Using the editor to improve naval realism

[PowerGmbH]

mcaryf1: so if i amalgame the entire Tread i hold following idea:

-a Speed Value is given to each naval Unit, and helps as follows: in Patrol Mode it may help to engage and win a Naval encounter, and in "Silent" Mode it helps to move on the map with less probability of beeing intercepted.

-a Bomber becomes more expensive but features aditional functions i.e. Spotting, providing Supply for units in Range or heavy Bombing, or more.

-Carrier Units shall be divided in at least 2 diferent Types: Light, and Heavy, (optionally Escort Carriers)

-Attac and Spotting Range of Airfleets must be reduced over Sea (maybe halved as well over Ennemy Tiles) , but not over friendly Land Tiles, to reflect the value of Carriers.

So far so good. is there sth more that could help to close the gap in realism for Naval encounters?

[SeaMonkey]

Encounters or the mission? If both, then we need to consider the logistical realm, especially for islands as they simulate non-moving naval units to some degree. Personally I'd like to see a deteriating situation of supply for islands that are cut off by naval supremacy of one side or the other. Either through control of seazones or possession of hexes which switch from one side to the other with the last to pass through movement mechanism. There would have to be some definition of what constitutes an island status as larger land areas are self sustaining.

Air supply and of course by submarine would also have to be considered with the ability of the enemy to intercept these missions. The islands need a semblance of importance due to supply/force projection and land base air dominance that was their historical role.

[mcaryf1]

Hi PowerGmBh

Actually you omitted one of my important ones which is to allow naval unit rebuilds for DDs and SS always and for other ships in ports. Apart from that there are 4 more issues I plan to cover in this series. The first of which concerns BB unit capabilities:

Battleship unit capabilities

Whilst BBs were actually superseded by CVs as masters of the seas in WW2, I am still inclined to think that they are undervalued in the standard game. I construct BB units in my own scenarios by assembling something like 90k tons of actual warships from WW2 including typically 4 or more DDs as antisubmarine escorts and one or more actual WW2 BBs. A typical CA unit in contrast might have 45k tons of warships. Given the number of units in the standard game this cannot be too far from the original thinking. I feel that allocating a better naval combat value to a BB versus a CA does not sufficiently recognise the superiority of the real units that make up the two TFs. Therefore I give BB units a better naval combat rating, two strikes (partially reflecting that BBs had multiple fire control directors and both primary and secondary guns and could typically get in extra shots whilst lesser warships closed the range) and a higher damage evasion factor in recognition of BBs greater ability to absorb damage. I should note that having 2 strikes is mainly an advantage in terms of being able to engage two different targets. The way SC combat works means that a defender can respond to multiple attacks albeit maybe in a weakened state. Thus a BB attacking twice will provoke two responses even from units that are themselves only capable of 1 strike. The BB owner does have the slight advantage of being able to decide whether it is in their best interests to fire again.

Whilst I think BBs are undervalued in surface combat I feel they are overvalued in their ability to damage land units and this might be made worse with a BB having two strikes. Coastal map squares will include land areas well out of range of any BB’s largest guns so I think it is unreasonable to assume that a BB could always damage land units seriously unless they are located near the coast ready to repel an invasion. Currently a BB can bombard a unit in a coastal square whether the BB is participating in an invasion or not. My solution to this is to weaken BB attacks versus land units but give amphibious assault craft the sort of firepower versus a land unit that might have been provided by an accompanying BB, thus assault craft also get two shots. I have tried this out in my scenarios and the AI seems to cope pretty well with this new capability. For those of you who think it unreasonable to give “landing craft” this type of firepower you might like to consider the massed rocket launchers which were mounted in some landing craft for shore bombardments.

My other big issue with BBs is that some of the major powers operated BBs that were virtually obsolete (e.g. the RN R-class) as well as much more modern BBs and I do not want to give players the possibility of upgrading the old ships to levels which were historically impossible. I have identified two possible approaches to achieve this. The first is to give the powers most affected, actually the UK and USA, naval warfare level 3 from the start of my scenarios but make it prohibitively expensive to upgrade the old BBs. The problem with this is that it then becomes equally prohibitively expensive for players to build the new BBs that were a real feature of WW2. I have devised two solutions – the first is to put a number of the historic new BBs into the player’s production queue with naval warfare rating 3. However, if I did this for all capital ships, it would proscribe the player’s production strategy and not allow them to experiment with different investments in weapon systems. As a consequence I also give the player a number of Decision Events where they can choose whether to invest in more capital ships at level 3 but of course at a suitable cost which is less than what they would have to pay if using standard production. I also have to tune the cost of BB repair so that is not prohibitive for level 3 ships. This does make older BBs relatively cheap to repair but it seems to me to be a reasonable compromise to prevent a Colorado class from being magically transformable into an Iowa. This is I am afraid a rather clunky solution which does do the job for BBs but leaves the problem that the naval warfare research upgrade also applies to other ship classes and aircraft. Another approach and the simplest to implement is for the US older ships to be assigned to other countries such as Mexico or The Philippines but I find it is unappealing for well known US ships to be flying another country flag. It would be better in my view if each major country had two variants of every unit type as this would allow interesting variations in land and air units as well as naval but perhaps it is too much to ask Hubert to do that when it is possible to go some way with the current editor. Thus for the USA you can create a new minor country that comprises part of the existing West USA and one port on the Atlantic coast so that units can be launched into either ocean. There is already a spare country in SC called Nanjing but you could also combine some French overseas territories and free up country slots without a great loss of realism. The UK is more problematic as its relatively smaller geography could make it too easy for an opposing player to target the new minor and knock it out of the war. Perhaps in this case I could accept the idea of some older British ships being operated by Canadians.

