Axis Submarine Activity Disrupting USA Economy

[Friendly Fire]

Here is something that isn't modeled in SC, but I suggest it would be a worthy addition to to SC2.

In the early war, eventually, the British beefed up convoy escorts and air support, and shipping losses decreased. As soon as Germany declared war on the United States (Dec. 12, 1941), U-Boats headed for the U.S. Atlantic seaboard. From January to May 1942 was "Happy Time" again.

During this period, Axis subs sank many ships within sight of the USA coast. For inexplicable reasons, the U.S. did not(in due haste) arm the ships, nor provide escorts or air cover, nor organize convoys along the Atlantic or Gulf Coasts or in the Caribbean.

The U.S. Government did not order a blackout of seacoast cities until June 1942, leaving ships silhouetted against the shoreline. Allied ships were "sitting ducks" for the well-armed U-Boats lurking in U.S. coastal waters. U.S. beaches soon became littered with bodies and burned-out ships.

Note that the bulk of the merchant vessels attacked were not bound for Europe, so the current game model does not accurately reflect this situation. In game terms this would be simple to model - subs within a short distance USA ports would inflict MPP loss on the USA.

comments?

[Shaka of Carthage]

The problem with representing US Merchant losses to Axis subs, is that you would have to model the entire US war effort and the allocation between the different fronts (Pacific and Europe).

As it is now, the US MPPs only represent a portion of what the US produced, as the Lend Lease MPPs are already built into the Russian and UK production models.

Too much work for too little gain.

[Liam]

Shaka

Personally I'd like be able to do more with Convoys and Lendlease. I'd love to be able to use German subs to do what they did so well, eat Merchant Ships. You know what would be cooler than knocking out MPPs which are like Money. Each shipment the Nazis knockout is an actual Convoy of Ships/Men/Supplies and until the US entry making this hurt more! What would be more a reflection is cut supply to any location subs are operating freely to Land units Make Subs more a longterm effect from raiding. Hide them better from Surface ships and do not allow them to be Battleship Destroyers<Did a U-boat ever sink a real UK Battleship?>

Turn it into Economic/Supply Warfare as intended if you're going to have subs at all or just remove them from the future game.

[mark248]

Originally posted by Liam:

Shaka

Personally I'd like be able to do more with Convoys and Lendlease. I'd love to be able to use German subs to do what they did so well, eat Merchant Ships. You know what would be cooler than knocking out MPPs which are like Money. Each shipment the Nazis knockout is an actual Convoy of Ships/Men/Supplies and until the US entry making this hurt more! What would be more a reflection is cut supply to any location subs are operating freely to Land units Make Subs more a longterm effect from raiding. Hide them better from Surface ships and do not allow them to be Battleship Destroyers<Did a U-boat ever sink a real UK Battleship?>

Turn it into Economic/Supply Warfare as intended if you're going to have subs at all or just remove them from the future game.

same here

and maybe it could in tonnage, instead of MPPs?

and yes, a uboat did sink a british battleship

in october of 39, u47, commanded by uboat ace guinther prien, sneaked into scapa flow, and sunk the hms royal oak. 800 sailors died

in silenthunter 2 u get to do the same thing

[Friendly Fire]

The problem with representing US Merchant losses to Axis subs, is that you would have to model the entire US war effort and the allocation between the different fronts (Pacific and Europe).

I don't see why it this is the case. It can be done in a very simple way. Right now, 180 MPP of the USA is free for use in SC. There are more MPPs allocated to the war in the Pacific, but this is outside the scope of the game. No need to change that. A simple model of allowing Axis subs to drain some portion of THOSE MPPs (30 or 40 or whatever) from the USA if they have sufficient sub strength off the coast would be fine in my opinion. The addition of this would make subs a more appealing strategic weapon; most Axis players don't bother with em!

While we are on the topic, am I the only one who thinks surface ships should have the ability to naval blockade the UK (i.e. reducing MPPs identically to subs)? (and I guess UK controlling the med could impact Italy, but I'm not sure to what degree Italy depended on Mediterranean shipping during WWII)

[ February 21, 2004, 02:45 AM: Message edited by: Friendly Fire ]

[Shaka of Carthage]

Liam

So what you are basically asking for, is for the submarines to be utilized in its proper role as a strategic weapon. An abstraction, that is better represented at the strategical level off map. I agree with you. Let me offer a possible system.

