Just a thought. I understand that there weren't many major naval engagements in WW1, and I know that there were design flaws in some of the British Battlecruisers leading to catastrophic destruction, but for some reason German units seem to have a qualitative advantage to hit in a number of naval wargames.
Surely outside the battlecruisers this is unlikely to be an issue? The Battleships, Cruisers and Destroyers weren't all that different at the time. I'd suggest that in terms of crew quality both countries were broadly comparable. In terms of naval tradition Britain probably has the edge. I'm pretty sure I read something about the quality of Battlecruisers determing the quality of the entire Royal Navy in another post, but what do you guys think?
The rangefinding equipment on the British and German capital ships used different methods. Supposedly the German ones were more effective at getting a good range faster, while the British ones were better at keeping the range on maneuvering targets, after it had been found. I don't know why this translates into some universal German bonus all-around, so I'm as wary as you.
I've always suspected that the disparity in fleet quantities has led game designers to go overboard with the universal crew quality bonuses for the German side, as some kind of gameplay balance. While I don't think that's the proper way of doing so, it's also the fastest/easiest to just lay down a blanket bonus. While the Germans had good training, they also weren't actually out sailing in force on the high seas as much as their British counterparts during the war years either. I think crew bonuses should be left to experience/training ratings on a ship-by-ship basis and not given one big blanket bonus to a single side.
The other issue I've had is the drastically high amount of magazine explosions on British Battlecruisers being turned into a nation-wide chance for the whole of the British navy. There has been tons of speculation on the causes over the years, but the biggest and most obvious one is that safety precautions had been cut during the Battlecruiser force's training in order for them to increase their rate of fire, which was all the rage in the Brit navy at the time. With powder bags lying everywhere, and safety measures to keep flash fires from reaching the magazine below being shirked, it's pretty obvious what would happen in a turret hit (and it did). The excuse used for using a large enough chance to make it happen to every ship in the fleet on a regular basis, is that there was some flaw in the powder bag relay system leading up from the magazine. While that may have created some remote freak happenstance of having all the protective doors opened at once right when the turret got hit, the rate given in these games is far too high to account for it that alone - except for the specific ships that trained to actively skirted such safety measures in order to move powder and ammo faster up the 'tube'.
I get pretty frustrated when I'm playing some scenario in one of these games and everything from my Armored Cruisers and up just explode with about a 1 in 4 rate in each scenario. Sometimes within the first six or seven minutes of engagement. Also - the German hit rate is a bit too high (at least in Steam & Iron) compared to the British one in large engagements. The old numbers showed that things were fairly equal when you took the British battlecruisers' Spray & Pray rates out of the equation during Jutland. They were even a bit better regarding a Dreadnaught vs Dreadnaught comparison IIRC. This blanket crew quality bonus to the German side is a bit overboard and it also gives them noticeably faster repair times during the battle. While German damage control was quite good, I think the survivability of their ships was due more to their shipbuilding doctrine of having heavier armor than the British, so they didn't take as many crippling hits in the first place.
In other words, I'm all for taking out these Blanket Crew Modifiers and replacing them with a few modifiers that aren't quite so all-encompassing. Solutions:
1) Remove the universal German Crew Bonus and the universal British Magazine Explosion chance.
2) Add an early fire bonus for the German fire control (that drops once the range has been found, and the 'Previous Hit' modifiers kick in). Optional: Give the Brits a slightly higher 'Previous Hit' bonus? I don't think that's needed considering the bonus would be so small anyway (and the current tendency towards play balance).
3) Apply the current magazine explosion chance modifier only to British Battlecruisers. Add a much smaller one to the rest, if need be, although I believe the dreadnaught magazine explosion rate was comparable to the German one so we probably don't even need this second one at all.
4) Leave the Poor Shell Quality for the Brits. This seems to be done fairly well, from what I've experienced (in Jutland anyway) so no complaints there.
5) If the Germans just absolutely must have some kind of damage control bonus, then give them some slight advantage in fighting fires or something similar. But not a overarching damage control bonus - it's too unbalanced when done that way IMO.
Thus far, I've had no luck pleading this case and I don't expect to. But here it is - my problem & solution submission.
Quote from: Boggit on March 08, 2013, 08:44:42 PM
Just a thought. I understand that there weren't many major naval engagements in WW1, and I know that there were design flaws in some of the British Battlecruisers leading to catastrophic destruction, but for some reason German units seem to have a qualitative advantage to hit in a number of naval wargames.
Surely outside the battlecruisers this is unlikely to be an issue? The Battleships, Cruisers and Destroyers weren't all that different at the time. I'd suggest that in terms of crew quality both countries were broadly comparable. In terms of naval tradition Britain probably has the edge. I'm pretty sure I read something about the quality of Battlecruisers determing the quality of the entire Royal Navy in another post, but what do you guys think?
I think the events of Jutland get over-interpreted since there's not much else to go on and the games tend to over-emphasize gunnery over signals and command control.
In terms of gunnery, the Hocheseeflotte did okay at Jutland. In terms of everything else (which the games can't simulate without a lot of really complex signal and command rules) they sailed right into a trap and barely got out after making nearly every possible mistake they could have.
In terms of signals and control, the BCF did fine -- spotted the HSF main body and led it into a trap. Gunnery was not so good, but the 5th BS did well.
The critical problem seems to have been the cordite charges themselves and not how they were handled. The RN charges burned catastrophically after a turret penetration and that caused the loss of 3 battlecruisers (though only one of those was of the latest design).
So, due to that last factor (the cordite charges) and the lack of gunnery training in the BCF, the whole RN gets pretty heavily penalized in games and due to the factors that current games simulate (ie gunnery and damage) the effects are even worse given what current games don't simulate (signals and command control).
So there's only so much you can do to get the real effect of the Grand Fleet versus the HSF.
To get more flavorful games for that period of intense experimentation in naval design, I would think you would need to allow players to invest their limited resources in different kinds of training (with a variable range of uncertain results), different kinds of guns and fire control, different kinds of ships etc. etc.
So that players could have the VA BCF experience and say, "There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today." But still carry on and get a win via means other than gunnery.
I watched a documentary last week about Jutland. It was one of those deals where they went diving to wrecks to learn more about the battle, though I don't believe it was Battlefield Detectives. They ended up diving on HMS Invincible. The conclusion of their resident expert was that it had to be the cordite, since all of the evidence pointed toward a slow burn explosion. I dont know how far to trust their expert, but his explanation sounded credible.
