Let's have a war? hehe~

Professional

Friday, December 22nd 2006, 6:23am

Trust me, If I didn't like it I would say so, I just wonder if all the angles had been explored.

One thing I won't do is dismiss it out of hand as 'stupid'.

It seems strange to focus on such detail as strike entry and exit details, hit velocity but not if it hit a turret or an engine room.

So far this is ship vs ship. How would you go with multiple ships?

Regarding a test with Hood vs Bismarck, obviously Hood ain't going to suffer the fate she did by these rules.

Cheers,

Go to the top of the page

Salaam86

Trainee

Posts: 139

22

Friday, December 22nd 2006, 7:25am

Quoted

Originally posted by alt_naval
Trust me, If I didn't like it I would say so, I just wonder if all the angles had been explored.

One thing I won't do is dismiss it out of hand as 'stupid'.

It seems strange to focus on such detail as strike entry and exit details, hit velocity but not if it hit a turret or an engine room.

So far this is ship vs ship. How would you go with multiple ships?

Regarding a test with Hood vs Bismarck, obviously Hood ain't going to suffer the fate she did by these rules.

Cheers,

The players would specify targetting. So Multiple simulations would be run for the different ships engaging eachother. So it would work the same way. Only difference is that multiple ships could have quite possibly multiple targets or all have the same target.

According to the specifications, Hood might suffer the same fate due to deck hits. Although yes, the Hood should hold out against the Bismarck.

Go to the top of the page

thesmilingassassin

The Chosen One

Posts: 13,513

23

Friday, December 22nd 2006, 7:57am

Well I'm sure that if we could somehow resurrect both Hood and Bismarck and put them in the same battle the outcome would likely change anyway

Go to the top of the page

Hood

Ugly Aircraft, Inc

Posts: 8,155

24

Friday, December 22nd 2006, 9:37am

It would seem to me that critical hits and luck plays, perhaps, the biggest factor in naval warfare. Are we trying to recreate what can't be on a spreadsheet or calculator?

While I like Salaam86's scheme for easy of use I also like alt_naval's becasue it covers more factors. The big question is can we really simulate combat accurately at all? Should we stick to scripting however baised and boring it may seem?

Go to the top of the page

thesmilingassassin

The Chosen One

Posts: 13,513

25

Friday, December 22nd 2006, 10:30am

I like simple, that said Rogers system covers all the variables but I'm still left wanting in reguards to a system of determining the outcome of a battle. I'd say Salaam86's scheme is more appealing to me but the lack if critical hits and chance in the system's methods of equation is a serious enough flaw to look into fixing.

I'd say thats where scripting and refs would come in.
If we can also include a few features from Rogers system and simplify them we could have a quick and easy setup.

Go to the top of the page

alt_naval

Professional

Posts: 1,375

26

Friday, December 22nd 2006, 11:20am

I came at it from the approach of testing sim ships in combat. I like simple too but I'd figured that people would want a level of detail to feel that they are giving their designs a good test. I've also happily modded 'Hearts of Iron2' to simulate fleet actions as Gabi has outlined although HoI2 doesn't take in anything from springsharp there is the benefit of it's ability to run itself.

The challenge that neither sytem addresses is a simple to use plot and the length of time in what amounts to play by email.

Cheers,

Go to the top of the page

thesmilingassassin

The Chosen One

Posts: 13,513

27

Friday, December 22nd 2006, 12:04pm

The e-mail part is the biggest issue I'd think. Not everyone can keep a steady stream of e-mails/pm's coming to keep the battle flowing.

Thats why I suggested a certain level of scripting which doesn't really eliminate that problem but at least gives us a rough senario as a basis.

Go to the top of the page

Salaam86

Trainee

Posts: 139

28

Saturday, December 23rd 2006, 8:21am

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin
The e-mail part is the biggest issue I'd think. Not everyone can keep a steady stream of e-mails/pm's coming to keep the battle flowing.

Thats why I suggested a certain level of scripting which doesn't really eliminate that problem but at least gives us a rough senario as a basis.

There are no emails. Once the battle starts it can be altered. Orders are pre-defined before battle.

Everything is to be accounted for before the battle begins. Thats why players have the ability to choose when their ships retreat, and such. By choosing what damage level they will fight until reaching, they effectively dictate how their ship behaves in battle.

Go to the top of the page

alt_naval

Professional

Posts: 1,375

29

Saturday, December 23rd 2006, 10:49am

Quoted

There are no emails. Once the battle starts it can be altered. Orders are pre-defined before battle.

Which puts things on a strategic level rather than a tactical one. In HoI2 you set a area to patrol with x ships and the dialog box will pop up and inform you that a naval battle occured and that the following ships were sunk.

Having more detail lets you fight out a battle and then 'script' it afterwards. It can lead to something more compelling than side A lost x ships and side B lost y.

Cheers,

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "alt_naval" (Dec 23rd 2006, 10:50am)

Go to the top of the page

Salaam86

Trainee

Posts: 139

30

Saturday, December 23rd 2006, 11:14am

i never said my system was better...

Go to the top of the page

HoOmAn

Keeper of the Sacred Block Coefficient

Posts: 7,417

31

Saturday, December 23rd 2006, 11:18am

Quoted

Originally posted by Salaam86
i never said my system was better...

And nobody else did. You both have completely different approaches which lead to completely different results. We´re merely discussing pros and cons of both systems trying to find out which elements are preferred most and to see if the best ideas of both can be combined probably. :o)