Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Sabre on June 24, 2002, 04:16:02 PM
-
The Folly of Naval Operations in AH
Currently in the Aces High Main Arena environment, naval forces play a relatively minor role. The most usual role of the standard AH task group, or TG (1xCV, 1xCA, 4xDE), is to place it within visual range of an enemy shore base and attempt to capture the base. A combination of air-to-ground attacks (Jabo strikes) and shore bombardment is used to destroy the town and eliminate defenses, followed by an amphibious assault or airborne troop drop to affect the capture. If the land base mounts any kind of defense, such an attack is fairly easy to thwart. The question is, what is the best and proper use of naval forces in the AH MA? This piece is intended to generate discussion towards this end.
Basically, it is easier to sink the CV than it is for the CV-based force to render an airfield inoperable and ready for capture. Eight thousand pounds of bombs will sink the CV, resulting in the entire remaining TG vanishing 10 minutes later, to reappear back at it’s home port. It can than take an hour or more to get this fleet back into position off shore of the enemy base. Contrast this with what it takes to render a base defenseless. It takes 12,000 lbs. of bombs to destroy all the hangers at a small base, 8,000 lbs. to destroy the shore batteries, over a thousand more to destroy all the AAA, and several thousand more beyond that to level the town in preparation for capture. Now figure in the fact that hangers rebuild in 15 minutes – while destroyed ships do not – and you see why the land base holds the upper hand in an even contest between naval and land-based forces. By even, I mean the same number of AH players on each side.
Historically, this is understandable. Sea-based air power will loose against land-based air when numbers, pilot quality, intel, and technology are reasonably even. Aircraft carriers are inherently more fragile than a base built on terra firma. They are much more expensively, both in terms of initial cost to build and to man/operate/maintain, than an airbase. The main, indeed the only advantage that naval forces have lies in their mobility. They can move rapidly, not just tactically but strategically, and are thus more difficult to pinpoint for attack. This mobility also allows them to attack at an unexpected point, and from an unexpected direction. This was proven quite decisively during the 2001 AH scenario, “Hostile Shores.” During frames 1 and 2, the lack of exact positions for the RN carriers prevented the Luftwaffe from getting close enough to put even one bomb on a British ship. Conversely, in frame 3 the Luftwaffe had perfect position information on the Royal Navy carriers, thanks to the nearly invulnerable Ar234 reconnaissance planes made available to them. The result? “Scratch one flattop.”
This is all fine and good in a scenario environment. However, the MA practice of “CV camping” essentially takes away the only two advantages the naval force has, mobility and stealth. This practice is understandable if one considers a couple of key, non-realistic factors in the Main Arena. First, the big guns of the TG, the main battery of the attendant cruiser, has to be within easy visual range to be affective. This is because (a) the waterline gun directing hampers effective targeting and (2) the need for a direct hit on by naval artillery to destroy a target. Second, the slow speed of the LVT amphibious assault vehicles requires the fleet to be within shouting distance of the objective. The latter was true in real life of course, but in real life the amphibious ships and naval gunfire support ships were not tied by an invisible tether to the aircraft carriers. As it stands now naval forces in AH in general, and the aircraft carrier in particular, are mostly just window dressing. They do not come close to having the impact on “the War” that the flattops had in real life.
How can we redress the shortcomings of naval forces in AH? Should we even try? It is after all primarily an air combat simulation. The answer to this last question is “yes.” If Aces High is to continue to evolve towards the goal of being the best WWII air combat simulation on the market, it must find a better way to represent the profound impact naval forces (particularly naval aviation) had on that conflict. Keeping in mind the primary emphasis of the MA, i.e. intense and constant action, there are some things that can be done to influence players to utilize naval forces in a more historical, less “gamey” fashion. I say influence players, not make them. Excessive rules tend to make people resentful. Far better to design the game mechanics in such a way as to reward proper behavior rather than dictate it.
First, we can acknowledge the fact that the amphibious assault craft and cruisers (and, hopefully, battleships:)) need to operate in littoral waters (i.e. shallow coastal areas), but that the carriers do not. Separate the current standard MA fleet into two separate types of fleets, the CV battle group (CVBG) and the Amphibious Assault Group (AAG). The AAG would have LVT’s enabled, but the CVBG would not. Likewise, the AAG would have two cruisers at its core but no carriers, while the CVBG would have two carriers at its core but no cruisers.
Second, update the damage model of ships in general to allow them to take incremental damage, instead of the “completely operation or sunk” model we have now. Damaged subsystems such as guns, vehicle spawning (damaged elevators for CV’s, troop transports – I can hope, can’t I – for AAG’s) would rebuild over time, just as damaged objects at land bases. This would encourage players to consider withdrawing damaged fleets to allow for repairs, rather than the do-or-die mentality that presides over naval operations in the MA today.
