US Navy Campaign playtest

Moderators: The Artistocrats, Order of Battle Moderators

Erik2
Order of Battle Moderator
Order of Battle Moderator
Posts: 6053
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 12:59 pm
Location: Norway

US Navy Campaign playtest

Post by Erik2 » Fri Feb 02, 2018 11:39 am

The campaing should work now.
I have tested the campaign, but not played through all scenarios yet.
The specialisations are fixed.
I have cropped map sizes and reduced the number of units were possible.
But the scenarios still include every single ship from destroyer and up.
This means that especially the later scenarios like Tarawa, philippine Sea and Leyte are large.
So the AI will take its time carrying out the team's orders.
This campaign is not for the faint of heart :D

Link:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/4vufjwzi8vods ... 1.zip?dl=0

GabeKnight
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Posts: 2225
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 10:24 pm

Re: US Navy Campaign collaboration

Post by GabeKnight » Fri Feb 02, 2018 3:47 pm

Nice. Finally some large naval battles in a campaign again. :D
Yes, I'm willing, if you'd want me.

Erik2
Order of Battle Moderator
Order of Battle Moderator
Posts: 6053
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 12:59 pm
Location: Norway

Re: US Navy Campaign collaboration

Post by Erik2 » Fri Feb 02, 2018 4:04 pm

I've sent yo a PM

Fabio3110
Corporal - Strongpoint
Corporal - Strongpoint
Posts: 73
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2016 2:28 pm

Re: US Navy Campaign collaboration

Post by Fabio3110 » Fri Feb 02, 2018 8:13 pm

Seems cool, would love to play this kind of a campaign. :)
Would be glad to help with this project.

GabeKnight
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Posts: 2225
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 10:24 pm

Re: US Navy Campaign collaboration

Post by GabeKnight » Mon Feb 05, 2018 3:06 pm

More to come... :mrgreen:
Attachments
Screenshot 52.jpg
Screenshot 52.jpg (321.85 KiB) Viewed 1833 times

GabeKnight
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Posts: 2225
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 10:24 pm

Re: US Navy Campaign collaboration

Post by GabeKnight » Mon Feb 05, 2018 6:21 pm

I'm going to play with the unmodded game version, of course, always in middle difficulty. Alright, not completely unmodded, merely with the extended "sefault" :wink: zoom values this time, as the map borders are usually unimportant with naval battles and the screenshots look cooler. The very first playthrough of each mission is going to be "blind" as usual single player mode, without prior looking into the editor and such. After that I'll watch through the replay with #orbitalcommand and check for deviances and such, and lastly a look through the editor into the triggers, AI-teams etc.

:!: Expect the posts to be edited and updated erratically :!: :)
Last edited by GabeKnight on Wed Feb 07, 2018 2:24 am, edited 2 times in total.

GabeKnight
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Posts: 2225
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 10:24 pm

Re: US Navy Campaign collaboration

Post by GabeKnight » Mon Feb 05, 2018 8:59 pm

"1Pearl"
First impressions:
(Erik, as I'm purely a single player persona, I'll judge the scenarios from that point-of-view)

