War in the Atlantic and Battle hex ideas

[Panzer39]

I think most would agree that the war in the Atlantic needs a lot of work. I'm not sure if anyone has thought of this before so I'll go ahead and put forth a few ideas here.

1. A sub flotilla in an Axis port could be "sent on patrol" for a small cost of MPPS. This sub would disappear from the board and be placed somewhere randomly in the Atlantic one or two turns later. There the sub would operate until it ran out of supply or was sunk. If a sub is still in supply and not adjacent to any Allied warships the Axis player would have the option of "operating" the sub back to an Axis port for a small cost in mpps. The same could be used for German warships and they could also disrupt Allied mpps. There could also be a random chance of interception where in the Axis ship either shows up in the Atlantic damaged or returns to the Axis port. Any ideas?

[ November 16, 2003, 06:31 PM: Message edited by: Panzer39 ]

[Les the Sarge 9-1]

I use the subs in the first couple of turns in the 39 campaign and then accept they are toast and get over it.

Bad design nothing more than that.

They should be handled like they are in Advanced Third Reich, just an abstracted form of warfare that the opponent either deals with through countering with ASW, or suffers the penalty.

It would generate the same historical effect, without the player being stuck getting his subs trashed all at once by brutish naval attacks that would never have been allowed in the real war.

Lets face it, if you used flotillas of expensive battleships to run down wolf packs in the real war, you would be relieved of command rather suddenly.

[Panzer39]

I disagree. I like having control of sup fleets and ships in general. I think abstracting it is just giving up on a part of SC that could be a lot fun if done properly. I do agree that Capital ships should not be used in the role of hunting down subs, in real life that would have only resulted in several hundred thousand tons of steel at the bottom of the Atlantic. Cruiser fleets should have bonus at spotting and sinking subs and BB's should have very limited anti sub capability.

I was really hoping for some comments about my idea of operating naval units.

[Bill101]

I think the operating idea is quite interesting. It isn't in the normal SC gaming style, but I'm sure that a bit of playtesting will show whether or not it is better.

[Shaka of Carthage]

Panzer39

The problem that Les is trying to point out, is that strategic naval combat and submarine warfare against merchant shipping were two different things. While having ocean hexes allows us to have naval combat, that same combat system is a very poor way of representing the submarine war.

While your idea is an interesting one, as a means of a short term fix of the existing system, you in effect are trying to represent the fact that submarines were not easily detected by surface ships.

Suggestions were made in the past on how to "fix" the sub problem, the main one being either by changing the current percentages, or by giving a higher tech level, increase the probablity of submarines diving to avoid surface ship attacks. The problem though, is if that becomes the case, the other side will simply surround all hexes with ships until its eventually able to sink the sub.

Another common suggestion was to lower the prices of the subs. So even though the Allies find and sink them, unless it commits enough resources to the job, the subs can win thru quantity, since you have enough to layer an area (kinda like a ocean minefield).

That gets back to the problem of how to represent the sub war easily. Why go thru the effort of moving your subs into the enemy merchant lanes, when as soon as they strike, chances are that you'll be quickly hunted down? You can solve that problem if the Atlantic was expanded. But thats not possible in SC.

By now, everyone is frustrated and says forget it, we'll have to live with what we have. There have been so many long topics about these items, that currently, most of the regulars are burnt out talking about it. Hence, you'll get very little response to your idea.

But back to your idea, since thats what you wanted comments on. Take away the restriction on having to be in supply and not next to enemy ships. If you do that, you now have a better abstract method of trying to represent the sub war using the existing combat system. If the Allies can't sink the sub when its found (either thru too few ships or a high submarine tech), then it runs a very good risk that the Axis will operate it back to port. Now, the Allied ships have a naval mission that will occupy them for the whole game, not just the first few turns.

[Panzer39]

Thanks for the input Shaka, I can see where you are coming from. While I don't post a lot here I have been around long enough (some time in 2002) to have heard all the arguments a number of times as well. I try to post ideas that I don't think have been brought up before and most of the time they are in reference to SC2.