Once France falls, Germany is given a window for Submarine Operations. "Purchasing" a sub unit, then allows you to select what area you want those submarines to operate in and the doctrine you want it to follow. It could be as simple as NORTH ATLANTIC and MERCHANTS; or something more involved like EAST COAST US and CAPITAL SHIPS. This would allow the German player to position his submarines in a specific area to interecept either merchant shipping, or follow a Japanese like strategy of going against enemy capital ships. After so many turns have gone by, to represent the building of the submarines and the transit time to get those subs on station, the Allies would start to suffer merchant (or capital ship) losses. The Allies would counter by purchasing a destroyer unit (representing ASW assets) and placing them on a specific convoy route to provide protection. You could also model the placement of air assets in certain strategic locations, to represent them patrolling those areas.

We need one change to make this system work. When Axis units cause MPP losses against the Allies, those losses are permanent. The UK should have the ability to regenerate those MPPs, at a very slow rate, per turn. Once the US enters, that rate should radically increase.

Now, sonar and submarine techs would act as positive or negative mulitplers to the ability to detect submarines. Long Range tech would have an effect, if there were air units in those strategic locations mentioned above (representing naval patrol aircraft). Actual losses would be notified at the end of each turn, along with any MPP losses. Players would have the option of "reinforcing" an existing unit, purchasing a new unit, or doing nothing... just like now. Same system would be used if the submarines were being used against capital ships.

We don't have to add units to the map to move around, which would be accurate at this scale. Nor do we have to worry about submarine units and thier "supply". Ahistorical use of capital ships to hunt submarines is removed. US Entry is now critical to the Allied side, since without it, the UK can't replace moderate or heavy merchant losses.

And with a minor change, you could represent German surface raiders, being used against Merchant ships.

[Shaka of Carthage]

Friendly Fire

The reason you need to model the entire US economy, is that if the US sufferred significant losses to submarines in the North Atlantic, it should have the option to take resources from the Pacific to replace them. Its somewhat similiar to the dilema Germany has, once the Western Allies open up a second front in Italy or France. Pull resources from one front to another? Or operate with less at that front?

Without that strategic choice, you have hamstrung the Allies, since with enough submarines, you have the ability to totally remove the US from the European war effort.

[Liam]

Agreed 100% Shaka. That is about the most accurate representation for a game...of a U-boat strategy for WW2 and the Atlantic Theatre.

Take the amount of U-Boats that operated in one region roughly. Xs the amount of Tons of equipment they sunk there on average, then calculate how much Tons were actually moving. If the Allies do not Protect their convoys the War would be lost. All things in WW2 era are shipped, so if you have hundreds U-boats sitting off all Major US Ports there will be little or no supplies from there. You could even hammer losses on U-boats in this abstract Theatre...

As far as Capitol Ship hunting, that's a bit more complex. I imagine that would be more like the game is designed now, U-boat as a hunting unit

[Friendly Fire]

Without that strategic choice, you have hamstrung the Allies, since with enough submarines, you have the ability to totally remove the US from the European war effort.

Shaka, I don't see that this is the case. I specified that there would be a maximum drain on MPP, so it would be possible to damage, but not eliminate the ability of the USA to fight the war.

The argument that you need to include the Pacific war into the equation doesn't seem true to me, because after all, if D-day is going poorly, you don't have the option in the game to seek extra resources from the other USA front. Why would it be different here? If Germany had the ability to hurt the USA economy (and it did), then shouldn't this be part of the game?

[Liam]

Friendly Fire:

? Even in SC now a real D-Day does a lot better with those American Armies and an American HQ... Possibly even a 2nd American HQ with 2 or 3 Fighters. In fact most Allies do not attempt a D-Day without those resources so if the Germans were draining the Supplies badly. Those troops would've not be very happy to have run outta ammo a few weeks into D-Day or not have neccessary medical supplies. All things that came on ships that were able to make it to the Ports in England cause of Destroyers, Anti-Sub Warfare. Without any Cap on German subs how much would've made it? There wasn't that many German U-Boats as Hitler allocated many of those resources elsewhere but given he had gone the other way things could've been very different!