I have to agree though the the game results, at least in SAI and Jutland seem skewed toward the Hocheseeflotte over the RN. Of course, when I didn't know much about the subject I didn't really see this, but the more I've studied it the more obvious its become. Granted, it may be that I'm just a crap admiral, but if that was all of it I'd expect to consistently lose when commanding German ships, and I don't - I usually win. In fact, I'm going to try the Falklands from the German side this week, just to see if I can get a better than historical result.
All in all, it's kind of annoying. I like Nefaro's suggestions, particularly about removing the blanket magazine explosion chance modifier. I know Stormeagle argues that if the cordite handling procedures on the BCs were that bad they must have been equally bad on every other ship class, but history doesn't seem to bear that out.
Quote from: panzerde on March 11, 2013, 04:23:34 PM
I watched a documentary last week about Jutland. It was one of those deals where they went diving to wrecks to learn more about the battle, though I don't believe it was Battlefield Detectives. They ended up diving on HMS Invincible. The conclusion of their resident expert was that it had to be the cordite, since all of the evidence pointed toward a slow burn explosion. I dont know how far to trust their expert, but his explanation sounded credible.
I have to agree though the the game results, at least in SAI and Jutland seem skewed toward the Hocheseeflotte over the RN. Of course, when I didn't know much about the subject I didn't really see this, but the more I've studied it the more obvious its become. Granted, it may be that I'm just a crap admiral, but if that was all of it I'd expect to consistently lose when commanding German ships, and I don't - I usually win. In fact, I'm going to try the Falklands from the German side this week, just to see if I can get a better than historical result.
All in all, it's kind of annoying. I like Nefaro's suggestions, particularly about removing the blanket magazine explosion chance modifier. I know Stormeagle argues that if the cordite handling procedures on the BCs were that bad they must have been equally bad on every other ship class, but history doesn't seem to bear that out.
The
Battlefield Detectives version posited the BC commander's emphasis on rapid fire over safety.
I just watched it again on Netflix last week.
Wow! I'm impressed with you guys. You've really given it some thought. :)
I hope the naval game designers sit up and take note of what Nefaro, Mengjiao and Panzerde are saying. IT'S GOOD STUFF - L I S T E N TO THEM! 8) :D
I thought perhaps it was me getting too "Groggy", but I'm glad I'm in such learned company. 8)
Great info. But is it not done due to game balance? Quantity vs quality. If the British had both quantity and quality, then would it not be one-sided?
The discussion seems geared toward the battlecruiser action; sexy but only one part of the story. The Grand Fleet's quality was as good as the Hochseeflottes. Remember, it was the Germans who turned and ran.
Quote from: jomni on March 11, 2013, 08:51:16 PM
Great info. But is it not done due to game balance? Quantity vs quality. If the British had both quantity and quality, then would it not be one-sided?
Historically, it was pretty one-sided. The HSF met the whole Grand Fleet on just one occasion and the HSF was extremely lucky to get out relatively intact.
In reality things were even more crazily stacked against the HSF, since after 1915, the RN could read and radio locate all of their radio signals.
Sadly, this reduces games to a focus on areas where the HSF did okay: gunnery and taking hits and staying afloat.
Quote from: Boggit on March 11, 2013, 08:08:12 PM
Wow! I'm impressed with you guys. You've really given it some thought. :)
I hope the naval game designers sit up and take note of what Nefaro, Mengjiao and Panzerde are saying. IT'S GOOD STUFF - L I S T E N TO THEM! 8) :D
I thought perhaps it was me getting too "Groggy", but I'm glad I'm in such learned company. 8)
A lot of typical gamey problems come together when dealing with Jutland:
1) a preference (amoung game designers apparently) for simple old stories or stereotypes along the lines of "German efficiency and British Blundering"
2) the fact that games tend to simulate what there is a lot of hard data about
3) the fact that players don't like AI routines that make coming to grips with the enemy highly problematic (at Jutland this would include amazing amounts of crap for poor Jellico to wade through -- if you look at the signals he was getting, it was pretty amazing that he managed
a perfect crossing of the T )
4) the fact that games focus on big-name events rather than the decades-long processes (eg. Fisher rebuilding the RN) that almost completely determined the outcomes of the big-name events
As a grogg...I know what I'd like to see, but I realize it might be hard to program, puzzling for players and unlikel to sell...though of course all 4x space games are based on the naval tech races of say 1880 to 1990.
@MengJiao
+1 You said it, brother!
Quote from: Bismarck on March 12, 2013, 10:37:02 AM
@MengJiao
+1 You said it, brother!
I was just explaining the evolution of boardgames last night: as the narrative understanding of past events has gotten more complex (eg Glantz on the East front, lots of revision on WWI technology, Clay Blair on U-boats) games have had to choose more carefully what they want to represent and how by using such things as command points and card draws to cover the more difficult to quantify but very crucial aspects of C(3) I and so on. So in Elusive Victory, you can put more aircraft up, but then your ability to get them to track and engage the enemy goes down because you are overloading your control system.
Computer games have a lot more trouble with that sort of thing it seems to me partly because they do have the option of tracking every shell and so on (but not every signal and not every instance of command overload on the bridge or targetting from a destroyer etc. etc.) . the combat mission games come closest to combining command and control factors and tracking every bullet, which for a nautical battle would get them to the level of simulating good pirates, but not even the most primitive of fleets because of the interlocking decisions that even a bunch of pentconters would have to manage -- there's just a whole other level of design that has yet to be even well-imagined when it comes to naval battles.
BUT you can do such things in board games oddly enough (since they have to make a choice
about how to summarize the effects of C(3)I and ice and storms and ship design. So to celebrate your +1, i have purchased GMT games' PQ-17.
AND its on sale for 40.00!
I thought it was the groggiest thing I could do at the time.
Thanks but my spasticty is getting worse with age and there's so few serious wargamers here. I can no longer play wargames. I sold mt magnificent collection about five years ago.
Quote from: MengJiao on March 12, 2013, 12:46:41 PM
Quote from: Bismarck on March 12, 2013, 10:37:02 AM
@MengJiao
+1 You said it, brother!