Back to the Atlantic. Another idea that crossed my mind was sub detection. A possible way of fixing the war in the Atlantic would be to all naval units from opposing sides to occupy the same hex. For non-carrier units this could be the only way combat occurs. There could be the possibility that subs could remain undetected even with an allied ship occupying the same hex. When enemy ships occupy the same hex, the hex is spilt in half with the attackers unit on one side and the defenders on the other.

We could take this hex idea one step further to include land units as well. Land units could still attack from all six surrounding hexes, however if the attacker wished, he could move a unit into the enemy's hex for an over run or blitz attack. This attack could result in higher casualties percentages for the attacker if it fails. If the attacker destroyed the defending unit, the attacking unit would now occupy the space. If the defending unit was reduced below 3 strength it would retreat into friendly territory leaving the attacker control of the hex. If the defender is not destroyed or severely damaged the attacking unit would move back to its original hex heavily damaged and low on supply.

[Liam]

Subs weren't used in WW2 to attack big Ships unless it was part of a ambush. They're not built for it. I agree totally with this thread, subs should have the ability along with most German ships to be used for what they were meant for, as raiders... Overall the Kriegsmarine lacked the #s to do anything else with their surface fleet and their big battleships were all trapped in port or sunk in WW2 because they were so grossly outnumbered. All of them were used as Raiders and all of them were only effective as such.

The Atlantic is too small right now to effectively use and hide subs and other surface ships. You have to imagine how 'vast' the real Atlantic was, there were definitely the same old trading routes that the Germans targeted and if anyone has question ciggerates, milk, etc... were rationed in WW2 in England the subs hit home sooooo hard. Even after my Dad was a young man in the 50s they were still on War Rations that's how bad those U-boats were.

Later on in the war we know that the Allies had more ships to escort Convoys, used their aircraft better... Had better technology to detect and the Germans never expanded their Sub Technology to make them less detectable out of Cost... as well as expanding the Sub Fleet...

Raiders were used all over the World too.. Not just the Atlantic. At least the Artic and South Atlantic should be included in some capacity and a random factor should be included. Axis Subs shouldn't be destroyed in these so-called Areas of Operation but strength reduced<increase the cost of reinforcing subs specially too, it's rare for an entire wolf pack to be wiped out as they didn't operate 'closely' together as 1 entity they patroled quite an area and something until later in the war always came home. similarly all ships should be more difficult to destroy...Subs should have very very low combat abilities towards any surface Monsters...how many U-boats sank real UK ships? aside from convoys> and forced to Return to base as well as giving Experience to those anti-raiders in the region.. If they're successful vis versa

[ November 16, 2003, 07:03 PM: Message edited by: Liam ]

[Shaka of Carthage]

Panzer39

Lets say we go ahead with the stacking idea (for naval), especially since you want combat to occur if units are in the same hex, not adjacent hexes.

What would the stacking limit be?

And how does the stacking give me a better way of detection than the existing ability to dive?

I think the stacking idea for naval is doing nothing more than trying to increase the number of hexes. What we need in a proper representation of the North Atlantic.

I did some calcs in the past, and if you want to represent the North Atlantic using 50 mile hexes, just in the area we currently see on our map, the North Atlantic would be as large as the current map. And if you assume that we are going extend the current map by a few hexes south in North Africa, and a few hexes or more in the North, now that map of the North Atlantic is closer to 1.25 or 1.5 times the current map.

Bearing in mind, that the naval war is really a sideshow to the land war, do you think the majority of us want to move naval ships around in an area that large? Wouldn't it be simpler to just abstract it out by using arrow hexes to represent "sea zones" that you move ships into and then thru the reports, get the results of the naval action in those "sea zones"?

