Naval Raids and Mines

[Mowers]

So I have managed to successfully launch a naval raid.

It caused 1 EP of damage.
Is that normal or does it vary?
It did not cause any loss of national will (Russia raiding the baltic)
I did the same in the Black sea. (but it did not successfully occur)~
Can I ask how much it would cost in EP for the Russian naval fleet in the Baltic to launch a naval raid? (it appears to be 4 per raid but I want to confirm)

Both fleets went within range of mines.
Both fleets show damage but had no naval battle.
There was no notification of a mine strike.

Can you confirm that when a mine strike occurs there is a notification window?

Thanks
mowers

[Tamas]

Loss caused depends on the hex raided.

[calvinus]

It caused 1 EP of damage.
Is that normal or does it vary?

The larger is the target city/harbour, the more hits.

It did not cause any loss of national will (Russia raiding the baltic)

Normal, only EP loss.

I recall only Great Britain suffers from NW losses (for nationalistic reasons, of course), TR_NavalRaidNationalWillEffects rule...

Can I ask how much it would cost in EP for the Russian naval fleet in the Baltic to launch a naval raid? (it appears to be 4 per raid but I want to confirm)

The cost is a sum of:
- intrinsic activation cost of the selected fleet
- cost of the selected mission (1 for Naval Raids, see NavalMissions.xls DB)

So I guess the cost for activating your fleet was 3, provided the total cost was 4.

Both fleets went within range of mines.
Both fleets show damage but had no naval battle.

Normal, no battle, only automatic calculation! Otherwise we will have tons of annoying battles!

There was no notification of a mine strike.

It was on the game log and you surely missed it, see below.

Can you confirm that when a mine strike occurs there is a notification window?

If the squadron is simply damaged, you get a message on the game log.
If the squadron is annihilated by the mines explosion, you get a popup window.
If you want a popup window also for the simple damage, configure the Messages rule for the "Naval Battles" subject, setting the 'notify on popup' option.

[Mowers]

Thanks Calvinus, that clears alot up.

Russia has managed to sink the Turkish fleet and happily raids the Western Black sea every turn without fail.

But it appears (correct me if I am wrong) that the cost in EP to conduct the raids is about 3-5 times the amount of EP damage inflicted.

Now if there is no NW effect on Turkey having all its coastal traffic and coastal towns reduced to cinders it does beg the question why bother raiding at all? Why even leave port with any navy to raid unless you are going to raid the UK?

This appears ahistorically incorrect as both Turkey and Russia bothered to expend significant amounts of effort in attempting to disrupt its each others coastal traffic and settlements. As did Italy and Austria, all for much of the war. What if the AH navy managed to raid Eygpt or Marsailles, I am guessing that this would also have no negative national will effect on the respective
owners?

So, under the current model, my question is why raid at all? Indeed, these navies are not able to achieve anything, which is ahistoric and does not provide fun or realistic gameplay.

Perhaps it would be better, if I have understood the situation correctly, that NW is effected for any country that is successfully raided. Not a huge amount but enough to make it worth the expenditure of EP's.

Let me know if you have any thoughts or corrections on this analysis.

Thanks
Mowers

[calvinus]

Actually only UK receives NW hits, yes.

If you want all powers suffer NW hits, the game is to be modded (a TR_NavalRaidNationalWillEffects for each major power).

[Mowers]

Actually only UK receives NW hits, yes.

If you want all powers suffer NW hits, the game is to be modded (a TR_NavalRaidNationalWillEffects for each major power).

You'll have to explain that in more detail Sorry.

Do you have any thoughts on the utility of navies in the game without raiding having an value outside of the north sea?

[calvinus]

For what concerns the design aspects of the naval warfare, Philippe can help me....

For the modding aspects, I will explain in detail tomorrow.
Now I go to have some relax...

[Mowers]

For what concerns the design aspects of the naval warfare, Philippe can help me....

For the modding aspects, I will explain in detail tomorrow.
Now I go to have some relax...

Thanks, I appreciate your help.

