalition level. I allready had dicussions about this before, the work needed to implemant this feature is not worth it. There are basic gameplay changes needed, not more ships that don´t differ from the ones allready ingame.
Image
Alpha release. Click signature for more

User avatar
Brutoni
Colonel
Posts: 2916
Joined: Wed 27 Mar 2013 19:44
Contact:

Re: The role of the Navy

Postby Brutoni » Thu 6 Mar 2014 10:58

I'd suggest that people go away and research warships if you think that they are all the same and the only difference is how well they do everything. The Kongo/Burke is a little bit of a misnomer simply because those warships are closer to cruiser level capability and IMHO shouldn't be in the game. They are never going to get represented properly which would involve adding TASM/TLAM to represent their heavy strike capability (incidentally something that you cannot do with a OHP as it is a deep sea ASW asset).

However if you compare an OHP to a Kidd Class destroyer for example;

The Kidd class posses much more sophisticated AAW capability.
A Spruance before Mk.41 VLS has a much greater ASuW capability and that is the primary role with a potential delivery of 24 Harpoon
An OHP is a ASW frigate and thus the true capabilities of the ship lie in that direction.

Or take the Russians.

The Sovremenny is an ASuW strike asset due to the presence of Moskit
The Project 1155 Fregat is an ASW asset primarily with no AShM
Only 1 Project 1155.1 Fregat made it into service. Адмирал Басистый and Адмирал Кучеров (hope spelling is correct gents) were scrapped before entering full commission (or shortly afterwards). Needless to say the Project 1155.1 was representative of naval warfares move towards fewer, larger multi-purpose ships. (Like Burke, and Kongo)

The Type 051 is primarily an ASuW asset
The Type 053H2 is a 90's ship and started to show signs of becoming much more general purpose.

This is just a general compilation of vessels in game and some outside from the 3 big nations. What you see is that what you are used to today "large multi-purpose warships with a specific speciality" is comparatively rare in 1975-1990 with only the 1990's warships such as the Kongo, Project 1155.1 Fregat and Type 053H possessing this capability. Even then only the Kongo and Project 1155.1 are true multi-purpose warships.

What further compounds this is that stats in game are currently WAY off. A HQ-7 (FM-80) has an average engagement range of 10km (changes depending on target speed) with a detection range of 18km. Range in game is 2800 against helos, 3500 against aircraft. It has a high rate of fire and can engage 12 targets simultaneously IIRC

An SM-1 MR Block V has an average engagement range of 30km. Detection range is much greater. Range in game is 2800 again helos, 4200m against aircraft. It has a low rate of fire, engages 1 target and is far less capable at dealing with sea skimmers than the HQ-7M

An SM-2 MR Block II has in game an anti-helo capability of 2800m and an anti-plane capability of 5250m. Engagement range is typically 80km. It has a high rate of fire and can engage large numbers of multiple targets simultaneously. It is a beastly SAM system.

An 9M38 on a 1980 Project 956 has a maximum engagement range of 30km. In game it has an anti-helo capability of 2800m and an anti-plane capability of 5250m. It has a medium rate of fire and engage 3 targets simultaneously.

As you can see. Somehow SM-2 has been shafted here. Additionally SM-1 MR Block V apparently has less range than the 9M38. Additionally despite some systems having no less than 8 times the range the distances involved in naval combat have no where near the same compression as we see in land combat (consider the difference between a BUK and a Starstreak in Anti-Aircraft range which is over 2km while the same range difference between the HQ-7 and SM-2 suffers under 2km of difference despite the truly staggering engagement range of SM-2).

This is just as true for guns and AShM's. In fact the reality is that your perceived lack of specialisation in warships is simply not true for most pre 1990's warships who could not manage the power generation and handle the top weight that a sophisticated multi-purpose warship would have before the age of miniaturisation.

TLDR:

1) Warships before 1990 are commonly specialised. The lack of variety in the games warships with a good number of escorts coming from 1990's is the issue here.... again something a coalition navy would resolve.

2) Weapon stats are hugely borked for naval combat atm, however this is a matter of tweaking and can be resolved easily enough at any point. Making coalition navies possible cannot.

3) Finding new ways to code hard limitations in terms of what zones warships can capture or totally changing the zones in map is more complicated than simply making a warship prototype within the coalition system to limit more than 1 of the sods I expect. Again coalition navies would enable this.

4) Just what mechanics are you talking about besides Availability, Prototyping that need resolving to address min-max warships are you talking about?
ImageImage

User avatar
Sarvik
Second-Lieutenant
Posts: 779
Joined: Fri 9 Mar 2012 15:03
Contact:

Re: The role of the Navy

Postby Sarvik » Thu 6 Mar 2014 11:31

Whole naval part is designed too much as "stand alone". Its main focus should be supporting ground advance just like air units do. That "I park my destroyer at coast, kill everything at range, and its gg" is silly. Reaching coast should be only first step, which would need to be followed up with sending landing troops and advancing inland.