[ November 16, 2003, 07:46 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

[Panzer39]

Shaka,

Once again good points all around. I wanted to allow stacking for naval units because I feel that it better represents Naval combat. I do not really consider it "stacking" because the units are from opposing sides. Warships would not be detected by other warships unless they landed on a hex occupied by and enemy warship or were passing "through" it. Gunnery radar could increase the chance of detection or avoidance. Aircraft carriers and land based aircraft would be able to spot war ships from a distance.

How does this effect naval warfare in ways expanding the map cannot.

1. Allied warships could pass over or even land on German subs without detecting them. The higher the anti-sub level the better chance of detection. If a sub is in a "raiding" zone that reduces UK mpps, than it would have a better chance of being detected.

2. Ships outside of Air spotting range would have a chance of bypassing each other. This would all for break outs etc.

3. Naval combat in the Atlantic was an up-close and personal affair. Only allowing fleets in the same hex to engage portrays this. Carrier strikes of course could be launched by planes in range.

[Shaka of Carthage]

Panzer39

The land combat in the same hex...

What is the difference in attacking an enemy from an adjacent hex versus being in the same hex? I ask this, because you mentioned that if you were in the same hex, the attacker would suffer more casualties.

What it sounds like you are asking for, is really the ability to advance after combat, into the hex that you just won. You are also asking for a defender retreat option as well.

Defender retreat option ...

This always leads to someone bringing up how COS does it. While the actual target goes away, if it was in supply it could be rebuilt for roughly 50% cost, versus an out of supply unit which has to be reformed for 100% cost.

SC does the exact same thing, just that it doesn't call it that. A totally destroyed unit in SC costs you 100% to reform. A unit that is down to one (1) str point, cost roughly 48% to rebuild. Because its a turn based system, the retreat option is upto the player when its his turn. The problem is, in SC, no one retreats, they simply pour MPPs into the damaged unit. Thats what defeats the "retreat" option in SC. If SC simply didn't allow a unit to be reinforced if it was adjacent to an enemy unit, you would know have to retreat that unit to give it a chance to get MPPs to build it back up. Thats alot better than forcing a retreat option as a result of the combat.

Advance after combat

Here I agree with you. If a unit still has action points after it attacks, it should be able to move. Wheter it moves into the hex it just won or another hex is upto the player. Now motorized units have the ability to blitz. I don't like the concept of a overrun option, because that is more of a tactical or operational type attack. At a strategic level, it would be foolish to "run over" a enemy unit and leave it in place in your rear, since you have just cut yourself off from supply.

But for a unit to have the ability to attack then move, one other thing has to change. The current Corps and Armies have to have a reduction in action points by one (1) and we need a new unit type for motorized Corps and Armies (which have the current action points). That would allow me to represent the horse-drawn transports that almost everyone had and the highly motorized US, UK and later year Russians.

[ November 16, 2003, 08:11 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

[Shaka of Carthage]

Panzer39

How does this effect naval warfare in ways expanding the map cannot.

Now here I'm going to have to disagree with you.

1. Allied warships could pass over or even land on German subs without detecting them. The higher the anti-sub level the better chance of detection. If a sub is in a "raiding" zone that reduces UK mpps, than it would have a better chance of being detected.

My point here was that if the North Atlantic was the size of the current map now, I'd get exactly the same result using the current "adjacent" concept because there are so many more hexes. And with a Canada/UK "merchant zone" that is equivalent in range from Gibralter to Finland, the Allies would not have enough ships to tell where in that zone the subs are.

2. Ships outside of Air spotting range would have a chance of bypassing each other. This would all for break outs etc.

This statement confuses me, since its exactly what would happen with a larger map. There historically was a "black zone" (?) that merchant ships had to travel thru that put them outside of coverage by Allied air units. One of the ways that the US helped win the Battle of the Atlantic, was because it had long range aircraft that eventually reduced that "black zone" to nothing. It also forces the Allies to invest in LONG RANGE tech to gain the ability to cover a wider and wider area of the North Atlantic. Not to mention placing strategic importance on certain areas that provided the airbases for that air coverage.

