Strategy & Frustration

[Bluestew]

I see lots of forum threads but very little describing strategies or helpful tidbits for the newbs. I've been playing the game for a few hours in each of the last 3 days. I'm playing straight up (no exp for either side) and as the allies.

First some observations.

1. The UK is research dead in my game. I have the max research spending (650) going. It is early 1943 and although I've had 2 chits in naval combat and ASW for well over 2 years and at least 1 from almost the start of the game, I've yet to obtain a level on either. I've achieved L1 infantry, L1 advanced aircraft and L1 industry, thats been it for the UK despite 650 investment for YEARS.

Meanwhile the USA has happily researched up to L3 naval combat and L1 ASW in less time. Why aren't they sharing technology with the commonwealth nations? There are other research problems I'm experiencing, such as the USSR not being able to get a single advance in AT tech despite having a chit in there for the entire game. After 12-16 months, shouldn't an advance just be granted to avoid issues like this?

2. Convoys. Referencing the above, maybe I'm missing something but I can't do a dang thing about the Axis wrecking the UK convoys except get my destroyers beat to heck. I'm using hunter packs of 5-6 DD's so when I find a sub I can attack it. My scenario usually goes like this. Enemy Contact! Sub nails my DD for 5-6 I return maybe 1-2 hits. I bring my other DD's in. I either blunder into another adjacent SS or the sub dives. When this occurs anywhere close to Europe, Germany sorties their navy in support and I always end up on the losing end because my navy is inferior. Also why are UK carrier planes so useless again the German navy? I usually lose 3 air strength and don't even damage the enemy ship. Yes I know the UK doesn't have naval combat upgraded carrier planes (not my fault) but they should be able to freaking damage enemy ships without losing 1/3 of their complement of aircraft. Now the Japanese carriers can sink a ship in a single run...bizarre.

I find the convoy system massively frustrating and essentially futile. Why can't I protect the convoys with my DD's rather than dispersing my navy to hunt the fricking subs all over the Atlantic and rest of the world? I don't see what I'm being forced to do as anything remotely similar to using a convoy system. Someone have advice other than research the two techs I've found impossible to obtain?

3. Squares on the map. Wow these really suck. I've played games with squares before but the corners were disabled for attacking/moving. I understand I'm just getting used to the game and will eventually adjust to them. Having a visual front line only to have a mobile enemy unit slice through and wreak havoc in my rear is quite annoying. Enough on this.

4. Italians in east africa. How in the bloody hell can you get rid of these guys as the allies? Their supply is restricted, I've blockaded their port, reduced it to zero. I've sent tanks, planes, infantry, a carrier and HQ support but I cannot fricking get rid of these Italians. They are holed up in an interior city but I can't damage anything enough to kill. I did wipe out the German corp but I can't dislodge the Italians or destroy their damn fighters. The Italians with restricted supply and a destroyed port happily reinforce their units again and again via some magic supply fairy. Other than the tank unit, I'm using multiple infantry corps for attacking. I can't get any armies down there because of the above sub/convoy situation. Operational movement is not an option. Some advice here would be much appreciated.

Along this line. If an enemy captures a city but is then cut off and surrounded, they shouldn't be able to keep reinforcing their unit, especially motorized/mech units. For example an armored unit or motorized SF unit ZIP through a corner and take a rear area city/resource in enemy territory. That unit when cut off for many turns should not be able to hold out forever AND keep reinforcing their unit. Absurd. Now if they are in their own country, I don't have a problem with this but in enemy lands, it should not occur. The troops in Stalingrad didn't last forever let alone reinforce their military strength.

5. Movement. I find the restrictions on moving to be majorly annoying. I understand infrastructure issues but why can't units move through each other? In many cases, one would have to make a hole in their line to bring in a new unit because of the clumping required by the "square" map system. Apparently rotating/replacing units is only possible when a unit is destroyed in many cases. I find the inability to move through friendly units to be one of the more frustrating aspects in the game.

In China I had multiple units adjacent to a square and could never move there (I kept trying) but several turns later the Japanese moved in and then shot the gap on my line. Now if I can't get into that square from multiple adjacent squares, how the heck can the Japanese waltz into and through through it?

6. Tac Air. It is far too strong IMO, at least for the enemy. I use it and can't even damage a freaking corp or HQ but the enemy can devastate my units with it. The USSR can't build/field many air units and the AI is liberally smashing the defending units. In my game on the Russian front, I've held the German rapid advance but they keep inching along because of air power. The Japanese continue to pummel the Chinese and you KNOW the Chinese can't afford multiple air units. I've heard about a pending patch, please tone down the Tactical Air.

Now I don't mean to be all negative. I like the game enough that I don't intend to give up on it, but at the moment, the frustrations are starting to overtake enjoyment.

[PowerGmbH]

2. Convoys. Also why are UK carrier planes so useless again the German navy? I usually lose 3 air strength and don't even damage the enemy ship. Yes I know the UK doesn't have naval combat upgraded carrier planes (not my fault) but they should be able to freaking damage enemy ships without losing 1/3 of their complement of aircraft.