I was just explaining the evolution of boardgames last night: as the narrative understanding of past events has gotten more complex (eg Glantz on the East front, lots of revision on WWI technology, Clay Blair on U-boats) games have had to choose more carefully what they want to represent and how by using such things as command points and card draws to cover the more difficult to quantify but very crucial aspects of C(3) I and so on. So in Elusive Victory, you can put more aircraft up, but then your ability to get them to track and engage the enemy goes down because you are overloading your control system.
Computer games have a lot more trouble with that sort of thing it seems to me partly because they do have the option of tracking every shell and so on (but not every signal and not every instance of command overload on the bridge or targetting from a destroyer etc. etc.) . the combat mission games come closest to combining command and control factors and tracking every bullet, which for a nautical battle would get them to the level of simulating good pirates, but not even the most primitive of fleets because of the interlocking decisions that even a bunch of pentconters would have to manage -- there's just a whole other level of design that has yet to be even well-imagined when it comes to naval battles.
BUT you can do such things in board games oddly enough (since they have to make a choice
about how to summarize the effects of C(3)I and ice and storms and ship design. So to celebrate your +1, i have purchased GMT games' PQ-17.
AND its on sale for 40.00!
I thought it was the groggiest thing I could do at the time.
+1 to that.
I can understand where you're coming from on the C3I games. I really enjoy games that use it - like you said Combat Mission, but I also like those that build up a profile of what you're up against like Harpoon, or back in the day the C64 Red Storm Rising where you had to build up and confirm sonar signatures to form a plan to deal with the enemy. I realise that doesn't deal with the orders aspect, but it does make it more challenging and interesting.
Quote from: Bismarck on March 12, 2013, 08:40:10 AM
The discussion seems geared toward the battlecruiser action; sexy but only one part of the story. The Grand Fleet's quality was as good as the Hochseeflottes. Remember, it was the Germans who turned and ran.
Indeed. Agree completely.
That's why the blanket modifiers are too much in many cases (notably the quick magazine explosions) - because they were primarily limited to a relatively small and very specific part of the British Fleet, yet the rates are being applied to the whole fleet in a skewed manner.
My point about the blanket damage control bonus for the Hochsee Fleet is also not the best way to go, although for the different reason I previously posted (heavier German armor and poor British Ammunition provided fewer critical hits in the first place!)
Quote from: Nefaro on March 12, 2013, 05:46:44 PM
Quote from: Bismarck on March 12, 2013, 08:40:10 AM
The discussion seems geared toward the battlecruiser action; sexy but only one part of the story. The Grand Fleet's quality was as good as the Hochseeflottes. Remember, it was the Germans who turned and ran.
Indeed. Agree completely.
That's why the blanket modifiers are too much in many cases (notably the quick magazine explosions) - because they were primarily limited to a relatively small and very specific part of the British Fleet, yet the rates are being applied to the whole fleet in a skewed manner.
My point about the blanket damage control bonus for the Hochsee Fleet is also not the best way to go, although for the different reason I previously posted (heavier German armor and poor British Ammunition provided fewer critical hits in the first place!)
Just wondering whether Steam and Iron (on my hotlist) deals with this along the lines you suggest? If not, then they should listen to you. I know John Tiller's Jutland just gives a better hit chance for the German's, but NWS hold themselves out as naval wargame specialists.
Just speaking for our NWS productions - we never use "blanket" modifiers for our simulations to cover for every battle during a time frame. Doctrines, tactics, equipment, training, etc.. changed during the war based on combat experience and refits which would negate the historical accuracy of using "blanket" modifiers. Specific historically based modifiers may apply to scenarios to cover for individual battle combat environment conditions or other general variables only.
During Jutland the Germans were not - in general - "better" gunners when compared to the British. The combat environment and specific engagement situations during the various skirmishes allowed for some slight advantages to one side or the other during the fluid battle. End result, the battle in its entirety cannot, in my professional opinion, be used to calibrate the combat mechanics for every battle fought during WW1. Jutland is a broad case example but hardly the only possible engagement that could have occurred, or that did occur, during the war. Overall when you consider that the hit rate was relatively abysmal for both sides at around 2-4% a ~1% difference is not that significant, as is noted by various sources, when the massive amount of complex mechanical, human, and environment variables that contributed to the battle are taken into account.
Thanks.
Quote from: Boggit on March 12, 2013, 07:33:32 PM
Quote from: Nefaro on March 12, 2013, 05:46:44 PM
Quote from: Bismarck on March 12, 2013, 08:40:10 AM
The discussion seems geared toward the battlecruiser action; sexy but only one part of the story. The Grand Fleet's quality was as good as the Hochseeflottes. Remember, it was the Germans who turned and ran.
Indeed. Agree completely.
That's why the blanket modifiers are too much in many cases (notably the quick magazine explosions) - because they were primarily limited to a relatively small and very specific part of the British Fleet, yet the rates are being applied to the whole fleet in a skewed manner.
My point about the blanket damage control bonus for the Hochsee Fleet is also not the best way to go, although for the different reason I previously posted (heavier German armor and poor British Ammunition provided fewer critical hits in the first place!)
Just wondering whether Steam and Iron (on my hotlist) deals with this along the lines you suggest? If not, then they should listen to you. I know John Tiller's Jutland just gives a better hit chance for the German's, but NWS hold themselves out as naval wargame specialists.
S&I has similar bonuses/penalties blanketing the respective nation.
I had brought this up on the NWS forum shortly after the release when I noticed that the German Navy was getting a nation-wide bonus in crew quality, above and beyond the crew quality ratings for individual ships. There was a fair amount of people in general agreement with my suggestion to restrict the catastrophic explosions on all British warships, and cut the nation-wide German crew bonuses that pretty much give the German Navy a small bonus in every performance aspect. But, naturally, there were still a few people who wanted it to stay the way it is now (IIRC some alluded to the rather gamey "balance" aspect).