- huge map, only the southeast quarter was needed, you should crop the rest
- many units, but still very fluid and not too much CPU load, impressive
- my western battle group consists of way too many DDs (and units altogether) and moves too long (~10 turns) without any action going on
Screenshot 77.jpg
The beginning of the end
Screenshot 77.jpg (304.87 KiB) Viewed 1814 times
- you should place my fighters inside the carriers at the beginning of the queue, as I'm going to launch them first (and couldn't because the carrier has planes landed and you can access just the first three of them), and the same goes for the following missions... (how'd you get four planes into a 3-slot carrier anyway?)
- the Jap. planes are undersupplied from the beginning (on the other hand that helped a lot)
- the fighters of the "blue team" :) had no chance against the Japanese Zeros but fought with honour, many of them to the last man/woman
- the situation around Pearl Harbor became quite confusing real fast, but I liked it
Screenshot 56.jpg
Screenshot 56.jpg (630.03 KiB) Viewed 1814 times
- suggestion: add counter to the sec. obj. "BB destroyed", as it was confusing at a point to not know how many were already sunk (could check this in the "forces" tab, of course, but still... it's just a few clicks in the editor after all :wink: )
- no end-of-scenario trigger was set: after finishing all prim. and sec. obj. at turn 14, I had to finish with #igotnukes at round 18-something after destroying all remaining enemy forces
- at scenario end there was a 7HP sub left and two DD at the other end of the map, parked at Midway, have to look into their code (was it a testing run or in case one of my planes landed there?)
- most of the units did what they should, maybe the carriers should be less aggressive and stop going after my destroyers :) I'll check later
- the two recon planes (blue team) also did their jobs (until shot down), but the one in the (north-)western part wasn't needed: no units there
- at scenario end the award was 7 spec. points
- at some later point the Japanese fighters rather attacked my carriers than the tact. bombers directly next to them (and on low eff. due to take-off nonetheless)
Screenshot 63.jpg
Bad decision
Screenshot 63.jpg (452.33 KiB) Viewed 1814 times
Overall impressions:
- great action going on with the torpedo-planes, subs and battleships right from the start
- but as always (and this one is not on you, Erik) the subs are utterly USELESS, just nice for the show
- although overall doing their jobs (with the bombers and torpedo planes a very good one!) just fine, I really wanted to control some of the blue teams fighter planes to support my BB's at the beginning and the aerial attack on the enemy carrier group later on. The few weak "Buffalo/Wildcat" planes you gave me were no match against that many Zeros, you may consider turning them down. It was quite easy to finish them off while landed on the carriers (with good or lucky timing) or against a naval-only-force, though, but as it is now I can either choose to land my planes during the whole engagement with the carrier group or risk quite the fatal damage done to them. It'd be quite unreasonable to hurt my core forces that much and I'd really suggest to use MANY aux. units on this early scenario of the campaign.
- I'd suggest to half the DD's, cut at least two CA, all BB should be non-core (at least those at Pearl) and decrease the Jap. Zero force, too, to allow an aerial attack on the carriers
...or (as always) cut the enemy's RP so that the Zeros cannot be repaired to full after the blue teams attacks, but we've been going this RP-reduce-road down more than once, right...? :wink:
- And given the generous turn limit, you could easily add some kind of intercepting (harassing) enemy force coming for my western battle group on the way to the carriers
- BTW you could randomize the carrier groups location a bit, as it was clear from the beginning where they'd be.
Last edited by GabeKnight on Tue Feb 06, 2018 7:44 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Erik2
Order of Battle Moderator
Order of Battle Moderator
Posts: 6053
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 12:59 pm
Location: Norway

Re: US Navy Campaign collaboration

Post by Erik2 » Tue Feb 06, 2018 9:55 am

Thanks for the first, very detailed report.
I've started collecting the US naval stuff.

I have to concerns in general.
All historical ships down to the last transport is available, thisd may be too much even for hard-core naval buffs. I may go for just half of the vessels.
Some naval groups start a certain distance away from the main action. I have may start them somewhat closer or bring them on as reinforcements later and much closer.
A few maps hare probably too big. I have tried to keep all maps consistent in size, but playability will override this.

GabeKnight
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Posts: 2225
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 10:24 pm

Re: US Navy Campaign collaboration

Post by GabeKnight » Tue Feb 06, 2018 4:18 pm

Erik2 wrote:All historical ships down to the last transport is available, this may be too much even for hard-core naval buffs. I may go for just half of the vessels.
Truly, it's kind of a shame that I can not quite appreciate the (historic) attention to detail put into creating these maps (fleet positions, naming all vessels,...), but you'll have to excuse this aspect from my reviews. Sorry.
Erik2 wrote:Some naval groups start a certain distance away from the main action. I have may start them somewhat closer or bring them on as reinforcements later and much closer.
But I've forgotten to mention this: Putting aside the fact, that the "Voyage of the Western Group" look too long, the timing of the clash of said fleet with the enemy carrier group was perfect! The BB's departing from Pearl to join the battle (after the air raid was done for) were still out of range, but on their way. If I'd wanted (or been pressured too much) I could have decided to wait a few turns for them to arrive and support the attack on the enemy battleships. As I'm impatient, I didn't wait, of course, and my core CA's and carriers got a bit damaged in the process, as it should be. Great!

