|
|
Post by gan on Apr 10, 2017 4:46:21 GMT -5
Gan’s Proposal:
Navy:
-Every nation has a navy- -Navy strength- Measured on a scale from 1 upwards Equivalent to number of ships Can be split into up to 2 ‘navy presences’ -Ships- Cost = 1 DP per ship When built, are placed at the shipyard Combat: Takes place in ‘rounds’ One round of combat takes place every turn. Each round, each ‘navy presence’ loses equivalent number of ships as half the strength of the enemy army, rounded up Rounds continue until one army is completely destroyed Movement: Cannot move unless in a ‘navy presence’ -Movement- A ‘navy presence’ can move a maximum of 10 coastal territories per turn, or can cross a sea where land units also cross (i.e. at a line connecting two land territories) If crossing the mouth of a bay, that counts as moving between 2 coastal territories and not across a sea -Actions- Blockading: A player may move their navy into the way of an enemy’s trade route; this blockades the trade route so that the over-sea trading no longer takes effect. -Move turn- Receive DPs Order any new ships Move any existing ‘navy presence’ Enemy 'navy presence' battles own 'navy presence' On turn tick, receive new ships at shipyard -Initial number of ships- Equal to number of coastal territories -Upkeep costs- 1/10 of strength of naval presence, round up, per turn, if not bordering own territory. A player need not tell other players of their own navy status, but if a navy presence is near coastal territories of another player, or goes to war with another player's navy presence, then the other player will be told about it. Thus ends Gan’s Proposal
If we get majority of votes on answers 1, 2 or 3, this will be implemented on turn 15. At time of writing, the turn number is 10. If we get majority of votes on answers 4, 5 or 6, this idea will be scrapped. |
|
|
|
Post by Zips on Apr 10, 2017 9:12:28 GMT -5
This is great. Here are some more ideas:
1. We should have a chatroom for navy battles, which include both of the players involved in the battle and the administrator (Who I assume will be you. If you need any help, just message me.)
2. Ships should be able to cross oceans, taking 2 turns and taking 20%-50% attrition damage (based on dice roll).
3. Ships in non-friendly territory should have an upkeep. I'm no good at calculating stuff and keeping things balanced at the same time, so I'll leave it to you.
And a question, how long does a 'round' last? A round per turn? 5 rounds per turn? Or does the whole naval battle take a turn?
|
|
|
|
Post by gan on Apr 10, 2017 17:27:15 GMT -5
1. (and question) – I was thinking a whole naval battle would take a single turn. But after your question with the chatroom, I'm thinking maybe we can make a round last one turn to actually give the players a chance to communicate – so when they first meet, they have one turn to peacefully pass by, then each turn they have one round of battle and then can leave peacefully. So I think I'll make one round last one turn, with one turn of negotiation beforehand. The chatroom idea – I'm not sure how to do that yet, but if anyone has any ideas, then let me know. If I don't get any satisfactory ideas by time of implementation, then I'll just PM both players when battles happen, and leave it at that.
2. I agree, but what would we define as 'ocean'? And I don't think it should cost the owner of the ships any more than the upkeep it takes to maintain them when they are not at docks.
3. I like this idea. I don't want to make it too expensive, as I alone know the range of DP incomes and balances of all players, so I think I'll make it to upkeep a naval presence costs one tenth of the strength of the presence, rounded up. So if you had an army of 23 ships, that would cost 3 development points upkeep per turn, if not bordering one of your own territories.
So update to main proposal:
Updated Move Turn to include sea battles
Added upkeep costs
|
|
|
|
Post by Zips on Apr 11, 2017 9:06:21 GMT -5
How about 3 rounds per turn? Naval battles don't last that long anyway and it still gives the player time to send reinforcing ships. As for the chatroom, you can PM both players for now until we find a better alternative.
Crossing oceans would be complicated. And on the current state of technology in Noliterre, it should not be possible (yet). Could definitely work on future games once we work on the details.
Great work, gan.
|
|
|
|
Post by gan on Apr 11, 2017 20:35:03 GMT -5
I think even with 3 rounds per turn, the battles would have to be pretty close to them for reinforcements to be sent, but I do believe that naval battles shouldn't last any longer than a couple of turns at max. I think I'll add that players choose whether to fight, remain in same place peacefully, or pass by each other for each battle, but they'd only have one chance to choose per turn, and each turn only one 'round' of battles takes place. See reason near scenario.
Crossing oceans would be complicated, so I'll keep it as you can only cross oceans where armies can cross landmasses, and that takes an entire turn to do so.
Lets take a sea battle where Player 1 has 50 ships, Player 2 has 40 ships.
Round 1: Player 1 loses 20 ships, Player 2 loses 25 ships. Player 1 has 30 ships, Player 2 has 15 ships.
Round 2: Player 1 loses 8 ships, Player 2 loses 15 ships. Player 1 has 22 ships, Player 2 has no ships. Player 1 wins the battle!
That was a battle with (I'm guessing) a relatively high number of ships per side, and it lasted only 2 rounds. I think unless we reduce the kill percentage of ships, we'll have to make it one round per turn, or the battles will all be done in one turn. I know it isn't perfectly realistic, but neither is WarLight, either.