The developer was considerate of the argument, and said that it may be open for a change in one of the updates if enough people thought it important enough, but there wasn't any unanimous outpouring for it so it was never changed AFAIK. He suggested the "quick" fix would be to open scenarios and adjust the crew quality manually with the scenario editor, to offset the bonus, but that was just a band-aid suggestion. Don't get me wrong, the S&I developer was
very accommodating with all our other interface & gameplay feedback and included a very large amount of it, so I've been quite impressed with his flexibility and the wonderful updates post-release. The posts I seen on
Jutland just outright said that they were not going to change it, and to not bring it up anymore. There is, however, a couple optional settings in Jutland for an all-or-nothing adjustment to shell break-up (which is generally modelled okay IMO) and British Powder Handling. I've tended to turn powder handling off in Jutland just because that when it's on, all ship types in the Brit Navy blow up on a regluar basis enough that one often goes tits-up quite early in battle (once again - believable with Beatty's Battlecruiser squadron.. that same exaggerated rate not quite so much for BBs, ACs, and the others). In both games.. and especially in my last few S&I games playing the Brit side, I've had at least one (and sometimes two) ships blow up in the early stages of the battle. Not to mention many of my crit hits against the German vessels beings quickly fixed within a few minutes (like taking out turrets with gun hits and them being up and operational quite quickly... flooding and fires coming under control very quickly, etc.) I have trouble sinking equivalently-sized German warships, even when outnumbering them 3- or 4-to-2 before my whole ammo load is exhausted.
However, the over-pronounced insta-deadly explosions for the whole British Navy, and the notably superior fire, and especially repair rates, of the German Navy still rub me a bit wrong despite my love of S&I overall. I think both games got quite a lot right, but the sometimes invincible German ships and the oft-early disintegration of British ships are overly pronounced enough to be frustrating at times.
Would I buy S&I again? Absolutely, because I love the subject matter and it does most everything right even despite looking like the original Harpoon from ~1992. :P
EDIT: Chris is here so it's a good time to ask the detailed questions. :D
So the bonuses (such as the German Hit Bonuses & such) are all scenario-specific? What about random scenarios? Or the ones created by the campaign generator? I was pretty sure I had seen German bonuses in random scenarios, too.
I do know that I've regularly had Brit ships disappear in a cloud of smoke fairly quickly, and on a regular basis, even in small scenarios involving cruisers & such. I don't know how, exactly, the extra Brit magazine explosion chances are handled but I've been on the receiving end of it quite a bit while German magazine explosions are extremely rare.
As I am the designer of WCNAW I will confer with FW, designer of SAI, before I reply to make sure we are on the same page with my response. Note, my responses will have to be short and generalized a bit as my time is very limited right now as we are getting ready to launch the SAI campaign expansion very soon plus I have to cover other admin duties here at NWS.
Thanks.
So you don't want to use the easy manual editor? Just great - fine mediocrity. Ignore a problem you think is significant and lay it all on the deb, ignoring his other customers. Why have edit functions if people don't use them?
Quote from: Bismarck on March 12, 2013, 09:32:52 PM
So you don't want to use the easy manual editor? Just great - fine mediocrity. Ignore a problem you think is significant and lay it all on the deb, ignoring his other customers. Why have edit functions if people don't use them?
??!
I don't want to go in and manually modify every ship in every scenario before playing. While I've done a little scenario editing before, and some small bits of modding, I'm not one to find much enjoyment in it for very long. I'm not even sure if the random ones can be done that way, either. I'd rather enjoy playing it with some quibbles about a few modifiers than spend much of my time, with the game, in the editor.
At this point, I don't expect either WWI game's mechanics to be changed, or an option added, so it's a moot point anyway.
This is FW's response,
Quote
Naval historians and gamers all have their opinions and theories about different aspects of naval combat and national advantages or disadvantages. The modifiers in SAI are based on our best opinions at NWS, but of course others might hold a different opinion. S&I has modifiers that govern national characteristics as well as specific modifiers in the different scenarios and campaigns. German ships have a 10% accuracy bonus, but considering all the other factors that affect gunnery, this is very slight as an advantage. German ships also get a bonus to damage control which is of the same order.
British ships have a higher risk of blowing up from turret flash fires, with the battlecruisers having a larger risk than other ships. The risk is however considerably lower than suggested by battle data. Finally, in the campaign, the risk of flash fires will be reduced the more ships have blown up, simulating attention to ammo procedures after the problem has become evident.
If you do not like these values or have another opinion about the national characterisics, these values are governed by the file Nations.dat, which is a text file and can easily be modified to values that you are comfortable with.
/Fredrik
Now I would note, SAI is intended to be an operational campaign simulator with the ability to resolve battles in real time at a tactical level. Modelling the "human" element is not, nor has it ever been, an exact science, nor were evolving doctrines for naval operations. "Nationality" ratings, in terms of SAI, should not be looked at as a "blanket" modifier but more of a general naval operations doctrinal adjustment for SAI. Some countries - on average - did have better doctrines for naval operations then others such as ammo volatility/storage, damage control training/equipment standards, gunnery salvo doctrines, useful operational experience, etc.. .
The above is FWs perspective - and as noted above, the nationality ratings can easily be adjusted to whatever the gamer feels is more appropriate based on their personal opinion. The crew ratings per ship can also be adjusted per scenario.
Now my view on the topic,
In WCNAW, a purely very detailed tactical naval combat simulation, I use a crew rating per ship and there are some nationality modifiers that take into account doctrinal, DC equipment standards, and training considerations that are determined by the year of the scenario and nationality in question. Each ship can be given an adjusted crew quality rating that further modifies the general fighting effectiveness of the ship.
Note, combat experience should not always be considered equivalent to effective, or flawed, doctrines. A navy could have good or poor training, effective or flawed doctrines, and/or useful or ineffective operational or combat experience. Example, the IJN at the start of WW2 had considerable operational and reasonable combat experience (vs mostly ineffective armed forces) but very questionable blue water naval operational doctrines - note, they had never fought an effective blue water navy before engaging the USN. (The RN had no way to muster enough naval firepower to even create a challenge for the IJN in the Indian and SW Pacific regions at that time). The USN had very low operational combat experience but typically more effective naval doctrines (especially for CV combat operations and damage control) - for the exception of DD surface combat tactics which were severely ineffective until around 1943.
I would consider the RN at the start of WW1 very experienced at naval operations but with some various flaws with their doctrines in combat. The Germans were not as experienced at naval operations but some of their doctrines were, to some extent, better then the British. Was it enough to give the Germans a decided advantage? Not a chance. At best the general effect was barely marginal and the British did improve their doctrines to some extent as the war progressed. In the end, neither navy had enough firepower to destroy the other in any one engagement. Thousands of shells were expended at Jutland, as an example, for a very low return in results and both sides, when given the proper exploitable opportunity, caused variable amounts of damage to the enemy through reasonably effective gunnery.
