[Y no destroyers?]

I had a long post about the naval war in SC2

(it's now a few pages back I'd say) which gave a

role to sub hunter groups (headed by 1-2 CLs and

the rest DDs).

My Battle of the Atlantic [long]

John DiFool

[Air Fleets: comments by the Legend]

As a followup to my post in the other thread, I

have devised a quick and dirty method to help

rein in the tendency to buy air units like crazy.

Oil as a separate resource is the key. Each unit

needs a certain amount of oil per turn when

involved in combat operations:

Non Mech ground unit...2

Sub....................3

Naval Unit.............4

Armor..................5

Air/Bomber.............6

Any unit at rest/port..1/3 of above rounded up

[Argh why does the font change from the edit

window to the post window?]

So say in January 1940 Germany has an Oil income

of 60 [with a reserve of 100]. They currently

consume, if most units are involved in combat,

54 points of Oil per turn.

The German player decides to buy 3 new Air Units

in February, in preparation for the Western War.

Those units now cost a whopping 18 Oil per turn

during combat ops, which is unsustainable during

a prolonged period of combat with France. The

German would find himself running out of oil, and/

or forced to park or disband other units, unless

he can find new sources of income [iIRC the Ploesti

fields were tweaked as the war went on to pump out

increased amounts of Oil, so you could simulate

that somehow].

[Plus I would make it take 5 turns for those air

units to show up, and not instantaneously like now]

No muss, no fuss, possibly with some Unintended

Consequences [which playtesting should reveal],

but is much more satisfying than hard force pool

limits.

John DiFool

[Air Restriction]

I've know I've said this before, but static unit

limits are rather boring. Why couldn't/didn't

the Luftwaffe build a 10000 plane air force by

1942? [Frontline strength at that time was likely

~3000, no more than 4000 certainly] Simulating

these "soft" limits is much more satisfying and

allows for some strategy to overcome them to a

certain extent.

I see several main constraints, which can be

abstracted to various extents:

Resource shortages, with most metals

going into tanks, rifles, guns, etc. Oil is a

big problem too, with everyone wanting their share

of the pie (and an air force requires a lot of the

stuff, proportionately speaking].

Personnel constraints: training someone to fly a

plane, and fly it well, equates to a huge invest-

ment in time and money. You can't replace an

elite force of crack flyers overnight [as Germany

found out the hard way in 1944]. Same is true of

technicians and mechanics.

Logistic problems: keeping an air force going at

peak efficiency, esp. far from home, is an arduous

undertaking. I think Grigsby's War in Russia,

whatever its other faults, handled this pretty

well: once battle was joined again after a lull

efficiency dropped like a rock and tended to stay

down.

All in all an effective air force cannot spring in

being overnight: try what we do in SC1 and a real

world air force would be flying around in Junk on

Wings, with very raw recruits at the controls,

more of a menace to themselves than to the enemy,

and sucking resources at a ferocious rate from

other areas of the armed forces.

As for how to simulate such constraints without

bogging the game down, I'll leave that to the

likes of Edmund, who is so very good at that

stuff.

John DiFool

[My Battle of the Atlantic [long]]

HOW I WOULD RUN SC2'S NAVAL SYSTEM

Basic combat system is similar to SC1's, except where noted. I won't get into too many nitty-gritty details about how the system works: this is more of an overview. The exact numbers to use are subject to playtest [such as the sub formation discussion below].

Units:

Carrier: Consists of 1-2 fleet CVs*, 1 Naval Air Wing [see below], 2-4 CA/CL, and 6-10 DDs. Is highly effective against other surface units, isn't very effective attacking land units or subs, defense vs. air and subs is mediocre [ little worse than Battleships]. Is also FASTER than BB units. Can interdict supply or MPP routes IF Naval Air Wing is present.

Naval Air Wing: Is basically a half-strength (5 hit points) air unit, which can only be based on Carriers [optional: can be based on land]. In other words, the air wing and the Carrier are considered separate entities which can stack, and the Air Wing will sortie to protect the ships when possible.

