historical authenticity

[Lucas_Slavik]

Dear Admirals, dear DevTeam

While enjoying UA:D very much, I like to play rather historical. With the real history in minds, I see some (small?) problems that bother me...

I think it would be interesting, if the community feels the same, AND I post this too as a suggestion to Nick.

 

1) Ship service: In real history, many ships (especially BBs) had a damn long time of service. Pre-Dreadnoughts fought in WW1, WW1 Battlecrusiers in WW2, and so on. If I play UA:D, I do the same: I refit and refit and refit. Which is very fun and cool. And which leads to memorable moments, when your flagship of the last 2 decadades just get blown up due obsolate amor scheme. But when I take a look at the AI, they scrap there ships as there is no tomorow. From time to time, they even scrap ship models that are not even a year old.

Wouldn't it cool, if the AI would use their ships for a longer time? Reduced scrapping and more refitting? This could also increase the turn speed, btw, less ships to design

 

2) Ship class names. I'm not sure if thats even possible in the current engine, but: From time to time, especially BBs, have an such long service history that there tonnage just do not fit the class anymore. As example, in my current save I still use 13k tonage BBs (but refited as heavy cruisers) along with some moders cruisers (15k tonage).

It would be cool, if you could reclass ships / shipclass would chnage during a campaign. It also bothers me that many minors has fleets of 20 BBs (which is more then some majors), but all of them are just around 10k tonage. 20 BBs are ridicilous, 20 CAs would be okay. You see my point? 

 

3) Battle casulties. In UA:D, most battles are totally devastating with the losing fleet annihilated. If one of my ships is very damaged, I retreat (even if it maybe old or it's not a good decision in tactical view). The crew or captain are not suicidal, they dont want to charge in CC when half of the main towers where exploded and theres a leak as big as an car with half of the ship flooded.

The AI feels like fight always to death. This is - in my opinion - kind of immersion breaking. There are too many sunk ships due that. The battles are too decisive.

I would like it, when the AI tries to move aways heavy damaged ships AND retreat the whole fleet, when a battle goes terrible wrong.

Like; two fleet, both equal in strenght. Due some luck or better ship design, Side A can sink 50% of the enemy fleet while have like 0 of the own ships lost. Side B should run! Why to fight until death? It is clear that they don't stand a chance! The AI should retreat in that case!

 

What do you think/any chance to get this into the game one time?   

[DougToss]

iirc, casual players had expectations of naval battles being totally decisive and devastating, and were frustrated when the AI turned to retreat when outnumbered or outmatched - which is of course what a real admiral would do. 

[Suribachi]

This issue is one that, unfortunately, the development team has been attempting to deal with for a while now.  If there was a toggle on campaign creation between a more historical battle AI and a more "arcade" style AI that should please both sides of the isle a bit better, at least in my opinion.  However, I do not know the engine ramifications to try and implement such a thing so I cannot tell you if this would be feasible.  Nor would I be able to tell you how much this could affect how the AI runs its nation in a campaign setting.  But, I think it is worth brainstorming at least.

[Lucas_Slavik]

maybe not really best solution, but wouldn't it be possible to add an switch to the AI like:

 

-> IF at least 50% of own ships sunk or less then 50% hull/floating

(or -> IF any ship has less then 50% hull/floating)

-> THEN every ship with max speed in opposite direction of the next enemies ship

(-> THEN triggering ship with max speed in opposite direction of next enemy ship)

-> ELSE continue as normal

 

this should be possible, I guess?!

This way it would start maybe as a decisive casual naval battle, but before the AI is suiciding the complete fleet, there is at least a small chance thatsome ships flee (if the player don't use 35+ knots DDs and BCs).

Edited August 7, 2024 by Lucas_Slavik

[StoneofTriumph]

On 7/19/2024 at 2:16 PM, DougToss said:

iirc, casual players had expectations of naval battles being totally decisive and devastating, and were frustrated when the AI turned to retreat when outnumbered or outmatched - which is of course what a real admiral would do. 

 

The way people were complaining about it wasn't "Why is an outmatched enemy running away" but rather "If the battle conditions would cause an enemy to immediately run away, why did it trigger a battle on the world map in the first place?"

[Suribachi]

On 8/7/2024 at 6:25 PM, Lucas_Slavik said:

maybe not really best solution, but wouldn't it be possible to add an switch to the AI like:

 

-> IF at least 50% of own ships sunk or less then 50% hull/floating

(or -> IF any ship has less then 50% hull/floating)

-> THEN every ship with max speed in opposite direction of the next enemies ship

(-> THEN triggering ship with max speed in opposite direction of next enemy ship)

-> ELSE continue as normal

 

this should be possible, I guess?!