In the end, I am a semi-advocate of "national" ratings and we did have long discussions on the topic - but - I understand FWs point of view. To some extent national doctrine considerations did have a role to play in naval engagements. How much of a role is sometimes a matter of opinion based on how one interprets the available historical facts of how each nation designed and fought their ships in combat during the wars. To make matters more complicated - doctrines very often evolved through combat experience, sometimes for the better, sometimes not. A nation could go to war with a set of doctrines that would work vs one military force but not as much against a different military force. This was the case for land, air, and naval combat throughout history.
Thanks.
Quote from: Boggit on March 12, 2013, 05:22:00 PM
Quote from: MengJiao on March 12, 2013, 12:46:41 PM
Quote from: Bismarck on March 12, 2013, 10:37:02 AM
@MengJiao
+1 You said it, brother!
I was just explaining the evolution of boardgames last night: as the narrative understanding of past events has gotten more complex (eg Glantz on the East front, lots of revision on WWI technology, Clay Blair on U-boats) games have had to choose more carefully what they want to represent and how by using such things as command points and card draws to cover the more difficult to quantify but very crucial aspects of C(3) I and so on. So in Elusive Victory, you can put more aircraft up, but then your ability to get them to track and engage the enemy goes down because you are overloading your control system.
Computer games have a lot more trouble with that sort of thing it seems to me partly because they do have the option of tracking every shell and so on (but not every signal and not every instance of command overload on the bridge or targetting from a destroyer etc. etc.) . the combat mission games come closest to combining command and control factors and tracking every bullet, which for a nautical battle would get them to the level of simulating good pirates, but not even the most primitive of fleets because of the interlocking decisions that even a bunch of pentconters would have to manage -- there's just a whole other level of design that has yet to be even well-imagined when it comes to naval battles.
BUT you can do such things in board games oddly enough (since they have to make a choice
about how to summarize the effects of C(3)I and ice and storms and ship design. So to celebrate your +1, i have purchased GMT games' PQ-17.
AND its on sale for 40.00!
I thought it was the groggiest thing I could do at the time.
+1 to that.
I can understand where you're coming from on the C3I games. I really enjoy games that use it - like you said Combat Mission, but I also like those that build up a profile of what you're up against like Harpoon, or back in the day the C64 Red Storm Rising where you had to build up and confirm sonar signatures to form a plan to deal with the enemy. I realise that doesn't deal with the orders aspect, but it does make it more challenging and interesting.
It's partly a question of what people find interesting in games versus what games can do to produce plausible outcomes. For example, in Flying Colors, there is a massive simplification: the audacity rating. This works very well at many levels and (at first glance) serves to give the historical attacker in scenarios enough of an purely gamey advantage to make them undertake the attack. But when coupled with other factors (particularly the command rules), the audacity rating covers the clarity that the attacker's signals (explicit and implicit) would have in the context where everybody on one side has agreed to make an attack.
I think this kind of blanket simplification (varying per scenario) works well for age of sail battles covering a few hours and a few 10s of kilometers of ocean.
But this is exactly the kind of simplification that can really mess up a WWI nautical scenario with varying visibility, 4 or 5 types of signals (flags, radio, light, recognition lights, semiphore -- as well lots of different stuff on the seas, in the air and in the aethers -- subs, airplanes, zepplins, kite ballons, destroyers, cruisers, high level intercepts, direction finding, enemy signals, own signals and/or the lack thereof etc.) and big possibilities for events outpacing the command and signal nets.
Paradoxically (or so it seems to me), simulating post WWII naval battles (mostly theoretical battles) gives a better chance of more or less accidently simulating the signals and command level because -- at the very least -- something about sensors and signatures and sharing targeting information has to be in the game in some way. You might say, once the electronics get complex enough, just simulating them at all is a useful simplification like an audacity rating.
QuoteIf you do not like these values or have another opinion about the national characterisics, these values are governed by the file Nations.dat, which is a text file and can easily be modified to values that you are comfortable with.
Well.. that makes it a helluva lot easier to adjust than I thought. So kudos to FW for having those 10% nationality modifiers available as an easy text edit option in S&I.
FW just reminded me that there is an option in SAI to "reduce" the chance of "flash fires" - just in case that helps any.
Just to recap, there are 3 basic human based contributing variables involved with military history,
a) Doctrines / Tactics - the theoretical concepts and tactics for how ships were built to fight and deployed for war.
b) Training / Cohesive Effectiveness - the general abilities of the crews based on their training either prior or during operational deployment.
c) Combat / Operational Experience - the general experience of the crews to engage specific, or an array of, opponents in various combat situations.
Note, any of the above could be beneficial, or have a negative, effect in combat due to a change in enemy tactics, composition, deployment, etc.. Example, a crew could be heavily trained using flawed doctrines or tactics or combat experience could be based on fighting a less effective enemy force causing over confidence and the use of ineffective tactics vs a more effective military opponent.
The 3 variables above did cause various effects in combat and they were definitely not always inclusive and as such should be looked at as individual attributes for simulations and wargames IMHO.
Thanks.
Thanks for the information, Christopher. I can understand the reasoning and why SAI is set up the way it is. It's also great to know that the national modifiers can be so easily accessed.
Pretty impressive information for a "brief and general" response! It's that level of attention that makes your sims so worth playing, IMHO.
Quote from: Warship NWS on March 12, 2013, 08:45:07 PM
Just speaking for our NWS productions - we never use "blanket" modifiers for our simulations to cover for every battle during a time frame. Doctrines, tactics, equipment, training, etc.. changed during the war based on combat experience and refits which would negate the historical accuracy of using "blanket" modifiers. Specific historically based modifiers may apply to scenarios to cover for individual battle combat environment conditions or other general variables only.
During Jutland the Germans were not - in general - "better" gunners when compared to the British. The combat environment and specific engagement situations during the various skirmishes allowed for some slight advantages to one side or the other during the fluid battle. End result, the battle in its entirety cannot, in my professional opinion, be used to calibrate the combat mechanics for every battle fought during WW1. Jutland is a broad case example but hardly the only possible engagement that could have occurred, or that did occur, during the war. Overall when you consider that the hit rate was relatively abysmal for both sides at around 2-4% a ~1% difference is not that significant, as is noted by various sources, when the massive amount of complex mechanical, human, and environment variables that contributed to the battle are taken into account.