Battleship: Consists of 1-2 BBs*, 2-4 CA/CL, and 5-9 DDs. Is most effective against other Battleship units, doesn't attack subs very well at all, defends vs. subs decently. Defense against air is decent. Can interdict.

Sub Hunter/Escort Group: Consists of 0-2 CLs and 6-12 DDs, and possibly a CE too when air/ship techs are high enough. Note they would be probably the cheapest naval unit in the game. Is highly effective against subs, defends well against subs, but is vulnerable to other enemy naval units. Fastest naval unit: can fill one of two roles. [Optional: Can interdict shipping]

Subs: Approximately 15 subs, give or take 5. Is most effective against MPP or supply convoys: attacks and defends against surface units a bit less well than it did in SC1, but tends to be harder to find than before [i.e. no more "Sub Dives!" stuff; rather, the sub is never seen in the first place]. Is not effective against other subs. Cheaper than in SC1 by about 50%.

Transports: : Used to transport ground units across the water: can also be used for amphibious operations. Benefits to a limited extent from Shipbuilding and Radar techs. Units on board suffer supply and hit point losses if at sea for too long (more than 3 turns).

Land-Based Air: [mentioned here because it can affect the sea war] Is effective against surface ships [Naval Air is a bit better, being specialized for the role] and other Air Units. Isn't very effective against subs until Radar tech starts taking effect [see below]. Can raid or interdict if a convoy route is within range. [i will leave the Bomber/Fighter/TacAir debate out of this]

Techs affecting naval ops:

Shipbuilding: Represents advances in ship engineering and construction: affects all surface units to one extent or another. However older units [who were built at a lower Shipbuilding tech level] only receive a limited benefit [in that a Nelson class BB can't be made equal to an Iowa class BB, no matter how extensive the overhauls]. "Gun-Laying Radar" is replaced by this tech.

Sub Tech: Affects submarine operations only, making them harder to see and to sink, and increasing attack success against ships and convoys. A high level Sub would basically trump high level Radar, since the periscope/snorkel presents a poor radar signature. [Optional: for balance Shipbuilding tech impinges on Sub tech to a certain extent, thus you basically would need both at high levels to get those Type XXIs working before 1945]

Sonar: Affects ability of surface ships to locate and sink subs.

Radar: Affects ability of both surface ships AND aircraft to locate and sink subs [the latter benefit more]: also aids in ship vs. ship and ship vs. air combat. In part also represents radio-direction-finding equipment.

Jet Tech: Affects effectiveness of all Air Units.

Long-Range Air: With Jet Tech, affects range and effectiveness of Naval Air Units [note: Naval Air has a default +1 edge in range over Land-Based Air]

MPP Convoy System:

MPP Convoys exist to transport MPPs from areas separated from the home country's Capital by water. To create a convoy, go to the Convoy screen, and click on the origin port. Then click on the destination port: a line should appear on the map, skirting intervening land masses [Optional: let players draw their own routes, subject however to lost MPPs over a longer-than-necessary route due to wastage and attrition].

If a Raider is on or within 2 hexes of a convoy line [one hex for a route shorter than 6 hexes], and has been designated as Raiding, MPPs may be subject to loss. This is dependent on the location of the raider [best results if it is on the convoy line-of course it cannot know for sure that it is], the presence of Escorts, the hit points of the raider [lower=fewer MPPs lost], and all relevant techs. All naval units may Raid, except Transports [and optionally H/Es].

Sub Stances: A Sub unit may be designated to be in "Loose" formation: in this attitude the Sub will have more limited success against convoys, and somewhat less success when involved in combat with enemy units on-map. In exchange Subs are harder to find, and suffer less damage if they are involved in combat. This represents a Wolfpack which is spread out [some subs just now leaving port, others returning, etc.], isn't transmitting much, and is not prepared for concentrated operations against convoys. An individual sub however is still a danger, but a Wolfpack's concentrated fire tends to be more efficient...