Japan and Italy also have some problems with respect to ship mix but not quite so acute as the US and UK. In the case of Japan I tend to assign the 4 x Kongos which were partially updated Battlecruisers into heavy cruiser units as they were fast. I also give IJN CA units 2 hits but with a lesser NA rating on the basis that real IJN heavy cruisers had very powerful arrays of torpedoes. So my IJN CA unit typically consists of about 45k tons of real ships being 1 x Kongo plus 2 x CL (light cruisers) plus 2 x DD, the other composition being 3 x CA (heavy cruisers) plus 1 x CL plus 2 x DD.

Thus Japans BB units end up being Yamato, Musashi, Nagato (+ a CA), Mutsu (+ a CA), Hyuga + Ise (+CLs), Yamashiro + Fuso (+ CLs). I give Yamato and Musashi strength 12 and NW 2, Nagato and Mutsu NW 1 and the others NW 0. If the Axis player decides to invest in NW then can get up to 3 and up rate any of the ships if they wish which reflects things like improved radar. I am not too bothered from a realism perspective as the IJN offset their initial lack of radar with excellent night fighting training. Each unit represents 90,000 or so tons of heavy units.

With respect to Italy she also had a big disparity in her BBs some having 12” guns and some 15”. Even her modern 15” BB’s had a very poor rate of fire so I am happy to limit them to a maximum NW of 2 and to start her with 1 and her smaller BBs can be rated at NW 0. Fortunately Italy never has many MPPs so excessive up rating is not a major issue.

If you want to use the editor to give BB units 2 strikes then open the scenario with the editor as described in my earlier post. You go to the “campaign” menu header and click on “Edit Country Data”. A new box will appear and at the bottom left hand side of the box you will see two sets of 3 buttons each. You want the top button in the second column “edit combat target data”. Click on this and you will get yet another box with its left hand column a list of all the countries and the column next to it a list of all the unit types. Select Japan as your country and Battleship as the unit type. You now see the combat attributes for a Battleship. The number of strikes entry is in the middle box (General) second one down in the right hand column. For standard scenarios it should currently be set at 1. Adjust it with the arrow key to 2. You can either select specific countries such as UK, USA, Germany and Italy and adjust their values individually or you can use the apply data button to propagate values throughout all countries. This is a powerful tool and you might want to be cautious about using it. Essentially the button causes a new list of all countries and all unit types to appear and you can select individual countries and unit types on the lists or all countries and all unit types. When you press the OK button then all the countries and units you have selected will be changed to be the same as those for Japan because Japan was the original country we were modifying – as I said before be very careful when using this feature.

I also reduce the soft attack of BB’s to 0 and you can do this in the same way as above but look for “soft attack” entry at the top left of the combat values box. However, I leave the de-entrenchment and morale impacts as they are so BBs do still have an impact against land targets.

If like me you also want to set amphibious assault units to have two strikes then go through the same process as for BBs but this time choose amphibious transport. I will deal more fully with amphibious units in another post.

Regards

Mike

[PowerGmbH]

Seamonkey: I agree, i also tried to think how reflect the Supply on islands. An allready working approach could be to reduce supply with the simple presence of ennemy units in a preset range. This could be helpful for Malta or the Pacific.

mcaryf1: yes, sorry i forgot the cheaper "naval resurection" inside Ports. I have no idea how this could be adressed without real programing. actually the cheap rebuild works for Supply >5, but this doesn't work for Naval units. i think it must come down to a new Idea. In this Respect one should also consider what is a Port? I would i.e. see a recovery for a sunk BB Richelieu in the Ancorage place of Dakar differently to Taranto or Hawaii. Ports would be only the Main Harbours of developed countries, while the rest would declassified as a sort of Ancorage Places with minor developement.

to the other issue it would be nice to have a sort of aditional function for several Techs to "prohibit upgrade". i tried the "expensive Upgrade" as described by you as well but this doesnt reflect 100% the desired result, as you have observed. Also the Secondary countries are not "realisitc"

A player with "prohibit Upgrade" for Naval Tech, would probably observe carefully his Naval Tech and wait until the next level is reached before buying his next BB. The AI could be forced to do the same, i.e. based on the developement of the new tech: i.e. if the developement of the next naval tech is below 55% then buy-old, and if above 56% then Not-Buy.

This could also be an idea for Tank units, but this is very controversial: shall it be possible to Upgrade a Tank yes or no? How would the AI handle this issue? a Human would possibly "consume" his old Tank in battle and rebuild the Next generation cheaper. but would the AI have the same intelligence and not try to reinforce eternally the Tank Level 1?

[pzgndr]

I have no idea how this could be adressed without real programing. actually the cheap rebuild works for Supply >5, but this doesn't work for Naval units. i think it must come down to a new Idea.