And I look forward to hearing from Philippe as to the role and utility of navies within the naval model as i am currently unable to see how the naval model provides a historic framework for navies to operate within.

[Random]

Agree wholeheartedly with what Mowers' is seeing with regards to the naval game in WW1G.

Currently (Jan-Feb -1919) the German Atlantic squadrons (?) ran the straights of Gibralter undetected and uncatchable and with the Austrian navy is doing no end of mischief in the Med. All efforts of the combined Anglo-French-Italian navies have failed to catch them, none of the minefields appear to have attritted them at all and their sea control operations seem invariably successful where those of the Entente consume many EP's with zero return.

Overall it seems that the land war does a pretty good job of representing many of the characteristics of the Great War but the naval war is gamey and unhistorical. I'm still trying to determine how the Germans acquired all those EP's to spend for repeated Control sorties.

[Mowers]

I think its like Random says not enough thought has gone into thinking about the strategic implications of naval situations. Its a problem in the model when neither the great northern barrier nor the channel barrier can exist when the entire British strategic plan was based around them.

Clearly alot of thought has gone into building a tacical naval model and creating all the individual ship stats but without any thoughts to the strategic implications. I am led to understand this is a board game that "worked really well for 10 years" but I am surprised that no one ever had an ahistorial naval strategic situation and wondered if perhaps the naval model needed to be given some more depth? Did people just not bother playing the naval part of the board game? It's clear that no one ever play tested various naval strategic outcomes during the development of the board game or this computer game otherwise this stuff would have been picked up along time ago.

In short the naval strategic aspect of this game model does not work in a historic or fun way and is not worth using. Its quite literally not worth leaving port with any navy bar Germany/ UK and even then.... Yet historically quite the opposite happened with a very large number of sorties by Italy, France, AH, Turkey and Russia.

However, a good, and very easy, start would be to add some kind of loss of national will each time a naval raid is successful AND for the AI to know that. That would go along way to address the core problem with this game.

Then some thought on naval mines and their strategic implications would be useful because it seemed this was not properly considered during development either. The whole British strategic naval effort in WW1 was based on and around mines with literally 1000s of ships being involved, but this game is akin to being stuck in a pre war concept of naval warfare where submarines and mines are a bit of an irrevelancy and the big guns will always pave the way. It strikes me as odd that a tactical naval simulator was developed for a strategic level game yet with a very incomplete strategic level naval element implemented.

Finally, I wouldnt say these things if I didnt think the game wasn't worth it or that change couldnt occur. So bear that in mind whilst you read this, and then its time to have a real think about whether its worth making the strategic aspect of the naval game relevant, historical and fun, I certainly think so and I hope the developers do to as there is a real opportunity here to create something pretty special here, it could be a very good game indeed.

[Random]

As well as the NW issue, the model is far too battleship-centric to be historically accurate. The big gun had ceased to be the weapon of decision at sea, something that was unknown at the start (although foreseen by some) but evident as early October 1914. All together about as many capital ships were lost to accidents as to gunfire exclusively, a number that was a fraction of losses to mines and torpedoes. The natural enemy of the dreadnaught was the mine and the torpedo, not other dreadnaughts. This fact drove naval operations virtually from the start and only became more marked as the war progressed.

And yet little of this is reflected in the naval model of WW1G.

Battleships are far too powerful in the game to reproduce this. The strategically vital light forces are essentially non-existant or ineffective and cannot even be built in most cases.

I understand and really appreciate the attention lavished on WW1G since release but please revisit the naval model and look hard at Mowers' suggestions. Removing the battleship torpedoes in tactical combat would also go a long way towards aligning the naval game with naval history.

[calvinus]

Well, for the modding matter...

let's have a look at Modding\GoldScenarios\GrandCampaingTwo\TurnRules.xls DB
(that's the same for 4-players campaign Modding\GoldScenarios\GrandCampaingFour\TurnRules.xls DB), rule id 238:

TR_NavalRaidNationalWillEffects 1 100 - ENG -2,-1

That means Great Britain suffers a -2 NW loss for every naval raid (if the -1 param was greater than 0, it meant ENG suffered a -2 NW loss only for the first X raids).

