dicedtomato
-
Posts
162 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by dicedtomato
-
-
Lars, you're underestimating the difficulty of attacking fast warships that zig-zagged frequently, that had sonar and radar, that had lookout atop high masts, etc. 1940s subs were not nuke boats. They moved very slowly when submerged, and I don't think surface attack would have worked real well against a carrier task force. The British would have been more than happy to pit their destroyers against U-boats.
But your point about sea denial is a good one. Capital ships were wary of operating in sub-infested waters. That's hard to simulate in a game like SC2. Perhaps the solution is to give subs a limited ability to damage warships, but also give warships a limited abiilty to damage subs. Wiping out whole U-boat flotillas in a single weekly turn doesn't make sense.
DT
-
Let's look at the numbers, Lars. The U.S. sank one carrier (one CV counter in SC2), four escort carrier (not represented in the game), four heavy cruisers and nine destroyers (probably two CA counters in SC2). And that was against a stupid foe who stubbornly refused to devote any resources to ASW.
SC2 U-boats can do a lot more damage against an RN that paid LOTS of attention to fighting subs.
DT
276 to 52 losses. I'll take that all day long. </font>Originally posted by Lars:I'd say they did pretty damn well. This is from Admiral King's final report.
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> ATTACKS ON NAVAL VESSELS
While United States submarines were effectively eliminating the Japanese merchant fleet, they were also carrying out damaging attacks on Japanese naval units. During the course of the war, the following principal Japanese combatant types were sent to the bottom as a result of these attacks: Battleship 1 Carriers 4 Escort Carriers 4 Heavy Cruisers 3 Light Cruisers 9 Destroyers 43 Submarines 23 Minor combatant vessels and naval auxiliaries (including 60 escort vessels) 189 Details of these sinkings will be found in Appendix A. While the loss of the heavier naval units was critical to the Japanese, especially as the strength of our surface fleet increased, the surprisingly high losses of enemy destroyers and escort vessels to submarine attack are particularly noteworthy. Our submarines, refusing to accept the role of the hunted, even after their presence was known, frequently attacked their archenemies under circumstances of such great risk that the failure of their attack on the enemy antisubmarine vessel placed the submarine in extreme danger of loss. So successful, however, were these attacks that the Japanese developed a dangerous deficiency of destroyer screening units in their naval task forces, and their merchant shipping was often inadequately escorted.
-
Those who think of subs as warship killers should look at Japanese example. Their subs ignored mechantmen. Only capital ships were worth the attention of a samurai. For all the time and effort expended, they bagged a carrier, a cruiser and damaged a battleship. Roughly the equivalent of a single counter in SC2.
The U.S. had more success (once they fixed their torpedoes) against Japanese warships, but not that much more. Try reading about the sub war, and how difficult it was for subs to stalk fast, zig-zagging warships. And unlike the Japanese and their primitive ASW, the British had a lot of experience fighting subs. Their capital ships were well-screened. The RN lost a few ships to U-boats, but nothing like the carnage they suffer in SC2.
DT
-
Authors such as Clay Blair have shown that Churchill exaggerated the impact of the U-boat campaign. Only a relatively small percentage of Allied ships were sunk, and British imports were not seriously threatened. So an abstract system would work best. The present chase-the-sub system feels totally gamey.
What needs to be fixed is subs vs. warships.
DT
-
SeaMonkey, randomizers don't explain why the Germans can take over Europe and Africa with an ease that Hitler could only have dreamed of. As I recall, the Allies in SC1 had to receive a handicap, and I suspect that SC2 will be the same way. Having to give one side a handicap so they'll have a chance at victory isn't a sign of a well-designed game.
Blashy, ask yourself whether Hitler would even have reached Stalingrad if Stalin had positioned his forces with an ounce of sense. Ask yourself whether Hitler would have had a chance to invade Russia if the French generals hadn't practically invited the Germans to invade through the Ardennes.
There seems to be this persistent belief that the Axis totally controlled the tempo of the war, with the Allies reduced to the role of passive dummies. If the Axis won, it's because the Germans were smart. If the Axis lost, it's because the Germans were dumb. Makes you wonder why the Allies bothered to show up at all.
