30-01-2004 05:14									#1
	DESIGN: Naval battle Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

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

	30-01-2004 07:33									#2
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

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.

	30-01-2004 22:57									#3
	Inflate your Upload Space

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)

	30-01-2004 23:07									#4
	Suffering from ads?

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

	30-01-2004 23:17									#5
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

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?

	30-01-2004 23:32									#6
	Suffering from ads?

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.

	30-01-2004 23:54									#7
	Full PM-box? Change here!

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?

	31-01-2004 00:18									#8
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

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
  

	31-01-2004 01:10									#9
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

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.

	01-02-2004 00:19									#10
	Full PM-box? Change here!

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

	01-02-2004 00:58									#11
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: 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

	01-02-2004 01:37									#12
	Put an end to popups!

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 .

	01-02-2004 01:47									#13
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: 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

	01-02-2004 10:53									#14
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: 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.

	01-02-2004 18:45									#15
	Full PM-box? Change here!

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.

	12-02-2004 16:30									#16
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

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.

	12-02-2004 17:14									#17
	Get a bigger avatar today!

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.

	12-02-2004 19:42									#18
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

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).

	12-02-2004 19:46									#19
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Indeed. Flanking

	12-02-2004 20:18									#20
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

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.

	13-02-2004 02:14									#21
	Remove this text

quote: 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

	13-02-2004 07:19									#22
	Got spare money?

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.

Last edited by MrBaggins on 13-02-2004 at 07:25

	13-02-2004 08:28									#23
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

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

	13-02-2004 08:31									#24
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

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.

	13-02-2004 08:56									#25
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: 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.

	13-02-2004 09:23									#26
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

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...

	13-02-2004 10:48									#27
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: 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.

quote: 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".

quote: ... 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.

	13-02-2004 15:07									#28
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: 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?

	13-02-2004 15:47									#29
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: 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

	13-02-2004 17:55									#30
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

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.