Third, make naval gunfire the awesome and terrible weapon it was. Add more realistic blast radius effects for all naval caliber weapons, as well as making the main guns of the destroyer escorts player controllable. Move gunnery control up to the crow’s nest were it belongs, with the option to slave multiple turrets to a single gun director.
Finally, give players direct control over the helm, allowing them to control speed and heading. So long as the TG commander stays “on the bridge”, allow him/her to con the ship manually. As soon as they jump to a vehicle or another base/fleet, the fleet returns to its waypoint-guided course.
These are just the ideas I’ve collected so far. I’m sure others have other suggestions.
-
Great ideas Sabre!
eskimo
-
Yep, gonna keep at it till HTC tells me to "shut up and color.":D Thank you for your support, dude.
-
There's really no point of Naval Air (floating/mobile airfields) if land bases are within reach of everything, which is just how Aces High maps work.
-
Sabre, your ideas are good, but take the follwing into consideration. In real live, CV vs CV battles were fights with relatively few planes involved, very "small" battles. 15 dive bombers attacking a CV would be considered a big strike while here these bombers will spawn over'n over till CV is shunk.
To recreate real battles you need not only to simulate damage for the ships (aaa defenses, lifters, etc) but also the attrition of its forces and resources. By the moment, we have no attrition, so, the CV will be easily shunk every time it is spoted by "hordes" of the same suicidal attackers over'n over.
I would like to see our MA based entirely in an atrittion/conquer system where reset may be achieved by taking fields or just by casualities. This way, if you loose to many planes trying to shink a single CV, that will have a serious impact in your remaining resources and you will be closer to lose the war.
-
Steven, you point is well taken, as is Mandoble's. While the new "Pizza" map the AK's came up with was a laudable effort (big "Salute" AKWabbit and company), the CV's contribute nothing of value. I've got my own thoughts on what an MA terrain should look like, based on the new strat system, but haven't the time to devote to learning and using the TE. Suffice it to say it would have water in and around the landmass, such that naval assaults provide a means of flanking the enemy. It would include enough water-areas to allow fleets to maneuver and hide, when necessary.
As for attrition, I agree with you, Mandoble, in principle. CV vs. CV battles were relatively rare, with the only truely even fights taking place the Pacific from mid 1942 to early 1943. After that the Japanese Navy was never able to match the Allies in either quantitiy or quality. However, CV vs. CV engagements were not the only, or even the primary contribution made by naval air. It was their ability to project power into areas that lacked friendly land bases that made them truely important. They could isolate enemy forces, attrit those forces, and (very importantly) prevent the enemy from reconstituting or supplying those forces. Naval forces in AH can do the first and the third, but not the second. So long as a hanger is up (and remember they're only down for 15 minutes), the defense has a potentially endless supply of planes and pilots. That doesn't mean CV's and naval forces can't be used successfully used in the MA. The steps I've outlined above are designed encourage more thoughtful use of naval forces, while acknowledging that true attrition is not present in the MA game system.
I would like to see our MA based entirely in an atrittion/conquer system where reset may be achieved by taking fields or just by casualities. This way, if you loose to many planes trying to shink a single CV, that will have a serious impact in your remaining resources and you will be closer to lose the war.
Me too, but HiTech has voiced adament opposition to this idea in the past. I can understand his reasoning on this, too, and have yet to see someone suggest a viable alternative to base capture in the MA.
-
Originally posted by Sabre
HiTech has voiced adament opposition to this idea in the past. I can understand his reasoning on this
What was that reasoning? It is not a matter of limiting the number of planes that can spawn from a field, it is just the number of planes you lose.
What about that simplified idea?
- Each country starts with 2000 military equipment points.
- Each fighter/GV/PT destroyed substracts 1 point.
- Each bomber/Jet destroyed substracts 5 points.
- Each hour you get 100 free "reinforcement" points plus a modifier based on number of players: (max players in a country - your country numbers points) x 2.
- Each base capture gives you 25 points.
Once your country gets to 0 points you lose the war: reset.
You may win by conquer of by causing enormous casualities to the enemy.
-
Mandoble, that sounds like a great idea in a Scenario, but in Main arena play, a business like HTC just will not limit people via attrition to what they want to fly. Its a business decision, simple as that. This has been their philosophy since 1995 and its working so far.
-
sabre... little too wordy and complex for my simple mind... If it means that i will be able to take off from a carrier longer than i can now then I am for it. if it means the carrier force is more vulnerable or farther from the fight then I am against it.
tougher carrier forces = good more fragile carrier forces far away from the fight= bad.
lazs
-
While I agree with Mandoble in principle, the de facto result would be that the country with most rookies would die off first.