6. Tac Air.

2) Try Following: do you see your UK Carrier with a little green light down left?

Then try following: Right Click on the Carrier and select "Tactical" not "Mix" nor "CAP" . Then move the Carrier to the Axis sub and observe the probable result of 0:5 (if not better) to YOUR ADVANTEAGE!

CAP is standart setting and means "Combat Air Patrol" and this is not very useful for Attacks on Submarines. This would also adress your issue 6. Tac Air.

When you use you Carrier carefully you can blow out Axis Naval Forces before end of 40, and "Britain rules the Seas" again easily:p

Tactical would mean historically the Carrier Airfleets load "Torpedoes", while CAP would mean they load Cannons only. Mix would mean there would be 50% Airfleets with Cannons and 50% with Torpedoes, but Mixing may not have a blowing result.

[Syagrius]

Also, give you time to learn and experience stuff. I have been playing wargames since the early 90's and, depending on the game, your first game (and sometimes more) is (and should) always a learning one and I dont expect victory at all. If you beat the hell out of the AI on first game, then there is a problem with it!

[Hubert Cater]

Hi Bluestew,

1. Research can sometimes be frustrating as it is random in nature and as a result some games will see very quick research developments while others will have more of a delay. We've received a lot of feedback on this over the years and I suspect that when I develop a new game engine I will make some modifications here so that there will be less completely random results.

2. Just to echo what David mentioned, I would double check to make sure that your Carriers are in 'Naval/Tactical' mode and this can be accessed by right clicking on your Carrier and changing the mode. If it is then it will be shown with a little red circle rather than the default green one for 'Fighter' mode.

4. This was probably set up as too tough on our end and it will be changed for the first patch with it only becoming more difficult for the Allies at the higher difficulty levels. In the meantime, one thing you can do to make it easier when you start a new game is to go to the Options->Advanced->Scripts dialog and select the DECISION events. From there scroll down to I think the second page and 'de-select' DE 519 which is the Graziani decision. This can be de-selected by clicking the little 'x' at the far end of the decision event. This will prevent the AI from receiving this Italian HQ and should make things easier in Abyssinia.

Beyond that though, I would make use of the 'S' hotkey so you can see your supply situation and make sure that your units all have HQ support and high readiness and morale. Additionally if you completely surround a city, i.e. all available tiles, then the units within the city can only reinforce to a max of 5 which will make the city easier to take. Funny you mentioned Stalingrad as it was Stalingrad and even Leningrad that inspired this rule, i.e. even though Stalingrad was almost 90% occupied the Soviets were still able to funnel reinforcements in across the river as it was never fully surrounded. Similar to Leningrad where despite the fact it was mostly surrounded, the Soviets were also able to use Lake Ladoga in the winter to truck in supplies that helped it from complete collapse.

5. Regarding movement, you are actually able to move friendly units through each other, but likely in China this is not possible due to the terrain penalties and lower action points. China is a tough area to play and I would not expect a lot of fluidity there simply due to the fact that this was also the case historically, i.e. this is why Japan ended up expanding the war as it needed supplies and material to help it in its war with China and to break the stalemate.

6. My guess here is that with the Soviets you are dealing with a more experienced German army and air force that is fresh off of almost 2 years of victorious campaigns in Western Europe. This will of course result in some pain to your Soviet front lines and one tip is to use the size of the USSR and potential Axis supply to your advantage.

Expecting your front lines to be decimated, as it happened historically, you could as the Soviet player pull your stronger units back and allow the Germans to take territory even allowing them to push as far as Moscow. At that point, with the Germans spread out a bit more and their supply situation generally worse as their max occupational supply in Soviet cities is 5, you will be in a better situation to strike back since you will be in maximum supply. Hitting back at their weakest units, weakest positions and with your stronger units will definitely help as at that point, especially after the Soviet winter effects and after the US has entered the war, the Allies are in a much better position to win the long war of attrition on the eastern front. Maximizing US/UK Lend Lease to the USSR will help as well.

Hope this helps and good luck!

Hubert

[crispy131313]

Hi Bluestew,

when I develop a new game engine

Woah Did I hear that right! SC3!

And to add some comments, you will be surprised what an advantage it is laying the smack down on Grazzini turn after turn in East Africa. The AI puts alot of MP's into keeping that place alive, and in the end you actually benefit as their are less MP's being spent in Europe. Not to mention your African troops are very experienced once you eventually knock that place out. Buying an army from South Africa, and using the Special Foces from India along with the African corps is usually enough kill Grazzini.

Also, if there was easy movement in China, China would be done like dinner. Japan would overrun China very quickly in the early 1-2 years if you are playing as the Allies. China is a game of roads, keep an eye on the direction of the roads/trails and you will learn how to move around with little surprises.

[Bluestew]

1. Research can sometimes be frustrating as it is random in nature. I suspect that when I develop a new game engine I will make some modifications here so that there will be less completely random results.

