Loops

[Catacol Highlander]

Do loops serve a purpose apart from the east to west pacific transfer of naval units that is worth keeping?

They help negate the value of U boats. They allow amphibs crazy range and trouble free passage.

Why do we have them? I'm not convinced that arguments against micromanagement are valid.

Thoughts?

[steel32]

Al, I am not a big fan of the loops. It allows for faster, unhindered, unspotted time travel that is unfair to the axis. To much surprise and able to arrive unharmed.

The loops are a major advantage for the allies in several spheres. It is a magical way of Allied navies appearing right at the most critical spots out of nowhere. It negates the ability of the Japanese to surround Australia/take the islands for spotting/defense. It negates the German sub ability to do major harm. It allows surprise attacks to occur with amphibious units 1/4 of the world away. In the case of India 1/2 the world away.

[Clausewitz]

Al, I am not a big fan of the loops. It allows for faster, unhindered, unspotted time travel that is unfair to the axis. To much surprise and able to arrive unharmed.

The loops are a major advantage for the allies in several spheres. It is a magical way of Allied navies appearing right at the most critical spots out of nowhere. It negates the ability of the Japanese to surround Australia/take the islands for spotting/defense. It negates the German sub ability to do major harm. It allows surprise attacks to occur with amphibious units 1/4 of the world away. In the case of India 1/2 the world away.

Totally agree. Force the allies to sail in open waters. I doubt one is going to see many amphibians from Los Angeles.

[SeaMonkey]

Well what can you do with the present system to negate the unrealistic sailing times from one point to another? How about the air units that transport to anywhere on the planet with magical operating ranges?

I have amphibs sailing all over the place, bombarding enemy positions incessantly. There's no reason not to other than the initial high price. They don't diminish in supply, morale and readiness that much. Much cheaper than losing strength of a BB if you use a division.

This is an argument for a little more complication with the release of SC3. I love how SC keeps things simple, but there are certain trade offs I'm ready to move on from.

This is one of them.

[Catacol Highlander]

Seamonkey - I think if you have allied amphibs sailing around all over the place doing what you describe then the argument to disable loops is, without doubt, strengthened. Of course there are abstract elements to the game... but actually the game IS trying to simulate naval combat, amphibious landings and convoy interception, so an element that disrupts the realism of this facet of the game is not good.

[Strategiclayabout]

Hi there ,

- My humble take on the loops after thinking how it affects game balance. Not that easy to touch that kind of thing without changing anything else.

- We can still continue playing as it is to see how it goes now that players are aware of what happened in my game. I understand what Gary said in his mail about proper defensive planning but remember I believed home defense units would pop like for Australia when enemies are close (should happen but didn't happen). I just kept one unit in Tokyo and that was actually what caused Japan's collapse since Osaka was captured first. It would have been better for me to leave no unit at all in Japan !!!

*

GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

- With the US Japan loop five units can appear 4-5 tiles away from Tokyo without being detected and be free to move/attack before Japs can react. US amphibs already have 10 AP (JP 9, UK 7, AX 5) and I don't think they need more help to move faster/farther. Just imagine a loop from Tokyo to Los Angeles or one from The Baltic to Washington: not cool to say the least.

- There are also other strange possible situations: a jap task force advance on Midway mid-42 from Japan and find enemies in its back because the loop units couldn't be intercepted making sub or destroyer screens useless. Same with a player sending an US attack force through the US-Japan loop 1 or 2 turns before USA reaches full mobilization. That means US carriers can attack Japan while IJN is still around Pearl Harbor...

- You can consider the whole loop advantage is due to Allies superiority in intelligence/transmissions/logictics (ultra & co). It's true allied troop convoys suffered low casualties through the war so loops can be seen as a way to mimic that "immunity" though axis raiders managed to attack some of them (Admiral Hipper vs WS 5A convoy in South Atlantic 24-25/12/40).

- Yes it's only 5 arrows/units so if you use them for amphibs you still need support to come from/in open waters. But it's also 5 units per turn and if Japs detect the support it's complicated to attack because that will leave the coast open.

- All in all the loops push Japan to hole up in the mainland or attack Hawaï/US west coast to negate them. The whole island defensive perimeter thing has no meaning as well as aerial recon. Same for Germany as sending subs near US East Coast to intercept transports or amphibs is just suicide.

