The Folly of Naval Operations in AH

[Mathman]

I think what you have put forth is a good idea sabre.  I would like to add one other thing though.  The amphibious assault group should have a carrier or 2 with it.  Not a large Essex-sized carrier like we currently have, but a smaller escort carrier that only carries certain planes like the TBM and FM-2 (like they did historically - for the most part).  This would allow the AAG to provide some cover for itself if the planes of the CV group are needed to defend the fleet or engage an enemy CV group.  Of course, you would need to make a small carrier that is less robust than the larger CV, but it would provide for some excellent naval battles and amphibious assaults.

[CptTrips]

the CV's contribute nothing of value.

That might be overstating the case, especially seeing as you haven't even played the map yet.  But you're right in as much as the CV's play a lesser role in this map than a Pacific island map.  Infact, we never initially intended to have CV’s at all.  We wanted one map that replaced the focus on CV’s with a focus on GV’s as a change of pace.  So our original design was purely a land-locked desert with TONS of GV action.  However the channels were added as a concession to Hitech.  Even so,  1/3 of all the cities and a large number of fields are place right in the coast to make them specifically within reach of CV attack.  They’ll also be vital in controlling the island chains between the 3 main continents.  Sorta like controlling the center of the chess board.  However, the focus of this map was intended to be GV not CV.

If you have some pet theory on a MA map design, you should draw it out in a bitmap and run it by HT.  A lot of pet theories, like our land-locked desert idea, sound great to the map-maker but aren’t going to pass the HT filter.  If he does approve your design, I’m sure you can find an experienced map maker to collaborate with.  

I’d be interested to see your design.  I’m all for as much variety as possible in the MA.  I like the idea of different terrains taking different approaches.  What we don’t want is map makers to become so conservative that they just end up producing cookie cutter terrains to avoid the risk of doing anything different that some vocal minority might not like.  I wouldn’t like to see all maps focus on GV’s anymore than I’d like to see all maps focus on CV’s.  I want variety.

So don’t just talk about it, do it.  Run your design by HT, grab you a map maker, and make it happen.  Theory is one thing, action is a whole lot more convincing.  If I can be of any assistance, let me know.  I wanna see new MA maps.  With the new strat and size, the old maps are almost obsolete and I don’t want to wait the 3 months a piece for HTC to produce new ones.  That only leaves the community.  The only question remaining is who’s going to step up to the plate next?


Regards,
Wab

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by Sabre
Mandobole, Charon, good ideas here.  I think Rip misunderstood what you meant, same as I did.  

Yep, I did misunderstand.

[Sabre]

AKWab, let me just say I'm greatly impressed by the work you guys did on the new map.  I do know a bit about the effort it must have taken.  And you're right, my statement was a bit broad in the brush, if you know what I mean.  It would probably hit closer to the mark to say "Were CV's to be left off this terrain, it would have little impact on the overall strategic play."  I say that because, as Steven points out, all targets are within easy reach of land bases.   Yes, you could take a CV around the outer water ring to try to hit an enemy rear base, but it wouldn't change how people currently use CVs.  Plus, there's really no sea room to speak of.  The enemy will quickly know where the CV is, and the CV will not have the option of playing cat and mouse out on the open seas.  If the enemy controls both sides of the channel, the CV will not last long.  But as you say...I've not seen the new terrain in action.  Like I said, the main point of my comments at the beginning of this thread is to discuss how to improve the role of naval forces in the MA.  It was never meant as in indictment of your terrain.

As far as a terrain idea for the MA, I do have one I'm messing around with.  It's all on paper right now, so I have to get it transferred to electronic form and spiffy it up.  At that point, I'll send it to HTC for feedback.

[CptTrips]

Like I said, the main point of my comments at the beginning of this thread is to discuss how to improve the role of naval forces in the MA. It was never meant as in indictment of your terrain.

No drama Sabre.  I don't think your comment was completely invalid, just over stated.  I still consider you one of the "good guys".  

Here's the problem.  One of the MA terrain constraints is to maintain an average density between fields of around 0.75-1.5 sectors.  That density  should be maintained, for the most part, uniformly across the entire map surface.  The only exception in our map are the GV fields on the outer rim, but that is because they have remote spawnpoints interconnecting them to essientially satisfy the same need.

So if your idea involves isolating fields at greater distances than the density constraint to make them more vunerable to CV atack, you're going to find it difficult to get HTC approval.  If you satisfy the constraint, you're always going to have an airfield close enough to make the CV capture difficult.  You're going to end up with some permatation of the NDIsles terrain.  The islands are going to be close enough together that as soon as the CV leaves its home waters, its location is not difficult to determine.  Same with our terrain.  So essientially Stephen was correct.  As a third alternative, you could convince HT to change his mind.   But in reality, I think he has the right idea for that constraint in the context of an MA  enviroment as opposed to CT or a scenario.

The real problem as you stated, is the inability of the CV group to get troops on target in an acceptable amount of time.  You've discussed some good ideas to remedy that.


Regards,
Wab

[Sabre]

Drama! DRAMA? Suh, you have cut me to the quick.  My sacred honuh has be'en impuned!  Oh...the injustice...the impudence...the Oh, right.  Sorry.  Was a drama major before switching to EE.  Sort of bubbles to the surface now and again.

AKWab: You points are well taken, though I wonder if HiTech meant that there had to be a uniform density across the map.  As I understand it, he wants fields in general to bewithin 0.75-1.5 sectors of other fields, but not necessarily a field every 0.75-1.5 sectors in every direction.  Still, I'll take that into consideration in my design effort, and see what wiggle room there is to play with. Afterall, the current generation of AH maps (Lake "Uterus" and Mindanao come to mind) don't necessarily conform to such a strict interpretation.  We'll just have to see what we can get away with.

I'm sure I'll be contacting you when the time comes, as you've been through the wringer...er, the process of getting one of these monsters through QA.

[CptTrips]

>No drama Sabre.

I wasn't infering you were being dramatic.  Its a slang I picked up somewhere.  

Translates to "No big deal".

Wab

[CptTrips]

>but not necessarily a field every 0.75-1.5 sectors in every
>direction.

Hmm true, but almost every field has another field somewhere within 1.5 sectors.  So you always face the possiblity that Stephen brought up.  Even if you take down the target field, its difficult to get troop on target before reinforcements arrive from the supporting field.  Maybe a better way to state it would be "No field should be more than 1.5 sectors , nor less than 0.75 sectors, from its closest neighbor.

Although HT wants to utilize as much of the 255 field limit as possible so these maps have room to grow and don't have to be replaced so soon.  Given the 512x512 area (20 sectors x 20 sectors), and not letting them get closer than 0.75 sectors, and using most or all of the 255 fields, you almost end up with a fairly uniform distrobution by necessity.  Or close to it. (shrug)

Regards,
Wab

[Steven]

I'm all for making the CV a more viable tool and threat.  But getting off topic a bit, I think there is something majorly wrong when the arena can be reset a couple times in one day.  IMO, it should ebb and flow for a few days if not a week before there is a reset.  

Back to the CVs.  I'd like to see an experiment where there are 2 or 3 CVs in a Task Group and only sinking them all will destroy the task group.  In addition, 2-3,000 lbs of bombs can damage a CV rendering it unusable for operations until it can regenerate in 15 mins or it is sunk.   Maybe even regnerate a sunk CV...afterall, if a Hangar can regenerate on a field after being totally destroyed, why can't a CV if its Task Group is intact?