How to incentivize small task forces.

[Vuld_Edone]

Hi'.

There is a discussion going on in the beta thread that, while related to 1.05, is also kind of off-topic, so I would propose to move it here.
To sum it up, right now the meta is to make one big doomstack of a single task force and park it in front of enemy ports. This will trigger a big battle where you waste your enemy and boom, campaign over within a couple months.
There is little incentive to make more smaller task forces and get smaller engagements as a result.

(As a side note: staying in port recreates the 1.04 system while for a bit the 1.05 would have parts of a task force also fight smaller battles, which was eh.)

One thing I think people agree on is that a doomstack should be punished economically by having transport numbers plummet, tanking the economy. That's currently not the case but admittedly, even if it was, the doomstack would still trigger a big battle quickly and a short war doesn't hurt.

I would personally focus on the cost of ships at sea.

First, I have to mention Hearts of Iron 4. In that game, ships at sea cost fuel and fuel is precious (for nations without easy access to oil). So mechanics are in place that make you send small forces to scout areas, and if a big fleet shows up, your big fleet would leave port to meet them, only then.
The idea would be to try and get a comparable dynamic in UA:D, if possible by changing as little as possible because priorities.
Main way to do that would be:
a) To combine port projection and fleet projection. Basically ports are blind but can add ships to a task force. Task forces actually see but can only project as far as their circle.
b) To make it prohibitive to keep ships at sea, budget-wise. Basically incentivizing you to only keep the minimum at sea (for scouting, raiding and trade protection).
c) To have the small fry avoid the big fleets but warn the port, in turn causing a sortie. Basically if the distance is right and the enemy fleet shows up, your fleet will meet them.
That doesn't solve everything, but it should at least make it financially untenable to just park a doomstack and sit back. You would run out of money before the enemy fleet is forced to show up.
We still want to be able to blockade enemy ports (that's kind of what BBs would do) but it means doing it on a dime, with only the necessary.

I'm also still adamant on making it "easy" to have big battles. But if I am the one seeking battle, I want to pay for it. One way I proposed was to have my fleet halved or such in case of a "port strike" mission. Another would be for the enemy to be able to deny me for 2-3 months (we can excuse it in the background by the time it takes to plan operations, or by coastal batteries, who cares).
This means that, if I want my big battle, I have to pay a fortune to park enough ships out there and then, if the enemy doesn't want to meet me, I will have to wait (a short time) before forcing the encounter myself, on worse terms.

And in the meantime, as far as sea control goes, this will have to be done by cruisers (and destroyers once they get the range) while battleships politely stay home.
That's at least the rough idea I have to try and incentivize the players to play small and scarce.

[Lucky]

I was thinking about that but. honestly, I think nothing had to be done right now. "Doomstack tax" will be introduced in the form of subs and mines. The less devs are distracted now with the ersatz features, the faster we will get properly balanced game.

[TheLostPenguin]

I'm curious as to how you take "one big doomstack of a single task force and park it in front of enemy ports" as that seems to imply that you can reliably have 1 thing in multiple places at once. Unless you're nearing the point of complete victory and are spawn camping the enemies last port, the solution should be that the enemy fleet there farts in your general direction from the harbour walls whilst their compatriots elsewhere rampage through your presumably undefended (since you have the vast bulk of your force forming the one big doomstack) transports/home ports.
Granted if there is a significant imbalance in total fleet power this may still work if the opponent can only realistically field a single worthwhile fleet, hence you can just camp that once you find it, but that's realistic and I don't think trying to make seal clubbing type conflicts against minor powers anything other than some gunnery practice for major navies is a good idea. The same goes if you're say Austria-Hungary trying to get out of the Adriatic/Med, some scenarios just suck for one or more parties and it's perfectly realistic for them to do so.

[Vuld_Edone]

Originally posted by TheLostPenguin:

I'm curious as to how you [...]

(EDIT: Please disregard my answer, I was an imbecile.)

When 1.05 showed up we didn't know how task forces worked and so I personally did the intuitive thing: small CL/DD task forces at naval "crossroads" to try and scout/protect/raid while a few bigger fleets tried to cover as much area as possible.
This may have made sense back when the AI was shy and you had to weaken your deathball enough for them to engage, but quickly it appeared the CL/DD patrols were irrelevant and I only kept trying with DD packs to hunt enemy ships, which on top of cheesy also proved a waste of time.
So by now the "meta" has become 2-3 big murder trains positioned always in the same spots to trigger the big fight and call it a day. Campaign over within 6-8 months. Everything else is just for roleplay.
(EDIT: Sorry, <4 months with Austria-Hungary.)

So yes. As 1.05 currently stands the doomstack is how it works and (EDIT: nothing.)

[Mobzonk]

Probably need to enforce a mix of:
1) ships in a blockaded port refuse to come out and fight a superior opponent
2) ships and submarines in other ports run wild in sinking merchants because the rest of the seas are free of hostile warships

So using the doomstack to blockade one port is counter productive unless enough ships are free to prevent 2.

Perhaps any fleet at sea should have its power projection capped to the strengh of a single battleship.

[Vuld_Edone]

Originally posted by Youdontknowmeatall:

...i would be curious whether the reply of @TheLostPenguin was related to your statement...and not to the one made directly above by @Lucky ???

Oh. Shoot. Well sorry @TheLostPenguin, I was indeed impatient and completely misunderstood.

[Lucky]

Originally posted by Youdontknowmeatall:

...and i dont see the argument brought up by @Lucky, what Submarine Warfare could do to prevent creating a Doomstack and kill the entire enemy Navy in 2 or 3 Battles ??

I think that are both complete different areas and we should fix the Surface Ship Part, ofc we should, and then balance the Submarine Part AROUND it !!
Those are both not competitive with each other and either one cannot fix or balance the other one ! That have to be done SEPERATELY

Subs are excelent area denial tools. And since aviation is not even in the plans they will be an excelent detergent to the battlefleets through heavy attrition.

As for the surface combatant alone the problem is what they are supposed to work in this very manner. You create a doomstack and you crush your opponents in the decisive battle. Although one thing that comes in mind is the ability of light surface combatant (TB and DD) to work as the same detergent while battlefleet is too close to the ports. Like nigh cruise close. And other thing is the overall evectiviness of the distant blockade. But I've already mentioned this in the beta thread.