I'm a fan of minor randomness as it adds flavor but TOTAL randomness is one of my pet peeves. I want to be mostly in control of my destiny, not spread prostrate in front of an RNG. I understand there are an equally large number of gamers who love total randomness but for me, it just shouldn't be the deciding force in a strategy game.

2. Just to echo what David mentioned, I would double check to make sure that your Carriers are in 'Naval/Tactical' mode.

Yes, this information was the best "smack upside my noggin" tidbit I've gotten so far. I did fail to change modes for the aircraft and they work much better now when I equip them for the mission at hand.

This tidbit doesn't resolve the convoy wrecking issue though. My issue is that I have to hunt for the subs and sacrifice at least one if not more ships to heavy damage to locate the position of the raiders. Even then, with subs, I generally fail to sink the dang things as they dive away before being destroyed and have to be "located again" by sacrificing another ship. So basically 50% of more of the Royal navy has to be used to hunt down a single sub unit with a poor chance of success and almost guaranteed fleet damage. Meanwhile the enemy is launching new subs and tearing up the other convoy routes. Unless I'm missing an easier way to manage the damage, IMO this is one of the poorer design decisions for the game. I'm not against the convoys being attacked, just the method that was chosen. Staggering level of frustrating micromanagement. So again, if someone has a strategy for dealing with convoy raiders that is less involved, I'm all ears.

The entire convoy system could be abstracted as the Axis feed new subs into the battle and the Allies feed more escorts. Based on tech and units fed into the grinder, the convoys deliver X percentage of their cargo. Only with surface raiders would I deviate and have the actual units hunt each other for battle.

Beyond that though, I would make use of the 'S' hotkey so you can see your supply situation and make sure that your units all have HQ support and high readiness and morale. Additionally if you completely surround a city, i.e. all available tiles, then the units within the city can only reinforce to a max of 5 which will make the city easier to take. Funny you mentioned Stalingrad as it was Stalingrad and even Leningrad that inspired this rule

I'm a vet of the original SC, so I understand the HQ/supply deal. I just haven't played any since the original and that was a looong time ago.

Let us use Stalingrad as the example since Leningrad was never entirely cut off. The Germans were cutoff and entirely surrounded there. While they received enough supplies to remain alive, their military capability continued to to degrade with each passing day. In SC land, they can be attacked for months and months and just reinforce back to the same strength they had originally. My issue with this is that sometimes it requires a large number of units to kill that surrounded unit. Units that often can't be spared from the front lines. For example in my first game I was a victim of the square corner attack and a German armored unit zipped through and took a supply source. I easily cut them off with some corps but corps have a horrendous chance of killing good enemy armor. If I pulled a single army or tank unit off the front, I risk a major collapse. So unless I get REALLY lucky in my attacks, that tank unit is never going to be dislodged until my situation at the front changed. This is what I take major issue with. It isn't remotely believable and really gets under my skin. Captured enemy cities that cannot trace supply back home should not provide supply, or at least reinforcing a unit should be prohibited in that situation. Where would they be getting new tanks, soldiers and ammunition from? I'm sure you've heard all this before but didn't want to or couldn't change your game engine for some reason.

I remember in the original SC, if a super experienced german tank unit at 14 strength got cutoff, it could cause a road block of epic proportions.

5. Regarding movement, you are actually able to move friendly units through each other, but likely in China this is not possible due to the terrain penalties and lower action points. China is a tough area to play and I would not expect a lot of fluidity there simply due to the fact that this was also the case historically

I understand the roads in China but I take exception to the fact that the Japanese can zip into a square from a non-road direction, while I can be adjacent to the dang square for years and am never permitted to enter. I'm guessing that this is due to motorization but in a horrendous infrastructure area, motorization is a detriment, not a helpful thing. Infrastructure should work both ways and trucks/tanks shouldn't be treated as hovercraft. If I can't march an army there in a year, you sure as heck shouldn't be able to drive a mechanized unit through it.

6. My guess here is that with the Soviets you are dealing with a more experienced German army and air force that is fresh off of almost 2 years of victorious campaigns in Western Europe. This will of course result in some pain to your Soviet front lines and one tip is to use the size of the USSR and potential Axis supply to your advantage.

I'm guessing that my tac bombers weren't effective because I didn't choose the mode properly? Regardless of that, I still feel that tac air is far too effective in this game. Speaking as an old soldier, units didn't cease to exist because they were bombed. You still had to send in the ground troops. Morale, effectiveness, defenses and combat capabilities can be seriously compromised but tac air is just not going to eliminate units of the size in this game. So rather than carry on a lengthy debate, wouldn't it be better to err on the side of reality and merely nerf tac air a bit? I've seen a couple other comments on this forum saying pretty much the same.

especially after the Soviet winter effects and after the US has entered the war, the Allies are in a much better position to win the long war of attrition on the eastern front. Maximizing US/UK Lend Lease to the USSR will help as well.

I've not seen a drastic change in the Germans during the Soviet winter. They still attack somewhat effectively, just not as potently. The Soviet units are also apparently nerfed during that weather. I view it as a slight breather period but the enemy action is still hot.