I tend to agree. Two things could be considered for future programming. Having major and minor ports with different supply/rebuild capabilities would be nice. Also having some rebuild limitations, such as x factors per turn max perhaps to be further customized by unit type, would be nice.

But I'd also like to return to my earlier caution about getting too far down into the weeds here. Sometimes simple is good enough, especially for the grand strategy genre.

[mcaryf1]

Hi Pzgndr and PowerGmBh

Actually the ability to rebuild is a setting in the editor and you can change it for any unit type and for any level of supply. It is in the "campaign" menu and you open the Edit reinforce/reformation data tab. You can then set whatever supply level you wish for allowing rebuilds and whatever rebuild cost % that you want to apply.

The real situation in WW2 with respect to obsolete tank types was that they could be salvaged, fitted with bigger guns and converted into Assault Guns or Tank Destroyers. If you ever played Gary Grigsby's War in Russia or the even earlier Second Front you could see the "tank pools" being converted to Marder III and the like - very neat. Thus it is not unrealistic to have a cheap upgrade in SC to a better tank because the old ones are effectively going to make upgraded infantry units.

I would not say that my rebuilding approach is getting too much into detail. For DD and SS it is actually intended to be a simplification so that there are not too many units on map but you still have a link to the real numbers of such vessels in WW2.

Regards

Mike

[pzgndr]

Actually the ability to rebuild is a setting in the editor and you can change it for any unit type and for any level of supply. It is in the "campaign" menu and you open the Edit reinforce/reformation data tab. You can then set whatever supply level you wish for allowing rebuilds and whatever rebuild cost % that you want to apply.

I know that; I'm the guy who writes the Help file for the editor. But given the supply and cost thresholds, there's still nothing to prevent you from rebuilding 9 factors back to 100% in a single turn if you can afford it. Something more to restrict rebuilds to say 5 factors max/turn or less would prevent unrealistically instant rebuilds of major capital ships/fleets. And again, something to differentiate between major and minor ports to further restrict some rebuilds would be nice.

I'm not so sure it's all that important at a grand strategy scale, but if you're creating a custom mod getting into operational level details then this stuff would help.

[mcaryf1]

Hi Pzgndr

Your suggestion re limiting rebuilds to a number of factors could be implemented quite neatly from a user interface point of view by somehow throwing such units back into the production process but that could be a lot to code. Another possibility closer to the current method would be to change unit strength, for example, so that typically naval unit max strength was still 15 but with only 13 to 15 representing the elite experienced element and 11 - 12 available as a repair to any unit in a major port regardless of experience but only achieved in single increments. Thus "normal" repair from strength 9 or below could take up to 3 turns/months and elite repair another 3 months on top of that.

Amphibious and transport unit realism

I mentioned changing amphibious units’ fire power in a previous post and as you might imagine from my discussions of naval ranges I also modify that for them but there are more fundamental issues with respect to the realism of amphibious assaults and that is due to the very high degree of abstraction used in SC. In some other games more focused on naval aspects such as Gary Grigsby’s Pacific War there is a specific ship type the AP or APD used to provide the amphibious capability and land units can be loaded on or off these vessels. Clearly there are advantages to the SC approach concerning simplicity and lack of map clutter when these vessels are not being used. However, in SC the cost of providing the amphibious assault capability can only be allocated between research and temporary deployment and the actual ability to deploy a unit type does not vary by research level. In the standard scenarios the cost of making a land unit into an amphibious one is set at 30% of the unit cost (it is the same for all countries and set in the “movement cost” menu header under campaign data in the editor). The cost of researching amphibious capability is set at 100 per level, there are 5 levels available. Research levels adjust both combat target value for the created unit and its action points both changing by 1 point per level – the maximum range that can be achieved (by a fully researched US) is 11 squares.

If I were looking to increase the realism of amphibious assaults I would change the following aspects. I would make the unit types deployable amphibiously depend on the research level. Thus at research level 0 only the special forces unit would be deployable. Personally I use this unit to represent a standard division sized unit as I think most peoples’ idea of WW2 special forces, such as commando units and LRDG, were too small too usefully recognise in a game of SC’s scale but you certainly need division sized units in most theatres.

The German invasion of Norway was partly facilitated by means of concealed troops on merchant vessels that entered Norway’s unsuspecting neutral ports. Their planned invasion of England was to be conducted using river barges and other craft that were at hand. It was probably fortunate for the troops involved that they never actually tried it but it was possible that they could have succeeded if a couple of amphibious divisions backed up by parachute landings had seized a port. A problem of physical room on SC maps prevents the inclusion of many real ports on maps. One of the great strategic advantages of Great Britain as a country is that it has many more natural harbours all round its coast than for example the Northern coast line of France but standard SC has no English harbours on its South coast. Fortunately the SF unit in SC does not need harbours so this problem is averted to some extent but I add two towns to the South coast of the UK to give some access to supply for units that succeed in taking them to simulate both the many UK South Coast ports and the possibility of air supply. Similarly I add two towns on the coast of France, Calais and Bayeux, to provide a similar function. I have noticed that the AI tends to accumulate US units on Java often without supply. Rather than trying to change what the AI does I have added two towns on Java so the AI’s US units can be somewhat more effective. Whilst this is not concerned with naval warfare a desirable enhancement would be for bombers to be able to run supply missions. They would have a possible mode “supply” and would be targeted on a friendly unit, they would deliver supply equal to their research level plus 1, times their strength divided by 10 the total being rounded up. Thus the maximum supply they might deliver would be 5 and the minimum would be 1. Supply would be calculated on the following turn as if the friendly unit were sitting on a town of the relevant strength. Clearly the plane making the supply run would be subject to interdiction but could be escorted as for a recce or bombing mission. A player expecting that a unit might become isolated or wishing to boost supply could mount supply runs to units even if they were not yet cut off.