A Sub unit in Wolfpack mode is a tight closely coordinated group of Subs, being very effective against convoys. However, the success of the enemy researching the Radar tech will greatly cut down on the effectiveness of this Stance, perhaps making Loose the better option [which it may very well be if higher level Subs get made, like the Type XXI, which was designed to work alone]. [basically Radar tech includes RDF tech as well, which was the bane of Wolfpacks from 1943 on]

Aircraft can interdict Convoy routes: simply click on the hex which you want to interdict [in actuality the plane will be considered to be patrolling in a 3 hex diameter around that center point, interdicting the "juiciest" hex in terms of MPPs or supplies-the plane's owner won't know this].

A Hunter/Escort unit may be designated as Escorting a Convoy. To do so, it must be located in the Origin or Destination port. A route has the capacity for 1 or more Escorts: MPPs of the route divided by 10, rounded UP: so a 25 point route may have up to three escorts, and the route doesn't receive optimal protection until that number of Escorts is on duty on that route. Both Escorts and Raiders may take damage: Raiders might take some minor attritional damage on routes with no Escorts. The main purpose of Escorts is to minimize MPP losses on the Convoy route, secondarily to damage the raiders.

[in general, Hunter/Escorts should tend to sink more subs if they are free to Hunt on the convoy routes, but MPP losses will also be higher if H/Es aren't Escorting: quite a strategic dilemma!]

[Optional: A raider has a chance of being spotted if it sinks convoys-or perhaps spotted with a one-hex margin of uncertainty]

[Optional: BB and CV units can also escort, but are only really effective against non-sub raiders: they may be necessary if an enemy surface unit is the one doing the raiding]

Supply Convoys:

Supply Convoys are used to ship supplies to ground/air units operating on a separate land mass from the home country's Capital. They are drawn in the same manner as MPP Convoys: each route requires 10 MPPs per turn (including the first), and will support up to 5 units at a base supply level of 7. To support additional units, the route must be invested with additional MPPs (at a rate of +10), up to a maximum of 30 points. They can be Interdicted and Escorted in exactly the same manner as MPP Convoys, with losses affecting the supply level of the supported troops [either all suffer the same loss, from the HQ on down, or one or more units ends up with 0 supply].

Miscellaneous:

The Atlantic will basically be about double its current size, and also extend more to the North and South.

The US should have a S-N route running from the Carribbean to say New York, simulating the coastal convoys that got ravaged during the 1942 "happy time".

Ships may be stacked in ports.

[Optional: ships may stack at sea in Task Forces: no idea how this might change combat]

Design notes: I want several things to happen here, with the primary emphasis on strategic choice. This system provides a wide range of options for both sides: the Axis can position their subs in a variety of locations depending on the convoys it wants to hit [Murmansk, US coast, Mid-Atlantic or South Atlantic British, etc.], can commit surface raiders if it wishes, can pump up the tech, or just say the heck with it altogether and focus somewhere else. But unlike SC1 the Atlantic should be a viable winning option for the Axis.

For the Allies, it may get even more interesting. They have to decide whether to escort or to hunt, anticipate any German moves [if they assume no commitment by the Germans, and are wrong, it could get VERY costly], and try to close that Mid-Atlantic air gap. It may not be possible to cover all convoy routes, so a triage sort of approach may be needed [at least until the US comes in]-in the real war the British were critically short of escorts in the early going. In the end whoever wins the Tech War should prevail here.

John DiFool

[Hubert -- The North Atlantic]

I'll likely soon post my version of how I'd like the

Battle of the Atlantic to be [hint: it WON'T have

those abominable sea zones, which greatly over-

simplify gameplay IMNSHO]. If it is a matter of

computer resources [map size limits or the like],

then yes I see how a Big Atlantic might be

redundant, but otherwise to truly simulate what

was going on there seazones suck. [And computer

World in Flames will have them-let Hubert try

something else instead!]

I'll say this: if we have seazones in SC2 I'm not

buying it.

John DiFool

[Free setup for German subs?]

I'd like to see some of you MP fiends try this in

a game (and I'm not volunteering! ).

John DiFool

[Sc2 - Alternative History Option]

Just brainstorming here, but...