Regarding the Allied/USSR lend lease, note my comments concerning the convoy issues and my lack of success in handling it.

BTW, I appreciate the comments and the opportunity to banter back and forth as your time permits.

[crispy131313]

Sorry to post my 2 cents again on your troubles, but with editor you can make china easier to move. One way would be to make mountains -1 movement cost instead of -2. You could also add more roads via the editor.

One final thing and probaly easiest thing you could do is add +1 action points to Japan, India, and China's ground units as this would not effect the outcome of the game as these countries only are active in that theatre.

[Canada1]

...good comments, constuctive points of view, most of which I hope will be incorporated into first patch. I can only imagine what the game will be like after patch 1 is ready...(Hubert et al, we are waiting:).

I haven't played a full game yet, played Axis up to mid-43 a varying settings/sides, and am playing Allied right now.

Agree the IT is Ethiopia is a tough nut, but where else would UK units gain battle experience that early in the war?

Also, I'm of the opinion that playing w/ FOW off is not a bad way to play the game---sure, you can see your AI opponent, but at least the AI (who is, presumably, less intelligent than human opponent gets the advantage of seeing you as well, and plays a bit smarter...just a thought.

I have to say China is well scripted---I've read many good and bad points on China, but in terms of difficulty and really needing to think about your strategy/next move, the whole China thing play s quite well---it is tough, and the entire game should be tough.

Lastly, KM subs in the Atlantic were tough---someone's advice to use carriers is good advice---they provide your tactical advantage and will ultimately clear the shipping lanes by mid-43. Good hunting (for subs, that is . Carriers are key in this game (RN in Atlantic, JN in Pacific and of course USN in Pacific & Atlantic).

Cheers...

Caanda1

[Bluestew]

...good comments, constuctive points of view, most of which I hope will be incorporated into first patch. I can only imagine what the game will be like after patch 1 is ready...(Hubert et al, we are waiting:).

Caanda1

Wonderful thought but most of my comments would be major design changes and I don't see them being released in a patch. As Hubert alluded, his next design would incorporate a new engine. I was hoping he might consider some of my suggestions for a future design. I have experience in strategy game design but I'm a horrible programmer. So I stick with ideas and feedback, leaving the hard work to the coders.

Hey Hubert, feel free to use me as a beta in your future games and I'll still buy a retail copy once its released.

[Catacol Highlander]

On the subject of Subs the Battle of the Atlantic was lost by GB until effective Escort Carriers and Land Based Aircraft combined with good intelligence could be brought to bear. When this occured in 1943 Doenitz withdrew his Packs in May, awaiting new technology himself that didnt arrive until too late.

Therefore to me the difficulties in coping with the subs is realistic. Get yourself decent ASW, long range air and use carriers effectively and the subs will be neutralised. Until then they should indeed rule the seas because, in 1940 - 42, that is effectively what they did.

[Bluestew]

On the subject of Subs the Battle of the Atlantic was lost by GB until effective Escort Carriers and Land Based Aircraft combined with good intelligence could be brought to bear. When this occured in 1943 Doenitz withdrew his Packs in May, awaiting new technology himself that didnt arrive until too late.

Therefore to me the difficulties in coping with the subs is realistic. Get yourself decent ASW, long range air and use carriers effectively and the subs will be neutralised. Until then they should indeed rule the seas because, in 1940 - 42, that is effectively what they did.

I'm going to have to disagree in part with your assertion. I agree that the Battle of the Atlantic was almost lost by the UK. However in part, this was because the convoy system wasn't fully enacted until a time well past when it should have been. The US behaved for about a year like there was no u-boat problem and subsequently lost several tankers. Many US merchant ships did not participate in the convoy system. Finally, intelligence by the Germans gave them excellent hunting information until the allies changed their codes/system.

Once used properly, the convoy system worked reasonably well and it didn't require that the Royal Navy use the larger part of their battle fleet to accomplish. In SC Global War, the UK must use the greater part of their fleet to locate and battle the u-boats or else except the loss of most convoy MPPs. This is what I take issue with.

I've played a game from the Axis side and I'm not seeing the same type of results that the AI Axis gets against me as the Allies. I'm seeing much less convoy MPP losses for the allies even though I have more subs out there along the convoy lines. My subs when "run into" by the searching AI DD's don't inflict as much intial damage despite being L2-3 Subs as the Axis AI subs were inflicting on my searching ships. I have slaughtered the Royal Navy but that is to be expected vs. AI.

I appreciate your input and taking the time to reply to my queries.

[Catacol Highlander]

Well... I'm not sure about the historical accuracy of what you say here, although I accept that the gameplay in GC of subs is a tough nut to crack because they are able to take on the RN battlefleet and win - not something that could have happened in the War. However I quite like having to use strategic assets to take them on because a passive system of convoy defence in the game would take the player out of the equation. I like playing chess and being able to be caught out and make mistakes... :-)

Historically the convoy system did not work. By late 1942 into early 1943 the British were forced to change tactic because the initiative had lain with the U-boats for too long and tonnage losses were continuing to be too high. This was particularly the case in March 1943 when losses in convoys were calamitous. Only when Horton went onto the offensive by actually seeking out packs and engaging them with ships and escort carriers were the U-boats driven from the Atlantic. While the US Navy did start to sink U boats SW of the Azores in the Summer of 1943 esentially by then the U-boat threat had been neutralised - by the RN and its use of air power.