I would allow corps units, ART, AA and A/T to be added as potentially amphibious at research level 1 and this reflects having more landing craft as well as a technology leap with specialised beach landing craft carried on davits by converted ferries or purpose built ships. Tank units would be added at research level 2 as this now would represent the swimming DD tanks and beach tractors that were used successfully at D Day and in the Pacific.

I have some conceptual difficulty with respect to armies and amphibious assaults as my Army units represent some 200,000 troops. Even the massive D Day landings on 6th June hardly totalled an SC Corps in the initial assault. However the SC standard game turn represents 28 elapsed days and by D + 28 the allies had the equivalent of 2 x SC army and 2 x SC tank units ashore. I suppose therefore we cannot rule out the possibility of army units conducting amphibious assaults. Thus whilst I do not think there need be more technology improvements, something has to represent the enormous investment and associated delay in building all the assault ships needed so I would require a further research level, 3, before armies could be deployed amphibiously. Finally I think that HQ units should be a special case as they represent a mechanism for the landed force to achieve supplies without owning a port of which the Allied Mulberry artificial harbours would be virtually the only example. This should be yet another level of technology so I would need research level 4 for HQ units to be allowed to conduct amphibious assaults. I should comment that I have fairly radical views concerning HQs for land combat. They effectively represent the supplies available as well as command and control so I allocate far fewer HQs to each side and make them expensive to acquire. I compensate for this by giving them a wider radius of command and the ability to control more units. I will leave further discussion of HQs to a later series on land warfare

Unfortunately it is not currently possible to use the editor to specify which units can be used amphibiously so that has to be done by means of house rules with the AI getting a probably needed advantage that it does not have to play by those rules!

Looking at the costing, SC effectively charges players for an amphibious capability that is discarded when the unit lands. In reality of course the capability still existed in terms of virtually all the shipping and probably most of the beach landing craft. I have suggested cutting down the research levels to 4 but I make them more costly. Thus I set each level at 300 so full research now costs 1200 rather than 500. However, I reduce the marginal cost of amphibious transport to 10% from 30% and ordinary transport from 10% to 5%. I also reduce the increment in combat ratings to 0.5 per research level as the provision of two strikes has already increased hitting power.

I now move to the subject of range. Operation Torch included landings in Morocco on Nov 8th by troops who had embarked in the US on the 18th Oct. This time interval could be less than that between a player’s turn in SC but the distance is around 30 x SC squares. Clearly once the Allies had developed their techniques for amphibious assault the permissible ranges in SC should be vastly greater than those in the standard game. The amphibious assault ships typically could sustain speeds of the order of 15 knots and were equipped with beach landing craft to deploy for the actual landings. Thus their range was similar to that of naval vessels operating at cruising speed. I look at amphibious warfare research increments of between 2 (Germany) and 4 (USA) in action points so a fully researched US amphibious assault unit can traverse 22 squares as it starts with an AP of 6.

To change the increments achieved by research click on the research box in the edit country data screen and click on the advanced button, which is on the lower right hand side. The Action Points’ increments per research level are in the second box you see and you can adjust the entry for amphibious, third one down, for each country in the game. You may want to use the facility that allows you to adjust all countries at the same time for example up to 2 or 3 and then revise those for specific maritime countries such as the US e.g. up to 5 .

Here is one final thought on amphibious assaults to justify the improved capabilities that I have applied. Given the scale at which SC operates in both time and distance, virtually all amphibious assaults actually conducted in WW2 were successful. The only real exception to this was the relative failure of the landing at Dieppe as the Japanese assault on Wake Island was eventually successful within the 28 day period of an SC game term and their Midway and Port Moresby operations were aborted, without significant troop casualties, before the landings were attempted.

Troop Transports very rarely experienced losses in WW2 as they were often ex-liners capable of speeds that made them very unlikely to succumb to submarine attack. Thus I give them a high naval evasion factor (e.g. 80%)but I should note that Hubert has provided me with a beta release to achieve this as the current release does not allow transports to evade. A Transport should not be immune to land attack, which includes land based air, so I only allocate 10% chance of that which is my usual uncertainty setting. On the other hand, evacuations did sometimes result in very heavy losses as they tended to use whatever shipping was to hand – the low evasion versus land based air allows the opposing player some chance to destroy evacuating troops that may have been delayed in the vicinity by the presence of submarines or surface craft.

One last comment on the changes I make to transports – the AI seemed to be rather poor at providing escorts for troop convoys and used to suffer enormous casualties in the standard game. Giving a high evasion factor for transports is both historically accurate and helps the AI to be a better opponent.