I recall how Totaler Krieg did things: they had

Event/Variant Cards which the players could play

at certain points. In SC2 this could be done any

of several ways:

Out of (say) 20 Event Cards per side each player

gets 5 (randomly), which he can then play at the

appropriate moment (simple example being a German

The-Japs-Get_Ornery No Siberian Transfer card).

or

Everyone gets all cards, each of which has a

point value, some being worth more than others:

you have 10 points to work with, so spend them

wisely (i.e. the No S.T. might be worth ~3 points).

Some cards would be definite two-edged swords

(Totaler Krieg had a German Total War Footing card

IIRC which, while allowing for increased production,

also had some rather steep negative consequences

too like early US entry or somesuch).

I'll leave it to Edwin to devise specific examples.

John DiFool

["Poor Sportsmanship" to attack USA?]

Keep in mind that there are undoubtedly off-map

ground and air units [like in the Midwest or

California] which would come rapidly to the

rescue if the East Coast was invaded. Plus Hubert

doesn't model either a transport/LC fleet or

supply routes across the ocean [subject to

interdiction, natch]. The US is at a severe

disadvantage because of the tiny chunk of coastline

that represents American soil in the game.

John DiFool

[Free setup for German subs?]

I wonder what would happen if the Germans could

[in MP games, natch] place their subs anywhere

they wanted? I guess I'm getting tired of seeing

AARs which always contain the same message around

turn 3 or 4 of "Both German subs sunk." Allow

them to be put anywhere, and things get a lot more

interesting-can the Allied player afford to send

his naval assets off into the South Atlantic for

a multi-turn sub hunt [which may not ever pan out

when it turns out they are lurking in the Baltic

or Med] when his ships may be needed elsewhere?

[Like to thwart an early Sea Lion]

Yes you probably need to balance things a bit-

extra MPPs for Britian are a start, or maybe an

HQ. But it certainly would spice the early game

up a bit and would be an improvement over the

obligatory death of the 2 start-at-sea U boats.

John DiFool

[SC 2 - a 3 player game?]

Well in a "normal" (historical) game, that

wouldn't make for a good game, but an option in

the editor to allow countries to defect to the

other side would be fine (and Hubert has hinted

that the editor will have gobs more functionality

than before).

JD

[Faster long distance shipping of ground units in SC2.]

And probably should cost more too (maybe base 10

and + 0.25 MPPs per hex moved, rounded up).

John DiFool

[SC2 - Should the AI be able to play against itself?]

It would be even more interesting to be able to

make AIs and set them to battling each other-I

think any such tournaments would be intense ("No

you idiot! Don't send half the British Army to

Egypt in late 1940!").

John DiFool

[War in the Atlantic and Battle hex ideas]

The record of subs vs. CVs is much more impressive.

This is just from the top of my head, but I think

Britain lost about 4 CVs to subs, US about 2-3,

and Japan almost a half dozen IIRC (Shinano,

Taiho, and Shokaku for starters).

Sorry JJ but letting subs have an anti-warship

stance should be an option (even if it would

ultimately be a poor decision to do so).

John D

[War in the Atlantic and Battle hex ideas]

Myself, I am drooling at the prospect of an

authentic Battle of the Atlantic, since (for one

reason) it has never really been treated properly

in any previous game (if at all). You landlubbers

have had operational and strategic ground games

out the yin-yang during this era of computer

wargames, but us swabbies usually get some

tactical thing where CVs are an afterthought (or

a very occasional War in the Pacific).

I have no doubt that Hubert could create such if

he put enough thought and effort into it, using

some of the ideas we all have posted here (Edwin's

idea of passive/aggressive settings is an elegant

and effective case in point). [and NO seazones!

I dislike needless abstractions. ]

And all the nonsense posted about subs not being

good vs. warships is silly, as any cursory look

at the war record would reveal tons of warships

sunk by subs. True, it is usually a target of

opportunity, as opposed to a strategic initiative

brought forth from the brass, but if a sub

commander saw a juicy BB or CV in his scope and

heading right towards him he would salivate at the

prospect (and rightly so).

