Spare Research Slot

[mcaryf1]

I do not know if Hubert and his team are thinking about how to use the spare research slots but here is a suggestion that would be a relevant upgrade to a number of units but in some aspects addresses an unusual unit characteristic.

My suggestion is for the research to be into "Night Capability". The unusual characteristic to be modified would be offensive and defensive evasion.

The British strategic bombing offensive relied on night time raids and gradually became more effective as research produced better aids such as GEE and OBOE. The Germans also had this night time guidance technology with the beams they used to direct bombers to Coventry.

The counter weapons to night time bombing were radar equipped night fighters, searchlights and AA guns. Thus the reduction in losses caused by a night ops capability would be negated if the defending force had reached and implemented the same technical level. I note that both Bombers and Fighters only have two researchable characteristics so could utilise an extra one and resource targets only have a single anti-aircraft characteristic. Bombers could be set to have a mode of Night Ops similar to Subs having silent or hunting. Night Ops mode might halve their bombing effectiveness but increase their evasion. Increasing levels of research would build back their bombing effectiveness whilst any night ops capability for the opponents reduces the evasion rather than the bombing effectiveness except in so far as the bombers might suffer more losses before bombing (if it is calculated like that).

Night Ops could also be a characteristic for Special Forces and I would suggest that it would be applied instead of motorisation which was not really relevant on many special operations apart from the Long Range Desert Group. Perhaps Special Forces could be given a reasonable number of Action Points without needing motorisation. Where the Special Forces were in Night Ops mode their AP would be reduced but their evasion increased. A defending Special Force with similar night ops capability might negate the evasion factor. In the case of Special Forces the night ops capability is effectively developed by training rather than research but it is the same principle.

Night Capability was extremely important for ships as exploited by the Royal Navy at the Battle of Cape Matapan - this of course was supplied by RADAR. The IJN did not initially have RADAR but had mounted extensive training programmes and this lead to their great victory at Savo Island. It could be that Night Ops has 3 levels of ships with the Italians starting at 0, the Germans, British and US starting at 1 and the IJN at 2. The IJN, Germans and Italians would be limited to 2 but with suitable research the RN and USN might get to 3. As for bombers night ops would increase evasion levels.

In order to get a free slot for ships I would build anti-aircraft capabililty into Naval Warfare. Interestingly the reason why Night Ops became more important in WW2 was to avoid the threat of aircraft.

Unfortunately carriers do not use an anti-aircraft slot and there was one very famous raid (Taranto) where night capability was critical. It was also a factor in the attempt by Admiral Somerville to counter the IJN Indian Ocean raid. He attempted to manoevre his carriers, which were much weaker than those of the IJN, so they could strike at night as he knew the IJN did not have night capability. In fact he did not succeed and the two fleets missed each other. Clearly it would have been a very difficult manoevre to pull off so perhaps we do not need to allow for it in SC.

My suggestion for ships v carriers with respect to night ops is that ships set to night ops mode would only have half their normal action points and carriers could only attack them at half strength and would suffer double their normal aircraft losses to take account of those planes that did not find their way back to their carriers. Players should be able to see that ships are in night ops mode and they would have to decide (as did several CV TF commanders) whether to launch a strike and risk heavy losses. Land based air without night ops capability would not be able to attack ships in night mode. However a mechanism would be needed to prevent ships operating in night mode for two successive turns and just sitting off shore bombarding land targets. Ships remaining for a whole turn in port should also not be allowed to remain in night mode.

I hope that this suggestion would not be too onerous to implement and might allow players to add a degree of subtlety to some of their operations.

I have already experimented with allocating different evasion factors to various navies to represent capabilities such as night operations and I have been pleased with the results.

Regards

Mike

[Strategiclayabout]

Interesting thing mcaryf1 ,

Another possibility would be a research field allowing HQs to attach one more unit by level and/or attaching foreign units that wouldn't be attached otherwise.

Not sure about the name, maybe "combined command", "military doctrine", or "allied cooperation".

[Strategiclayabout]

Maybe something increasing naval movement too, +1 tile by level.

Would be very interesting for subs and carriers ^^ .

[mcaryf1]

Hi Strategiclaybout

I think both your suggestions have merit particularly in the context of the standard game.