In between my criticism I may have neglected to put the really great aspects of the mission in it: IT WAS FUN, thank you! :D
(But I've come to expect nothing less of you, Erik)
Last edited by GabeKnight on Tue Feb 06, 2018 5:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

GabeKnight
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Posts: 2225
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 10:24 pm

Re: US Navy Campaign collaboration

Post by GabeKnight » Tue Feb 06, 2018 5:07 pm

"2Wake"

- the AI/human designation is messed up, I ended up playing as "blue team" with no objectives! :). Thank god I know now how to edit this fast and don't have to wait... 8) Seriously, I'm like a child at this sometimes, when I'm all psyched up and ready for playin' and then... don't get my "bottle"... :D Now I'm quite more curious how that would've played out? Which AI would have won? Mine or the enemy's? And could my only unit, a recon plane, have made a difference in the course of history? :lol:
- the initial torpedo attack on my freshly deployed (stationary!) core-only units was a bit mean, don't you think? As I have no core destroyers yet, and not that much of RP's to spare. Still have to repair my core BB's from Pearl and the outdated cruisers aren't that super, either... Here at this point I could've used an aux. DD screening force from the previous mission, at least 4-6 ships. The Japanese sunk my 10HP-cruiser on the spot and almost my battleship... :cry:
Screenshot 87.jpg
Screenshot 87.jpg (349.28 KiB) Viewed 1758 times
- the resulting chase, on the contrary, was fun, however :)
- and I like the new coloring of the commanders' area of influence. Way better!
- in the objectives you should point at least once to the deployment areas, as the map is quite large and the zones are just a few hexes and hard to find (well, not hard, but you know what I mean)
- again, the sec. obj. "do not lose any carriers" will be already failed, if there would've been a core carrier casualty previously in the campaign
- and you have to do something about the Zeros, they're just too powerful as they are, that renders my complete air force (with fighters) unusable or prone to heavy damage. I don't know how the dev's done it in the official Pacific DLC, but it didn't feel so frustrating then... Oh god, my full strength fighter planes aren't even able to shoot down a 2HP Japanese recon plane in one turn!!! :evil:
And you're giving me 14RP/turn:
Zero.jpg
Zero.jpg (19.99 KiB) Viewed 1758 times
- at around turn 10 my fleet arrived at the battle near Wake Island, at turn 11 the VP gets taken by an enemy destroyer. To be honest, I didn't notice it to be a sea hex, at all. As there were transport ships on their way, I was sure it has to be a land invasion event. My fault. Probably could've prevented it by concentrating my tact. bombers on that area, but as there's no scenario-end trigger in effect, yet, no one seemed to notice and I continued as if nothing happened... :wink:
- began to use my multiple tact. bombers to "shoot" down the Zeros, as they appear more effective to do so as my fighters
- by the time my fleet got to the main battle zone (about turn 10-12) the enemy had already lost most of its cruisers and many destroyers due to aerial attacks, it was just mop-up duty with my overwhelming force of destroyers, cruisers and BB's after that. Either add WAY more enemy ships to the nothern carrier force heading to Wake Island or cut mine by half or more.
- could have done things faster, but those pesky Japanese strat. and tact. bombers just had to go, I can't help myself in that respect
- maybe the Jap. torpedo-planes should attack cruiser-class and above only
- the 5HP blue team fighter was too weak against Zeros or bombers
- concerning the AI teams: haven't seen anything unusual, even at end of scenario
- map was large, but okay for naval; most of the northern and southern part's weren't needed for the battle
- destroyed every enemy at the end of turn 17 (except recon planes) and ended with #nukes
- at scenario end the award was 7 spec. points
Screenshot 90.jpg
Turn 12
Screenshot 90.jpg (240.91 KiB) Viewed 1750 times
Overall impressions
- And again, the timing was great! Sure, I had to move the whole eastern fleet for some turns once more, but there were subs to destroy on the way, and there was this feeling of urgency all the time, to rush and rescue my other fleet... nice
- it's true, you're giving me multiple new core units each mission thus far, but I don't think this is how it's supposed to be done in a campaign. Don't get me wrong, a Major Victory's very well possible in each of the scenarios I've played so far, but it's my core force after all and 1.) I should be able to choose its compositon and 2.) not have to suffer such significant losses all the time to them. My units schould be able to progress in experience and not being destroyed every mission. And I've got way too many bombers in my core and far too little (or just too weak) fighter planes at the moment - even to attack incoming bombers or to protect my capital ships. On the other hand I've got that many bombers, that considering them bait to be shot down (and thus damaging Zeros) becomes a feasible tactic. And it shouldn't - for core forces at least, that's how I think about this issue...