One thing SC1 doesn't have is the ability to give

units stances (passive/aggr., intercept/no inter.,

etc.). I'm hoping SC2 will have that, since it

would give us immense flexibility.

John DiFool

[SC2, The things that MUST change. Why not start a forum for SC2, Hubert?]

I think a distinction must be made between making

a technical breakthrough and IMPLEMENTING that

technical breakthrough.

For example, the technology for both improved subs

and jet engines was on the boards for Germany in

1939. Despite that, said tech wasn't implemented

until 1944-45.

Yes the breakthroughs can come very quickly and

unexpectedly, but in most cases you are extrapol-

ating from known methods, which takes a certain

amount of time. And then you have to get the

technology into front-line units, where there will

be further bug hunting until the tech is optimized.

In other words, the "inspiration" can occur at

any time, but that's just 1% of the battle: the

"perspiration" (all the hard work to make the

thing function as desired) is the other 99%, and

is much more predictable.

Hence I think a less random tech system is more

reasonable than what we have now. I doubt for

example that Germany could go from level 2 tanks

to level 5 in less than 2 years (in the real war

it probably took about that time to get Tigers

working well in reasonable numbers, once the need

for heavier tanks was made known), but in SC it

often can happen in a flash.

John DiFool

[SC2 proposals: Pre-game viewing, Online Spectators and recorded games.]

There should also be (strictly as an option for

those so inclined) the ability to preposition

your units (without the enemy's knowledge of

course!) in accordance with your opening strategy.

Now this could be abused: perhaps certain units

can be "locked down" in the editor and unable to

be repositioned. The Battle of the Atlantic

would start out like it does now as advantage:

Allies because they know where all the subs start

out at (even if the Germans get the first move).

John DiFool

[SC vs. 3R, other oldies]

Totaler Krieg-I disliked this one because of its

lack of any substantial Battle of the Atlantic,

but the event cards rule. I'm hoping SC2 has some

sort of analogous event/variant system as an

integral part of the game.

JD

[Italian Surrender]

Apparently the drilling technology of the time

wasn't sufficient to reach the oil reserves

under Libya that were discovered and exploited

after the war. Interesting what-if along those

lines (tho you have the Italian merchant navy

having to run the Malta gauntlet to get it back

to the mainland...).

John DiFool

[SC Community is dying]

I'm still here I guess. >shrug<

Like some other people upthread, I haven't played

a game of SC in months. Yes I suppose I could get

involved in the H vs. H realm, but there are a few

reasons why I don't

1. Most of my MP time is being devoted to Nascar

Racing 2003...

2. Yes, the AI is a pushover, but at maximum

help settings the game becomes hugely annoying

and unbalanced having to overcome the AI's

advantages in units [MPPs] and/or experience.

3. It is my wholly personal belief that the SC

game system, while not exactly broken, has a whole

host of problems, and I find house rules a

necessary evil, at best, and a pain in the patootie

at worst. Plus you can't possibly devise enough

house rules to cover every contingency, and often

they create imbalances of their own, such as "No

transports in winter"-so I can't ship troops over

to England from the US in January?

4. Because of said problems, I am leery of getting

involved in a MP game, only to have some

unexpected ahistorical and/or gamey strategy

sprung on me. I don't mind what-ifs, but I DO

mind what-ifs which are fantasies. [and 10

German air units in 1942 IS a fantasy]

**************

As for the forum, the time to discuss wishes and

any desired improvements is pretty much over. I've

made my feelings on the air problem [no hard limits:

instead a law of diminishing returns for

exponentially-increasing investment] and the

Battle of the Atlantic [bigger ocean: NO sea zones,

and shipping routes visible on map and subject to

interdiction], plus various other issues, quite

clear. Now it is just a game of wait and see

what Hubert finally decides to do.

John DiFool

[SC2(or 1.08) - Submarine War in Atlantic]

[For the newbies mainly]

Sea zones...um...stink. The naval war basically

becomes a battle of the Almighty Random Number

Generators. You have simple binary choice: in or

out [with perhaps another choice if you are a sub,

Attack Warships or Sink Merchants].