Now you could add a similar rule for the other powers, but consider this issue not only in historical terms, but also in game balance terms. Turkey is already stuck by chronic desertions and the obstination of Enver Pasha. Austria by the slavic desertions. Etc. etc...

[Mowers]

Thanks Calvinus, very useful.

I assume that the AI navies (bar Germany) will never? raid regardless of a change in NW?

In regards to your other point, I think thats a very valid issue about other elements effecting morale. But note that none of these countries ever suffered a sustained campaign of raiding and all things being equal in the game will not. However, had they suffered a sustained campaign of raiding then, all things being equal, they would have collapsed earlier than their relative due date. My suggestion is merely that this potential outcome is modelled.

Furthermore each nation has access to a large number of mines that it can place (should it lose its fleet) in order to create havoc for any raiding force right?
I am correct in saying that multiple mines helps more than one mine?
Would the AI know to place more mines if it lost its fleet?

Furthermore I don't think that a NW loss of -2 is appropriate for other countries as the UK has a particularl strategic maritime risk/ vulnerability which, say, Austria doesnt have.

I was thinking about -1 NW or, better still, a 60% chance of 1 NW being lost for each country. Maybe Italy, Japan and France are more vulnerable with maybe a 80% of 1 NW being lost. The actual number can be debated but you can see where I am going with this.

[calvinus]

I assume that the AI navies (bar Germany) will never? raid regardless of a change in NW?

Raid missions era planned by AI without considerin NW goals, but only to cause economic losses.

Furthermore each nation has access to a large number of mines that it can place (should it lose its fleet) in order to create havoc for any raiding force right?
I am correct in saying that multiple mines helps more than one mine?

Yes, this is clear to AI.

Would the AI know to place more mines if it lost its fleet?

This is not programmed. AI places mines also if the fleet is present.
Consider anyway that placement of mines is the last priority, because of economic expenditures have commonly more important targets, of course.
Furthermore I don't think that a NW loss of -2 is appropriate for other

I was thinking about -1 NW or, better still, a 60% chance of 1 NW being lost for each country. Maybe Italy, Japan and France are more vulnerable with maybe a 80% of 1 NW being lost. The actual number can be debated but you can see where I am going with this.

The rule cannot be tweaked to have a % chance, but only a max number of occurrences.

[Panama Red]

I was under the impression that this PC game's main goal was to replicate the original boardgame, as such:

1. Did the original boardgame deduct NW's from anybody other that Britian ??? If not, then you are deviating from the original game by deducting NW's from any other country than Britian with naval raids.

2. Since only Britian could be starved to death because they only grew about 40% of their food they consumed during this time, cutting off their food with naval raids would definately affect their NW.

3. Since Britian took great pride in being #1 in naval power, anybody naval raiding against them would be a blow to their National Pride (NW), so that also backs up point #2.

4. No other country can be starved to death by cutting off their navel imports, so naval raids should not affect their NW.

5. If you want to have naval raids affect any other country other than Briatian, than naval raids should only affect EP because the raids disrupt their economy, not their survival like Britian. These raiders. should also pay a EP price because they had to use resources to conduct these raids.

[Mowers]

What is the Main goal of the board game?

Is it to simulate WW1?

Because if so, the model is not correct within the parameters that it currently operates in.

[Panama Red]

Now you have crossed over into the land of opinion.

I own a number of stratigic WW1 PC games, and this game portrays WW1 far better and in far more detail and any of the other WW1 PC games that I own or have read about. If you do own or know of any better WW1 stratigic games than this one, I would like to hear about them.

Is this game perfict, no, but then that is why Calvinus keeps improving it with his patches .

In my opinion (and that is why I say opinion), Calvinus needs to get this game to play like the original boardgame before he starts to deviate from that. The moment he deviates from that main goal, he will be bombarded with requests to change this small thing or that. At that time, this game could very well completely change the feel and play of the original boardgame because of all the interrelated game codes and that is not the stated goal by Calvinus in several of his posts.