- Other "options" would be to picket the loop areas with destroyers or subs. Quite hard to do near the West Coast and it won't block arriving units unless you use enough ships. It could be fun in a sci-fi game where wormholes are obvious strategic targets but for WWII not so much .

- Another possibility would be to put the arrows farther away from coasts and land based aerial support while spreading them. It would give a chance to intercept them in open waters but would somehow defeat the whole anti-micro-management argument.

- A last one would be to reduce the number of arrows. One arrow for one "special" convoy a month by loop to simulate Allies advantages in different areas. But whole fleets warping all over the place is a bit...

*

ATLANTIC-PACIFIC LOOPS

- We all agree those ones are needed I think .

*

RED SEA LOOPS (US & UK)

- The most annoying ones since they balance naval movement delays quite well. Some convoy data from here:

http://www.naval-history.net/xAH-WSConvoys03-1940.htm

AP1 28/08/40 to 23/09/40 from Liverpool to Suez (Egypt) 3 ships

AP2 22/08/40 to 26/09/40 from Liverpool to Suez (Egypt) 1 ship

AP3 10/09/40 to 22/10/40 from Liverpool to Suez (Egypt) 10 ships

WS1 29/06/40 to 29/07/40 from Liverpool to Trincomalee (Ceylon) 3 ships

WS4B 17/11/40 to 28/12/40 From Liverpool to Suez (Egypt) 10 ships

- So it's around 1 month for fast convoys and 1,5 for slow ones (vs 5 turns/monthes ingame). In game terms that should be equal to 1 turn loop. Without the loop a naval transport at 21AP needs 12 turns or close to a year for the same trip. You would need to multiply naval AP by 6 to get realistic travel times.

- Ingame you also have 62 tiles between Liverpool and Alexandria or a three turns delay through the Med with 21 AP. It should be half the Red Sea travel time or only 1 turn meaning tripling naval AP. To eliminate the Red Sea loop you would have to keep the x3 AP as a basis while allowing force march for naval units.

*

USA-JAPAN LOOP

- Sure Axis players can put more units in Japan to avoid surprise loop attacks. But what's the point of strategic Pacific Islands then ? What's more is that it doesn't prevent bad surprises at all: an infantry unit entrenched to 4 (or 6 max in Tokyo) would be deentrenched by just 3 attacks (one amphib hit -1, SF land -2, second amphib hit -1, SF land -2 total -6). Then carriers can blow away the jap unit and remaining amphib occupy the tile (GAR units or planes are out of question).

- To protect Japan against the loop you would need to keep too many units sitting there doing nothing including air and naval units. You can say it's a way to reduce Japan commitment in China but frankly I'd prefer less units at start. You need at least 4 infantry units to defend Tokyo, Nagoya, Matsuyama and Nagasaki (ports in range of amphibs as they appear 4-5 tiles away).

- But you'll also need one to protect the strait near Wakayama because if it's captured, Hiroshima and all your ressources convoys are wide open. As amphibs can move after landing, they can also grab Kyoto and Osaka (the second capital) by landing between Wakayama and Nagoya. That means at least 3 more units not counting Okinawa and Iwo Jima that are also in range. If US invest in amphib tech you can also include Sendai north of Tokyo.

- The problem is made worse by the Japan Home Defense event glitch (no pop units before 43 it seems). Having US land (or show up) in force near Tokyo with no reaction by Imperial Forces isn't realistic at all. So you can't reinforce Japan in time to avoid a collapse because you need at least 2 turns to operate/naval transport troops (if you still have a free port in southern Japan. Even if you have some units already there the possible damage from a couple of amphib (even unupgraded divisions) is just way too big.

*

USA-AUSTRALIA LOOP

- You have around 80 tiles between the loop entrance and the Coral Sea or four turns with 21AP. The loop is 3 turns and though you get 21 AP when coming out you need one turn to reach the loop entrance so the only argument here would be micro-management. I don't think it's enough to give that kind of "stealth" advantage to Allies.

- If you consider the Yorktown carrier was active both for the Coral Sea (4-8 May 1942) and Midway (4-7 June 1942) battles it's a one month delay again covering more or less 60 tiles or 3 turns worth of regular naval movement.

