Naval Blocades

[Crusader]

Playing the Global war scenario with a friend, we began discussing the use of naval units. More specifically the use neutral units to Blocade nations at war.

Examples:

a. 2 USN units to Blocade the Med if Gibraltar is on the verge of falling.

b. The use of USN to Blocade various inland seas along the coast of China.

c. The use of Italian naval units to restict RN units from moving East-West in the Med.

d. USN Formed up in a Blocade of Steel along the French west coast of prevent U-boat deployment.

I know there are some "Diplomatic" prices to be paid if Naval units are sent to close to various Neutral nations. Once they become Active, (example Spain, If the USN sails to close), the gloves are off, so to speak.

What are players thoughts?

Do any players have "House rules" they use?

Is it gamey?

Is all fair in love and war?

Im not saying it is right or wrong.

I do think it is a valid tactic.

[Baron]

A rule I would like to see is that nuetral ships do not stop naval movement of belligerent nations. I have an opponent that loves to use the USN to pin axis subs so that RN destroyers can come deliver the coup de grace.

Somewhat historical, maybe, I know they reported Axis ships when spotted (Bismark comes to mind) but too gamey in that there is no down side to it for the allied player. Especially if Spain is already in the war or invaded as the case may be.

[PowerGmbH]

Thanks for the ideas.

Specially US Navy around the Chinese Sea. All in All the reaction of i.e Spain getting Axis when US Navy comes around Gibraltar is reason enough for Allies Player not to do so.

In case of China, historically US-Navy was fprced by UN to patrol the Chinese Sea in 1937 until 41. but a blockade is not wished, so there should be added consequences if US-Navy is too active there, maybe USSR % down or SOuth american Nations Up ( i.e. Argentinia turns towards Axis cause to American Imperialism Activities in Chinese Sea.)

[Terif]

In Multiplayer games standard house rule for Fall Weiss is not to move neutral US units away from their coast before USA enters the war in order to avoid blockings/scouting/exploits like these that only annoys the players.

For other scenarios like the world map this house rule is usually extended to simply every neutral nation so they are not allowed to move units away from their coast.

[Bill101]

The US were assisting in convoy protection in a big way in 1941 and had attacked at least one U Boat before they entered the war, so I think that some US naval activity prior to their joining is perfectly valid.

A way to handle this would be to have more of the USA's starting fleet set to arrive via script on their joining the war. That way they've got less to play with while they're neutral. Barring any naval activity seems a bit strict.

[Crusader]

Thanks for all the replies.

Couple of things to add.

Restricting Neutrals to Coastal areas seems very harsh. Italy and the USA being the major powers most affected, USSR to a much lesser degree.

The game does have Diplomatic events to serve as a kind of balance.

But once the diplomatic measures have resulted in a nation picking a side, the gloves are off.

Italy with a commanding posistion in the Med. can get away with Blocades of Med travel.

The USA coastlines are not continuous. They are overseas, especially in the Pacific. Sending ships to the Islands would not be possible with this kind of rule.

What i would suggest is the following.

Italy be allowed 1 naval unit to cruise the med at will, all others sit in ports. When Italy is at 90% or greater Diplomatic influence, they can move the fleet at will.

For the USA 1 naval unit allowed to cruise the Atlantic at will. When LL starts with the CW, increase to 2 in Atlantic.

2 in the Pacific, until USA cuts Oil with Japan then increase to 3 and any number to base around Hawaii.

At 90% or greater Diplomatic influence, All ships move at will.

USSR can move 1 ship all the time, until 90% diplomatic influence, then all can move.

What are your thoughts about a house rule like this?

[Terif]

Every player has different preferences and sees history/what is realistic differently.

The above mentioned house rule(s) are just the ones most players so far could mutually agree on and are simple to follow - in other words the house rule concerning neutrals that became standard in multiplayer games : just forbid the naval movement of the neutrals that can be misused - easy and simple.

But the advantage of a house rule is (in contrary to game mechanics which are fix and will never be able to satisfy everyone):

You agree with your current opponent on the ones you want to use before the game - so as long as you two agree, you can use any house rule you both want/prefer and are ok with .

Just one thought:

Keep it simple - if you make a house rule too complicated, then it creates more problems than it solves (+ it will be difficult to find an agreement with your game partner that satisfies you both)...remember: your opponent in multiplayer is a human beeing, not a computer - so if you make a house rule with several conditions and increments, you will most likely end up with chaos and arguments during the game...even if you find someone that wants to play with such a house rule.

P.S: USA needing 1-2 turns to send ships to their islands and/or into attack positions after they entered the war: just see it as the time they need to prepare for war and bring their units into positions...which is even pretty realitic I would say...in any way this is no big deal compared to the complications (like e.g. elimination of the naval war since all enemy (Axis) ships/subs will be found/blocked...so it makes no sense for Axis to invest into their navy) and usual arguments/swear words you or your opponent will have to deal with (e.g. when a neutral US ship blocks Gibraltar, other vital narrow gaps or blocks landing spots for enemy amphibs etc...) if there is no house rule concerning this topic and neutrals can go crazy in the game...at the latest when one player starts discovering how he can exploit the lack of a rule against it, there will be a problem at hand...and the next game the one experiencing the effects of the exploits will most certainly insist on using a house rule against it... which btw is how the standard house rules got developed in the first place and why in the meantime any regular player I know uses them nowadays... :cool:

[ February 17, 2008, 01:49 PM: Message edited by: Terif ]

[Crusader]

This thread was created because both myself and my opponent have been playing with no "houserules" at all.

It's a game, and gamey situations, have been created during our limited hands-on play.

Naval movement being the single greatest concern.

We both enjoy playing wargames, but know that human nature is to push the envelope, which in computer games can mean "whatever is not coded is fair game".

This ups the ante and creates friction, which we both want to avoid.

Once the Steel Blocade of the French West Coast happened, we both knew it was time to back off and find a solution.

Suggestions for a workable and fair houserule is what i'm looking for.

Any more out there besides what has been posted?

[SeaMonkey]

Better yet would be for Hubert to code the ability for naval units to pass through each other, especially if they are not belligerents.

Now later when they are opposing each other there still should be the chance of a pass through. Perhaps making it dependent on your use of way points. Using your Ctrl key to establish waypoints dictates to the game engine that you are using "search" movement in which case there is a greater percentage of finding enemy units at each designated waypoint.

Not using waypoints indicates you are on a fast track to your destination and trying to avoid enemy combatants. Of course if you end your movement next to an enemy unit or within spotting distance as per carriers then they are revealed.

Carriers would have a greatly increased feature of using multi-waypoints as a search mechanism as it proceeds through its movement pattern. Each waypoint generates an automatic search up to the CVs spotting level.

Sound like a more realistic naval search feature?

Refinements?

Maybe the use of waypoints as a search initiating mechanism should decrease your APs for that move, proportional to the amount set.