[Tamas]

Yes Panama Red is right.

Besides, I dont think you can point me to much proof on any population of the majors giving much thought about some naval raids beside the UK.

1NW is like 2.5% of the max possible NW. There is no reason to have nations lose it over raids.

And the battleship did reign supreme in that time. Just because they cancelled each other out doesn't mean they were ineffective, and the BB losses could had horrendous morale consequences, rightly modelled in the game.

[Mowers]

Now you have crossed over into the land of opinion.

That doesnt really answer the question does it? You merely tried to side step it

I own a number of stratigic WW1 PC games, and this game portrays WW1 far better and in far more detail and any of the other WW1 PC games that I own or have read about. If you do own or know of any better WW1 stratigic games than this one, I would like to hear about them.

Well there are no other games bar matrix's. As we all know this game got absolutely slated by the media, even that media that might be pro it, and from what I am seeing its not been terribly popular on various strategic gaming boards either. Just because there are no other models does not, by logic, make this good. Having said that, it has a tremendous amount of potential and I am extremely excited about it.

Is this game perfict, no, but then that is why Calvinus keeps improving it with his patches .

He is working hard, there is no doubt about it.

In my opinion (and that is why I say opinion), Calvinus needs to get this game to play like the original boardgame before he starts to deviate from that. The moment he deviates from that main goal, he will be bombarded with requests to change this small thing or that. At that time, this game could very well completely change the feel and play of the original boardgame because of all the interrelated game codes and that is not the stated goal by Calvinus in several of his posts.

We are back to my orginal point, is the board game meant to simulate WW1 or not within the parameters set?

Obviously it is.

So, now, rather than make comments such as its your opinion, or this is a great game or this will open the flood gates; lets have a proper discussion about the naval model and why its broken and, how to improve it.

So do you have any thoughts on the naval model?

[rattlesnake]

Actually , navy is important to the NW of England.When I defeated the English fleet of about 15 battleships ,the immediate result is the capitulation of England .There must be something wrong with the AI.

[Mowers]

Besides, I dont think you can point me to much proof on any population of the majors giving much thought about some naval raids beside the UK..

Are you saying, because I am struggling here, that I need to find proof that people weren't bothered because they weren't raided.

What about the HUGE number of mines laid by all sides to STOP raiding. If they were so unconcerned about raids why did they place massive amount of mines?

Or are you really saying that if numerous ports in Italy were destroyed "they wouldnt give much thought to it"?

1NW is like 2.5% of the max possible NW. There is no reason to have nations lose it over raids.

Why not? If you were Italy your local maritime traffic was utterly destroyed and your major ports were burnt down, are you saying that wouldnt have an effect? Really, no effect? Yet, Scarborough takes a couple of shells and the UK loses 2 NW? Are you arguing that, that as a model is correct?

And the battleship did reign supreme in that time. Just because they cancelled each other out doesn't mean they were ineffective, and the BB losses could had horrendous morale consequences, rightly modelled in the game.

Battleships reigned supreme in WW1? Not in a strategic sense, and in most operations not even in a tactical sense.
I am assuming that you know how many battleships sunk other battleships compared to other weapons?
Battleships ended up playing a minor strategic role in WW1. Far less than submarines or mines or lighter ships.

[Panama Red]

Mowers:
Here we disagree again. No, this PC game is not meant to simulate WW1 (Calvinus has never said that it tried to do that), he has always said that it is meant to computerize the boardgame !!!

Now the original boardgame was meant to simulate WW1 into a game, but this PC game is first of all meant to simulate the boardgame. And that is a big difference !!!

Once Calvinus can get this PC game to simulate the boardgame, Then and only then should he attempt to change his goal (if he so desires) to simulate WW1 and even there I disagree with you concerning your statement about the wrong model (again just my opinion).