AUSTRALIA-DEI LOOP

- More or less the same, a turn difference between the loop (2) and regular naval movement (3) but here too you need one turn to reach the loop entrance while you get 21AP once out. So the use is quite limited but still give an edge to Allies.

*

USA-NORTH ATLANTIC LOOP

- You can sail faster with regular transports so the only argument here would not even be micro-management but helping USA to reconquer UK after a victorious Sealion. But then again with 10AP for US amphib you can do it without the loop from Iceland (only 3 turns, 2 with full amphib tech levels).

USA-BAY OF BISCAY LOOP

- You can amphib from England so the only argument here is allowing amphib against France if UK proper falls I suppose (or having the possibility to amphib an axis UK from the north and the south though I don't see many Sealions in AoD).

USA-GULF OF CADIZ LOOP

- Mostly to allow an operation Torch to run smoothly. However only the western part (atlantic landings) came directly from the US. The central and eastern forces came from UK. Allied navies also had to distract axis subs operating in the eastern Atlantic to avoid unpleasant surprises:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Torch

- The landing of US forces could have been a disaster because of unpreparedness. Low morale/readiness after crossing the Atlantic would reflect that. Otherwise Allies can still grab a port nearby or launch from UK ports in Africa. That said most of the times Brits from Egypt walk over the Italians quickly and reach Casablanca from the east by the end of 1941 so well...

As usual only my opinion so feel free to comment/criticize.

[steel32]

Good comments Strategicalayabout and agree!

Who said that air transport is not also magical Seamonkey but addressing the subject at hand is loops. I agree with your point in this respect.

If there is a problem with naval distance then increase. Make the complete game more realistic than adding loops or variables to compensate for certain inconsistencies in the game. Making 2 wrongs does not make 1 right.

[SeaMonkey]

My point is that because of the code we have the best working solution available and I agree with use of loops. It is up to each player to know and recognize the possibilities that exist with the present engine and conduct their operations accordingly.

I'm sorry, but since 2002 there has always been inconsistencies of reality with the game engine, but greatly diminished as we went forward. IMO, the naval model especially and to a lesser degree the air features require a rewrite and I'm hoping, even though I recognize the additional complications, that these things will be addressed in SC3, so mostly I'm just reiterating my position.

And while I'm at it, and it also has premise to this thread, the logistics of naval movement need additional attention as well us the whole underlying communication net aspects across the entire globe.

Sure, a little thinking "outside the box" could lend additional realism to the current scheme, but the game plays pretty well right now and I would rather Hubert & Co. concentrate on making SC3 the culmination of all the great suggestions over the years.

[Strategiclayabout]

- The Red Sea loops are just that: safer but takes longer than historical moves so I still find them ok.

- Increasing naval AP would clearly destroy the naval game as it is. DDs with a 60+ range would more than cover convoy lanes spotting subs each turn. You would have to change their convoy attack result to an immediate one at the end of axis turn instead of the one we have where Allies can negate sub attacks on convoys if they spot them on their turn.

- I also agree there would be a need to change the naval supply system with such increased ranges. Porbably something like losing 1 supply per turn unless being in a port to resupply. You wouldn't need the supply range from ports (blue numbers on sea tiles) anymore.

[Sapare]

I have not actually played AOD yet but reading this discussion I wanted to add my bit to loops.

I think loops should be taken out as I don't really see the reason they exist in the first place.

The reason seems to be that we don't want to increase the AP because then that would ruin the DD's on sub hunt works?(The micromanagment argument seems silly when in WW1 you have countless ships you have to move as the British and I don't see anyone complaining about that)

Subs have a silence system where they only move half distance, why can't we give DD's(and other ships) a 'counter silence' where they can only move half distance or they will not uncover/attack a sub.

Or you can give ships 'forced march' and if they run into a unit while using it they take massive damage(akin to an ambush 2x).

Generally, unless we are bending the scale of the world there should be some way to make this system work.

Also, I don't know too much about fleet movement but I can assume part of it is the fact that you can move faster on an open ocean than in the Mediterranean. You could simulate that the same way you do roads on land(maybe in SC3 if the 2 engine can't handle it) where movement takes 2 AP in some kind of waters and only 1 in others.