... and that is what you have to do in GC.

[Hubert Cater]

Bluestew,

From what I remember reading on the subject the Royal Navy was not too keen on using its battle assets such as Carriers, Battleships and Cruisers to protect convoys after the Courageous was sunk in 1939. Primary reason being was that it showed the vulnerability of these capital ships to subs.

http://www.uboataces.com/battle-courageous.shtml

In that vein if you are finding that using these ships to attack subs is not that worthwhile, i.e. high losses prior to achieving more Destroyers, Long Range aircraft and ASW etc., then I would argue that this mimics the historical RN findings as well.

On the flip side though you are right, as essentially this means that you then have to concede some losses to Axis subs until your convoy protection abilities are more in place and with Destroyers arriving in late 1939 and 1940 via the Destroyers for bases agreement, but in the end is this really so far off from what happened historically?

[xwormwood]

Thanks for the "uboataces" link, Hubert!

[Ludi1867]

Catacol Highlander

Your discussion of the convoy system is almost completely inaccurate. For you to start out Post #12 by stating “I am not sure about the historical accuracy of what you say here” is quite risible because Bluestew has actually come closer to the history of the Battle of the Atlantic than you have. The convoy system came under serious strain in March 1943, as the Admiralty admitted, but the Allied convoy system in the North Atlantic was never stopped. Ever. (one of the few places that the convoy system was ever stopped was in the Gulf of St Lawrence in the fall of 1942, a strategic decision partly resulting from the successful attacks of U-boats in those waters, the availability of alternate transport means – trains to Halifax – and the decision to send 17 RCN corvettes to support Operation Torch. But this is the ONLY time that the U-boats influenced a decision to actually stop convoys in the Atlantic that I am aware of). The measures that you indicate that Sir Max Horton, CinC of Western Approaches Command took were IN ADDITION to the convoy system, which remained the bedrock of the RN’s operational anti-U-boat strategy throughout the war. To say that “Historically the convoy system did not work” is, in a word, balderdash.

The measures taken to defeat the U-boat offensive that resulted in BdU moving the wolfpacks away from the northern convoy routes in May 1943 were built around the convoy system. The battle usually taken as the most important during May of 1943 was most emphatically a CONVOY battle, the battle waged around ONS 5. To fail to understand this is to completely fail to understand the Battle of the Atlantic, which you have clearly done.

The addition of escort carriers, support groups, long range air (in particular VLR Liberators), changes in Allied codes (implemented in June 1943), breakthroughs in code breaking (particularly the breakthrough in late March 1943) were all part of the means needed to defeat the U-boats. In addition, there were improvements in escort training and weaponry, which were incremental but significant by May 1943. But all these were built around the convoy system, which was NEVER defeated.

Hubert has made some valid comments about the Battle of the Atlantic, and his overall point that the current SC Global game does somewhat tend to represent how the Battle unfolded is reasonable. However, it should be noted that the way that SC Global goes about reproducing the Battle of the Atlantic is rather distant from that actual course of the Battle, and has much to do with the Axis being provided with steady production of U-boats (rather disproportionate in most respects to historical reality) and the slow increase in Allied escort strength in the game, which is probably closer to initial historical reality. In short SC Global ‘adjusts for its internal game mechanics’, so to speak, to create a something of a simulacrum of the results of the Battle of the Atlantic. But the mechanics of the game are so different than the actual historical reality that it is almost painful to try and reconcile the two. Naval warfare remains, by far, the weakest aspect of the SC system.

[SeaMonkey]

Totally in agreement with you Ludi, but the give and take that is the SC system does a pretty decent job. Obviously there are shortcomings and historically this has been the weakest parameter of the SC engine, but I'm sure......if....and that's a BIG IF.. Hubert does decide to follow through with the creation of a new SC3 engine he'll pay particular attention to this part of the game model.

All the games, both board and PC platforms, are usually lacking in simulating the naval-air aspects of WW2 to a realistic degree that I have played over the years save one, "The Hunt for Red October". Now to be accurate tHfRO, was a contemporary type boardgame but when coupled with the "Red Storm Rising" game engine did a pretty good job of representing the search dynamics that are a very essential part on any naval game engine. Perhaps it would be relevant to review those operational features of both RSR & HRO for the new game engine as I'm sure they will have to go through the necessary modifications to create a decent AI opponent.

Needless to say, IMO, the most important detail of the engine will be the "pass through" mechanism.

[Catacol Highlander]

Ludi

I'm not quite sure what I said to offend you... I never said the convoy system ceased to operate. I said quite clearly that it did not work, and if you choose to disagree with me on that then so be it but I stand my ground. The losses over the period 1940 - 42 were unsustainable and occurred when convoys could not be properly defended. To me that means they did not work.