Contrast that with sticking with the basic hex

movement we now have, expanding the Atlantic, and

visualizing on the map the various convoy routes,

and having the Allied player making some tough

choices as to where to send his {automated}

merchants. Then the German player has some

crucial choices of his own to make, air and tech

and other naval assets have to be considered, and

you have a >real< Battle of the Atlantic, and not

a Battle of the RNGs.

John DiFool

[Why can't subs attack subs?]

Well, before sophisticated sonar suites, and

homing torps, subs were pretty worthless as anti-

sub platforms. I remember facing off against

Jap subs in Silent Hunter I: we would both

submerge, then take pot shots at each other

underwater: I think I actually got lucky once and

got a hit...

John DiFool

[Gibraltar useless?]

In the real world, it WAS primarily to keep

enemy fleets from going out of (or into) the

Med, and secondarily to maintain the shipping

routes thru the Med (which were rerouted around

Africa when Italy entered and losses on the Med

route were too great).

I'm not sure if I like the "bombard port to zero

and bypass it" feature tho. In Third Reich it

was worth victory points IIRC (loss of prestige

and all that a la the loss of Singapore to the

Japanese).

JD

[ July 21, 2003, 12:39 PM: Message edited by: John DiFool ]

[Idiotic combat rolls]

Originally posted by Iron Ranger:

It's all Luck in the tech department. I've played several games where there was a HR against inversting in any tech, makes for a very good game as battle tactics rule the game and not who can get luckest with the jet and LR tech advances.

Should luck be such a great factor in

getting tech?

Think about it: when a country in WWII invested

in a tech it usually got what it is trying to

get, in a quasi-reasonable time frame. Think

about it:

1. The Germans lost the Battle of the Atlantic

because Doenitz and Hitler pooh-poohed innovative

sub designs [until after the battle had already

been lost] and also fell behind the curve in the

electronics dept.

2. The Germans also lagged in the jet arena too

until it was too late [tho part of that was the

fragility of the alloys used for the turbines].

3. On the other hand, the Germans quickly caught

up to the Russians in heavy tanks once they

realized that their existing tanks were outclassed.

4. The Americans put a lot of effort into long-

range drop tanks [despite the bleatings of some

brass who thought that the bombers could make it

all on their own-proved wrong of course in the

fall of '43], and it paid off in 1944. The

Germans didn't in 1940, and paid the price...

My point was: I seriously doubt that there

were huge lags in investment as compared to

outcome: it seems to me when a country put the

resources into something, they got something

solid and useful out of it fairly quickly; likewise

half-hearted efforts tended to pay off way down

the line [if they paid off at all]. But usually,

heavy efforts rarely were completely futile, nor

did weak investments pay off quickly and

spectacularly [with rare exceptions].

I would, then, put in the game (SC2) reasonable

time frames for success:

Chits........Time to payoff (1 advance)

----------------------------------------

1............18-36 months

2............15-30 months

3............12-24 months

4............10-20 months

5.............8-16 months

Thus, if you have 3 chits in Jets, you aren't

going to get an advance at all until a year later,

but will be guaranteed something 2 years later at

the latest. This will avoid (to a certain extent)

seeing your opponent get lucky with one chit 3

times in a year, while your 3 chits languish for

30 months with not one advance. Luck is still a

factor of course: this just cuts out the outliers.

John DiFool

[SC2 - Chrome]

Hubert could make it so that kind of stuff could

easily be added by the mod community (thus freeing

up His Highness to spend more time on the actual

guts of the game). My 2 cents... :cool:

JD

[Ranking Technologies]

Has anyone successfully won the Battle of the

Atlantic in human vs. human game as the Germans,

building only subs out of France?

Once I got lucky with a chit I put into subs

early in the game (vs. AI, albeit). A couple

more subsequent tech advances, and my 5 or so

subs had completely swept the Atlantic clean of

allied shipping by 1943.

John DiFool