Regards

Mike

[SeaMonkey]

Another excellent examination of SC mechanics for which I concur, Mike. I understand that mostly you are defining the tools for current modders of SC to use, yet it seems we are moving into some functions of the hopeful future release of SC3 and that is what I'm commenting on in my posts.

For SC3, I would like to see some limiting factor of amphibious capability as one of the true axioms of the WW2 mission execution was the availability of landing craft. As an abstract, SC2 uses the current amount of MPPs as the limiting factor which may be sufficient, if not realistic. For SC3, to better represent the mechanics of the mission, I believe that the use of a transport that can assume the amphibious function in proximity of the target would better represent the feature.

[mcaryf1]

Hi Seamonkey

My posts are a mixture of ideas about how the game/editor features can be exploited and one or two suggestions for enhancements. Where I point out that something can be achieved via the editor that also means that it could be incorporated in the standard scenarios if that would suit popular demand. I have also in my last post introduced a suggestion for house rules as another way of achieving things that the game itself cannot currently deliver.

The suggestion re "house rules" for amphibious transport could be extended to include agreed maxima although it would be good if the game mechanics could enforce them. Thus you could decide that each research level equated to both the type of unit that could be carried and the number of units of each type that could be carried at any one time. Thus you might say that each amphibious research level gave you the ability to carry an extra 4 x SC or Division sized units this would include artillery, AA and A/T. A corp and a Tank Group would equate to 4 x SC and an army 8 x SC. Thus if you had research level 3 you could simultaneously carry 16 x SC or 4 x Corps or 2 x Army or some mix and match. Clearly these restrictions would apply to the global deployment so the Allies would have to consider Pacific versus Europe for amphibious resources as did the real Allied commanders. The limits would have to apply to amphibious transports used at any time throughout a turn thus players should not unload an amphibious unit and regard it as immediately not counting against their limit and create a new one.

I am not sure I understand your suggestion that Transport units might develop an amphibious capability once they reach their destination. Historically very different types of ships were used for transporting troops for an amphibious assault. Long distance transports were typically ex-liners capable of 30 knots or so whilst amphibious assault ships would carry specialised beach landing craft and would not normally be as fast as standard transports.

Regards

Mike

[SeaMonkey]

I hesitate to suggest a special unit for SC3, but IRL, the troops were carried as you said, while their landing craft, assault impliments, traveled apart. Only at the assault beaches were the two combined to perform the invasion.

[mcaryf1]

Hi SeaMonkey

They did not necessarily travel apart

see here from Wikipedia

This is an example of a transport ship carrying its own beach landing craft.

I do not think it would be worth separating the moment of transfer into the beach landing craft in SC. We effectively cover that with the order to unload and the opposing player can only respond with whatever units are already in place to meet the invasion.

Regards

Mike

[SeaMonkey]

Am in agreement, but what I would like to see is amphibs as a transport icon until the moment of the assault for long sea voyages. The enemy does not need to see which I have on the water.

Actually, I've tried to post a number of times, but my slow internet connection has disallowed some of my more specific explanations. Let's see if this goes through and I'll follow up.

[SeaMonkey]

That post just barely made it, I'll wait till tomorrow at work with the T1 line and give you my thoughts on how SC3 should handle amphibious operations at each level of research.

[SeaMonkey]

Let me first say that being here since the early days of SC1 the amphibious feature has seen a vast improvement. I mean, there wasn't one, so this has been one stiff climb and we're almost at the summit.

Probably the most sophisticated model SC has yet to pull off and it coincides with the reality of how difficult the mission actually was. Specialty training, coordination of movements and unique devices wholly devised for this most difficult operation are just some of the characteristics of amphibious warfare and that is why it should be left for only SC's special forces to conduct.

Every major of SC had some ability to pull off the maneuver, even in the early days, so the beginning force limit should take that into account. Level 0 only provides for the movement and embarkation and disembarkation from non port hexes with only perhaps a nominal MPP price, for the price of research to the next level should reflect the doctrinal changes and investment into more sophisticated weaponry and auxilary craft to enhance the mission.

Level 1 perhaps should trigger a DE, as should the following levels, to add more units to the amphibious force pool/build Q with an allocation of MPPs devised by the designer. As Mike suggested the higher tech units should be stronger(moving up to 15s), larger formations and subsequently display an ability to attack from the water's edge with an increasing evasion factor. Higher levels of tech allow more attacks, greater evasion of casualties to reflect the increasing command & control of joint forces. Perhaps the units activated by DE's should have increasing numbers of experience medals as that substantially helps their overall cohesion/effectiveness and ability to absorb counterattacks.

I think you get my drift. In the current model, the ability to put the numerous amphibious units on the water dependent upon MPPs just doesn't come close to reflecting the limitations WW2 nations actually had with respect to implimenting such intricate warfare in the scale presented. I like the current simplicity, but remember, future units with more abilities, able to act and react within an SC turn can make things easier for the players. How about a transport that can drop off multiple amphibs at the assault beaches, move on and drop more? Moving one or two, perhaps even three aqueous born units around the SC map sounds a whole lot more inviting than a dozen.

[mcaryf1]

Hi SeaMonkey

I think you have made some very interesting suggestions but I guess the issue would be how difficult they might be to implement.

