Ports

[George40]

I have been playing the demo waiting for my order to arrive. It has raised 3 questions that may differ between the full game and demo.

1. Do ports confer a defensive advantage to fleets? This should certainly be the case for surface and submarine attachs. The Germans should be able to retire their cruisers into Kiel where they would be safe from the British surface fleet due to mines and the port defenses.

2. How does being in port effect air attachs? This one is messy: Perl Harbor bad; Brest concrete enclosed AA covered submarine pens good!

3. Does Turkey have a port in the full game. They had signficant naval assets and ocean going trade at one time.

Thanks,

George

[Canuck_para]

Originally posted by George40:

I have been playing the demo waiting for my order to arrive. It has raised 3 questions that may differ between the full game and demo.

1. Do ports confer a defensive advantage to fleets? This should certainly be the case for surface and submarine attachs. The Germans should be able to retire their cruisers into Kiel where they would be safe from the British surface fleet due to mines and the port defenses.

2. How does being in port effect air attachs? This one is messy: Perl Harbor bad; Brest concrete enclosed AA covered submarine pens good!

3. Does Turkey have a port in the full game. They had signficant naval assets and ocean going trade at one time.

Thanks,

George

1. AFAIK ports offer no more than a supply bonus to ships. No additional bonuses.

2. Have not noticed any effects.

3. Turkey does not have a port, but there have been requests for a port in Istanbul at least. Their navy at this time was nothing special, mostly older ships and one old German BC.

[George40]

Although Turkey was not a significant naval power at this point, a port at Istambul would be important and historically accurate if Turkey enters the war.

As far as the port and combat issue goes that is unfortunate. It makes the resolution of naval warfare much more precipitous and decisive than it was historically. As it sits, G.B. masses its fleets and anihalates the German and Italian Navies. No cat and mouse. No hiding and coming out to strike later. The fact that only one fleet can be in port at a time is another issue.

Perhaps changing how ports influence surface and subsurface combat is something Hubert will consdier for the next patch. I hope so.

I am anxiously awaiting the game's arrival. The demo has been fun.

[Lars]

Originally posted by George40:

As far as the port and combat issue goes that is unfortunate. It makes the resolution of naval warfare much more precipitous and decisive than it was historically. As it sits, G.B. masses its fleets and anihalates the German and Italian Navies. No cat and mouse. No hiding and coming out to strike later.

Only in the demo...

[Kiith]

1. AFAIK ports offer no more than a supply bonus to ships. No additional bonuses.

Hi, just checked the manual (page 47) ports do offer a terrain bonus of 2 against air and naval attack. Thats the same bonus that mountains get from those types of attacks.

[Speedy]

On point 1 Ports give a significant supply advantage to fleets which is a noticible advantage in fleet to fleet combat however they also make the fleet extremely vulnerable to ground forces.

[SS Viking]

Although Turkey was not a significant naval power at this point, a port at Istambul would be important and historically accurate if Turkey enters the war.

I fully agree. Turky should have a port in Istanbul as well as one cruiser unit, Finland should have a HQ (with limited supply) and Sweden should have a submarine and a cruiser unit.

/Erik

[Old Patch]

This subject has been addressed before, but I'll recap here - Cruisier units in SC represent about 100,000 tons of warships, and Battleship units represent about 150,000 tons and at least two battleships. Subs I haven't a clue - they seem to represent more capability than actual numbers.

That said, Sweden only has about 45,000 tons of warships, and 8 modern (post 1930) and 13 small WWI era subs. Sorry, not enough to qualify for a counter. Turkey only has 28,000 tons of warships, 35,000 if you count a pair of 36 year old training cruisers. Barely 1/3 of a counter, so no fleet for Turkey either. The same goes for Finland, Norway, Spain and Romania.

[ August 22, 2002, 09:13 AM: Message edited by: Old Patch ]

[Canuck_para]

Originally posted by Old Patch:

This subject has been addressed before, but I'll recap here - Cruisier units in SC represent about 100,000 tons of warships, and Battleship units represent about 150,000 tons and at least two battleships. Subs I haven't a clue - they seem to represent more capability than actual numbers.