But most importantly, Erik....don't listen to me balance-wise, at least until I've completed the whole campaign. Listening to myself, I kinda sound like at the beginning of GGC, and now I've come to love it. Maybe all is needed are new ways in the sense of approach and tactics. Still, please don't let my core BB's get sunk so senseless... :wink:

GabeKnight
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Posts: 2225
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 10:24 pm

Re: US Navy Campaign collaboration

Post by GabeKnight » Wed Feb 07, 2018 5:02 am

"3Rainbow"

- team 2 has to be set to AI instead of human
- preset: 7-turn limit :) - raised it to 50
- no deployment area
- the "do not lose more than..." objectives will not complete as I did lose 3-4 core BB in previous missions. You should use the "Kills & Casualities" trigger in campaigns instead of the "Check Units Count" (editing the triggers now and will test)
... and I hope you prepared an adequate enemy fleet for that :) - at least double my size for a game against the AI
(maybe you could stage the placement of my inital fleet more, let's say, "randomly grouped", as it looks quite "copy & paste" like that :) )
Screenshot 91.jpg
Initial deployment
Screenshot 91.jpg (298.8 KiB) Viewed 1711 times
....Ooooookay..... Looked very exciting, but sorry, Erik, I'm gonna skip this one as it is. It's just too much. Endless units to move. From the editor I knew the Jap. fleet was in the other corner of the map somewhere (didn't look too close as not to spoil the experience) and after turn 3, I counted the hexes. ~60! That's 30 per team full speed, meaning like 10 turns for the BB's. No way. And couldn't leave formation for the sake of protecting the transports, either. So no full speed. I roughly estimated about 45-55min until the fleet's clash, as the AI turns take forver, too. Just to shoot a couple of subs on the way? Nope. Sorry.
- The idea was good, and I even wouldn't mind controlling that much units, but there would have to be like a raid within 1-2 turns with a massive Jap. force (naval or aerial) out of the FOW. So that I'd have to rush into formation and launch my fighters and so on, then having this many units may prove very exciting. But you may want to keep it short in lenght (turn-wise) as well, otherwise one would go nuts.
- ran #orbitalcommand: the AI's seemed to do okay, but: The dozens of 2HP recon planes were a bit too much, the AI landed most of them inside cruisers (for repairs probably) or flew southwards (?), the subs attacked okay, the fleet moved okay, the carriers didn't move altogether - but launched their planes and these went after me, the enemy ground-based airforce was heavily undersupplied
- my land-based fighters of blue team seemed quite displaced with that short of a range inside this map
Last edited by GabeKnight on Fri Feb 09, 2018 2:49 am, edited 1 time in total.