There is, however, one actual WW2 success that your system has not yet catered for and that was the successful use of subterfuge by the Germans to get troops into Norway on cargo vessels. Perhaps there could be a DE with a slightly randomised date that would switch the ownership of Norweigian ports so that German transports could enter them and unload. It would have to be tweaked so that Germany could not subsequently build U Boats in Norway but I think it should be possible - I will try it out.

I wonder how easy it might be to set a build limit for amphibious units that could apply to each research level - that would help to address your point. Even an absolute limit on the total number regardless of research level would be a step forward. Hopefully Hubert might be reading this and could think about what would be straightforward to implement. An initial thought might be that only major countries could be amphibious, China would be allowed 0, Russia and France 1 each, Germany and Italy 2 each, Japan and UK 3 each and USA 4. That would allow a total number of 7 Allied (UK and US) units to participate in D Day which is about the number of Divisions used in reality.

Regards

Mike

[mcaryf1]

If I was to change the map in a major way then it would probably be to increase the number of squares in a North South direction. The standard map has a 1 to 4 ratio with East West. This would have an effect of increasing the area available in the UK, the English Channel and the Arctic convoy route. One of the problems with the current map is that there is insufficient room for units in the UK but changing the map to that degree would be a fairly major exercise which I have not attempted. Thus my changes are concerned with correcting anomalies, such as the true size of Midway which should not exceed one square, and providing additional ports where they could be relevant to campaigns that did or might have occurred in WW2.

There was a fair amount of naval activity in the Black Sea including evacuations, small scale naval battles, amphibious actions etc. To facilitate this I have created extra ports for the Rumanians at Constanta and for the Russians at Poti near Tblisi. This gives both players additional potential and additional risk from amphibious operations. I base a Russian Cruiser unit and a destroyer in the Black Sea. If the Axis captures Poti, they can acquire two similar ships in a damaged state. The Rumanians can build a weak U Boat unit at Constanta to represent the various small U Boats that were actually transported overland to the Black Sea from Germany.

Naval Mines

The Soviets also had a substantial fleet at Leningrad including submarines which were prevented from operating in the Baltic by anti-submarine netting and mines strung across the Gulf of Finland. Once the Finns withdrew from the war the Soviets could deploy their submarines and caused heavy military and civilian casualties by sinking several German ships in the Baltic evacuating troops and refugees in front of the advancing Soviet army. I simulate the net by giving Finland some DD units that have no action points but a high naval defensive rating and high evasion values against land and sea attack. The Soviet naval units are therefore trapped in or near Leningrad and comprise initially one immobilised (zero AP) BB unit in the port and one SS that has normal movement. The Soviets did use heavy naval units to provide fire support during the battle of Leningrad and their subs tried and failed to break through the net and mine barrier. I give the Soviet BB some defence against land and air attack and have reduced the naval attack rating for most land units with the exception of Engineers. I have modified all Engineers to have high naval attack values and 2 strikes so they can be effective against the naval mines which can be placed in port locations. The mines have 50% evasion versus land attack and can cause some damage to land units so with 2 strikes the engineer unit will typically clear mines in two turns - other land units trying to do this would take longer and suffer some losses. If the Germans capture Leningrad and destroy the BB in the port then they get a Decision Event offering an opportunity to rebuild captured Soviet ships comprising a cruiser and a sub.

I use the idea of DDs with zero AP as naval mines more generally than just the Gulf of Finland. Minor country navies are useful for this, thus, in 1942 scenarios, DDs from the Baltic States can provide naval mines for the Germans. Using a non-home builds setting in the Editor’s country menu for the Baltic States allows the Axis to place their mines (DDs) in any mainland European port owned or controlled by Germany. I really like this feature as it delays ports such as Brest from being returned to action too soon after liberation. In 1944 it actually took 2 months before the port of Cherbourg was cleared of mines etc and other Channel ports were denied to the Allies for similarly long periods.

Removing the home build restriction on minor countries allows mines (DDs) to be placed in locations where there is a land connection to the country capital. Thus by using Rhodesia as a British supplier of mines, players have the opportunity to place mines around ports on the African coast such as Alexandria. I use these mines to blockade the Red Sea so that the Axis does not effectively get use of the Suez Canal until these mine units are destroyed. Clearly if Suez had been captured by the Axis the canal would not have been left in an immediately useable state as it is in the standard game. I do a similar thing with the Kiel canal where I have made an extra port for it on the Baltic.

I have found in the standard game versus the AI that it is rather too easy to knock Italy out of the war by mounting amphibious assaults on Rome and her alternate capital, Venice. Italy was a major naval power and as such needs all her own naval unit types so I create Libya as an Italian minor using an appropriate country slot and give Libya the capability to build DD mine units. Like other mines these have zero AP so cannot be moved once placed. In the initial scenario set up I can place mines anywhere at sea, so I use some to block non-Axis access to the Aegean and others to guard landing beaches near Rome. I give mine units a high defensive value to damage naval units that blunder into them but also some naval attack capability to avoid players simply moving units alongside them once they are spotted. Conceptually this represents mines that could drift into nearby squares. I use Thailand as a minor for Japan and that provides mines for use in mainland Asian ports controlled by Japan but not Japanese owned islands or Japan herself.