The changes brought in by Horton altered things. Of course they were inplemented within the convoy system itself - I took that as a gimme but my use of words in hindsight did not make that clear - but only with the assets made available and the decision to seek out and destroy the wolfpacks was that battle won.

My point in all this was simply to state that for the allied player to struggle to cope with U boats in the early years of GC is realistic, becuase until 1943 the RN were unable to cope with them historically. Thank goodness Donitz didnt get the boats he wanted as quickly as he wanted otherwise the consequences for the war would have been disastrous. Back in the world of GC for the allied player to defeat U boats he/she must use air power - and that was the historical trump card also.

So wait it out and use your air assets to defeat the U boats. Historically I stand by my judgement on convoys - that they did not work until 1943 when air power was substantially increased and instead of trying to avoid the wolves they took them head on.

[Ludi1867]

Catacol

I can better understand what you were trying to say now, but the fact remains that you are wrong about convoys. Convoys were not as effectively defended until May 1943 as the Allies would have wished, but they remained the most effective form of defence used by the Allies throughout the war. Your discussion of convoys sounds very similar to that employed by the USN – Ernie King in particular – when the US entered the war. The failure to use convoys – precisely because of a concern by certain USN leaders that a poorly defended convoy was more vulnerable than no convoy – proved disastrous. The losses suffered along the US east coast in the first six months of 1942 offer one of the best examples anywhere that convoys, even poorly defended convoys, are generally better than no convoys. To argue that the losses suffered in the period “1940 to 1942 were unsustainable and occurred when convoys were not properly defended” is to conflate too many things and tar convoys with a number of defeats that are not attributable to convoys, such as the losses to independent shipping suffered on the US east coast because of a concern about convoys.

The changes instituted by Max Horton were not all that revolutionary, and were very much in support of the convoys. The ‘offensive’ action you speak of was primarily in the vicinity of convoys. Support groups were dispatched to support threatened convoys. Support groups enabled convoy escorts to conduct prolonged hunts, a luxury that the smaller close escort that remained with a convoy throughout its voyage simply could not do. The main benefit that Horton had was more ships, as the plans he put in place were not all that different from what his predecessor, Sir Percy Noble, had wanted to do, but lacked the resources. One of the ways that the Admiralty found the resources to provide Horton was to cancel the Russian convoys for the summer of 1943, a decision that the massacre of PQ 17 in the summer of 1942 certainly made easier. Warships that had previously been on the Murmansk run proved critical in the victories achieved by the escorts in May 1943.

The ‘offensive’ actions that were undertaken away from convoys were not all that much associated with Horton, although Horton did support them. The best example of a pure ‘offensive’ operation (not associated with convoys) was the Bay of Biscay campaign by Coastal Command in the summer of 1943. When the wolfpack attacks on North Atlantic convoys were ended in May 1943 Horton diverted support groups to support the Coastal Command effort – until intelligence indicated that BdU intended to resume the attacks on the north Atlantic convoys, and the support group leaving harbour for Biscay duty (EG 9) was diverted first to support HX 256 and then ON 202/ ONS 18. The subsequent convoy battle proved a tactical victory for the wolfpacks (mainly because of the surprising way they used their new secret weapon, acoustic homing torpedoes), but the last they would gain against convoys. The subsequent convoys after ON 202/ONS 18 were either diverted around the wolfpacks OR driven straight at wolfpacks (with augmented escorts), resulting in disastrous U-boat losses and the decision, late in 1943, to effectively cease wolfpack operations – a decision that remained in place until almost the end of the war (Operation Teardrop sealed the fate of the last attempt at a wolfpack in the dying days of the war).

Convoys did not work as well before May 1943 as the Allies would have wished – that is certainly a valid argument – but to state “they did not work” is just wrong. Even during the winter of 1942-43, which proved the worst period for convoy losses and includes the rather disastrous March of 1943, only about 10% of convoys suffered any significant losses. What made the possibility of the losses being truly unsustainable was not the material aspect – US shipbuilding was so massive by mid-1943 that staggering losses could actually be absorbed by the Allies - but the possibility that the morale of the merchant sailors might crack. Fortunately for the Allies, that never happened.

The best recent overview of the north Atlantic campaign is the two volume history by Clay Blair. (Clay Blair, I am sure, would COMPLETELY disagree with your assessment that shipping losses in 1940 to 1942 were unsustainable, although he would certainly agree that they were heavy.) There are other more recent works that I can refer you to if you wish. Chapter IV of “Fighting at Sea, Naval Actions from the Ages of Sail and Steam” provides a detailed overview of the battles around convoy ON 202/ ONS 18, for example.

Your comments as to game play are reasonable, but your history, particularly your assessment that convoys 'did not work' in the period 1940-1942, is questionable.

[Bluestew]

Bluestew,

In that vein if you are finding that using these ships to attack subs is not that worthwhile, i.e. high losses prior to achieving more Destroyers, Long Range aircraft and ASW etc., then I would argue that this mimics the historical RN findings as well.