GabeKnight
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Posts: 2225
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 10:24 pm

Re: US Navy Campaign collaboration

Post by GabeKnight » Thu Feb 08, 2018 5:42 pm

"4Coral"

- okay, way better
- first impression: too many strong units in my team, game balance wise; and the amount of aircraft for Australia and blue team seems overwhelming, too
- with about 2,5min AI thinking time per turn during FOW and about 4-5min during battle, that's quite good this time, considering the map size
- map was large, but okay for naval; most of the southern/southwestern areas and (coastal) units (aircraft, recon, subs) seemed unnecessary for this battle; this time I even wouldn't mind Australia and blue team to be controlled by the AI actually (recon flights and close range aerial defense of Moresby preferably)
- far too many core units as of now, some with same names, as I have two BB "Tennessee" and "North Carolina" :wink:
- still not a single core destroyer, yet (but this may not be a bad thing, as long as there are enough aux. available)
- I've decided to treat like 5 battleships and carriers, 10 cruisers, 5-7 fighters, 8-10 tact./torpedo bombers as my real core units (with elite repair, experience, commanders and such), the rest as expendable aux. units instead; let's see how that goes...
- Really like those early Lexington-class carriers with the nice 6-hex range and decent firepower against small ships, far better than my destroyers. Never upgraded them to the 3-hex range latter models in the official DLCs and they became my only ever 5-star carriers... :)
- you may rethink the location of my deployment zones to be somewhere closer to the main fleet's - why not in the middle of it? My deployed, supposed core forces, never could catch up with the rest of the fleet
- with enough fighters and numerical advantage, even the Zeros become manageable :) (EDIT: at first... :? :evil: )
- wow, the Japs must be real desperate to attack with such an incredibly neat formation of recon planes. And my fighters still weren't able to shoot down a 2HP Aichi recon plane with a "5" defense value in one turn. I didn't dare to attack the 3HP ones as I could've suffered losses. In comparison, the Japanese pilots seem extremely skilled with respect to their American counterparts
Screenshot 93.jpg
Screenshot 93.jpg (315.72 KiB) Viewed 1689 times
- the 2-3HP Jap. recon planes should mostly be removed and less of them be spread out more; the enemy found my fleet without problems anyway
- couldn't repair my blue team's planes at Moresby's airport due to "cut off supply" message - and all this 'cause one bombing run of the Jap. strat. bombers. Just "2" supply? :?: Or is that supposed to be the right tactic to prevent enemy ground-based planes to repair? Okay, I'll try. (EDIT: It works, but shouldn't maybe. And the AA's and coastal guns lose efficiency real fast, too)
- the green teams capture flags looked weird being just green
- I think the subs and AA have no AI team, coastal guns seem okay
- the "do not lose any carriers" prim. objective could be failed from the beginning again (if previous losses occurred), I guess, and has no "complete" trigger
- no sec. obj. "complete" trigger (ships arrive at Moresby at turn ~30, too late)
- no end-of-scenario trigger ("prevent the capture"/ no "complete" trigger)
- one idle strat. bomber over "Shortland" (and idle recon plane) and "Rabaul" and one strat. bomber flying straight to the south edge and back (?)
- the rest of the AI scripting seemed okay
- at around turn 12-14 the enemy was mostly done for, wanted to do some mop-up after that to gain some experience and destroy the Japs completely, but the AI's stuck after turn 15. Thinks forever, must be some loop: tried restarting, that usually always helps with the memory issues when playing too long in one session. And using #johnconnor works, so must be some AI/trigger problem as there are not many units left to calculate. My first guess would be some kind of left-over multiplayer "team 2" triggers or objectives contradicting themselves at some point or something like that.
EDIT: After playing two turns with the AI off, at turn 17 it worked okay again, so I don't know...
Screenshot 94.jpg
Screenshot 94.jpg (352.96 KiB) Viewed 1689 times
Overall impressions
- at this mission, the number and composition of the provided fleet (without me adding units) seems optimal. Not too many, but more than enough. Make them aux units and remove the BB and carriers and allow the player to add additional core units, like 1-2 BB and one or two cruisers, some planes and carriers or something like that. 30 naval-CP maybe?
- the Japanese fleet stength poses no real threat as to the success of the mission, they need considerably more stronger ships (a single Devastator torpedo hit did 4 damage to Jap. battleships!) as there's no repair possible at sea. Plus, I have an enormous amount of bombers and air-CP at my disposal to lay waste to any fleet before my ships even arrive - and can use them to shoot down Zeros at the same time. The Jap. DDs stayed mostly in proximity of the carriers, which was okay, but they were missed to attack my ships and defend the forward Jap. battle group. The transports supposedly invading Moresby seemed without naval escort (or did I destroy them too early)?
- the strat. bombers and the tact. bombers were my best offense against the Jap. fighters! :D I'll need to buy more core B-17 strat. bombers! That's where my money goes from here on out... :wink:
- you could "spice up" the sec. obj. a bit, as it's always been "destroy x ships" or "escort transports to" so far. That's okay for prim. obj. however. And maybe you should add one or more air commanders in earlier missions already.
- at the moment, only the pure superiority of the Jap. Zeros causes some kind of challenge (and headaches...) - I'll have to revise my tactics in that regard. As long as the air defense values of my bombers are equal or higher as my fighter's, the enemy Zeros keep attacking my fighters instead of the bombers and therefore rendering them useless as escorts and support. They could be used to lure Jap. fighters away from my bomber formations however - just to be destroyed real fast... I'll have to ponder over this further, but right now, my Wildcats are being shot down in "flocks" :lol:
- But as you can see I'm in a really good mood: I really liked this scenario otherwise. Just needs cosmetic work and balancing IMO. Thanks!
Screenshot 99.jpg
Screenshot 99.jpg (339.59 KiB) Viewed 1689 times
Last edited by GabeKnight on Fri Feb 09, 2018 3:20 am, edited 4 times in total.