DT
-
Correction, Blashy. Rommel was a dumbass strategist whose grandiose plans for the Middle East would have required more trucks than the Germans had in all of Russia. A good tactician, a good corps commander in the estimation of his superiors, but definitely out of his league at the strategic level.
And why did you get the idea that the Axis only lost because of Hitler's mistakes? What do you call the French Dyle Plan in 1940, or Stalin arranging his armies in nice bite-sized pieces along the Polish border? I'd say that German success depended more on Allies mistakes than the other way around.
That's why I don't mind the Axis being a little stronger for play balance. But it's a strange definition of "balance" when Germany routinely wipes up the map. They must be using flying machines like the Martians in "War of the Worlds".
DT
Rommel had a dumbass leader who did not grasp the need to take all of the MED, we have hindsight and rectify this by sending the proper troops.Originally posted by Blashy:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by dicedtomato:
From what I'm seeing, SC2 has the same balance problems as SC1. Either the Axis are unreasonably powerful or the Allies are ahistorically weak. U.S. production seems underrated, while some aspects of the game system (subs wiping out surface ships) seem pro-Axis.
I enjoy strategic WWII games. But many of them - including SC1, SC2 and Hearts of Iron - give Germany divine powers. It's routine - even expected - for the Axis to take Sweden, North Africa, Iraq, the Levant, etc. Rommel could only have dreamed of having the logistics the Afrika Korps enjoys in these games, not to mention the high tech and awesome production.
DT
The Axis had the means to wipe out the allies out of Africa and Middle East, but Hitler did not listen.
As for the game being 50/50. I somewhat disagree.
If two players of the same skill played the game flawless on both sides, IMHO, Axis should almost win. Simply because all of the goofball decisions Hitler made will not have occured.
Although I see the Victory more of a stalemate, with USSR not fully conquered. Basically a peace treaty (or a tie in game sense) by 1947. </font>
-
No, Jon. If the game is historical AND competitive, than Germany has a 50-50 chance of surviving past May 1945. But it's the Allies that seem to be struggling to have a 50-50 chance of surviving. If the only way to make Germany competitive is to conquer almost every spot on the map, then that's a flaw in the game.
DT
Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:True, but if the game is historical, Germany goes down in May 1945...and there isn't a game. I'd prefer the game to be 50/50 chance of winning, within the best historical boundaries, with limited luck. No surprise, I'm sure others feel the same way.
-
From what I'm seeing, SC2 has the same balance problems as SC1. Either the Axis are unreasonably powerful or the Allies are ahistorically weak. U.S. production seems underrated, while some aspects of the game system (subs wiping out surface ships) seem pro-Axis.
I enjoy strategic WWII games. But many of them - including SC1, SC2 and Hearts of Iron - give Germany divine powers. It's routine - even expected - for the Axis to take Sweden, North Africa, Iraq, the Levant, etc. Rommel could only have dreamed of having the logistics the Afrika Korps enjoys in these games, not to mention the high tech and awesome production.
DT
-
Yes, Chris. The Zionist Conspiracy made the U.S. fight in Iraq. We're also responsible for global warming and volcanoes in Indonesia. Don't let anyone mislead you. Controlling the world is hard work!
By the way, Chris, my knowledge of geography is only average. But I'd say the only "****ty little country" is the one located between your ears.
DT
Originally posted by Chris G:jjr
"And if you don't know the answer to your own signature question... "
I do, the answer is: We shouldn't!
-
My ICQ is 222-312-125, or dicedtomato1@gmail.com
-
If anyone has the game and wants a PBEM, let me know.
DT
A better model for the submarine war?
in Strategic Command 2 Blitzkrieg and Weapons and Warfare
Posted
And there's a reason why the U-boat arm had the highest death rate in the German armed forces. A sub going full speed while submerged is making so much noise that it might as well hang out a sign that says DEPTH CHARGE ME. The RN would be more than happy to oblige.
SC2 isn't designed to simulate WWII sub warfare (or much else that's historical). To properly simulate a sub vs. warship campaign is beyond the scope of the system. If Lars has visions of submarines sweeping the seas of surface ships, he needs to play Harpoon 3.
John DiFool's idea is a good one. Give subs a chance to achieve a critical hit, but otherwise limit their ability to damage warships.
DT
DT [/qb]