My own view about HQ's is that their number should be very restricted and their price very high. This is in their context of providing supply rather than acting as a manager of battles. I think that supply is a little too painless in the standard scenarios and players do not generally have to think too hard about where to conduct offensives. In a test scenario I have created I only allow the Axis to have more HQ's if they capture additional sources of oil. The Allies were less burdened by oil limitations. Because HQ's have a dual function in SC I have to give the Axis ones a longer command radius and the ability to control a few more units. I have been quite pleased with the result as it does give the Axis the dilemna of whether to attack in the South or in the North of Russia in 1942 which was one they really faced. One side effect is that HQ's do build up experience very rapidly as they are controlling more units. I am not entirely sure if HQ's actually lose experience if their units are defeated but I suspect not. Anyway this was a long way of saying that HQ's controlling more units over a longer range is a good proposal from my perspective.

With respect to naval ranges the standard games really are rather a nonsense. Given that the time period covered is effectively 28 days most naval vessels of the era could probably have travelled half way round the world. For example cruising speed 15knts, 24 hours per day times 28 days = more than 6,000 nautical miles which is 100 odd SC squares.

In my test bed scenario using the standard map I use simultaneous time (i.e. 14 days elapsed between players' turns rather than 28) and I use a range of 20 squares for BBs (cf standard 9) but rather less for DD's which were of course fast but with shorter endurance. I have found this works extremely well. I do other things to make naval conflict less catastrophic such as allowing evasion factors and quite a lot of rebuild potential (always instantaneous at 1/3 cost for DDs and subs on the basis that only part of the flotilla was at sea which was certainly the case for U Boats). Thus again a long answer but I do support the idea of longer ranges for warships but more as a general availability rather than a rearched item - I am not sure that individual ships ranges were greatly increased in WW2 but refuelling at sea which was developed in WW2 certainly gave DD's a much wider radius and the US fleet train was a spectacular success.

Regards

Mike

[Strategiclayabout]

Hello Mike ^^ ,

- You're right about me thinking "standard game". I also agree with you about lack of supply penalties. I saw jap units in India better supplied than UK ones or ones with low morale, readiness, supply, strength continue to roll over entrenched commonwealth units protected by river and rain with high supply and HQ level 9 support (well that was how it was in early 42 ). The only jap advantage was experience stars (but without elite steps due to low strength).

*

- HQs lose experience but usually they do when they're at 0 experience so you don't see it. Once high level HQs begin to gain experience as well as their attached units, they will keep getting more stars together. The main way for an HQ to lose experience is to be attacked and lose steps. Replenishing an HQ can quickly kill its experience stars (loss of veteran officers killed or sacked after the disaster, your pick ).

*

- For naval movement, as you notice it, it's not that much speed improvement for ships but more doctrine changes. You say tanker use with DDs, there were also subs replenishing other subs or Tokyo express with a group of fast units.

- Have you think about giving a "forced march" ability to your naval units ? Double movement allowed but with a hit in readiness and morale (not combat ready, strain on crew and engines, higher vulnerability to mines and surprises/ambushes).

- It would match your speed change for BBs 10-20 but with a cost so you would use that ability to transfer ships from one front to another or for blockade runners but not for actual combat (more cautious moves).

Thanks for reading .

[SeaMonkey]

Hey Mike, any thoughts about incorporating auxillary cruisers into your naval game? Germans were particularly good in the early years of getting them out into the shipping lanes. Perhaps they would need a high evasion percentage to be effective and may add a bit more cat vs mouse into the naval scenario, especially inconjunction with uboats.

[mcaryf1]

Hi Strategiclayabout

I guess I am usually quite careful with HQ's so I do not have much experience of their suffering combat losses. Also with my longer radius of control they do not need to be too near the front line.

WRT forced marches for ships I can only make my scenarios within the standard rules of the game thus forced marches for ships would be a question for Hubert. I am not really sure what it would simulate in the real world. Over time all WW2 ships needed refits to deal with general wear and tear but those were not usually related to one specific trip at "high" speed although I suppose that would not have helped an already tired ship. I suppose it might be possible to crank up the storm damage risk to penalise ships which spend all their time at sea.

Regards

Mike