We have all seen some new guy auger 10 times on the takeoff roll, give up, grab a PT and just drift off in the MA like the flying dutchman. Imagine what our reaction would be if we knew that said newbie were loosing the war for us with every crashed aircraft.
-
Mandoble: Ah...now I misunderstood what you were saying. I thought you meant limiting the number of a/c that can spawn at a particular base/cv to some set number per unit time (like 20 per hour, for instance). Your idea is interesting. You'd have to limit it to combat losses (i.e. someone is credited with the kill), to reduce the impact Hortlund has pointed out. You'd also need to have the current losses for all three countries available on the clipboard in real time. Otherwise, the average player jumping into the arena won't have "the big picture" of how critical the situation is. Would you also eliminate base capture as we now know it, or include the "attrition affect" as an additional way a country would loose territory? How would strat fit into the concept?
Lazs: Forgive my verbosity;). I'm not suggesting any change to CV hardness, though I'd up the hardness of armored ships like cruisers and battleships to be equal to or better than the CV. Separating the CV from the CA/LVT by having two separate TG types in the Main is meant to encourage keeping the CV just a bit farther off shore. Not sectors away mind you;, just more like the typical distance between bases (i.e. 1 to 1&1/2 sector). Right now, if you want to make a naval assault on a base, you have to bring the CV into close visual range of the base. That's because that's the only way to effectively use the cruiser guns and LVT's. This puts your flightdeck in extreme peril, resulting in quick loss of the CV and several hours wait to get it back into the fight. The net result is slightly longer flight times each sortie, but more sorties overall because the CV is less likely to be quickly sunk. In my experience, defenders are less likely to go after the CV if it is out of visual range of their base.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
HTC just will not limit people via attrition to what they want to fly.
My idea is not impossing any limitation. You may fly what you want to fly and as many times as you want. No problem with that (all the fighters shotdown cost the same). If your country runs out of military points, we will have a reset and a new map. Where is the problem with that? Where is the limitation? This is just an alternative way to force a reset, not intended to imposse any limits.
Sabre, strat keeps the same. Base captures give you new bases and some extra military points. My proposal is considering the actual system plus casualities. If you have too many looses trying to conquer the enemy you may run out of points and lose the war. That means that an excelent defense by a coutry with few bases may be rewarded with a victory.
Basically, you lose when you run out of bases or out of points.
-
Great ideas Sabre. I have an idea as an addition that might work with the repetitive kamikaze tactics against the CV groups. How about, for a bomb hit to register the dropping plane has to be alive 5 seconds after impact. A bit gamey, but then, so is the Kamikaze wave assault outside of a specific, late war Pac scenario (where this feature could be unchecked). IMO, this is in line with other adjustments like disabling carbombombing and ground-based Ackstars. Just an idea.
Charon
-
"give players direct control over the helm, allowing them to control speed and heading"
What's to prevent a sabateur from driving the boat into the land?
The way points prevent this.
If manual steering of the boat is to be enabled, then also would like wind to be considered. CVs are turned into the wind for take off and landing - this would require a wind direction indicator for the helms man.
-
Mandobole, Charon, good ideas here. I think Rip misunderstood what you meant, same as I did. Again, you'd have to have something on the clipboard to indicate how close your country is to running out of MP's and loosing the war. There would be some maximum MP's "in the bank" such that no country could stockpile MP's. Once the MP bank was full, no more would be produced. Also, you could expand this idea, such that MP's would be produced at a rate based on the overall health of your country's strategic infrastructure. Pound the cities, factories, and refineries and MP production per hour is slowed by a proportional amount. It also introduces an interesting dynamic into the side balance issue. If each side produces the same amount of MP's per hour or day, (assuming an undamaged infrastructure), independent of number of players in each country, having a huge numbers advantage could actually work against your country. My theory is that more players for a country means more losses, as they will be on the offensive and taking greater losses. I don't have numbers to back that up...it's just a sense I get.
DmdNexus: Simply have an automatic helm override that will temporarily take control and turn the ship away from the land when ever the ship comes within some pre-defined distance from shore.
-
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.
-
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
-
Originally posted by Sabre
Mandobole, Charon, good ideas here. I think Rip misunderstood what you meant, same as I did.
Yep, I did misunderstand.
-
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.
-
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. :rolleyes: 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
-
Drama! DRAMA?:eek: 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.:D
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.
-
>No drama Sabre.
I wasn't infering you were being dramatic. Its a slang I picked up somewhere.
Translates to "No big deal".
Wab
-
>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
-
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?