User avatar
jonas165
Brigadier
Posts: 3109
Joined: Sun 13 Oct 2013 06:01
Contact:

Re: The role of the Navy

Postby jonas165 » Thu 6 Mar 2014 11:44

Sarvik wrote:Whole naval part is designed too much as "stand alone". Its main focus should be supporting ground advance just like air units do. That "I park my destroyer at coast, kill everything at range, and its gg" is silly. Reaching coast should be only first step, which would need to be followed up with sending landing troops and advancing inland.


Agreed. And now explain me how Coalition Navys will change this. There is a change in gameplay mechanics needed. Reduce ship vision and effectiveness of weapons against land targets, give players some possibility to counter ships even if thier Navy is destroyed (land based AShMs would be an example), make the coastal zones bigger,...there are many good suggestions around that should be at least tested.

Once again, how can NSWP be competetive, while beeing historicly limited very strong? Answer is easy: they can´t. Prototyping doesn´t help anything, USSR can allready build a "no drawbacks" navy, while other coalitions like NSWP can´t do that, not even after DLC.
Image
Alpha release. Click signature for more

Bluecewe
Sergeant Major
Posts: 261
Joined: Sat 11 Feb 2012 13:29
Contact:

Re: The role of the Navy

Postby Bluecewe » Thu 6 Mar 2014 12:58

Blacksold wrote:(3): remove landing troops, from the marine section and put them to their sections (tanks to tanks with an option to take landing boats and inf to inf with landing boats; etc.)

(4): than limit the marine section to 5 like the others and give them points per card like (2;3;3;4;4) or (3;3;4;4;5).
availibility per card: river boats (4 to 2), coast ships (3 to 2), deep sea (simply 1 would be the best i think), anti ship planes (2?), anti ship helis (4? to 2)


I've been arguing for this. The current detachment and isolation of naval, sea-centric, and sea-borne units from the rest of the deck system seriously undermines the deck philosophy of Wargame that has been held up to this point. All non-ship units in the marine category should indeed be moved into their native categories - landing craft transported tanks to the tank category, landing craft transported infantry to the infantry category, sea-centric helicopters to the helicopter category, and so forth. In conjunction with this, the naval category should also be constrained by the same activation point limit that the other eight categories are. It is difficult to justify why naval, sea-centric, and sea-borne units should be treated differently in the deck system to the other types of units.

User avatar
Brutoni
Colonel
Posts: 2916
Joined: Wed 27 Mar 2013 19:44
Contact:

Re: The role of the Navy

Postby Brutoni » Thu 6 Mar 2014 13:18

Right now one of the key issues is Min-Maxing. This is possible because you have factionwide forces. Thus the best of everything will be picked without any disadvantage. This facilitates the blob spam that enables a destroyer to "park off the coast... gg win". Ie Currently it is easy to have 3-4 heavy destroyers in a single deck. Coalition navies would do the following;

1) Immediately make it possible to limit destroyers to 2 at maximum more likely 1 destroyer 1 frigate as no nation has more than 2 deep sea vessels

This instantly helps with the blob spam as the real resilience in naval task forces are the big heavy destroyers.

2) One instantly can prevent combinations like Udaloy II and Type 037 escort through prototyping.

This stops the crazy tactic of protecting your Type 037 with an epic CIWS while also gaining the serious punch capability in the Type 037 that fires missiles in 2.

3) One can reduce factionwide availability to very low and use the availability mechanics of coalitions:

This helps the nations such as NSWP which would use lots of coastal craft. Having a large availability bonus for this nation is likely anyhow and thus their respective fast attack craft can be made available en mass. Coupled against lets say USSR/USA who will probably get a low availability bonus which will mean while having some powerful assets things can be controlled.

4) Above mechanics can be used to enable aircraft to be rebalanced.

Nations like NSWP would have good numbers of land based aircraft available which is not inauthentic with their doctrine and method of sea denial. Meanwhile USA for instance would have less available representing the fact they didn't have huge numbers of large land based airfields but instead carriers.

In conclusion:

It is not just about prototype it is about the availability mechanics. Furthermore this would much more easily enable the naval section to cost AP's and bring the potency of naval ability under control due to having to accept a trade off. Currently decks have 0AP and are faction wide. To quote Sarvik

Sarvik wrote:Whole naval part is designed too much as "stand alone". Its main focus should be supporting ground advance just like air units do.


To do this we must bring Naval combat back into the normal deck mechanics. While national naval implementation would be ideal it would simply be too much work. Coalition would require a very modest amount of work. It would enable availability bonuses to be applied to ships which would enable countries like USSR to be overcome through "swarm tactics" which by the way was exactly how countries in the Eastern block, Scandinavian and Korean areas tended to work. Prototype would control the maximum number of destroyers per player to 1 with perhaps 1 frigate.