[Edwin P.]

I can think of 3 ways to improve Subs within the current design of SC:

Map Design

1. There is no way for subs to reach the Atlantic. However this could be solved by a proposal raised by JerseyJohn that has a transit hex from off of Brest going around Iceland to a random hex in the north Atlantic and by allowing subs to run snorkled past the UK (with a reduced chance for spotting).

2. The Atlantic needs to be bigger and extended further north to allow for Allied air bases in Iceland and Greenland.

Submarine Tactics

3. Spotting of subs should be harder. Unlike a ship that has 80% of its mass visible, a sub will have only 5% of its surface area visiable. Say that a sub is spotted only 50% of the time if a ship or air unit is in range. This increases by 10% with each level of Sub Tech and decreases with each level of enemy Sonar Tech.

Thus an enemy naval unit can move past a submarine unit without spotting it.

Submarines should a mode that will allows them to attack/or not enemy naval units that pass through adjacent hexes without spotting the sub unit.

Example:

Mode1: Avoid Contact - +30% Chance to remain hidden from enemy units (50% Base + 30% = 80%), Action Points -1 (moves 1 less hex). Does not attack merchant ships or passing enemy ships. Enemy ships can pass through the subs hex withoout being attacked (if an enemy ship stops movement in the subs hex witout spotting it the sub is displaced 1 hex).

Mode2: Attack Merchant Ships. +0% to remain hidden (ie 50% base chance), Attacks merchant ships but not capital that pass through adjacent hexes.

Mode3: Attack. Attacks merchant ships and ships that enter adjacent hexes.

More Submarine Targets

4. There, as was suggested, should be MPP to the Allies penalties for axis subs lying off American ports.

5. Selectable merchant ship routes and more routes carrying MPPS to the UK - ie Brazil/South Africa to the UK, and Allied players should be able to select the merchant route that he wants to link to the US.

- Route 1: North Atlantic - goes further north

- Route 2: Current Route

- Route 3: Mid Atlantic

6. Selectable tactics for Merchant ships- ie Convoys or Single Ships. With each method having its own advantages and disadvantages.

- Single Ships - UK receives MPPs every turn. Attacking subs can not be spotted. Subs do more damage to Merchant Ships.

- Convoys - UK receives MPPs every other turn. Location of subs attacking the convoy may be spotted. Allied know approximately where along the route the merchant ships were attacked. Costs the UK 5MPPs due to cost of escorting destroyers.

Early in the war the UK might decide to use the Single Ship strategy for merchant shipping. Later as Germany builds a sub fleet it might change to convoy shipping. Once the Atlantic is cleared of Axis Subs the UK might change back to single ship merchant shipping.

[ February 21, 2004, 04:34 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Liam]

Edwin:

Under such rules Subs would be quite kewl. The whole supply aspect would make them a fun unit<important too>. Now I use subs like Destroyers as support vessels after the first 2 raiders are eaten. They're just to easily spotted and for 300plus MPPs per Sub Unit too expensive to waste on the whole Royal Navy going after them for the return in MPP damage you get.

Subs lost there value with technology and Spotters... So it wouldn't take long or much investment for the UK and USA to subdue the threat. Your system of spotting accurately depicts that<though if US and UK anti-raiding technology never got lucky dice I know a few players who would be spitting>

[Edwin P.]

Liam:

Thanks,

The only time I really use subs against a human player is if the allies allowed the German air to destroy half of the UK Navy and The Italian navy can break out into the Atlantic, or I launch a successful Sea Lion.

It will be interesting to hear what Shaka of Carthage has to say about this idea as I know he favors more abstract level of submarine combat for the Atlanitc - but for me moving ships and searching for the enemy is more fun.

Your observations on tech is right on, if the allies develop their sonar tech and use bombers as spotted the Axis subs ability to hide is greatly reduced, especially if the bombers are based in Ireland and Canada.

[ February 21, 2004, 03:22 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Liam]

Edwin:

Where is Shaka, we do need his point of view.