3. Naval combat in the Atlantic was an up-close and personal affair. Only allowing fleets in the same hex to engage portrays this. Carrier strikes of course could be launched by planes in range.

This is relative to the scale of the game you are playing. While each hex is 50 miles across, we just have to use our imagination to assume that the ships in that battle group are engaging each other within a 5 to 20 mile range, centered along that hex edge.

Please don't let me get started about the SC carrier strikes.

[ November 16, 2003, 08:28 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

[Panzer39]

I see your point. However like you said earlier, most players are interested in the Land warfare aspect of SC. While I would love a huge Atlantic Map, having one the size of the current map now would be great ) I'm not sure if many players would be interested in playing the cat and mouse game of finding Axis ships in that large of an area. Plus, I am sure SC2 will have some sort of size limitations as well. My idea would allow the same thing to be covered in a smaller area. To me it is the best of both worlds.

Unit stacking

You might be right about me looking more for units advancing after combat. However, this idea would also allow for better sea based invasion abilities by ground units and the taking of islands if SC goes worldwide.

[Edwin P.]

Panzer39 - Back to the Atlantic. Another idea that crossed my mind was sub detection. A possible way of fixing the war in the Atlantic would be to all naval units from opposing sides to occupy the same hex. .... There could be the possibility that subs culd remain undetected even with an allied ship occupying the same hex.

I would consider having a 30%+10% per tech level that subs in hexes adjacent to naval units are not spotted and thus can't be seen. This would reflect the difficulty of finding a sub in a hex 250 miles wide and replace the 100% spotting chance of enemy naval units.

Perhaps 2 types of orders for subs;

1. Avoid Combat - subs will not attack naval units that pass through an adjacent hex (not through the subs hex) and will remain hidden (not spotted) to such units unless they stop in an adjacent hex or enter the hex where the sub is located.

2. Engage - subs attack naval units whose course takes them through an adjacenet hex.

[ November 17, 2003, 02:10 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Les the Sarge 9-1]

Right weapon for the job as they say.

In A3R (Advanced Third Reich) a sub was a strategic weapon only.

During the war it was only used strategically too.

Sure a sub can shoot at a battleship but eventually the game designer has to ask those important questions. What is important to the game.

As I see it, making subs counters was of no real importance to the game. But remember this was Hubert's first game. Considering how good a job he did, a few bad choices is not something I am going to hold him to account over.

But in SC2 the subs should go.

Bombers. In SC bombers can hit targets directly, but in reality, they were a strategic weapon. In most cases, the targets they hit were resources ie materials and infrastructure.

The fact that you could aim a bomber fleet at a target is immaterial. You would have to justify it being done.

I think bombers being counters is every bit a mistake as well.

Stacking those counters will fix nothing. It will only allow them to do what they are doing wrong now, in concentrated numbers.

And considering the fundemental nature of the game, no stacking, you might as well just ask Hubert to start from scratch and not call it SC2 but something totally different.

In SC2 I would like major tweaks of the game to fix those elements we have identified as major realism flaws.

I don't want the game entirely rebuilt, just given a clean up of bad design ideas.

Take for instance my finding out the hard way about Ireland. Being unable to remove a unit that lands there has zero to do with anything logical. Telling me I can never again have any ground unit back is insane.

The absence of a "port" will not remove a unit's ability to depart if nothing is stopping it from doing so.

These are all design elements that might be redone in an SC2.

But I think we are asking a lot from Hubert to make SC2 into some sort of A3R, WiF (World in Flames) wannabe game.

Abstractions are not some sort of weird enemy of realism. In some cases they are in fact MORE realistic.

[Blashy]

Corvette are whats needed in SC2 if the map is going to be bigger and naval warfare a bigger part in the game.

Corvettes were the primary sub hunters and were very small for a warship and not nearly as expensive as cuisers or battleships.