All of these are ideas to work around the inconsistency of fleet movement systems without having to teleport units around the map. I am sure given enough thoughts a combination of minor changes and new features could fix the problem.

If you wonder why I even have an opinion on Loops if I havn't played AOD, they exist in WW1 as well and even in an europe/east USA only map they seemed annoying to deal with.

IF we keep loops, there should be added conditions to when a loop can or can not be used, such as America only being able to use the 'to Japan' loop if it controls certain islands between Japan and USA.

[xwormwood]

Do loops serve a purpose apart from the east to west pacific transfer of naval units that is worth keeping?

They help negate the value of U boats. They allow amphibs crazy range and trouble free passage.

Why do we have them? I'm not convinced that arguments against micromanagement are valid.

Thoughts?

Catacol Highlander,

yes, i do have thoughts, I've offered them often and in detail during the beta phase (where you obviously missed them in my badly written but nevertheless endless feedback lists :eek:), and I will gladly repeat them here once more:

"I would remove most, if not all, of the red arrow shortcuts for naval movements. You're robbing the player the chance to destroy troop transports or to use the large sea for naval battles. This won't be possible if you invent warp movement 1000 years before it becomes a reliable transportation system.

Leave only the arrows to move from one end of the map to the other side, and vice versa. This is nescessary because we don't have a globe, but a square (the earth is a disc...). But all other arrows, as much comfort they may bring, destroy the big map feature. If players don't like to move their units on a large map, than they should play the smaler map of Global Conflict Gold.

Honestly: if there is a safe way to avoid axis warships, than the whole naval war of this map becomes a rather bizare something."

&

"The red arrows (allies only) don't belong in a game where a large map should offer ways to ambush your opponent at the high seas. Red arrows are nescessary for changing from one side of the map to the other side of the map. If you think you need to offer a comfort feature, than i beg you to think of something better."

&

"Please make the red arrows (loops) optional, best would be a "turn on"- / "turn off"-button in the game menu within the advanced options.

I'm sitting right in front of the largest SC map / largest ocean ever, and get everytime angry when i see the loop buttons which allow the allied player to cheat out of the effects of such a large ocean."

I'm pretty sure that i wrote even more about this topic, as these loops kind of killed my desire to play AoD. I can't help it, but that is the truth.

[xwormwood]

A better solution would have been to open up a second income and a second kind of convoy for the US player.

There is already one convoy system to help allied countries with MONEY.

Now create a second convoy system to TRANSFER your own money to the UK, AUSTRALIA, INDIA (etc. etc.). If the convoy reaches the harbor unharmed (convoy = amount of sent money), allow the US player to spent the money in the UK (playing new units in the UK, maybe a bit faster as if purchased for the USA).

If the Axis players sinks the transports from the convoy (placing subs or raiders on the convoy line), money (= troops and equippment) have been lost at sea.

Ta-daah.

[Hubert Cater]

Thanks for the feedback everyone and just a quick note that if preferred loops can be disabled/turned off in game at the start of a campaign by using the OPTIONS->ADVANCED->SCRIPTS and then selecting the Loops entry to turn on or off any applicable loop.

[Sapare]

A better solution would have been to open up a second income and a second kind of convoy for the US player.

There is already one convoy system to help allied countries with MONEY.

Now create a second convoy system to TRANSFER your own money to the UK, AUSTRALIA, INDIA (etc. etc.). If the convoy reaches the harbor unharmed (convoy = amount of sent money), allow the US player to spent the money in the UK (playing new units in the UK, maybe a bit faster as if purchased for the USA).

If the Axis players sinks the transports from the convoy (placing subs or raiders on the convoy line), money (= troops and equippment) have been lost at sea.

Ta-daah.

I believe this already exists. The UK to Russia convoy does exactly that in WW1, and the US to UK too. But what does that have to to with loops?(obviously, these work by sending money from one nation to the other, rather then outright buying units for the other nation, so if you want that, yea that doesn't exist yet)

[xwormwood]

Sapare, what i suggested was that the USA send its own money to the UK, and the money stays US money. The USA collects the convoy money (the income that made it through the oceans) in the UK. With this money the USA buys its units and places them in the UK (or Australia, or India, or China, ...).