On the flip side though you are right, as essentially this means that you then have to concede some losses to Axis subs until your convoy protection abilities are more in place and with Destroyers arriving in late 1939 and 1940 via the Destroyers for bases agreement, but in the end is this really so far off from what happened historically?

Hubert,

I am not arguing against convoy losses. That is perfectly acceptable. However by design, you have abstracted actual convoys yet have the adversary of the convoys as battle units on the map. So, the only way to combat/protect convoys is the ahistorical use of the majority of the Allied fleet battle assets to hunt and try to kill them. So as I mentioned in a previous post, the convoy battles should be abstracted for all belligerents. Each side could build and assign uboats or escorts to the convoy battle. Based on tech and the amount of assets invested in the battle, a percentage of the convoy MPP would be sunk.

Now as for the hunting of the uboats, my experiences in 3 games have shown this effort to be a HUGE loss ratio for the Allies. The subs must be hunted "run into" and even with L1-2 ASW and L1-2 subs, I find that my DD's almost always take the worst of the battle. My DD's usually take 4-6 hits while the subs generally take 1-3 hits. Then I followup with either air from carriers or more destoyers. If the DD's hit on the second attack, it is rarely much better but often the sub dives away and has to be found again. This subsequent hunt results in further unequal losses to the ASW equipped destroyers/cruisers. So not only are the subs raking the convoy routes costing the Allies MPPs but the only method to combat them with battle fleet assets usually results in much more expensive battles to the Allies than the U-boats. That result is GROSSLY ahistorical. Uboats did not desire to tangle with escorts, they dove and tried to elude them in order to later attack their real quarry, the merchant ships.

I tracked down some statistics concerning the Battle of the Atlantic. I am not going to list the merchant ship losses which were probably over 2500. I'm not listing them because they are abstracted by game design. I am going to list the losses of ships and subs by year.

1939

Allied Losses: 1 Merchant Cruiser, 1 Fleet Carrier.

Axis Losses: 4 U-boats, 1 Pocket Battleship.

1940

Allied Losses: 8 Merchant Cruisers, 2 Destroyers, 2 Escort Ships (usually dedicated DD's), 1 Sloop.

Axis Losses: 12 U-boats, 1 Italian U-boat.

1941

Allied Losses: 4 Merchant Cruisers, 1 Destroyers, 11 Escort Ships, 1 Battle Cruiser, 1 Cruiser, 1 Escort Carrier.

Axis Losses: 23 U-boats, 8 Italian U-boats, 1 Battleship (Bismark), 1 Surface Raider.

1942

Allied Losses: 10 Destroyers, 8 Escort Ships, 3 Corvettes, 3 Cruisers, 2 Subs.

Axis Losses: 69 U-boats, 2 Italian U-boats, 3 Destroyers, 1 Surface Raider.

1943

Allied Losses: 5 Destroyers, 5 Escort Ships, 1 Corvettes, 1 Sub.

Axis Losses: 179 U-boats, 3 Italian U-boats, 1 Battle Cruiser.

1944

Allied Losses: 6 Destroyers, 4 Escort Ships, 1 Corvettes, 1 Sloop, 2 Frigates, 2 Escort Carriers.

Axis Losses: 111 U-boats.

1945

Allied Losses: 1 Destroyer, 3 Escort Ships, 1 Sloop, 1 Frigate.

Axis Losses: 16 U-boats.

Battle of the Atlantic Totals

Allied Losses: 13 Merchant Cruisers, 25 Destroyers, 33 Escort Ships, 5 Corvettes, 3 Sloops, 3 Frigates, 1 Battlecruiser, 4 Cruisers, 1 Fleet Carrier, 3 Escort Carriers, 3 Subs.

Axis Losses: 414 U-boats, 14 Italian U-boats, 1 Battleship, 1 Pocket Battleship, 1 Battlecruiser, 3 Destroyers, 2 Surface Raiders.

So Allies win the warship battle 436-94 in history.

Studying these figures shows how ahistorical the SC "sub hunt" results are. In the game, the hunting warships take a massive pounding which just isn't remotely realistic and better than doubles the effectiveness of U-boats in the game.

A somewhat simple solution to this issue would be to have submarines not inflict damage on warships when they are "found". The U-boats are either hit or dive away. Now if the sub is the active hunter and is attacking, then damage is inflicted on enemy warships normally. So in lieu of abstracting both sides of the convoy war, this type of resolution would make great strides in bringing about a more historical feel and result.

So you see, I am not debating that I should be able to protect myself from MPP losses due to convoy attacks. Since the only method to try and reduce convoy losses is to physically hunt the U-boats, something must be done to address the staggering losses sustained while performing that hunt. Considering the MPP costs to repair ships damaged while hunting the U-boats, even if killing a SS unit, the loss in MPP's to the hunters far outweigh the losses to the Axis U-boats. From my perspective the U-boat is an Uber Unit.