This way it would start maybe as a decisive casual naval battle, but before the AI is suiciding the complete fleet, there is at least a small chance thatsome ships flee (if the player don't use 35+ knots DDs and BCs).

Should be very doable.  This is very similar to what I do actually.  If a ship receives a torpedo hit or a devastating hit, I detach them from the formation and give it the retreat command.  Then depending on the situation, I either cover it with a snaking retreat or leave it to pull a Bismarck.  As far as the AI goes, it is two or three "commands" via buttons when comparing to the player's interface.  At least with the scenario I presented.

[Lucas_Slavik]

yes, exactly, I do the same.

Not that I'm educated in naval tactics or have any real naval warfare EXP, but I think it's more or less sure that no captain (or crew) will continue the fight if the ship lost it's main batteries, the engine is damaged and the stern is flooded. At least in most cases (exception Bismarckish moments, but even there they didn't fight to death by the will of the captain, but because their rudder was broken and they could not do escape at all).

[TheFurTrapper]

I know I'm a bit late to the party, but my two cents on the 'running away' thing:

It wouldn't be so frustrating if there were post-battle consequences for running away. As it stands, if you have the tactical speed advantage, as long as you don't run out of fuel you (and the AI) can run away from battles month after month without moving on the campaign map. Additionally, it can be tricky for force fights using the campaign map. So you end up in a cycle where

• You send your TF to engage the enemy TF; if you're lucky you get a battle right away. if you're unlucky, you may have to wait months for the opportunity
  • Given how much the AI loves to move its TFs around it might just move away from you - this in-and-of-itself isn't a problem but it does compound
• If you do manage to catch the enemy and they actually have fuel to fight at their full speed, they will sometimes try to run away
  • This is also fine in-and-of-itself. Usually you can pick off the slower ships, but if you're totally out-sped then it's just a waste of time.
• If they do manage to run away, then you're back to trying to force fights via the campaign map. But the enemy might just be sitting there sinking transports despite having 'run away' while you're waiting month after month for RNG to give you another chance to fight

To me, this is why AI designs like the 44 kt battlecruiser feel so cheesy. They can just 'run away' tactically but continue to be a nuisance strategically, even in the face of overwhelming numbers that should be able to make it extremely dangerous for such a ship to operate even with a considerable speed advantage. Even sailing to the home port of such a ship to force a fight is completely worthless since the land isn't modeled (to corral the ship against) and if the ship runs away it just ends up back home again.

I'm slowing coming around to the perspective that the campaign mode isn't really supposed to be a game per se, and it only exists as a more nuanced battle generator with some persistent features (ships, damage, fuel).  Which is a real shame. Alas, I find myself saying that a lot

[PalaiologosTheGreat]

On 7/19/2024 at 8:26 AM, Lucas_Slavik said:

Wouldn't it cool, if the AI would use their ships for a longer time? Reduced scrapping and more refitting? This could also increase the turn speed, btw, less ships to design

 

I mean, the AI just can't do refits. Best way to demonstrate this is to make a good shared design. The AI will use that shared design and then refit it a year later to make it a crapboat. So, while this would be cool, it wouldn't be realistic :((((

18 hours ago, TheFurTrapper said:

You send your TF to engage the enemy TF; if you're lucky you get a battle right away. if you're unlucky, you may have to wait months for the opportunity

It's really weird bc back in one of the older patches, if I put a taskforce on an enemy taskforce, you'd get a battle.

[Северная]

19 hours ago, TheFurTrapper said:

I know I'm a bit late to the party, but my two cents on the 'running away' thing:

It wouldn't be so frustrating if there were post-battle consequences for running away. As it stands, if you have the tactical speed advantage, as long as you don't run out of fuel you (and the AI) can run away from battles month after month without moving on the campaign map. Additionally, it can be tricky for force fights using the campaign map. So you end up in a cycle where

• You send your TF to engage the enemy TF; if you're lucky you get a battle right away. if you're unlucky, you may have to wait months for the opportunity
  • Given how much the AI loves to move its TFs around it might just move away from you - this in-and-of-itself isn't a problem but it does compound
• If you do manage to catch the enemy and they actually have fuel to fight at their full speed, they will sometimes try to run away
  • This is also fine in-and-of-itself. Usually you can pick off the slower ships, but if you're totally out-sped then it's just a waste of time.
• If they do manage to run away, then you're back to trying to force fights via the campaign map. But the enemy might just be sitting there sinking transports despite having 'run away' while you're waiting month after month for RNG to give you another chance to fight

To me, this is why AI designs like the 44 kt battlecruiser feel so cheesy. They can just 'run away' tactically but continue to be a nuisance strategically, even in the face of overwhelming numbers that should be able to make it extremely dangerous for such a ship to operate even with a considerable speed advantage. Even sailing to the home port of such a ship to force a fight is completely worthless since the land isn't modeled (to corral the ship against) and if the ship runs away it just ends up back home again.