Thanks.
Chris :)
I really appreciate you taking the time to engage with the issues raised. It sounds like you are actually doing some of the things regarding blanket modifiers that Nefaro, Mengjiao, myself and others were concerned about. Does SAI also deal with the command and control issues also mentioned?
Thanks Panzerde,
My favorite area of research is weapon systems and applications in combat, doctrinal theory and tactical concepts, and battle analysis. I enjoy the puzzle and problem solving of how and why battles played out the way they did and researching the theories behind the evolution of doctrines and tactics used by various military forces.
At NWS we work together as a professional team on all of our productions - no ego trips, arrogance, or competition of knowledge.
Thanks and take care friends.
Quote from: Boggit on March 13, 2013, 06:55:33 PM
Chris :)
I really appreciate you taking the time to engage with the issues raised. It sounds like you are actually doing some of the things regarding blanket modifiers that Nefaro, Mengjiao, myself and others were concerned about. Does SAI also deal with the command and control issues also mentioned?
Short answer - SAI already takes into account, with degrees of detail that depend on the command level you are playing, C&C of the fleets. Let me know if that answers your question.
Quote from: Warship NWS on March 13, 2013, 07:09:37 PM
Quote from: Boggit on March 13, 2013, 06:55:33 PM
Chris :)
I really appreciate you taking the time to engage with the issues raised. It sounds like you are actually doing some of the things regarding blanket modifiers that Nefaro, Mengjiao, myself and others were concerned about. Does SAI also deal with the command and control issues also mentioned?
Short answer - SAI already takes into account, with degrees of detail that depend on the command level you are playing, C&C of the fleets. Let me know if that answers your question.
Yes it does. Thanks Chris. :)
Quote from: Boggit on March 13, 2013, 07:25:14 PM
Yes it does. Thanks Chris. :)
No problem.. take care friend.
Sorry that I missed this thread earlier. May have something for everyone to chew on, but I cannot recall where this came from.
Someone did an article, maybe in the mid 1980s on World War I ammunition loads for capitol ships. According to the article, the british carried a significantly higher amount of high explosive rounds versus Armor Piercing. Curious as to why, he dug further.
What he reported was that the pre-war british gunnery testing showed that the chance of getting a shell to hit a critical spot on an enemy ship, and then penetrate, and then to explode within the enemy's armored citadel, was cumulatively very small. Too many things could happen.
Supposedly, the british accepted this, and then quietly changed their doctrine. To damage the control functions of an enemy ship, is overall much easier to accomplish. This can be done without penetrating a ship's vitals, but by hitting the target with High Explosive rounds. The blast and shock effect would more easily render fire control equipment inoperable, put communication lines out of action, and knock those pesky command and control personnel on the bridge, signal bridge, and other surfaces, into a jelly - thus making it harder for the target vessel to fight back effectively.
This person's idea was that the RN saved their AP rounds to use after the enemy ships were degraded from the damage of the HE rounds. After the fire control and command/control functions were lowered, you could dare to close the range and use the AP where the range made hitting easier.
For those with a historical bent, this scenario is very similar to how the british sank Bismarck, and how SMS Seydlitz was so badly beaten up.
As the surviving gunnery officer of Bismarck writes in his book, both fire control directors were knocked out very early in the battle. Now if this were done using AP rounds, you would need pinpoint accuracy to hit the directors. They are relatively small targets and are up high over the hull of the ship.
However, if you blanket the enemy with HE rounds, the blast will do a lot of secondary damage. Then you can close in for the kill at ranges where it is much easier to get hits with armor peircing ammunition. Whether you agree with this concept or not, it seems to have worked for Admiral Jack Tovey.
This also makes it reasonable to close the enemy battleship with your treaty cruiser, HMS Norfolk. The armor on Norfolk was quite poor and she would have suffered greatly if hit by Bismarck. Her little 8" guns had no chance of penetrating the Bismarck's armor. So why hazard her in the ring?
Well, the 8" HE round didn't have to penetrate in this scheme, and most commentators believe it was one of Norfolk's rounds that put the after FC director on Bismarck out. This is shooting that would make Davy Crockett proud if you were using an AP round. With High Explosive, or Semi-Armor Piercing (SAP), you only need to hit around the director.
Regrettably, I cannot recall where this idea was written up. Maybe in an old Naval Institute Proceedings. My sludgy memory is suggesting it was in a book, The Pollen papers, about RN range finder development, but I'm not sure.
HE vs SAP/COM vs AP ..
First lets start on this point.. there is not a LOT of difference between ammo types except for a thicker casing replacing HE filler or the addition of an AP cap (the CAP would assist a shell on biting into and penetrating the armor). Filler capacity only ranged from around ~2-12% depending on the shell type. When figuring, as an example, a ~1,900lb shell that is only a difference of 38-228lb of explosive. Many air to air missiles carry around 20-75lb of explosive, and most medium sized anti-ship missiles carry around 300-500lb of explosive. Point being, vs a large well compartmentalized and armored warship it can take a lot of explosives to do significant damage. KE (kinetic energy) however could do considerable damage, especially if the shell penetrated multiple compartments and/or caused damage various critical systems on a warship. Overall, the difference in damage effect between the shells was not so much based on the type of shell as it was where the shell impacted and how many systems and/or compartments were effected by the impact.
Now.. the Achilles heel of warships, the superstructure. Almost any gun of 4" or greater could cause havoc to a superstructure (SS) of most warships - larger shells might be required if the SS is reasonably armored. Now the idea of a ship firing just HE just in the hopes to cause more SS damage would not be as important as not PASSING through the SS as AP shells might accomplish depending on the hit angle and when the fuze detonates the shell. However, there is a trade-off.. the HE shells would have virtually no chance of penetrating thicker armored locations and hitting a SS that is only about roughly 1/3 the size of the target ship would be slimmer then the full danger zone of the entire ship. Example, if the HE shell smacks a turret or thick armor plate then at most you might get fragmentation effects and some dinged armor plates but little else, unless a less protected part of the ship is hit. So, do you trade the chance of possibly penetrating or damaging armor plates and/or causing shock damage with an AP shell or hope to hit a smaller SS portion of the ship with HE shells where HE shells would have their greatest chance of doing significant damage? The Bismarck did lose her FCDs - but that could have been done with any shell of reasonable size. The Gneisenau also lost her FCD when the Renown sliced the cables with a 15" shell that did no other significant damage. It should be noted that even IF AP shells did not penetrate armor completely their shock effect could be very significant and they could cause cracks or weaken the armor plates where they impact. Any type of shell could likely cause shrapnel damage even if the armor is not penetrated. It should also be noted that no matter the warship not all parts were heavily armored - even with the "all or nothing" schemes. Armor was not a shield that could keep out all bad things.. it simply improved the odds of survival by reducing the chances of taking critical damage.