I agree that this is only a partial solutions, because it doesn't help to move naval forces (BBs, CAs, CVs, etc.). But it would help to avoid to send troop transports, which would have to be moved manually.

[Sapare]

Sapare, what i suggested was that the USA send its own money to the UK, and the money stays US money. The USA collects the convoy money (the income that made it through the oceans) in the UK. With this money the USA buys its units and places them in the UK (or Australia, or India, or China, ...).

I agree that this is only a partial solutions, because it doesn't help to move naval forces (BBs, CAs, CVs, etc.). But it would help to avoid to send troop transports, which would have to be moved manually.

(For the record, these forums are extremely buggy, but that is unrelated to this post)

I see, sorry that I kinda misunderstood this. but as an outsider view on the whole loop thing.

Why exactly is having to send units by transport a bad thing? Why does that force the existence of loops?

[mcaryf1]

Dear All

I have not posted for a few months as I have been rather busy with some voluntary work but seeing comments about Loops has attracted my interest.

A while ago I created a scenario as a proof of concept in enhancing the way loops are used in AOD - for those interested search on the word "Seaways" and you will find my posts describing what the scenario delivers. I decided to stop further development work on it until AOD error correction/enhancement releases were finished as I did not want to have to keep updating my scenario to keep it in line with other changes to AOD. So please note the scenario I published does have old AOD bugs in it.

One of the issues with Loops in AOD concerns the elapsed time that the designer sets for the execution of the Loop. Thus if the designer allocates an odd number of turns then the looping player's ships will emerge on one of their own turns preventing most opportunities for the opposing player to intercept them. Clearly if 0 or an even number is selected then the looping ships will emerge on the opposing players turn giving them an immediate opportunity to attack with any ships that happen to be in range.

I have looked at the US to Japan loop and that takes 3 elapsed turns thus giving the US the opportunity to arrive and immediately attempt to land on the Japanese coast. In my view this would be better changed to an even number so the Japanese can respond.

A further point about the elapsed time of loops is that AOD has taken a somewhat unfortunate design decision to put unrealistically long delays into the operation of loops to make them more compatible with the AP's allocated to ships. Given the notional elapsed time between players turns and the speed of WW2 shipping it is very hard to justify any loop being as long as 3 even if it includes passing through a canal!

In my Seaways concept I have implemented some of the ideas suggested in this thread thus some of the Loops will only operate if the player controls some nearby islands. For example if the US control Midway they can Loop in forces arriving on their next turn whilst Japanese forces looping in to attack Midway will emerge on the Allied turn and hence be vulnerable to ambush/interception. If the Japanese capture Midway then the situation is reversed and the Japanese Loops arrive on their own next turn whilst attacking US units would be vulnerable to interception.

My own opinion is that Loops are absolutely essential to preserve a realistic range of movement for naval units on a World scale map and they avoid giving an ability for naval units to join a current battle from unrealistic distances. When I experimented with allocating higher APs to naval units in SC Global I found that naval conflict became quite unrealistic with reinforcements rushing in and this was made worse by a ship such as Bismark becoming frozen in position when she encounters enemy units.

It is important to remember just how vast the oceans of the world are. The possibility of mid-Ocean interceptions was pretty low and the disparity of speed between U-Boats and surface vessels such as liners acting as troopships meant that you would be extremely unlucky if a sub sunk such a ship whilst it was in transit and in practice virtually no Allied troopships were sunk by subs.

One final comment which concerns the Red Sea loop - I really do not like the ability to Loop past a constricted sea area where an interception might be theoretically possible. In Seaways I set up my Loops so that there was an intermediate stretch of sea which transports or warships had to traverse off the East African coast where they might be intercepted between the exit of one Loop from the UK and the entrance of another that took them through the Red Sea to Egypt.

I do think Loops are much better for realism but designers need to think quite carefully how they should operate.

Regards

Mike

[norvandave]

Nice to have way points where ships will follow a pre-set course from turn to turn unless they are attacked. Maybe loops wouldn't be as needed?