When playing the Axis, I can virtually sink the entire Royal Navy while still raking their convoy routes for little cost in MPPs. Like Tac air, they are just too powerful. Give the U-boats a slightly better chance to dive away but nerf their ability to smash hunter after hunter warship. Better yet, abstract the convoy war. Any U-boats on the map are then used as a battle asset and don't effect convoys.

As always, feedback and comments are welcome.

[PowerGmbH]

maybe the "surprise"-Attack could be abstracted depending to the Sub Mode, i.e. if the Sub is in "hunt mode" the Diving percentage is lowered by i.e. 25%, while the discovering Surface Ship don't get damaged, while in Stealth mode the Diving probability gets up 25%, AND the Surface discovering Ship gets damage.

Allso figuring the numbers one should abstract that the Units represent more than one single ship/boat.

[SeaMonkey]

Someone needs to train Bluestew in the fine art of "the corral" technique.

[Gorgin]

SeaMonkey:

Care to elaborate on the "corral" technique ?

[Ludi1867]

Bluestew

While I would be the last one to suggest that the naval war in SC is ‘good’, there are perhaps SC ASW tactics that might reduce your frustration. Overall I have come to agree that abstracting the convoy war entirely, as has been done in other strategic games, would be a better option than the current dog’s breakfast that is found in SC. However, the key to success in SC ASW seems to be to avoid the frequent use of ramming as far as possible. (There is irony here, as one ASW officer in the RN was moved to remark at one point in the Battle of the Atlantic that escorts seemed to have only one effective ASW weapon – “the ram”)

The best way to do this is to research long range air, and then use carriers as search units. Attacking can then be done by another carrier, if available, or destroyers. Using destroyers that do not have any ASW advances is very challenging. SC gives the Axis navies an inherent advantage by providing them with advanced submarines level 1, while the Allies have to research ASW level 1. Until your destroyers at least match U-boats (ASW tech at least level to advanced submarine level) the effort to destroy U-boats can be challenging.

Generally this means that the Allied player has to invest in a couple of tech areas and keep his warships away from U-boats until his research bears fruit. Given the erratic results common with R&D in SC, this can be frustrating, but given average results the Allied player should be able to engage the Axis navy in the Battle of the Atlantic by about 1941 or so (earlier if research results are better). Of course, this means that initially the Axis will reap a good harvest of convoy MPP damage, but Hubert Cater argues that this is not ahistorical. And to a certain extent he is correct, although the means by which the U-boats achieved their successes early in the war more often involved attacks on independent shipping, not convoys. Nonetheless, SC does achieve something of an historical result, albeit through rather abstracted and rather awkward means.

As for the issue of U-boats inflicting significant damage on destroyers (the only ‘escort’ type vessel used in SC), I have found this frustrating forever, but at least it is not as bad now as it once was (hard to believe, but true). Throughout the war U-boats generally preferred to avoid attacking escorts, as they were small, fast moving and evasive targets, and usually not worth expending torpedoes on. Even worse, attempting an attack on an escort, even if successful, often brought a counter-attack in its wake. BdU policy in the early war years was to avoid wasting torpedoes on escorts unless a favourable attack situation was encountered. This policy changed in September 1943, when escorts became priority targets, the concept being that serious escort losses would leave the merchant ships vulnerable. Although the first convoy attacked using this new doctrine (a merged one, as it transpired) suffered serious escort losses (three escorts sunk and one constructively destroyed), the escorts quickly adapted and rapidly regained the upper hand in the next convoys.

Overall destroyers should not suffer that much damage when they encounter submarines – that was in fact one of their key roles, to find and kill them, and running into submarines is one of the few effective ways that they can be located. GmBh’s suggestion that destroyer damage be linked submarine mode might be helpful. Another possibility might be to provide modes for surface ships. Transiting surface ships would travel at twice the (woefully slow) speeds they have now, but would suffer full ambush results. Hunting warships would not suffer from an ambush result if they encountered submarines, and destroyers encountering submarines while in hunt mode would conduct an immediate full attack on the submarine, rather than being subject to an ‘ambush’.

[SeaMonkey]

In a short brief, the corral technique is focussed on making the subs run into your naval vessels which means you have to have a lot of assets available, in other words, you can surround them and they cannot get away. If the subs are in proximity of land, the land tiles are part of the "fence", now go round'em up or at least herd them into your spotting assets.

Remember assets include transports and the cheapest transports are corps, or if a mod, garrisons, anti-tank, etc. Imagine these as decoys on your convoy routes and of course mixing in some of the points Ludi makes the sub war a lot less painful.

[Hubert Cater]

Bluestew,

I think your point that you have to ram into the Axis subs in order to prevent convoy losses is valid and an adjustment to this might make the most difference in terms of realism without having to create a whole new convoy/raider system.

It is a tricky one for sure and perhaps something as simple as what PowerGmbH suggests might do the trick or even have a special rule that Destroyers cannot be surprised by subs might even do it.

The trick is in maintaining the balance and the overall idea that ASW research, long range etc., are still important to produce an effective anti-submarine campaign and that capital ships would still be very vulnerable to subs and ideally should not be used as sub hunters the same way that Destroyers are.

Hubert