I just saw something I had no idea could even take place: a battle between two ocean-going convoys, both of which were composed entirely of ground units being transported by sea with no naval units as escorts. Is anyone else surprised by this? During World War II, most Allied merchantmen were lightly armed with AA guns, add-on machine guns, and sometimes with a 3-inch deck gun for defense against surfaced U-boats. That said, it is hard to imagine two unescorted convoys engaging in battle with their available weapons . . . . at the very least, it strikes me as a very bad idea that would endanger the troops being transported.
This is a standard mechanism when units that are at war with one another meet on the sea.
It doesn't happen if you're at peace.
Not the best idea admittedly, and very historically incorrect, however I think it's they way the game is made. Simply...
I can't think of any historical situation even remotely like this.
Generally, troop convoys / amphibious landings would only be attempted when one side already had fairly well established control of the sea.
That said, the game does not model anything smaller than a destroyer or submarine unit. Now we could wave our hands and claim the "destroyer" and "submarine" units really include the wide range of similar craft used for sea control and access denial.
Or we could build a few militia units and have them routinely convoy up and down the sea lanes, looking for a fight.
I have this vision of boarding parties of young boys being led by old men...
what you have her is a side product of game mechanics.
You have 2 units at war, in this case both are transports. These units have an attack and defend rating at sea. so when they bump into each other they fight using these ratings. its not elegant nor realistic, but kinda just is
That it is "side product of game mechanics," I understand. That said, it is bad programming and should not happen. I'm trying to picture a Liberty Ship ramming a Japanese troop transport, with both ships being unescorted by warships of any kind. WW2-era transport ships were slow and lightly armed, if it all, and then usually only with AA weapons. Any transport ship captain that engaged an enemy transport -- putting the lives of hundreds, if not more than a thousand troops at risk -- would be guilty of criminal negligence and dereliction of duty. That the game programming forces such battles to occur is nothing more than bad programming and should be fixed.Armatus wrote:
what you have her is a side product of game mechanics.You have 2 units at war, in this case both are transports. These units have an attack and defend rating at sea. so when they bump into each other they fight using these ratings. its not elegant nor realistic, but kinda just is
Concur, but that is the root of the problem. There were no discernible open water conflicts in WWII between convoy ships for many reasons, mostly because convoys were rarely sent out alone, unlike in this game. Further the game does not follow historical engagement zones as we tend to send our ships all over the map where in WWII most convoys were across the pacific or Atlantic in packs. You had some occur in the Mediterranean sea but also not as common. Almost all the attacks involved warships, aircraft or subs.MontanaBB wrote:
That it is "side product of game mechanics," I understand. That said, it is bad programming and should not happen. I'm trying to picture a Liberty Ship ramming a Japanese troop transport, with both ships being unescorted by warships of any kind. WW2-era transport ships were slow and lightly armed, if it all, and then usually only with AA weapons. Any transport ship captain that engaged an enemy transport -- putting the lives of hundreds, if not more than a thousand troops at risk -- would be guilty of criminal negligence and dereliction of duty. That the game programming forces such battles to occur is nothing more than bad programming and should be fixed.Armatus wrote:
what you have her is a side product of game mechanics.You have 2 units at war, in this case both are transports. These units have an attack and defend rating at sea. so when they bump into each other they fight using these ratings. its not elegant nor realistic, but kinda just is
The code of the game has a problem and that is you must give convoys a defense/attack rating so they are not sitting ducks, but the game only groups these ratings by types of units not individual units. You would have to code an entirely separate attack value for every unit, say 0.0 against transports, just to avoid this as transports themselves actually don't exist in game as a unit.
These engagements in IMHO are not that important to require an entire rewrite of engagement mechanics for every unit as they do not happen often enough.
creepy...F. Marion wrote:
I have this vision of boarding parties of young boys being led by old men...
The problem with even attempting that idea is then you'd have to also code in the idea that an enemy unit with 0.0 strength or health is not an enemy unit and can be passed by without stopping when said-rating is equal to zero....then THAT screws up the calculations for destroyed units to be removed from play....and not solving THAT would leave every battle in a perpetual and unending battle between units of which all would eventually have 0.0 ratings and unable to move until both sides declare peace.Armatus wrote:
You would have to code an entirely separate attack value for every unit, say 0.0 against transports, just to avoid this as transports themselves actually don't exist in game as a unit.
It seemed like such a waste to destroy an entire battle station just to eliminate one man. But Charlie knew that it was the only way to ensure the absolute and total destruction of Quasi-duck, once and for all.Please log in to post a reply.
