Black Sea Fleet in Next Patch?

[Carl G. E. von Mannerheim]

I agree lets get rid of the French!!!!

Just kidding.

Je n'aim pas le fracais'

But my school didnt have german so i had to take it, something about "we dont want little nazis running around our school.

Ohwell

CVM

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by Elijah Meeks:

Reread my post, Mike, I wasn't advocating Russian subs, I was merely pointing out quantity.

As I recall, Italian submarine forces didn't have any significant effect upon the war, either, but they're included for accuracy and they total the amount of Russian submarines.

you are wrong.

Italian submarines were a constant menace to the Allied naval prsence in the Med. IMO the 5 pt attrition they get is just fine.

The Russian submarine fleet was no threat to the Axis at any time, and never could have been.

Numbers alone do not make the threat, as you say ....so...

Now, if the Russian submarine fleet is of inferior quality to the Italian submarine fleet, then they shouldn't be included, but if they were just misused, then that shouldn't limit their consideration.

It's not just numbers and quality.

There are factors that are completely outside the scope of the game to reproduce.

For example the Axis controled both the north and south coasts of the Gulf of Finland for much of the ar.

Soviet submariners had run a long gammit of shallow waters, mines, nets, small boat and aircraft patrols jsut to get into the Baltic.

They were effectively bottled up in a way that never hapened to anyone else's sub fleet that I can think of.

And of course they had no training grounds!!

After all, if misuse is the determining factor in not representing a unit, than the whole French Army should be out of the game.

That'd be why the Germans took only a couple of platoons and a mangy dog to conquer them in 1940 I guess??

oops - silly me - no, they took their entire army and airforce and suffered thousands of casualties, hundreds of tanks and a/c destroyed, etc.

As to the inclusion of Sweeds and Turks, take a look at the makeup of the Black Sea fleet, it's not exactly a line of destroyers.

Well YOU are the one who says that it is quality that matters, not quantity.

It is my contention that the Russian fleets never had the Quality to rate in a game of SC's scale.

I can tell you down to the last gunboat what units there were in the Black sea fleet if you want - I have no problem with the numbers involved. Just with their ability to do anything relevant in SC.

I'm not sure what your point about the Swedes and Turks is - their fleets shouldn't be in the game either IMO.

as I said above - there are no compelling reasons for a Soviet Black Sea flet.

It is not necessary for game balance or because the flet had such and effect or could have had such an effect that it needs to be there.

The problem of Axis passage through the Dardanelles is better solved by making the Dardanelles like Gibralter - ie you can't pass it unless you capture Istanbul.

[ August 14, 2002, 09:45 PM: Message edited by: Mike ]

[Hamstersss]

Originally posted by Mike:

you are wrong.

Italian submarines were a constant menace to the Allied naval prsence in the Med. IMO the 5 pt attrition they get is just fine.

The Russian submarine fleet was no threat to the Axis at any time, and never could have been.

Numbers alone do not make the threat, as you say ....so...

First off, show some manners. Everything I've read has said Italian submarines were ineffectual in WWII. I may be incorrect, but that's the position I came in on. However, I understand it was primarily an up-to-date force, so it makes sense to be included in SC. Just because the Italians didn't use them well doesn't mean we don't have to be the same.

Now, go back and read my posts. You'll notice I asked Hubert what he thought about the subs, that I didn't recommend including them, that I merely noticed there were about a hundred of them.

Now, go back and read other people's posts, you'll notice a couple people brought up Swedish and Turkish navies.

The reason the Black Sea Fleet

It's not just numbers and quality.

There are factors that are completely outside the scope of the game to reproduce.

For example the Axis controled both the north and south coasts of the Gulf of Finland for much of the ar.

Soviet submariners had run a long gammit of shallow waters, mines, nets, small boat and aircraft patrols jsut to get into the Baltic.

They were effectively bottled up in a way that never hapened to anyone else's sub fleet that I can think of.

And of course they had no training grounds!!

There are naval supply rules to cover unfriendly seas. Training, along with the quality of the machines, should be taken into consideration when thinking of including a unit. You'll notice, if you read my posts, that I said if they were inferior machines that they shouldn't be included.

I don't know where you got the idea that I was advocating the inclusion of Russian submarines, that's why I asked you to read my posts. I merely asked about them. It sounds like you're right, that they shouldn't be included, I don't know enough about their capabilities to say, but for you to jump around and beat your chest just because someone asked about them is uncalled for.

[Camicie Nere]

Sounds like we need a PBEM "grudge match" between Mike and Elijah. Hey, that might be a decent enough concept to explore for settling long-running disputes in this forum. Maybe a best of seven series on the paratroop question...