I once opened up a World Map, in a WW2 history book to see every place that a Allied Convoy and Axis Sub was sunk, they were marked in dots. Lord! It was quite extensive... I never realized until then just how much those bloody little boats got around...would really be nice if subs were cheaper and less effective vs Surface ships. I'd love to throw dozens of them against the N.Atlantic and force the Brits to do something with their navy besides hunt the Italian or Pound German Corps off the Coast of France and Holland

[Shaka of Carthage]

I thought I had already answered this, but it seems I didn't.

Liam

Capital ship hunting... In the example I gave, I wouldn't bother with having a sub unit. I would simply allow the possibility of a submarine that is hunting capital ships, to sink them. Hence, every turn that naval units (ie our capitol ships) are in submarine infested waters, AND those submarines are hunting capitol ships, there is a chance of them sinking some of those ships. If successful, the submarines would cause one (1) or two (2) str point damage against an enemy naval unit. The way SC has a submarine unit operating against other naval ships isn't correct.

Edwin P & Liam

Edwins proposal... Edwin has the gist of it correct. I don't like the idea. I'll try to briefly explain. If we are going to have hex movement for naval units, you need the proper map size. The North Atlantic would require a map four (4) times larger than the current SC map. So in this new map, 20% of it would be the area we are fighting the land war in, while 80% of it is there for naval purposes. This problem itself, is generally why most designers don't bother with naval hex combat, especially since its not a major theater of combat.

But assume we do get the proper map size. Now the hard part begins, as your naval combat system has got to deal with three (3) dimensions... underwater, surface and aerial combat. Quite a few suggestions have been offered in the past, as well as Edwin's current suggestion, about how to handle some or all of those aspects. However, they all bascially imply a redesign of how the current SC naval system works (since it doesn't). If you do redesign the system, then understand you now have a naval game, something SC isn't.

Thats alot of work for a minor aspect of a game. If there is one thing that these Euro game designers have taught us (ie Puerto Rico, Settlers of Catan, Carcassone, etc), is that you can accomplish an elegant design without a huge amount of complexity.

Thats why I favor an abstract design for the naval aspect of SC2 in the North Atlantic. The basics are already in SC (ie aren't you glad you don't have to move, hex by hex around Africa to get to Egypt?). With a small expansion of the map, we would get the additional land area in Northern Europe and North Africa, and our "transit" sea arrows for naval units entering those abstracted sea areas. We would get our historical results with a minimum of additional effort.

[ February 24, 2004, 08:50 AM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by Shaka of Carthage:

Thats why I favor an abstract design for the naval aspect of SC2 in the North Atlantic.

Well, in a very certain sense, we ALREADY have an "abstract" Battle of the North Atlantic.

I mean to say... if you are actually moving naval units around a map that is TOO SMALL, proportionally, to the relative land-mass, then this is... an abstraction.

ANY abstraction can work, so long as you are willing to... suspend disbelief.

Why is it more REALISTIC to have off-screen, or small battle-board combat, than to actually have movable units on a smaller ocean that...

**ACCOMPLISHES the SAME thing, IE, it fairly accurately re-presents the WW2 Atlantic and Mediterranean naval wars?

The adjustment is made in the mind of the Player, just as with every other tactical and strategic maneuver.

IOW, IF I am able to cripple Britain's convoys to the extent that Britain's Economy is compromised EXACTLY as it would be if I had a perfectly proportionate ocean, or EXACTLY as it would be if I had off-board/screen combat results, WHY does it matter?

EVERYTHING on the game-board, or computer screen is an ABSTRACTION.

NOT ONE THING... PERFECTLY duplicates ANY of the combat or industry or research or movement capabilities.

I am more than happy being able to move small and separate naval units within a necessarily restricted ocean, so long as it is... FUN, and is reasonably accurate as to Economic and Strategic effects.

You may not be, OK, that's to be respected,but, herein the problem: how do you make ANY game that perfectly satisfies EVERY player's wishes & whims, now or in the future?

You can't.

So Hubert makes the game... that HE likes (... and believes will be successful, to some degree) and he must like naval units moving hex to hex, in an abstract naval war... as I do. :cool: