Expand the "convoy" system

[John DiFool]

One thing which makes subs fairly useless for

the Germans {unless and until-and maybe-they get

level 4/5 tech in them} is the small number of

places where you can stick them so as to inter-

dict convoys.

If I were in charge , first of all I would

paint the convoy routes on the map, so we know

where they are {and junk this "must be within 5

spaces of St. Johns or Liverpool" thing}. I

would then add a number of subsidiary routes, in

addition to the main one from Canada to England,

each one having a certain number of MPPs going to

the British Isles:

Canada to England {15}

US to England {15} [Lend Lease]

The Med Route {5}

From the South Atlantic {5}

North America to Murmansk {30} [Lend Lease]

In the most basic form, any sub{s} stationed on

said route may interdict a certain number of MPPs,

up to the maximum for that route. Subs on the

Murmansk route would interdict MPPs for >Russia<.

Simple enough.

Additional options could include switching between

the Med and S. Atlantic routes, at a penalty for

going with the latter {it's longer ya know} to

avoid that pesky Italian sub. Lend Lease could

become choosable as an option for the US and/or

British {but of course there was the Persian

route which would only open up if it is conquered

by the Allies}.

Whattaya think?

John DiFool

[Gunslingr3]

I mean no offense, but people seeking to complicate the game play of Strategic Command miss one of it's more beautiful aspects: it's abstraction of key facets of WW2 into a simple to play game. Someone could always come up with a higher level of detail for any aspect in the game. I think Hubert has found a nice balance for a game of this scale.

Gunslinger

[Kuniworth]

Agree Gunslinger. Keep it simple, but expand the diplomacy-part and the graphics.

[John DiFool]

Originally posted by Gunslingr3:

I mean no offense, but people seeking to complicate the game play of Strategic Command miss one of it's more beautiful aspects: it's abstraction of key facets of WW2 into a simple to play game. Someone could always come up with a higher level of detail for any aspect in the game. I think Hubert has found a nice balance for a game of this scale.

Gunslinger

To each his own. I guess when I first played the

demo I assumed that there was a 'route' thru

which the convoys traveled, and hence I was kinda

frustrated when the game failed to depict same

visually (so I had to guesstimate via trial and

error where to place them).If it was toggleable

on/off that would probably keep the display from

being cluttered up.

How would YOU improve the Battle of the

Atlantic? There is no reason why the Germans

shouldn't be able to position a sub or two off

the African coast (where a lot of merchants were

in fact sunk) and benefit from doing so.

John DiFool

[Gunslingr3]

How would YOU improve the Battle of the

Atlantic? There is no reason why the Germans

shouldn't be able to position a sub or two off

the African coast (where a lot of merchants were

in fact sunk) and benefit from doing so.

The only change I think would be useful (without increasing the complexity of the game) is to include the U.S. ports in the areas that subs can engage convoys. Because of the size of the Royal Navy it's not too difficult to screen the existing intercept zones.

I don't worry about maintaining a battle in the Atlantic as the Axis though. I prefer to spend the money on tanks and planes that I can use in Russia after I've knocked the British off (against the AI).

I don't think I'd devote much money to subs as the Germans even if I didn't seize England. The damage I've managed (both to convoys and enemy naval units) doesn't justify the cost.

Gunslinger

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by John DiFool:

How would YOU improve the Battle of the

Atlantic?

Good question John D, since you could make a completely separate game out of this -- always treacherous contest if you really wanted to.

First of all, I like your idea of 4 or 5 separate convoy routes, with varying values, to include the ice befogged Murmansk gauntlet, which would require the German player to make full use of (... and provide a compelling rationale for taking Norway in the first place) the Nord See ports.

Like many others, I am hoping for a larger map that would include Trondheim and Narvik.

The idea of Lend Lease shouldn't be that difficult to add to the game, IMHO, since you would be simply shifting MPPs around a bit, with the end result being much the same, yes?

For my own version, I would like to see this:

Once every 6 months, on a random basis, one Convoy Icon (... small ship with a strength # superimposed) would set sail from one of the ports in America or Canada.

This would have a value -- say, ranging from 50 to 150 or so MPPs, and you would have to dock in England to get credit for the points. This would be averaged, and built into the full-game, in the same way that USA's industrial MPP production has been averaged (... that is, a constant 180# without the usual gradual escalation).

If you added this occasional Icon to the 4-5 convoy routes, the Atlantic is suddenly expanded and more unpredictable, and so it gives the RN much more to have to fret about. Anything that enlarges that "small" ocean would be helpful.

I would greatly disagree with those who tend to discount the tremendous importance of The Battle of the Atlantic, and see no reason not to enhance the excitement of... wolfpacks being hunted by the ASW, and -- in a wicked instant! the fortunes reversed, appropriately so -- vice versa. :cool:

[gunnergoz]

I like the convoy route idea. I find the sub warfare to be waaaay to easy to dismiss from the scene. A concerted attack by the Brits demolishes 2/3 of the U-Boat fleet in the first couple of turns, for one thing. The Battle Fleet (as opposed to escort and ASW forces) did not hunt down and kill hundreds of U-Boats. While hundreds of subs did eventually die, they were killed off in a long battle of attrition that took years.

Personally, I'd like to see the ASW elements re-done so that there is a dedicated ASW force counter (DD or whatever) that will have to be built and put on the trail of the subs. The BB's and Cruiser forces were primarily for surface warfare with bombardment and air defense as secondary missions.

I would also make the ASW battle less bloody. Combat between the subs and DD's should attrit them both gradually. The sub moves, has to be re-found and hit again. If it isn't found, it can have a limited amount of strength restored the next turn via reinforcement (to represent new production boats hitting the wolf packs.) If it is in contact with DD forces, no reinforcement.

Technology would be as present, sonar vs. sub advancements making both elements more powerful or stealthy as the war went on.

In the interest of historical accuaracy, I'd take most of the ASW effectiveness from battleships and cruisers, though the carriers might still be a bit useful to help the attrition process against subs. Historically, carriers were not much help in the antisub war until the purpose-built escort carriers made the scene starting in '43-44. Fleet carriers were more or less another potential victim for the subs in the first years of the war, not having the doctrine or training to go after subs.

The ASW escort carrier force would be represented by the later levels of sonar tech. By the end of the war, conventional U-boats were toast. The advanced Walther boats were a different matter and would have been very tough for even late war ASW forces to match.

Again, I'm not trying to overly complicate an elegant game design. I'd just like it tweaked my way!