Now I have read of some ships firing non-AP rounds to get the range to target and then switch to AP rounds for maximum possible effect. However, I have not read, that I can remember, of a capital ship firing non-AP rounds at a heavily armored target after the range was reasonably acquired. I have read however that SB/TB guns would fire whenever possible (especially in the early 1900s) vs the SS of enemy ships to cause as much effect on enemy gunnery as possible. As gunnery ranges increased however this effect was greatly reduced - except for lower visibility engagements where radar could not help maintain longer ranged engagements.
My overall point is that most ships, that I have read about, would use their best AP shells vs armored threats as much as possible so that *any* hit could cause significant damage vs HE shells only causing reasonable damage if the less protected portions of the target were impacted. If the gun had virtually no chance of penetrating the threat then it usually mattered little which type of shell was fired in the overall scheme of the engagement.
Thanks.
BTW, if anyone wants to test the tactical theory of firing HE vs AP rounds at an armored warship in the hopes of "weakening" the enemy.. try it with WCNAW with "shell selection" turn on in a battle between two roughly comparable heavily armored warships with similar fire controls. I think after a series of battles the general results - unless hits are scored on the SS right way or in greater number by HE shells - would likely prove that firing AP shells as much as possible will offer better chances of winning the engagement.
Thanks.
Quote from: Warship NWS on March 13, 2013, 11:54:13 PM
BTW, if anyone wants to test the tactical theory of firing HE vs AP rounds at an armored warship in the hopes of "weakening" the enemy.. try it with WCNAW with "shell selection" turn on in a battle between two roughly comparable heavily armored warships with similar fire controls. I think after a series of battles the general results - unless hits are scored on the SS right way or in greater number by HE shells - would likely prove that firing AP shells as much as possible will offer better chances of winning the engagement.
Thanks.
Oh, definitely. It's AP all the way, in WCNAW, unless you're firing at Destroyers or maybe saving your AP for the more distant big boys, when shooting at CLs.
It's been awhile since I played that one but I don't recall getting many decent superstructure hits, on the cap ships, when I had to change to HE (ran out of AP). I think this is how they all work. However, I'm wondering just how much of a critical is possible on SS hits, with HE, against armored targets in WCNAW. They obviously shouldn't be the norm, just curious whether it's even worth bothering (run away after AP is expended?)
As a note, WCNAW v1.2 was posted recently.. the shell damage modelling was updated for improved dispersion of the damage effects when a ship is hit by shellfire. Any part of a ship has a chance of being damaged per shell salvo hit. "Criticals" do not apply to WCNAW - a hit can cause an array of damage effects depending on the amount firepower that hits the target ship, armor penetration effects, angle of hit, etc... In extreme cases, a magazine might detonate.
Quote from: Warship NWS on March 13, 2013, 05:36:20 PM
FW just reminded me that there is an option in SAI to "reduce" the chance of "flash fires" - just in case that helps any.
I just had flashfire in the forward turret of the earliest class of RN armored cruisers. It was 1901 (in Steam and Iron: Russo-Jap) and I was trying to see what it was about the French fleet in the Med that worried Jackie Fisher. He was in command of the Med fleet from 1897 to around 1901 but he thought what was scary was their torpedo boats -- not his own Armored Cruisers -- though he was always obsessed with getting more and better armored cruisers (and later battlecruisers)
The French fleet is modeled in SAI-Russ/Japan War???
I've always wanted to simulate the Med in SAI but there's no French/Italian/Austro-Hungarian units
unless I'm missing something. Always disappointed me that they didn't do a Med expansion akin to the
North Sea campaign.
Quote from: gregb41352 on December 14, 2018, 03:22:45 PM
The French fleet is modeled in SAI-Russ/Japan War???
I've always wanted to simulate the Med in SAI but there's no French/Italian/Austro-Hungarian units
unless I'm missing something. Always disappointed me that they didn't do a Med expansion akin to the
North Sea campaign.
The French fleet is there under the battle generator (Atlantic vs RN and Med vs RN 1898-1905 you pick some parameters and boom! There's a battle).
Quote from: MengJiao on December 14, 2018, 10:24:42 PM
Quote from: gregb41352 on December 14, 2018, 03:22:45 PM
The French fleet is modeled in SAI-Russ/Japan War???
I've always wanted to simulate the Med in SAI but there's no French/Italian/Austro-Hungarian units
unless I'm missing something. Always disappointed me that they didn't do a Med expansion akin to the
North Sea campaign.
The French fleet is there under the battle generator (Atlantic vs RN and Med vs RN 1898-1905 you pick some parameters and boom! There's a battle).
An RN protected cruiser (I don't think Jackie Fisher liked protected cruisers) just spotted this (in 1905 in the Med -- slightly unlikely but still kind of wonderful):
Quote from: MengJiao on December 13, 2018, 08:02:37 PM
Quote from: Warship NWS on March 13, 2013, 05:36:20 PM
FW just reminded me that there is an option in SAI to "reduce" the chance of "flash fires" - just in case that helps any.
I just had flashfire in the forward turret of the earliest class of RN armored cruisers. It was 1901 (in Steam and Iron: Russo-Jap) and I was trying to see what it was about the French fleet in the Med that worried Jackie Fisher. He was in command of the Med fleet from 1897 to around 1901 but he thought what was scary was their torpedo boats -- not his own Armored Cruisers -- though he was always obsessed with getting more and better armored cruisers (and later battlecruisers)
The Steam and Iron battle generator suggests that if Jackie Fisher was always careful to leave anything with 'cruiser' in the the name (except light cruisers) behind he would be okay because - no matter what -- anything in the RN with the word 'cruiser' in the name will just blow up. This is kind of weird. I will run more battles and see if the cruiser-blows up thing is the same in all fleets.
