Support & Auxiliary Ships

[VarangianGarde]

Hi folks,

 

What are thoughts on support ships such colliers, oilers, tenders, repair ships, and transports? Obviously we already have transports in Fleet Academy, but what would be the best way to render these ships in the campaign?

 

I see two different approaches:

1. Support and Auxiliary Ships are rendered indirectly through a fleet "Costs and Logistics" tab, maybe requiring a friendly port in a sea zone to confer benefits. Fleet battles are largely between combat units, and would be a more "arcade" approach to the game.

2. These ships are included in game, with all the liabilities that brings. If a raiding cruiser or destroyer squadron manages to sink your oiler or collier, then your ships would be potentially short of fuel (with all the strategic liability that would bring). Losing your tenders of repair ships would mean that light units such as destroyers and light cruisers would degrade over time. Sinking transports may would directly harm national economies (and likely fleet budget as well). This would enhance the simulation aspect of the game, though it could be easy to get bogged down and lose the magic if the game turns into competitive spreadsheeting.

 

@Nick Thomadis

Edited October 23, 2019 by VarangianGarde

[VarangianGarde]

Any ideas or feedback, guys?

[SiWi]

personal I would like to have a group of support ships for you freely to construct as well.

 

Not just tankers, repair and hospital ships but also balloon carriers or zeppelin carriers.

 

 

[The Fundamentalist]

I think that perhaps a mix of the two would be the best option. Not so much "direct" control, but an asset to allocate funds to that acts as a modifier for fleet range and duration away from home ports, measured in efficiency over time. Obviously they don't really have a purpose in a battle setting, so they should only be brought in as a fleet support component when they're actually on station. I believe that during World war 2, the US Navy alternated between fleet support vessels that stayed with the battle fleets and rotated between friendly logistical stations. 
 

Regardless, logistical constraints should be a very large focus of the campaign, if not THE strategic emphasis. The great failure of the video game age is the inability to reflect the strategic limitations that came with moving around large amounts of men and machine. While obviously there is a desired level of fantasy that comes with entertainment to keep things fun, the achilles heel of the Total War series and pretty much every other contemporary "strategy" game was the vacuum units operated in once they were formed. 

[Bloodravenftw]

I think you should be able to design those ships as well and be able to allocate ships to escort them as they automatically make their supply runs around the map. Say you the enemy intercepts with convoy raiders. You then play a battle where your goal is to get as many cargo/logistical ships across a boundary line on the otherside of the battle map as possible to prevent loss of tonnage supply. This would give convoy raiders cruisers and later submarines a purpose of the player to design as well as a need for the player to figure out how cargo ships should be constructed liberty ships came armed albeit not well but nonetheless the player could say add turrets or go for an unarmed fast ships or massive ones.

 

Out of curiosity how will the campaign work will it be like a hoi/ mount and blade style world map where entities all work in real time and when two of opposition meet there is then a fight on the battle map?

Edited October 26, 2019 by Bloodravenftw
Further thoughts

[VarangianGarde]

14 hours ago, The Fundamentalist said:

I think that perhaps a mix of the two would be the best option. Not so much "direct" control, but an asset to allocate funds to that acts as a modifier for fleet range and duration away from home ports, measured in efficiency over time. Obviously they don't really have a purpose in a battle setting, so they should only be brought in as a fleet support component when they're actually on station. I believe that during World war 2, the US Navy alternated between fleet support vessels that stayed with the battle fleets and rotated between friendly logistical stations. 
 

Regardless, logistical constraints should be a very large focus of the campaign, if not THE strategic emphasis. The great failure of the video game age is the inability to reflect the strategic limitations that came with moving around large amounts of men and machine. While obviously there is a desired level of fantasy that comes with entertainment to keep things fun, the achilles heel of the Total War series and pretty much every other contemporary "strategy" game was the vacuum units operated in once they were formed. 

Well put. I agree that logistical support needs to be a factor that significantly enhances or penalizes fleet performance.

 

To tie in with another idea, friendly minor powers with port facilities would be another diplomatic incentive in the game. Maybe support ships could operate from them, and depending on how good relations are, maybe even repairs and dry docking could be a possibility.

[VarangianGarde]

5 hours ago, Bloodravenftw said:

I think you should be able to design those ships as well and be able to allocate ships to escort them as they automatically make their supply runs around the map. Say you the enemy intercepts with convoy raiders. You then play a battle where your goal is to get as many cargo/logistical ships across a boundary line on the otherside of the battle map as possible to prevent loss of tonnage supply. This would give convoy raiders cruisers and later submarines a purpose of the player to design as well as a need for the player to figure out how cargo ships should be constructed liberty ships came armed albeit not well but nonetheless the player could say add turrets or go for an unarmed fast ships or massive ones.

 

Out of curiosity how will the campaign work will it be like a hoi/ mount and blade style world map where entities all work in real time and when two of opposition meet there is then a fight on the battle map?

I really like your convoy raid scenario idea. I'd say the goal line should be "loss contact." Thus, better rangefinding and RADAR would improve the capabilities of merchant raiders, while faster ships and beefed up escorts could tip the scales to the "defender."

[VarangianGarde]

@Nick Thomadis

 

Do you think we could see transports, colliers, tenders, and the like in the Custom Battle section of the updated game?

[Kamchatka]

Tsushima would never have happened without support ships. If the campaign is built around a grand strategy idea then I’d say they have to be in it. I would also like to see dedicated raiders like the aux cruisers of WWI, Panzerschiffe, and armed merchant raiders.

[RedParadize]

At the moment, I wish I had ammo cargo ship in the battle itself. I know its silly, but it would be very helpful.

[VarangianGarde]

On 2/10/2020 at 9:37 AM, RedParadize said:

At the moment, I wish I had ammo cargo ship in the battle itself. I know its silly, but it would be very helpful.

If you mean as a liability, I totally agree. However, I don't know of any situation where a munitions ship resupplied during battle. That'd be insanely risky.

[RedParadize]

I know its silly. Its just that atm going for anything but increased ammo and max amount of barrel is a mistake lol.