Jump to content


Are you as sick of zones as I am?

maps caps

  • Please log in to reply
10 replies to this topic

commodore_torakula #1 Posted 09 November 2016 - 05:47 AM

    Seaman

  • Members

  • 36
  • Member since:
    10-22-2015

I have an idea: have battles devoid of zones (caps)...After all, no naval battle has ever been about maintaining control over some trackless spot in the sea.

It's about kill or be killed--simple as that.  Why not have scenarios where eliminating all one's opponents ships is the only condition for victory?  ...If not all ships are eliminated, why not have the 20 minute battles decided by the most kill points?

Two other things i'd like to bring up.  1. Initially I had a faulty video card that caused me to believe I was in a night battle. ...that turned out to be New Dawn.

But think how cool night battles would be!

Most of the action, barring the preponderance of ASW battles in the Atlantic, between ships in WWII was carried out in the nighttime waters around Ironbottom Sound during the Guadalcanal campaign.

Radar was crucial to the one engagement between BBs in the war--USS Washington and USS South Dakota's radar-equipped clash with the IJN's Kirishima.

2: Why not have lengthier battles?  20 minutes seems to be a minimum to me.  Many actions in the 20th century have gone on longer than that.

   Thanks for reading.



geser98 #2 Posted 14 November 2016 - 06:44 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Members

  • 604
  • Member since:
    10-04-2016

There's been plenty of naval battles where keeping control of particular areas was considered more important than even suffering a tactical loss.

 

1. Night battles would be cool if not utterly confusing. But before implementing those (if ever) some gameplay changes have to be introduced - such as search lights, otherwise battles would just end up with most people either beached or having crashed into enemy they couldn't even see.

2. Because if your favourite ship gets sunk in a battle then it would be a pain to wait for an hour in order to get it back.

 



commodore_torakula #3 Posted 08 February 2017 - 12:14 AM

    Seaman

  • Members

  • 36
  • Member since:
    10-22-2015

2. good point, 20m battles are best.

 

Although most sea battles over the centuries have occurred near the coast, where seizing chokepoints and harbors were crucial, the 20th century has been radically different.  The ASW campaigns of both world wars in the Atlantic, the clash at Midway, and the slugging matches around Guadalcanal and places like the Surabaya Strait and Leyte Gulf show one thing--it's kill or be killed.

 

1. Read James D. Hornfischer's "Neptune's Inferno"...or don't...



11C2Papa #4 Posted 16 February 2017 - 09:10 PM

    Seaman

  • Members

  • 46
  • Member since:
    12-11-2013
A lot of the battle you mention

View Postcommodore_torakula, on 07 February 2017 - 05:14 PM, said:

2. good point, 20m battles are best.

 

Although most sea battles over the centuries have occurred near the coast, where seizing chokepoints and harbors were crucial, the 20th century has been radically different.  The ASW campaigns of both world wars in the Atlantic, the clash at Midway, and the slugging matches around Guadalcanal and places like the Surabaya Strait and Leyte Gulf show one thing--it's kill or be killed.

 

1. Read James D. Hornfischer's "Neptune's Inferno"...or don't...

 

A lot of the battles you mention were about strategic bases (Midway) and/or in sustaining a land attack (Guadacanal). ASW campaign was about denying open sea to submarines so that they could not conduct unrestricted warfare against shipping, which again was in support of the land campaigns. It was more about keeping subs out of a certain area - where the shipping lanes were - than keeping them out of the entire ocean.

56Bravo #5 Posted 16 February 2017 - 11:10 PM

    Master Chief Petty Officer

  • Beta Testers

  • 327
  • Member since:
    07-13-2014

It seems a faulty supposition that combatants are in a position to engage one another are present only due to random chance.  Both sides have missions to accomplish, otherwise there would be no reason to risk the expensive capital investment of a ship nor her crew.  Perhaps reading more into naval strategy and tactics would be of some use here, there is always a reason to put soldiers and sailors in harms way, so why not reflect this with simple conditions for victory.