But anyway, I am totally with Mike on the Dardanelles. Although not fortified to the extent of Gibraltar, I think the experience of WWI shows how difficult it would be for hostile vessels to force a passage.

[Hamstersss]

Ah, but what you're forgetting is the paratroop match has to be played against Hubert.

Turn 1 - Hubert sends level 10 Jets and Heavy Tanks into the heart of France. On the East Front, Nuclear bombs obliterate half the Red Army.

"Gee, Herbert, I didn't know infantry could move so far."

"It's Hubert," the British fleet disappears.

Turn 2 - I guess there aren't going to be paratroops in the game anytime soon.

[Carl G. E. von Mannerheim]

So whos taking me on in a match to settle that old "winter war" dispute, best of one

[Hubert Cater]

How about both then, a SU cruiser and a port attached to Istanbul that would block enemy naval traffic through the Dardanelles ala Gibraltar. Any comments?

Hubert

[gunnergoz]

Originally posted by Hubert Cater:

How about both then, a SU cruiser and a port attached to Istanbul that would block enemy naval traffic through the Dardanelles ala Gibraltar. Any comments?

Hubert

Sounds reasonable to me. Also, a Russian port in the Black sea at Sevastopol would give the Russians the option of actually building a fleet there if they chose. It would also enhance the value of the city and just about force the Germans to reduce and take it, rather than leaving it cordoned and cut off in their rear.

[Guest Mike]

Ports at Secvastopol and Istanbul make some sense - the BS (sic!! ) fleet, if it has to exist, would be reduced to not being able to be reinforced if it's captured, although they then based in ..damn...forgotten hte name...Novosibersk rings a bell but I don't think it was there......

Some other things:

Elijah if you would care to re-read my posts I didn't actually suggest that you did suggest including Russian Submarines....however I expressed my opinion because you did ask about them.

Also the naval supply rules do not apply to submarine interdiction of convoy routes, and even if they did the Gulf of Finland would be no worse for Russian Subs than any other line of hexes whereas it was almost a death sentence!

Also I'm hapy for any excuse to play a game, and what have you been reading about Italian subs??

They also had to operate in limited depth waters which reduced their efficiency (the Med), but AFAIK they showed no lack of skill or ability.

Here's some info ffrom an italian Sub web page - it's in Italian, and I'm not suer exactly what it means, but :

Battelli Operanti 172

Missioni 1750

Miglia Percorse 2.500.000

Giorni di Mare 24.000

Attacchi Eseguiti 173

Siluri Lanciati 427

I think they mean 172 subs, 1750 voyages, 2.5 million tons sunk - dunno about the rest.

2.5 million tons is a considerable amount - not as much as the U-boats in the Atlantic of course, but not to be sneezed at.

Here's another site - it's not Italian and says maybe 1 million tons sunk.

[ August 14, 2002, 11:42 PM: Message edited by: Mike ]

[Camicie Nere]

Mike,

I think you mean Novorossisk. Sorry to correct you there You usually are so dead-on with your info and facts that I had to take the opportunity.

[Guest Mike]

Thanks CM - yeah, that seems moer like it.

Teh URL I added to my post above reckons the Russians sank 160 ships (about 400k tons) for the loss of 100 subs. The figures I have at home are a bit worse than that tho.

[Canuck_para]

Originally posted by Hubert Cater:

How about both then, a SU cruiser and a port attached to Istanbul that would block enemy naval traffic through the Dardanelles ala Gibraltar. Any comments?

Hubert

I think this is a good idea actually. There should be a port in Instanbul. It is in a very strategic position. However, the Dardanelles are farther down the Sea of Marmara, so I think if you did implement the port in Istanbul ships still could not go between the Med and the Black Sea without owning both side of the Dardanelles and Bosphorus. I also would like to see a Russian cruiser in the Black Sea.

I would also like for minor countries to have navies, such as a 5 point cruiser for Turkey or Spain etc. This would add a little flavour to the game IMO.

[Carl G. E. von Mannerheim]

Its a very good idea to add a port to istanbul. It would force the axis player to invade overlane in the 'turkish gambit'. However, it may make that too much of an axis stronghold, perhaps a port in one of the axis minors on the black sea?

CVM

[pzgndr]

How about both then, a SU cruiser and a port attached to Istanbul that would block enemy naval traffic through the Dardanelles ala Gibraltar.

Sounds good.

(Is that with or without the paratroops? )

[Hubert Cater]

However, the Dardanelles are farther down the Sea of Marmara, so I think if you did implement the port in Istanbul ships still could not go between the Med and the Black Sea without owning both side of the Dardanelles and Bosphorus.

Exactly!

I would also like for minor countries to have navies, such as a 5 point cruiser for Turkey or Spain etc. This would add a little flavour to the game IMO.