GabeKnight
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Posts: 2225
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 10:24 pm

Re: US Navy Campaign playtest

Post by GabeKnight » Fri Feb 09, 2018 12:34 am

Erik, would you mind if I take this scenario (4Coral) and modify it the way "me thinks" this should be set up? Shifting, removing and adding some units, changing some AI settings, objectives and triggers? I'll gladly post some screenshots and AAR after that (if successful, of course :D )

Erik2
Order of Battle Moderator
Order of Battle Moderator
Posts: 6053
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 12:59 pm
Location: Norway

Re: US Navy Campaign playtest

Post by Erik2 » Fri Feb 09, 2018 11:29 am

GabeKnight wrote:Erik, would you mind if I take this scenario (4Coral) and modify it the way "me thinks" this should be set up? Shifting, removing and adding some units, changing some AI settings, objectives and triggers? I'll gladly post some screenshots and AAR after that (if successful, of course :D )
You can do whatever you want for testing purposes, of course.
The final scenario scopes/versions will be decided later.

As for 3Rainbow, this is a purely hypotetical scenario. So I have absolutely no problems reducing the number of vessels to something manageable.

GabeKnight
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Posts: 2225
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 10:24 pm

Re: US Navy Campaign playtest

Post by GabeKnight » Sat Feb 10, 2018 1:03 am

Erik, as I started "5Midway" just about now, I've been thinking, and if there are no objections from your side, from the *next* mission on, I'm gonna do some changes to the maps prior to playing:

1.) remove many of the Jap. recon planes and/or move some of them to strategically better positions to spot my fleet early on (I've been observing them with #orbital, and they don't seem to do much but taking up CPU time and not being shot down fast enough :wink: )

2.) remove many/most of my newly placed core ships (BB, CA, CV) and planes at deployment stage, maybe even some of the numerous aux. destroyers - and insert new deployment areas instead to choose my own core composition. With an almost 1:1 ratio of American to Japanese units as it is now, the AI stands absolutely no chance in naval engagements against a human player.