[John DiFool]

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

[Panzer39]

More options for all units would be nice. I would love to be able to decide if my aircraft intercepted or which ones did. I think it would help naval combat as well if combined with new spotting rules.

I think it would also be fun to have the allies forced to work for there lend lease money. A mpp transport could be spawned in an American port every turn. In order to cash the MPPs the transport would have to make it to the UK and be disbanded. As the war progressed more transports could be spawned. When the USSR entered, these transports could also be disbanded there to give them more money. Maybe it could be an option and those who did not want to be bothered with it could use the abstract method like it is in SC.

Subs Vs Warships.

The only BB I know of being sunk by a sub alone was the Royal Oak while in harbor. However, I have read some interesting articles concerning strategies bounced around by Germany before the war. What if the U-boats had gone after the escorts and not the cargo ships at the out break of war? Sub counter measures were pitiful in the beginning and escorts, having to travel at the same speed as the convoy, were potential targets. With a lager sub fleet, there is the slim possibility that something like that could have worked at least for a while.

[Shaka of Carthage]

If you want to see an example of a nation that used thier submarines to hunt capital ships, just look at the Japanese.

And its a major critizism of the Japanese war effort, that they used thier subs that way. I suspect that if the Germans used them the same way, it would turn out just as bad.

[Panzer39]

Most of my naval reading involves the war in the Atlantic not the Pacific. Did the Japanese go after convoy escourts or warships in general with there subs?

[JerseyJohn]

The Japanese subs almost totally ignored anything other than warships. They felt freighters were not worth torpedoes. This freed innumerable USN destroyers for fleet duty in the Pacific.

Japanese Admireals also felt destroyers had better things to do than protect merchant ships; aside from which they never had sonar so it would have been a difficult task from the start.

It's a well known fact that the U. S. subs did to the Japanese Merchant Marine fleet exactly what the U-boats were attempting to do to the British counterpart; except Britain had a well developed convoy system, and sonar (ASDIC).

As to BBs sunk by subs in WW II, I don't know of any in the Pacific. In the European theater, there was the one mentioned above, which was sunk early in the war in Scapa Flow and did much to buy U-boat support from Hitler. Later on a German sub in the Mediteranean sank the Barham, and shortly afterwards an Italian midget sub using frogmen sank two BBs of the same class (15" main guns, 22 knots top speed ...) in Alexandria Harbor. Because the ships still showed above the water line the Italians never realized the mission had been a success as the frogmen were captured during the operation.

If I had to choose, I'd say subs should be considered anti-shipping as that's the role British subs operating out of Malta also assumed.

If EdwinP's event ideas are adapted, I'd allow the chance for BB units both in port or at sea to occasionally fall victim to a successful sub attack and reduced to half stregnth while subs normal function would be as commerce raiders. I support the idea that U-boats should not be represented as visable units but as an unseen game component.

[John DiFool]

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

[Panzer39]

also hunting warships and warships escourting convoys are two different battles.

[JerseyJohn]

"Sorry JJ but letting subs have an anti-warship"

JohnD.

No argument from me; whichever way it works.

Panzer

Agreed, the whole game Naval concept needs to be thought out more clearly, and ships moving off shore in the face of substantial landbased air shouldn't even be a computer option. It would be suicide, as the Brits proved off Norway during the Spring of 1940.

There's no real convoy concept and subsequently no commerce warfare. Unsupplied U-boats that never make it back to port is not the answer.

I've never understood why there can't be an off-map naval mode regarding U-boats and convoys combined with sea hexes for coastal and Mediteranean/Black/Baltic/North Sea activities.

Submarines could then be used either as part of anti-fleet operations or put into off map commerce raiding mode, to become worn down with time at sea and recalled to any friendly port within reach. A similar mode could be adapted for Axis surface ships allowing them to recreate the Scharnhorst-Gneisnau circuit raid and subsequent attemps such as the Bismarck-Prinz Eugen Operation Rhine. An off map mode could even incorporate the Graf Spee starting at sea and sinking freighters along with the later Q-ships.