Update to main proposal:
Added that one round of battle takes place every turn.
(Also, may I be added as the Chief Game Mechanic? I know it's a big ask, but…)
|
|
|
|
Post by Zips on Apr 13, 2017 6:16:26 GMT -5
I completely agree with everything. I think the ship's kill percentage is fine, we could have factors that affect it though (like weather, morale, etc.) but I understand if its too complicated. One round of battle per turn sounds good.
Sure, you are now the Chief Game Mechanic. We look forward for more of your proposals.
|
|
|
|
Post by gan on Apr 14, 2017 1:53:58 GMT -5
Thanks, I'll put up a proposal every five turns.
|
|
|
|
Post by numberhawk44 on Apr 18, 2017 19:25:39 GMT -5
I know I'm a little late to the chat, but as someone with a little experience with the navy there are a few changes I think should be considered 1. Naval presence should be determined by number of oceans/bodies of water a nation borders, not set at a fixed rate. More difficult but far more realistic. There should also be an option to maintain naval presence on lakes which are shared between countries. All naval forces would be scrapped if a lake comes under full control of a player. 2. Attrition is fine for now but should be phased out as technological progress comes along. By the 19th century attrition was a non-issue as long as there were ample refueling stations. 3. 100% casualty rates for naval battles are almost unheard of (unless you're Japanese and it's 1944). Usually, a few ships are damaged/lost and one side or another retreats. Battles should still be limited to a round or two, but players should be encouraged to retreat after that. If neither side wishes to retreat, the battle continues for a third turn. After that, the fleet that took the most damage should automatically retreat. 4. If at all possible, a chance to board and capture ships should be added, as this was a quite common occurrence before the advent of long-range gun turrets in the 19th century. On another note, I'd be happy to help RP naval battles if needed  |
|
|
|
Post by gan on Apr 18, 2017 19:49:46 GMT -5
Firstly, thanks for your input! I'll do my best to reply in full to each of your comments:
1. Are you talking about number of naval presences? If so, how exactly would you calculate the maximum number allowed? Just remember that I'll have to keep track of all of them, where they are and how strong they are each turn, and I've got a lot of other stuff I need to keep track of. I'm willing to add more if you can give me some good reasons to, but for now, I'd rather keep it as it is at 2 presences, to allow for some expansion.
2. Were these refuelling stations only at friendly nations, or everywhere/anywhere? Even with technology advances we'd still have to account for enemy nations not allowing ships to refuel at their borders.
3. I think the reason that the 100% casualty rate is never heard of is because the army controllers would have seen defeat and retreated? If so, then that can be the same here. Maybe you'd be suggesting lower kill-rates, such as one third or quarter rather than one half? That may keep it closer to what you are saying. Anyway, I'll do one round per turn, and at the end of every round, each player would have the chance to retreat, make peace or keep attacking. If both make peace, then battle over. If both attack, then another round occurs. If one retreats, then no matter what the other does, the battle finishes immediately. I'd say that a person would be silly to keep going to defeat, unless they didn't care about their armies anymore. But I'd rather give them the chance to go to 100% dead than force them to run away.
4. How would you suggest doing that? My only thought would be if one side surrenders to the other in making peace, but even that is implausible. I'm willing to consider this suggestion, but I'd like some ideas as to how to do it.
I'll let you know if you are needed, although I'd think it would be ideal if the players themselves did the RP.
|
|
|
|
Post by numberhawk44 on Apr 18, 2017 21:54:45 GMT -5
1. I'd suggest one per body of water (sea/ocean), so for many nations there might actually be fewer naval presences/fleets than two. But I respect your decision there.
2. They weren't everywhere, but the range of the ships was so impressive that it was almost guaranteed that they would reach a friendly port. This won't be a problem for at least a few more games though,
3. Fair enough
4. There should be a 50-60% chance of a ship being captured instead of destroyed. It sounds really high, but that's the way it was, especially later on when commanders designed plans of attack focusing exclusively on commandeering the enemy fleet. If you want to revise it downward that's up to you. I'd also recommend preventing newly captured ships from participating in actions until they return to a friendly port for refitting and a new crew.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zips on Apr 19, 2017 17:16:32 GMT -5
The consequences of retreating should be looked into. Ships should still get damaged (at a much lower rate) if the opposing player attacked.
|
|
|
|
Post by plaustrumimperialist on Apr 25, 2017 18:15:44 GMT -5
Would it be possible to have commanders involved in the navy? I.e, Drake could win over a much larger army irl.
|
|
|
|
Post by numberhawk44 on Apr 25, 2017 19:47:57 GMT -5
Theoretically yes and that's a good idea but for now let's not overload Gan. He's already balancing a huge amount and I think we should let him decide his timetable.
|
|
|
|
Post by gan on May 1, 2017 22:22:37 GMT -5
Update: I just changed the costs of the ships to be 1 DP per ship rather than the complex formula it was before. Makes it simpler for both me and others.
|
|