So again, as you seem to be focusing only on the prototype argument I shall list again:

1) Prototype controls number of destroyers available cutting them to between 1/2 and 1/3 of current level. That can only be a good thing
2) Availability mechanics allow nations with 1 destroyer instead of 2 to still function through a larger number of coastal forces than the coastal forces at the disposal of USA/USSR for example.
3) Availability and prototype mechanics allow the control of air power to be rebalanced so they are potent assets. This enables the option for the naval battle to continue in some form once you have lost your sea assets to the opponent as you can still reach out and interact in a positive manner if your opponent is careless with his assets.

4) Coastal extension is my idea. I have suggested it from very early on. Combined with Coalition navies you would suddenly find MUCH increased authenticity, immersion, variety in tactics and better balance. This may not be as simple as a "hard limit" however it is a far better end result as it addresses more issues in a far more efficient manner.
ImageImage

User avatar
orcbuster
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 12362
Joined: Fri 7 Sep 2012 21:04
Contact:

Re: The role of the Navy

Postby orcbuster » Thu 6 Mar 2014 13:29

I still don't get how those changes will make naval units interesting. All it seems to do for me is to constrict it a bunch. Coalitions are too small for coalitions to add elements of unpredictability to it.
Image
Viker for ingen!

User avatar
Brutoni
Colonel
Posts: 2916
Joined: Wed 27 Mar 2013 19:44
Contact:

Re: The role of the Navy

Postby Brutoni » Thu 6 Mar 2014 13:50

It would in all honesty require the addition of 6 ships. However given that ALB released with 100 planes and RD is thus far set for 30 odd ships we aren't exactly asking for much there.

It would allow a more immersive experience in the end.

1) USSR would have heavy destroyers backed with corvettes. All good at long range heavy ASuW and shore support but totally reliant on land based ASF to hold off the air threat

2) Red Dragon would have 1 good frigate centred around supporting a swarm of corvettes capable of delivering multiple smaller AShM's and overwhelming en masse instead of with fewer heavier AShM's (ala USSR)

3) Commonwealth would have very specialised warships, each one fulfils a specific purpose. Stronger than the sum of it's parts but prone to a more serious attrition degradation due to the specialist nature. Reliant heavily on helicopter assets to support riverine operations due to relatively few assets capable of that

4) Eurocorps. Interesting. Many multi-purpose ships but lacking proper long range fleet defence so weak against air. Germany provides some interesting riverine options that enable precision hit and fade strikes against larger deep sea units. Reliant on ASF for proper defence against the air

5) USA. Powerful in riverine and deep sea. Good ASF's. However low availability and not possessing the best Coastal capability. Vulnerable in the amphibious transition to swarm attacks from other coalitions

6) Blue Dragon. Interesting dynamic. Similar to Red Dragon in truth to geographical nature. Less powerful and numerous corvettes compensated by powerful cat A destroyer capability. Quite specialist as well due to traditional nature of Japanese ships having more limited strike capability and thus relying on Korean coastal units for this.

7) Eastern Block would use USSR until respective DLC update
8) Scandinavia would use Euro Corps until respective DLC update.


Massive change from current meta which has no specialisation and only min-maxing. Yes it does constrict it a little however that creates the opportunity to experience some level of variety and immersion. Furthermore it makes adding naval components to future DLC's far more simple if Eugen wish to do that (so good from a business perspective also).
ImageImage

User avatar
jonas165
Brigadier
Posts: 3109
Joined: Sun 13 Oct 2013 06:01
Contact:

Re: The role of the Navy

Postby jonas165 » Thu 6 Mar 2014 13:51

I am absolutely not convinced about the use of Coalition based navys, and even if you write me two pages of text, it won´t convince me.

Look at the Bonuses Minors or special decks got in ALB. Did they make them competetive? No, they either made them weaker or cheesy (Cat C spam). You can´t get a half destroyer. And one single Udaloy II can make up for...I don´t actually want to know for how many PT boats. It ends up woth majors having the better capabilities on land and on sea, and this is a step backward.
Image
Alpha release. Click signature for more

User avatar
Brutoni
Colonel
Posts: 2916
Joined: Wed 27 Mar 2013 19:44
Contact:

Re: The role of the Navy

Postby Brutoni » Thu 6 Mar 2014 13:58

I see. We shall have to disagree then.

Factionwide navies are inauthentic, have poor immersion, stand alone from the standard deck mechanics and are going to be much harder to balance due to all those issues.

Someone who tests a lot just pointed that because they don't currently reside in the coalition/national deck system you can take a cat B deck and get cat A naval assets. Which is just another example in the sheer level of work and difficulty in implementing an authentic, immersive, balanced factionwide naval component. In the end it will probably end up taking more time and effort than a coalition system.

I suggest we agree to disagree though as I expect we will get no where.
ImageImage

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 41 guests