I'll keep the Japanese and the rest of the auxiliary units (blue team and such) as they are, even the Zero's, as it's fun figuring out creative ways to defeat them, like my freshly bought B-17... :twisted:
Right now I don't see how these changes would affect the testing purposes (?)
Aichi.jpg
Aichi.jpg (36.99 KiB) Viewed 1591 times
And I'd seriously suggest changing the scale of things. It's not that the maps are too big, they load just fine. But most of the first 7-ish turns are spent on each (large!) fleet just moving closer to each other. Some turns to get into formation and launch my planes and do a bit of recon are okay, but aside that, spending whole turns just moving units seems a waste of time, and the resulting battle remains the same either way.
Scale1.jpg
(at Turn 8)
Scale1.jpg (473.39 KiB) Viewed 1589 times

Horst
Sr. Colonel - Battleship
Sr. Colonel - Battleship
Posts: 1609
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 1:22 pm

Re: US Navy Campaign playtest

Post by Horst » Sat Feb 10, 2018 8:00 am

My reports won't be as pretty and detailed as Admiral GabeKnight's, but I'd also like to take a look at the campaign. No idea yet how these huge maps will work on my rig though. Maybe I need to abandon ship again for that reason.

Erik2
Order of Battle Moderator
Order of Battle Moderator
Posts: 6053
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 12:59 pm
Location: Norway

Re: US Navy Campaign playtest

Post by Erik2 » Sat Feb 10, 2018 12:06 pm

I'm going to follow the advice about max 2-4 turns of movement before the action starts.
Adherbal told me this a couple of years ago, about time I listened :D

GabeKnight
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Posts: 2225
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 10:24 pm

Re: US Navy Campaign playtest

Post by GabeKnight » Sat Feb 10, 2018 3:58 pm

"5Midway"

- Oops, sorry, Erik, I may have misjudged this scenario a little in advance: actually the distance of fleets and the enemy's strenght in this one is not so bad after all :oops: . The BBs could be placed a bit closer to the action as their moving speeds are low, and there's still the issue with me having too many units, but putting game balance apart, the time moving my fleets closer to each other was well spent with air action, as the planes of both fleets clashed together real fast. Especially those starting at Midway.
- in the briefing you say something about the enemy fleet arriving from northEAST? It's west...but wasn't THAT obvious from the start, so I've wasted some ships going that direction anyways, just to be sure...
- here again, I think I wouldn't mind the blue team being controlled by the AI. Same as before, recon and close air support. And those strat. bombers aren't that bad either (in the long run)

- with the new air commanders and my fighters building up experience little by little, the Zeros seem to be more manageable here, they didn't destroy even one of my fighters. Although I may add, my fear of those Jap. fighters could be easily described as paranoia by now, as I rushed all my fighters (and bombers :wink: ) into the main enemy's carrier fleet and tried to shoot as many of them down as long as they're on low efficiency due to take-off... Risky with losses, but very effective with the right commander. Maybe it would've been better to place the Jap carriers a bit further away to prevent this tactic. And to be honest, I kind of felt really bad using my 1-5HP core bombers as bait so that my supporting fighters could inflict some initial damage to the Zeros.
- these "lengthy" fleet deployments (mine and the enemy's) with BBs being placed too far on the outer edges, for example, caused them to be too slow to participate in the battle at the right time. So I had a couple of turns first to destroy the fast DDs and CA and could then concentrate on the arriving - and then unescorted - Japanese battleships. Unfair. They should all attack in formation with the BBs providing support.
Screenshot 102.jpg
Screenshot 102.jpg (647.18 KiB) Viewed 1524 times
- don't know what you had planned (sec. obj. maybe?) with the seaplane tenders, deployment zone and the 4 subs in the SE corner, but the Jap. subs arrive too late and never catch up with those tenders
- may want to recheck AI team 10 and 11, mostly idle as it is now, until attacked. If team 10 is not needed for anything, maybe remove them (or the AI-team link) altogether to speed up AI thinking time
- AI team 2 makes kinda no sense, unless that's what you meant with "northeast" in the briefing :wink:
- obj. triggers: the "destroy x-ships" objectives kind of always work (and the commander rewards), the "prevent destruction" triggers as always may not, if previous losses occured
- sec. obj. "oilers" didn't check as "complete"
- prim. obj. "prevent capture" checks as "complete" even though there are still 6 transports alive
AI-Teams.jpg
AI-Teams.jpg (448.21 KiB) Viewed 1524 times
- some damage statistics from scenario end to show you the naval power imbalance as of yet: I've destroyed every single enemy unit on that map and I've had:
a) losses: 2x aux. light cruiser, 2x aux. sub, 8x aux. DD and perhaps one cruiser that may have been damaged before (core units used as aux.), ~3 tact. bombers (low HP former core), blue team no losses
b) additional damage taken: 1HP aux. seaplane tender, 1HP core BB (but was totally my fault), 13HP "non-core" cruisers, 3HP core cruisers, 35HP aux. destoyers, didn't count the fighter plane's damage, and for me it's usually 1-2HP for about 50-75% of the tact. bombers plus some minor repairs done while landed on carriers.
(EDIT: And I could've halved those losses and damages easily, if played carefully. It just didn't seem necessary with that many units around)