[mcaryf1]

Hi Norvandave

Part of the issue with AOD (and SC in general) is that once a naval unit encounters an enemy unit its journey is ended and it stays where it is until the opponents turn when it can be destroyed at leisure. This seriously inhibits the ability of German surface units to break out into the North Atlantic which they successfully did until the Bismark in 1941. Even then the Bismark survived its first encounter with Hood and PoW and was eventually destroyed many SC tiles away from that location.

I have previously suggested that Naval units should have a speed characteristic that could be used to check for evasion or continuation of its move with a higher chance for units with a greater speed than the unit(s) it had encountered. Note speed would be a different characteristic to range as DD units should be fast but typically shorter ranged.

In my Seaways development I represent the German's ability to get into the North Atlantic by having a Loop from the Baltic to the Atlantic that has a reducing probability of getting safely to the Atlantic after the start of 1941.

Loops really are quite a powerful mechanism for scenario designers who want to provide a similar challenge to that which faced the naval commanders of the time. It is too easy to dismiss them as "warp" drive whilst ignoring that the sorts of ranges given by the standard AP allocation would be less than achieved in the age of sail. When Nelson pursued Admiral Villeneuve's fleet from the Mediterranean to the West Indies he set off on 11th May and was near Barbados on the 29th May - this is a distance that no AOD naval unit could achieve!

Regards

Mike

[steel32]

A more realistic overall approach is needed. I am not a big believer in loops but believe some balance can take place from ideas given.

Perhaps loops with a delay after to allow some respite to the Japanese or other force to act against. If loops perhaps they suffer hits to morale and strength.

If no loops perhaps naval units need greater distance.

[mcaryf1]

Hi Steel32

The big problem with allowing naval units a longer range is you have TFs jumping in from too great a distance to join in a battle so naval conflict can too rapidly degenerate into a mass fight and weaker surface navies have little chance to contribute.

The difficulty with naval war games is to balance tactical movement which might relate to engagements spread over 2 or 3 days at most as compared with the repositioning of units during the 1 month typical elapsed time between a Strategic game's player turns.

If you think of Loops as being similar to operational movement for land and air units then it is actually less of an anomaly than those features. A WW2 Cruiser TF could actually steam to Australia from the UK in the equivalent time interval of one elapsed turn without stressing its crew. Transferring the equivalent of 500 aircraft from UK to Australia would be a very major undertaking in comparison. It would require substantial infrastructure to be ready and waiting and even then the pilots and ground controllers would require further periods of training to be effective in the new environment.

It will be interesting to see what SC3 offers but if it spreads beyond the ETO I will be very surprised if it does not feature Naval Loops.

Regards

Mike

[Catacol Highlander]

Catacol Highlander,

yes, i do have thoughts, I've offered them often and in detail during the beta phase (where you obviously missed them in my badly written but nevertheless endless feedback lists :eek:), and I will gladly repeat them here once more:

"I would remove most, if not all, of the red arrow shortcuts for naval movements. You're robbing the player the chance to destroy troop transports or to use the large sea for naval battles. This won't be possible if you invent warp movement 1000 years before it becomes a reliable transportation system.

Leave only the arrows to move from one end of the map to the other side, and vice versa. This is nescessary because we don't have a globe, but a square (the earth is a disc...). But all other arrows, as much comfort they may bring, destroy the big map feature. If players don't like to move their units on a large map, than they should play the smaler map of Global Conflict Gold.

Honestly: if there is a safe way to avoid axis warships, than the whole naval war of this map becomes a rather bizare something."

&

"The red arrows (allies only) don't belong in a game where a large map should offer ways to ambush your opponent at the high seas. Red arrows are nescessary for changing from one side of the map to the other side of the map. If you think you need to offer a comfort feature, than i beg you to think of something better."

&

"Please make the red arrows (loops) optional, best would be a "turn on"- / "turn off"-button in the game menu within the advanced options.

I'm sitting right in front of the largest SC map / largest ocean ever, and get everytime angry when i see the loop buttons which allow the allied player to cheat out of the effects of such a large ocean."

I'm pretty sure that i wrote even more about this topic, as these loops kind of killed my desire to play AoD. I can't help it, but that is the truth.

Come play on the ladder Xwormwood - we are now disabling all loops apart from the east to west pacific ones.