That said, Sweden only has about 45,000 tons of warships, and 8 modern (post 1930) and 13 small WWI era subs. Sorry, not enough to qualify for a counter. Turkey only has 28,000 tons of warships, 35,000 if you count a pair of 36 year old training cruisers. Barely 1/3 of a counter, so no fleet for Turkey either. The same goes for Finland, Norway, Spain and Romania.

There is no reason why these countries could not have a 5 or 4 point navy. This would be reasonable. It shows a navy that is not a huge threat but could mean something to transports.

[SS Viking]

There is no reason why these countries could not have a 5 or 4 point navy. This would be reasonable. It shows a navy that is not a huge threat but could mean something to transports.[/QB]

Right, I was not clear enough. I was thinking of 4-6 point strengths of existing cruiser counters or even better a destroyer + small ship(like patrol boats) counter. They are a very little threat to warships but they make unescorted transports risky. That would enhance the realism.

Then it comes to Swedish subs they played a far greater roll then history tells. My information comes from the commander of the Swe subs under WWII directly and is unofficial of many reasons.

/Erik

[Canuck_para]

I would like to see ports be more useful and allow more than one ship and to have better AA protection like sub pens and the such. Maybe in SC2.

[John DiFool]

Ship supply probably should work as follows: for

each turn you are away from port (more than one

hex away since we can't seem to stack them on

the docks ), you lose one point of supply.

Thus if you are away on a mission for 5 turns

your supply level is five. This would make more

sense than the "distance to the nearest friendly

port" thing...

JD

[Wolfe]

Originally posted by John DiFool:

Ship supply probably should work as follows: for

each turn you are away from port you lose one point of supply.

But that *IS* how it works currently.

And personally I'm not sure I want a number of smaller ships wandering around the seas. They're already too crowded as is. Maybe in a future game where the hex size is smaller and the oceans larger. Also, there's nothing except lack of MPPs to keep you from upgrading a 4 or 5 cruiser to level 10, which kinda defeats the purpose of creating a mini-cruiser.

- Chris

[Old Patch]

I have to agree with Wolff on this one - little 4 & 5 point fleets aren't going to add that much to the game. The current version of the game doesn't support placing units below 10 strength for countries entering after the scenario starts. Right now I think the Swedish Air Fleet is a good compromise for the unescorted transport problem.

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

"Right, I was not clear enough. I was thinking of 4-6 point strengths of existing cruiser counters or even better a destroyer + small ship(like patrol boats) counter. They are a very little threat to warships but they make unescorted transports risky. That would enhance the realism."

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

So if we give the Swedes a "light ship counter" then we either have to give them to everyone, or they are going to require so many ships that, once again, most minor powers won't rate having a counter.

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

"Then it comes to Swedish subs they played a far greater roll then history tells. My information comes from the commander of the Swe subs under WWII directly and is unofficial of many reasons.

/Erik"

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

So you have a secret source that proves that the Swedes sunk more ships during WWII with their submarines than anyone will ever know about (despite not being at war and never leaving the Baltic), but you won't tell us what, when, or where because it's secret?

Erik, I'm sorry, but you have to quote sources that other people can verify. Otherwise you can state any bizarre thing you like as fact.

For example, I could say that the Soviets actaully conquered Finland during the Winter War and then ceded it to Mexico in return for the assassination of Trotsky back in the 1920's, and Mannerheim never existed but was actually Pancho Villa with a smaller moustache hiding from Huista gunmen. I heard all this from a ex-Mexican President's cleaning lady but I'm sworn to silence.

[George40]

Back on the issue of port functioning and defenses.

It seems providing ports an "intercept" type attach before the at sea fleet can attach in the in port fleet would help. It would simulate the effects of mines, shore batteries, etc. There should be a BIG disincentive for a fleet at sea to attach one in port.

I realize that it may not be possible with the current programing, but I think it would improve the naval aspect of the game substantially if multiple squadrons/counters could shelter in a port at once. Otherwise you have set up a situation where you can preserve one squadron, but not the others.

The air attach on ships in port remains more problematic. Generally surface fleets were more vulnerable in port (no mobility), but prepared submarine pens were nearly impregnable to air attach. I don't know if it is possible to address this differential terain effect with the current SC code.