I'm slowing coming around to the perspective that the campaign mode isn't really supposed to be a game per se, and it only exists as a more nuanced battle generator with some persistent features (ships, damage, fuel).  Which is a real shame. Alas, I find myself saying that a lot

Yeah this is the main point.  I don’t mind that the AI decides to retreat after taking losses, it’s that it often loads into battle, immediately runs away, but still blocks my path on the campaign map.  It’s particularly annoying in port strikes.  I have had the same fight repeat itself multiple times with the enemy ships, it’s insane and a super annoying waste of time:

1) enemy fleet stuck in their own port

2) initiate port strike mission

3) enemy fleet runs away, spend a lot of time on 10x and then 30x speed blindly going through fog until I see “end battle” button

4) ok cool they ran away I guess they left the port and snuck by my ships

5) they’re still just sitting in port on the campaign map 

 

[MDHansen]

1 hour ago, PalaiologosTheGreat said:

It's really weird bc back in one of the older patches, if I put a taskforce on an enemy taskforce, you'd get a battle.

yup, back then I could force a TF battle (Meeting) 100/100 times. Still though, even now, I can (slightly) more often than not, force a TF battle.

[Dave P.]

The very long service life of BBs in the interwar period was mostly a result of the naval arms limitation treaties and the accompanying construction ban. prior to WWI, ships weren't expected to last that long. HMS Dreadnought was notably considered obsolete within a few years of launch, for example. And because they were never designed for service lives that long, there were a LOT of maintenance and refit issues in the '20s and '30s.

Also, while predreadnoughts served in WWI, nobody considered them front line units. They were shepherded around to do shore bombardment missions and the like.

And the entire game is ahistorical in the sense that the treaties and world wars never happen(ed).

So it's really up to you if you want to treat ships like 40 year investments or disposable assets. I don't think one method is better than the other, but if you're applying an 1890 mindset as your starting point, the latter is probably more accurate, historically.

[Candle_86]

On 10/18/2024 at 10:52 AM, Dave P. said:

The very long service life of BBs in the interwar period was mostly a result of the naval arms limitation treaties and the accompanying construction ban. prior to WWI, ships weren't expected to last that long. HMS Dreadnought was notably considered obsolete within a few years of launch, for example. And because they were never designed for service lives that long, there were a LOT of maintenance and refit issues in the '20s and '30s.

Also, while predreadnoughts served in WWI, nobody considered them front line units. They were shepherded around to do shore bombardment missions and the like.

And the entire game is ahistorical in the sense that the treaties and world wars never happen(ed).

So it's really up to you if you want to treat ships like 40 year investments or disposable assets. I don't think one method is better than the other, but if you're applying an 1890 mindset as your starting point, the latter is probably more accurate, historically.

The collection of British Ironclads when fisher took over and forcefully scrapped them would like a word with you

And I mean Ironclads, the British still had 1860's era Ironclads in reserve, granted he sent them all to the breakers but he was the first that went hey maybe this 1866 broadside ironclad wouldn't hang in a fight.

 

Edited October 21, 2024 by Candle_86

[justMike247]

On 8/10/2024 at 10:49 AM, Lucas_Slavik said:

Not that I'm educated in naval tactics or have any real naval warfare EXP, but I think it's more or less sure that no captain (or crew) will continue the fight if the ship lost it's main batteries, the engine is damaged and the stern is flooded.

That depends on which Navy the skipper's serving in... See what happened to HMS Manchester during Operation Pedestal for details.

[Dave P.]

On 10/20/2024 at 9:51 PM, Candle_86 said:

The collection of British Ironclads when fisher took over and forcefully scrapped them would like a word with you

And I mean Ironclads, the British still had 1860's era Ironclads in reserve, granted he sent them all to the breakers but he was the first that went hey maybe this 1866 broadside ironclad wouldn't hang in a fight.

Yeah, but 1) the RN wasn't the only navy in the world, and 2) that was a specific result of how the British did certain things, like shuffling old ironclads out to colonial stations to sit in harbor and shoot at colonized people, or nobody wanting to be the person who told the Queen that it was time to decommission HMS Prince Albert.

Nobody else was using that ships that old if they could help it, and the RN was under no illusions as to their utility.

[justMike247]

9 hours ago, Dave P. said:

Nobody else was using that ships that old if they could help it, and the RN was under no illusions as to their utility.

Ummm...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMS_Schleswig-Holstein

[Dave P.]

12 hours ago, justMike247 said:

Ummm...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMS_Schleswig-Holstein

See my initial comment about the treaties.