Yeah (grudgingly ) that might not be a bad idea either, no promises just yet, although I think that if this were added it should just be limited to Spain, Turkey and Sweden. Anybody have any names of cruiser size vessels for these countries or at least close to that size? Comments?

Hubert

[Carl G. E. von Mannerheim]

While we're on this 'Ships passing through straits' discusion, how about a port in Denmark so that allied ships cant breach the baltic so easily, Just a thought.

CvM

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by CvM:

While we're on this 'Ships passing through straits' discusion, how about a port in Denmark so that allied ships cant breach the baltic so easily, Just a thought.

And an appropriate one. IMO, this is more important than the Black Sea dilemma, though I do think Russia should have a Cruiser there -- if for no other reason than to counter (... making it a somewhat more COSTLY decision) the Italian gambit of seizing one half of the passage, and then landing corps in the oil fields in the south.

On the other, it shouldn't be so easy for the Allies to breach those VERY well-defended narrow straits between Norway and Denmark.

I realize you can place Air Fleets or build more naval vessels, which should discourage too much adventurism, but IIRC, there were NO such Allied naval expeditions during the war.

I will admit however, that this opens up the game for more what-if strategems, so that can't be bad, but it is ahistorical, no?

[Norse]

Originally posted by Carl Von Mannerheim:

While we're on this 'Ships passing through straits' discusion, how about a port in Denmark so that allied ships cant breach the baltic so easily, Just a thought.

CvM

This is a very good idea Mannerheim.

~Norse~

[Old Patch]

I like the blocked strait fix for both the Dardenelles and the Danish straits. I find it very irritating to see American Battleships bombarding Stockholm. For the fleets, I'd add a Russian Cruiser to the Black Sea, but I'd also remove one from the Baltic.

[Hamstersss]

Mike,

1mil to 2.5mil tons really isn't that much, considering the US alone produced around 15 million tons during the war. At peak, during the Battle of the Atlantic, U-Boats were sinking upwards of 600,000 tons a month.

I'm no expert on the subject, as I've said, and rely primarily on this site, which I think is quite good:

http://www.submarine-history.com/NOVAfour.htm

[Canuck_para]

I would also like for minor countries to have navies, such as a 5 point cruiser for Turkey or Spain etc. This would add a little flavour to the game IMO.

Yeah (grudgingly ) that might not be a bad idea either, no promises just yet, although I think that if this were added it should just be limited to Spain, Turkey and Sweden. Anybody have any names of cruiser size vessels for these countries or at least close to that size? Comments?

Hubert[/QB]

[Hubert Cater]

While we're on this 'Ships passing through straits' discusion, how about a port in Denmark so that allied ships cant breach the baltic so easily, Just a thought

The only drawback I can see to this is that the Axis player can't move their navy out until they conquer Denmark, any comments on this?

Funny enough, originally I had a port in Denmark to do exactly what is being suggested, but I believe I ended up removing it a long, long time ago for this very reason.

Hubert

[Canuck_para]

Originally posted by Hubert Cater:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />While we're on this 'Ships passing through straits' discusion, how about a port in Denmark so that allied ships cant breach the baltic so easily, Just a thought

The only drawback I can see to this is that the Axis player can't move their navy out until they conquer Denmark, any comments on this?

Funny enough, originally I had a port in Denmark to do exactly what is being suggested, but I believe I ended up removing it a long, long time ago for this very reason.

Hubert</font>

[Carl G. E. von Mannerheim]

That would be more of a compromise than a sOLution. I personally dont mind that the germans cant leave the baltic till the capture Denmark. Imho, this will force the AI to attack denmark, as i have yet seen them to do so.

[ August 15, 2002, 02:43 PM: Message edited by: Carl Von Mannerheim ]

[Norse]

If including this finesse will make it impossible for the German player to attack Norway and Denmark on the same turn, then I say leave it. Germany attacked Denmark and Norway on the same day, 9th april 1940, and I wouldn't like to see that this game makes it impossible to redo this event.

I have a suggestion on how this can be done. The Danes provided very little resistance to the German attack (I am not talking about the mid-war partisans). So if the Danish corps is made weak, say strenght 5, then it would mimic history pretty well. Then Germany would theoretically have the ability to attack Denmark, take Denmark, and then move thru the straight and attack Norway. All this on the same turn.

If however, like I said, it becomes impossible to attack both Norway and Denmark on the same turn for Germany, then I vote on leaving it as it is.

It is still an interesting idea though.

What about giving the fortress strenght 0, so the Germans can move thru as long as they have declared war on Denmark? Then as it gains strenght to 5, it mimics that the Germans are laying out mines etc in the straight, to keep the allies from moving thru. How about that?

~Norse~