Quote from: MengJiao on December 18, 2018, 11:01:46 AM
Quote from: MengJiao on December 13, 2018, 08:02:37 PM
Quote from: Warship NWS on March 13, 2013, 05:36:20 PM
FW just reminded me that there is an option in SAI to "reduce" the chance of "flash fires" - just in case that helps any.
I just had flashfire in the forward turret of the earliest class of RN armored cruisers. It was 1901 (in Steam and Iron: Russo-Jap) and I was trying to see what it was about the French fleet in the Med that worried Jackie Fisher. He was in command of the Med fleet from 1897 to around 1901 but he thought what was scary was their torpedo boats -- not his own Armored Cruisers -- though he was always obsessed with getting more and better armored cruisers (and later battlecruisers)
The Steam and Iron battle generator suggests that if Jackie Fisher was always careful to leave anything with 'cruiser' in the the name (except light cruisers) behind he would be okay because - no matter what -- anything in the RN with the word 'cruiser' in the name will just blow up. This is kind of weird. I will run more battles and see if the cruiser-blows up thing is the same in all fleets.
So far no more "cruisers" have blown up...BUT....judging by light cruiser names, the French had a kind of internet, the Infernet, that ran through Hell and back.
Quote from: MengJiao on December 19, 2018, 03:33:12 PM
So far no more "cruisers" have blown up...BUT....judging by light cruiser names, the French had a kind of internet, the Infernet, that ran through Hell and back.
You can see how easy it was to set up an Infernet in 1899:
Quote from: MengJiao on December 19, 2018, 03:40:46 PM
Quote from: MengJiao on December 19, 2018, 03:33:12 PM
So far no more "cruisers" have blown up...BUT....judging by light cruiser names, the French had a kind of internet, the Infernet, that ran through Hell and back.
You can see how easy it was to set up an Infernet in 1899:
HMS Vengeance blows up: moral of the story -- don't play as the RN if you really hate just blowing up. It does make being French more fun, though I really doubt the French navy in 1905 could shoot its way through a line of Canopus-class predreadnoughts with its weird mess of weird ships.
Having the RN just blow up a lot seems to create a fantasy world -- which is fine unless you have an interest in playing as the RN.
Quote from: MengJiao on December 20, 2018, 08:29:31 AM
HMS Vengeance blows up: moral of the story -- don't play as the RN if you really hate just blowing up. It does make being French more fun, though I really doubt the French navy in 1905 could shoot its way through a line of Canopus-class predreadnoughts with its weird mess of weird ships.
Having the RN just blow up a lot seems to create a fantasy world -- which is fine unless you have an interest in playing as the RN.
HMS Renoun blows up (now that does seem likely, but I doubt she was any more explosion-prone than French ships from the same era):
Do these ships blow-up by themselves or when other people are shooting at them? Either way I'd be upset but maybe somebody should check the, "Smoking Rules" to see if they need adjustments. ;D Historically, I don't think the whole cordite problem thing didn't come about until later, maybe 1912 or so?
Quote from: Sir Slash on December 20, 2018, 02:54:05 PM
Do these ships blow-up by themselves or when other people are shooting at them? Either way I'd be upset but maybe somebody should check the, "Smoking Rules" to see if they need adjustments. ;D Historically, I don't think the whole cordite problem thing didn't come about until later, maybe 1912 or so?
These ships were under fire, but the spontaeous propellant explosions bring up an interesting problem since most of the ships that blew up were not RN ships. I'm not sure how far back in time the spontaneious propellant explosions go but the French battleship Liberte blew up in 1911 and I think there were earlier propellant explosions -- around 20 in all by say 1920.
What got the Maine? Was that propellant or coal?
Quote from: Sir Slash on December 20, 2018, 07:37:36 PM
What got the Maine? Was that propellant or coal?
Seems a little early for a classic propellant explosion.
IIRC The Maine blew up from an ignition in its coal chamber. Or a Spanish bomb, if you're feeling...yellow.
That sounds like a good way to start a war to me.
Quote from: Gusington on December 20, 2018, 09:42:39 PM
IIRC The Maine blew up from an ignition in its coal chamber. Or a Spanish bomb, if you're feeling...yellow.
In either case the propellant magazine blew up right away. I don't know what kind of propellant it used.
IIRC it was coal.
This seems like a good place to alert all Grogs that Norman Friedman's bible, Naval Firepower, is online.
https://books.google.fr/books?id=h5m9AwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=fr#v=onepage&q&f=false
Quote from: besilarius on December 21, 2018, 08:14:54 AM
This seems like a good place to alert all Grogs that Norman Friedman's bible, Naval Firepower, is online.
https://books.google.fr/books?id=h5m9AwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=fr#v=onepage&q&f=false
Nice!
Quote from: Gusington on December 21, 2018, 08:07:47 AM
IIRC it was coal.
Last I read, the theory was a bit more complex than that. It's been a few years, but it was a case with multiple moving parts. The US used a grade of coal at the time which had a tendency towards spontaneous combustion if left alone for too long. The Maine had been loaded with coal, and then sat and cooled its heels (I think in Key West, but not 100%) while Washington monitored the situation. Then, the Maine was ordered to Havana, and that's not much of a hop, and certainly not enough to empty out the bunker.
The running theory is that there was a coal fire in a bunker which was next to one of the magazines (the secondary magazine IIRC, but I don't have the book in front of me.) The Captain of the ship reported an hour or so before the explosion that he'd gone down a corridor with had a bulkhead on the bunker, and he put his hand against the bulkhead and felt nothing unusual, but on the other hand, he is just slightly biased.
The thing that really threw the first investigators is that the keel plates of the Maine were bent
inwards, not outwards as you would expect from an internal explosion. That's why the mine theory got so much traction back in the day. More recent computer modeling suggests that the keel was close enough to the bottom of the harbor for the shock wave to reflect back up into the ship, bending the plates back in.
ETA: it's been a long time since I read on this, but the above was taken from my memories of reading
https://www.amazon.com/War-Spain-1898-David-Trask/dp/0803294298/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1546487780&sr=8-1&keywords=trask+spanish+american+war