 

In combat, it is actually exceedingly rare to the entirety of a force to be killed r knocked out.  In real life, the Japanese for example were defeated on more than one occasion having lost no ships but were instead out maneuvered and could not win without heavy losses.  Taking a capture point in game would seem to reflect this type of strategic victory quite well.

 

For longer battles to be reasonable, the players must be prepared to enjoy much longer times waiting for battles and then hope they don't get focused down in the first five minutes and have to wait fifteen or more minutes to use that ship again.  I have moderate ADHD and even 30 seconds is forever, it's bad enough to have that special team in randoms who manage to drag out a loss for the entire 15 minutes.  Imagine waiting 10 minutes for a match and looking forward to that kind of thing.  As a special mode of play, the longer match does sound interesting, but in the allotted time we have now the entire enemy team can be eliminated.  So what real advantage of not having a goal or option for victory and an extended battle is there?

 

I'd love to see a mode where historical match-ups can be played out.  The downside is that it has never been a popular mode for players and a guaranteed money loser for every game designer that has tried it.



Sabot_100 #6 Posted 17 February 2017 - 12:02 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Members

  • 462
  • Member since:
    09-13-2014

Pretty sure the CAP zones were added because killing everything took too long if the last ships decided to go hide. It does add an unrealistic strategy to the game where your last remaining ship can win by capping the enemy CAP while the enemy is too far away to stop you, but it makes the game more playable.

 

IRL, few battles, especially any that started out without the outcome being a forgone conclusion (Bismarck), ended up with one side being totally sunk. At some point, you realize you are losing and try to get  your remaining ships the hell out of there to fight another day. There is no magic line preventing you from leaving.



Raven114 #7 Posted 17 February 2017 - 12:28 AM

    Ensign

  • Members

  • 1,146
  • Member since:
    10-05-2015
Not a good idea to go beyond the 20 minute mark. Most people have a spare hour and play 2 games and that's it for the day. Not a lot of people are chained to a keyboard playing games for 8-10 hours. :look:

commodore_torakula #8 Posted 17 March 2017 - 08:04 PM

    Seaman

  • Members

  • 36
  • Member since:
    10-22-2015

well put....I tend to burnout after 45m a day or so. .....I think that's why I backed down on the 20m issue. ....but maybe differently timed battles is not such a bad idea. ....so much of my feelings on the mater center around ppl asking questions like, "Well, sure, but how are the powers that be at wargaming.net going to sell this to us?"

 

I feel like I sold out to this game over and over, but damn if it ain't worth it half the time.

 



Wowzery #9 Posted 17 March 2017 - 08:26 PM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Members

  • 2,503
  • Member since:
    09-27-2015
The no zone might be nice, but what then would make people push forward to engage?  Take zones out and there is no reason to push to engage the enemy and battles really become boring.

_hat_ #10 Posted 17 March 2017 - 08:34 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Members

  • 487
  • Member since:
    07-04-2014

View Post56Bravo, on 16 February 2017 - 06:10 PM, said:

It seems a faulty supposition that combatants are in a position to engage one another are present only due to random chance.  Both sides have missions to accomplish, otherwise there would be no reason to risk the expensive capital investment of a ship nor her crew.  Perhaps reading more into naval strategy and tactics would be of some use here, there is always a reason to put soldiers and sailors in harms way, so why not reflect this with simple conditions for victory.

 

In combat, it is actually exceedingly rare to the entirety of a force to be killed r knocked out.  In real life, the Japanese for example were defeated on more than one occasion having lost no ships but were instead out maneuvered and could not win without heavy losses.  Taking a capture point in game would seem to reflect this type of strategic victory quite well.

 

 

Well said, sir.


Stop exploding, you cowards!


Taylor3006 #11 Posted 21 March 2017 - 04:40 AM

    Ensign

  • Members

  • 815
  • Member since:
    07-10-2016
Actually I prefer the maps with "caps" on it. Teams tend to strategize a bit more and fight over the capture areas. The "capture the flag" maps and epicenter are annoying IMHO, people just going willy nilly without much of a plan.





Also tagged with maps, caps

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users