I think it is reasonable to exclude quite a lot of the map from the ability to create new mines. For example the English Channel and various routes around the South China Sea could be too easily blocked. However players and the AI can lay new mines in quite a few sea locations during the game so players can achieve the sort of surprises that did occur in WW2. The Italians were big users of mines in WW2 and temporarily halted RN surface raiders operating from Malta when the RN’s Force K wondered into a newly laid minefield and lost several ships. I set mine units to cost just 30 MPP with 1 month build and, as they are effectively DD units, in my scenarios this means they can be instantly re-built and put on the map again at any valid position if destroyed.

Clearly a Minesweeper unit is needed to clear mines laid at sea. I use a modified minor country cruiser unit that has 100% naval evasion when attacking to counter the high defensive value of the mines. It has reasonable but not excessive attack values itself so should deal with a mine unit in 2 or 3 turns but has relative low defence ratings so that it should not become a killer unit versus non-mine naval units. For the Allies I use Iceland to provide this capability and for the Axis it is Libya.

I have made no attempt to change the symbol of the minefield unit from being that of a DD. The best solution would be concealed minefields but I cannot do that, so I prefer to leave players unsure as to whether a spotted DD unit is a real DD that could be attacked or possibly a deadly minefield that should be avoided.

Having made Libya a minor ally of Italy, this also allows the creation of a convoy route running from Africa to Italy. Very few MPPs actually go along this convoy route but I make it pass through my designated Allied raid areas for Italian and German supplies going to North Africa and this encourages the AI to interdict these, simulating the real losses Rommel suffered. Thus even if Malta has fallen to the Axis, the Allies can still try to reduce Rommel’s supplies.

Map Changes

Returning to map issues, in my opinion the Indian Ocean was the great lost opportunity for the Axis in WW2. If the IJN had tried to dominate that rather than attack Midway, then they might have interdicted Allied supply convoys both for the Middle East up the East African coast and for Lend Lease to the Soviets via Persia. In both cases the whole course of the war might have been changed.

If the Japanese had attempted to establish a long term presence in the Indian Ocean, rather than the single successful raid which they did conduct, then they would have required one or more naval bases. There were actually 3 possibilities for this although they were probably only aware of two of them. The two of which they were aware were Ceylon (Sri Lanka) and Madagascar. The one they may not have known about was the secret naval base which the British had constructed at Addu Atoll in the Maldives, near Gan. I have therefore added a port to represent Addu Atoll and a second port on Sri Lanka to facilitate a possible Guadalcanal type campaign there. There were actually two major ports on Ceylon – Colombo and Trincomalee so this is historically accurate. I also place a Japanese garrison unit on Madagascar to represent the Vichy French force which fought the Allies there from May until Nov 1942 which Axis players could choose to reinforce.

I also create extra ports along the coast of Norway so there are Trondheim and Tromso in addition to Narvik. There were of course many possible harbours/fjords where the Germans could shelter the ships and submarines they used to attack the Arctic convoys and it is historically accurate to add these and create more uncertainty for the Allied player as to which might be in use.

You have to be careful when using the editor for map changes as it is quite easy to make mistakes. I suggest you always copy and rename any scenario before attempting changes. You will also find that most changes to the map itself require the editor to run through a lot of the AI and Event scripts to make sure they are still valid before saving the new scenario. This is a time consuming process but you cannot batch together too many map changes before checking the scripts as that makes finding errors harder. In fact I would not recommend you to try changing the map unless you have some important modifications you wish to implement.

Regards

Mike

[mcaryf1]

This is the final naval topic in this series on increasing realism. Unfortunately I have not yet fully grasped the intricacies of programming the AI so it is possible that things can be done more elegantly than I am about to suggest. I would appreciate anybody proposing better methods.

The key thing I would like to achieve is some strategy to keep a fleet in being rather than risking it whenever strong enemy forces enter its range – this is a particular problem in my scenarios as I have increased naval unit ranges to be closer to reality. Keeping a fleet in being is a well known naval strategy and is typically one adopted by countries with weaker navies in particular theatres. A human player has access to a report which gives the relative strength by land, air and sea units for all the major countries – it is not unreasonable historically that this type of information should have been available to military planners although perhaps not always 100% accurate. Unfortunately as far as I can tell the AI does not have access to this information whilst the human player does. The AI Fleet command has to rely on knowing whether particular locations are friendly or not and some detail about the number of enemy units near a tactically important location. The Fleet facility specifies the number of enemy units in a max min range and I am not entirely sure how this is evaluated – e.g. does the number of enemy units have to be within this range or exceed it? Ideally I would like the AI to adopt a strategic offensive or defensive stance for its naval units depending on the overall situation.