overall impressions
- and again, great inital timing, the clash of fleets happened right at Midways front door
- liked the idea with the forward sub placement, added to the overall feeling of an ambush
- the enemy fleet's strength seems optimal this time to be honest, it's my fleet that needs reduction
- it was fun. Thank you.

GabeKnight
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Posts: 2225
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 10:24 pm

Re: US Navy Campaign playtest

Post by GabeKnight » Mon Feb 12, 2018 1:26 am

"6Guadalcanal"

Obviously I've made the rookie mistake to edit the map prior to even playing it once. Again it's huge and the AI takes forever to think (>5min/turn just for moving its fleet!). Although there are seriously not THAT many units to be moved. Right now I'm not patient enough for that, will try tomorrow again and see, if I'm willing to sit through it full length. It's a pity as the map appears very interesting.

[And I don't get it. I have no problems playing the latest FPS or open world games like AC on full-HD with all settings at "max", but it's Order of Battle's AI that brings my computer's CPU (8 cores at 100% load with about 6GB RAM usage in total) to its knees...] :roll: :?: :?

GabeKnight
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Posts: 2225
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 10:24 pm

Re: US Navy Campaign playtest

Post by GabeKnight » Tue Feb 13, 2018 8:27 pm

"6Guadalcanal"

Alright Erik, here's my observations: This (and similar) maps are just too large for singleplayer with OoB v5.2.3/64bit!

And it's not the map size per se, the loading times as such are marginal longer. It may work with multiplayer, but the current AI is just not able to calculate naval units within such large maps in a reasonable manner. Maybe the devs neglected it due to a lack of naval DLC content or maybe it's a bug in path finding, I don't know. But I've been doing some testing, as my first guess was the large amount of AI teams (>40) you've used, sometimes with just one unit in it. So I've removed the recon planes first (set to "idle") as I suspected them to take up too much AI time. No impovement. After that I've set all aerial AI teams to idle, still no improvement. Then even about 50% of the naval teams as well. Still nothing great. Subsequently tried a full reversal, meaning disabling all naval teams and enabling the aerial.

Well, here are the results for the AI thinking times for the very first turn:

1) no changes:..........................=27min
2) recon idle:...........................>15min (aborted the run at that time)
3) all aerial idle:.......................>10min (aborted the run at that time)
4) all aerial + some naval idle:......>10min (aborted the run at that time)
5) merely all naval idle:..............<1min (and that took that long mainly because of the moving and "take-off" animations. Not AI thinking!)

Then tested the 5) setting with an additional turn, just to be sure it wasn't because of the take-off mechanic and to see if the planes flew the right way [they did]. Again, way under a minute with practically no CPU load, as they were just MOVING and not attacking or something that may require thoughts.

I'll continue with the rest of the scenarios, but will skip those large maps in the future. It's really a pity, they looked good and I was excited about it.

Post Reply

Return to “Order of Battle : World War II - Scenario Design”