[Mowers]

Mowers:
Here we disagree again. No, this PC game is not meant to simulate WW1 (Calvinus has never said that it tried to do that), he has always said that it is meant to computerize the boardgame !!!

Now the original boardgame was meant to simulate WW1 into a game, but this PC game is first of all meant to simulate the boardgame. And that is a big difference !!!

Once Calvinus can get this PC game to simulate the boardgame, Then and only then should he attempt to change his goal (if he so desires) to simulate WW1 and even there I disagree with you concerning your statement about the wrong model (again just my opinion).

Back to the model.

Are you saying that if Italy had all its ports destroyed and its coastal traffic disrupted that this would have no effect on NW?

And that the cost in EP to Italy would be 3-5 times less the cost in launching those raids?

Indeed, as is pointed out later in this thread, they sacked their minister for Marine....

Because, at that point, we leave the realm of opinions and logic.

[Random]

Replicating historical errors made in the boardgame is certainly a design choice but hardly seems a positive one.

As for other nation's taking NW hits for bombardments, the Italian reaction to the Austrian naval bombardments of Ancona, Bari and Rimini was to cashier the Minister of Marine, an unlikely event if the public mood was unaffected.

Move past Jutland when considering the naval war. For a mere three hours in a war lasting four and a half years the gun ruled on the afternoon of 31 May 1916 whereas the rest of the war at sea belonged to the submarine, destroyer and minesweeper supported by cruisers of various types. Time and again, destroyers hunted dreadnaughts and dreadnaughts would flee from destroyers; the Great War battleship ruled only in the popular imagination and on Internet forums. The ship-killing weapons were the torpedo and the mine.

I do agree that overall, WW1G is an excellent game and the support has been outstanding; fixing the counterfactual details in the naval war would definately improve its simulation value however.

[Tamas]

Actually , navy is important to the NW of England.When I defeated the English fleet of about 15 battleships ,the immediate result is the capitulation of England .There must be something wrong with the AI.

15 lost battleships equals a huge NW penalty, especially if they were designated as losers of the battle. So its not an AI thing, it works as designed. I dont think the UK has any choice but to take battle against the German Navy.

[calvinus]

In my current game I (UK, not AI, just me :wacko had two major naval defeats in North Sea and Dogger Bank and I lost about 15 ships, yes! I had a major NW loss, something like 10 points! I was lucky because I moved from 32 NW pts to 22 points... If I was at a lower level, the impact would have been surely worse!

[rattlesnake]

15 lost battleships equals a huge NW penalty, especially if they were designated as losers of the battle. So its not an AI thing, it works as designed. I dont think the UK has any choice but to take battle against the German Navy.

The fleet of 15 battleships is not far away from the hamburg.They never flee away .I think they are designed like this.You are right ,they battle against the German Navy .Even they are damaged, they will never leave.I think it is wrong with the AI.

[rattlesnake]

In my current game I (UK, not AI, just me :wacko had two major naval defeats in North Sea and Dogger Bank and I lost about 15 ships, yes! I had a major NW loss, something like 10 points! I was lucky because I moved from 32 NW pts to 22 points... If I was at a lower level, the impact would have been surely worse!

During my recent game,I always keep my NW above 30.That is a good way to prevent from emergency.

[rattlesnake]

In my current game I (UK, not AI, just me :wacko had two major naval defeats in North Sea and Dogger Bank and I lost about 15 ships, yes! I had a major NW loss, something like 10 points! I was lucky because I moved from 32 NW pts to 22 points... If I was at a lower level, the impact would have been surely worse!

Even if my NW is above 30.There comes the strike.The AI says it "reshuffle".
I don't know what it is and how to explain this phenomenon.

[Mowers]

15 lost battleships equals a huge NW penalty, especially if they were designated as losers of the battle. So its not an AI thing, it works as designed. I dont think the UK has any choice but to take battle against the German Navy.

Except historically they did have a choice, and that's exactly what they did, they choose NOT to fight the German navy except when they were absolutely sure they had the upper hand after a German screw up. The exact opposite to what you are saying.

Instead they laid tens of thousands of mines.