I will use the German campaign against the Arctic convoys as an example. The Germans based major fleet units such as Tirpitz in Norway to threaten and occasionally raid convoys. The Germans knew the Royal Navy had overwhelming naval superiority both in numbers of BBs and in having carriers. By operating their own ships within range of Axis land based air they could hope to negate this and they did achieve some successes. Unfortunately, if I place Tirpitz in Norway with fighter cover, the Axis AI will typically move the fighter away and/or sally Tirpitz forth to do battle with the Royal Navy somewhere near the UK. I presume she sallies as soon as intelligence reports spotting any ship. The only way I have been able to provide some sort of permanent air cover in Norway is by substituting the fighter for an AA unit, with range 2. I have had to adopt the drastic strategy of transferring Tirpitz to be owned by Finland and giving Finnish BB units only 2 action points for movement. This is actually quite accurate from a historic perspective as Hitler ordered the German naval high command to keep Tirpitz near Norway. Historically Tirpitz was frequently damaged by various forms of Allied attacks but was maintained as a genuine threat until November 1944 when she was destroyed by Tallboy (earthquake) bombs. I have modified the map to include a road between Finland and my new port of Tromso in Northern Norway so that Tirpitz can be rebuilt there cheaply if the Allied player does succeed in sinking her whilst in port.

I allocated Tirpitz to Finland so that the Axis player can still build BB units with normal movement if that is thought to be a sensible strategy. As I have a 4 year production time for BBs I make the choice about building more German BBs into a Decision Event. This also allows me to make it only a 10% chance that the AI would adopt this probably doomed approach. Adjusting the movement allocation for units is easily done via the country menus in the editor. I give AA units a range of 2, 2 strikes and attack values that increase by 2 for each research level. The impact of research is another value that can be modified in the editor. This makes AA units quite formidable and helps restrict free ranging opposing air units particularly as AA tends to build experience and not suffer many losses.

Clearly the Arctic campaign was a special case and I have had to adopt a different strategy for protecting the US when her fleet is the weaker one in the Pacific. Historically the US enjoyed a great deal of luck in the decisive victory at the Battle of Midway. If the US had lost that battle, then the Japanese would have enjoyed a year or so of clear naval supremacy in the Pacific whilst the Americans were building their new fleet units. This situation often occurs in my scenarios which typically start a few weeks before the historic date of Midway in June 1942. Thereafter, if the Japanese capture Midway and base a strong fleet there, as soon as the Allied AI has acquired new ships, it commits them in ones or twos against this strong IJN fleet with typically disastrous results. I have been compelled to adjust the historic arrival dates of major US fleet units (e.g. the Essex carriers and Iowa BBs) so that they at least come in batches and will stand a chance if the AI still insists on committing them as soon as they are available. If someone could advise a better way to do this I would be grateful.

Sadly I have not yet found a way to programme the AI to capture Malta. I have created a Decision Event that gives the Axis player a choice after capturing Tobruk whether to use the notionally captured supplies to assault Malta or continue to Egypt. Kesselring wanted to take Malta but Rommel went over his head to Hitler and got permission to try for Egypt. In my scenario, if Egypt is chosen, then Kesselring arrives as an extra HQ in North Africa, if Malta is chosen he plus an SF unit arrive near Naples and Malta suffers severe strength losses reportedly from massive air raids. It turns out that these strength loss events will reduce a unit to 1 but not entirely destroy it. This actually serves my purpose quite well so it is then possible (but not guaranteed) for a human player to take Malta by amphibious assault. Unfortunately I have not yet worked out how to get the AI to even try to do it.

I should note that in my scenarios I try to give much more importance to the issue of supply by severely limiting the number of HQ units available to players and making those they do have the most expensive units in the game. However, players occasionally get rewards e.g. for capturing specific locations or oil wells, in the form of the arrival of a free HQ unit. The fall of Tobruk, which really yielded huge quantities of supply to the Axis, is one such event. Similarly if the Italians capture the Iraqi oil well this gives them an extra BB unit, the Impero. The Italians really did stop work on this almost finished BB because they knew they did not have enough oil to operate it.

I am not entirely sure what tells the AI to place its naval units on the various squares that have been designated as being minefields or at least locations that cause supply losses to the opposing side. I have, however, created some locations at sea where supply routes can be interdicted. Examples of this are the Axis supply routes to North Africa and the Allied supply routes to Malta and to Russia via Persia and to China via Calcutta. Where possible I have created new convoy routes to encourage the AI to place its naval units in these locations as I presume the AI is programmed to interdict convoy routes wherever they are.

Some of the changes I have recommended in earlier posts also help the AI. In particular making it possible to rebuild a DD or SS unit for 30% of the original cost goes some way to address the AI’s over bold use of naval units. Giving transport units 80% evasion against naval attack helps make up for it not providing escorts. In so far as I have given naval units extra capabilities, e.g. 2 hits for BBs and generally longer ranges, the AI seems to cope remarkably well. I have had a bit of fun with some new units, such as immobile minor country DDs as minefields, which the AI does tend to blunder into. However, so far it has seemed to avoid building minefields in ports. This was an error I made because I had not realised that players cannot sell naval units so I effectively blocked my own ports from receiving transports! The AI has been confused by some of my new units such as rockets as Kamikazes – I guess it thinks they are for strategic attack and so often wastes them on cities. However, ultra cheap late war minor country (I use Thailand) CA units to simulate real Japanese plans for explosive Kamikaze launches do work okay.

I will conclude this series by saying that I think Strategic Command provides a really interesting set of editor tools which can greatly increase realism. It is well worth playing around with them and I hope I might have encouraged more of you to try it.

Regards

Mike