My Naval Paradigm [LONG]

[John DiFool]

The following is how I would like to see the

navy work in SC2. I will try to avoid using lots

of numbers [which naturally would be adjusted

during playtesting].

1. Keep hex movement-no zones.

2. Expand the Atlantic by at least 50% westward,

past Iceland in the north, and maybe down to

Dakar in the south.

3. Recon: Units have a base chance of detecting

other units within their detection radius [i.e.

it is NOT a sure thing anymore], subject to

radar and/or sonar tech. A 100-MPP air recon

unit would become available [so that you don't

have to waste heavy bomber units on such duty],

which would NOT do well against enemy air units

[tho it would be fairly competitive with carrier

air]. It would have limited bombing capability,

and would also be able to raid convoys [FW200

Condors], as would "regular" bombers.

4. Subs. Naturally, their chances of being

detected would be lower than a surface task force.

A ship would have its detecting percentage

increased by 2 parts sonar tech to 1 part radar

tech. A plane would benefit wholly from radar

tech [airborne centimetric radar]. Sub tech

would naturally decrease detection percentage

and increase dive percentage [alternatively, we

could replace "dive percentage" with fewer losses

when attacked-since we are talking about a wolf-

pack, not a lone sub].

4a. So wolfpacks=sub counter [say 20 subs per

counter]. Subs would operate in two modes:

Wolfpack mode and "Scattered" mode.

Both have advantages and disadvantages ["surfaced"

vs. "dived" is a more tactical distinction and

better handled via the abstraction mentioned

above]:

I. When in Scattered mode, subs are dispersed

over a wide range of ocean. Consequently, their

chances of being detected and taking damage are

decreased [the attacker likely only will nail a

few subs-at best-if they are scattered]. By the

same token, when scattered they do less damage

to enemy elements [including convoys-see below].

This will enable subs to sneak in and out of base,

and to and from patrol zones, with a smaller

chance of being found and harrassed. In addition,

if attacked, any subsequent attacks upon that

hex may be completely fruitless [you saw one sub,

it was attacked, other units were called in, but

were unable to locate any more subs, so you get a

"subs not found!" message].

II. In Wolfpack mode, they operate more like they

do currently, tho I would tone down both the

damage they take as well as inflict [on warships

at least], and decrease detection and increase

evasion a bit [however the latter is handled].

5. Convoys. To get MPPs from one place to

another, a convoy route must be drawn. It will

be 3 [or 5, whatever playtesting indicates works

best] hexes wide, doesn't have to be linear-i.e.

can have some detours-and any raider positioned on

the convoy route may do MPP damage to the

appropriate power. Surface raiders would be

allowed [as would air raiders already mentioned].

The defender can build sub hunter units for 200

MPP. Basically a few light cruisers and mostly

destroyers [DDs], they would have a much higher

detection and attack capability vs. subs

than "BB" units [which would go after the surface

raiders]. Escorts [100 MPP each for say 10 DEs]

may be also be assigned to a convoy route

directly, from either the port of origin, or

destination. They would be "abstracted" into the

convoy system [i.e. not on map], and increase the

possibility of subs taking damage, and lessen MPP

damage, on that route. [optional] Extra

direct escorts would suffer from a diminishing

returns principle [too many escorts for too few

merchants].

Convoys for the British would be from Canada, the

US, South Atlantic, and either Asia route, which

would also include any African MPPs [Med or

the long way-player choice-the Med route would

give you a few extra MPPs because of lessened

attrition-this is BEFORE the Italians interdict

them!]. A summary screen would list all convoys,

the MPPs being shipped, ports involved, and the

escorts assigned [if any]. Italians would also

have some from Libya, and Germans from Sweden

[and Norway, when/if conquered].

[Enemy knowledge of convoy routes. Several ways

to go here-the Germans could only discover a

route if they suddenly start sinking some MPPs-

would suggest a summary screen akin to the one

the allies use-each unit listed with MPP damage

done the previous turn. You want to avoid the

Allies from shifting routes each turn, so perhaps

it should be as direct a route as possible-

intervening landmasses permitting.]

5a. You would also need supply convoys, to

support troops on land masses separate from your

capital. Would work basically the same way, drawn

via user interface from port of origin to port of

destination, and any raiders along the route may

interdict said supplies [a 50/50 split if a

supply convoy and MPP convoy overlap]. Depending

on the damage done, troops on the other end may

see their supply levels drop by one or more

points.

6. Supply of naval units. There would be two

aspects affecting supply: fuel and ammo. Fuel

would be expended at a given rate per type of

unit [i'm not sure how to handle mid-ocean

refueling], and would necessitate returning to a

port if it gets too low. "Ammo" is a catchall

for all other things, such as food and crew

fatigue, would drop at a slow rate per turn not

in combat, but much faster when shots are fired.

Both would be replenished after a full turn

spent in port. I guess in the interests of

playability, this could be collapsed into one

statistic.

7. Stacking in ports allowed.

This is likely my swansong on this board,

at least until we get some new info on what

Hubert is going to cook up. But I think this

works MUCH better than any seazone system, as my

way retains the fun aspects of moving units

around and attacking the enemy without some of

the annoying aspects we have in SC1.

John DiFool

[ March 19, 2003, 12:56 PM: Message edited by: John DiFool ]

[JerseyJohn]

JohnDiFool

Very Good Ideas.

Generally the Cape of Good Hope route from Asia, though used almost exclusively till the capture of Sicily, was costly not only in time, but also in fuel. This was part of the reason Churhill was so keen on taking care of the Mediteranean as soon as possible.

Nobody has ever made any headway on expanding this map. I think we'd all like to see it, but it's been shot down every single time it's been brought up.

My own view is the present play area should be centered at London and the map expanded 100% it's present size West and South by 50% it's present size North and East. This would allow action from the Arctic Circle to Equitorial Africa, Sudan and East Africa and also possible campaigns for Iceland and the Canary Islands. Also, I'd get Canada and the United States completely off map except for the extreme North East, if it is located within the expanded area just mentioned, if not have entry points for North American ship entry. The war is decided in Europe, not North America.

[ March 19, 2003, 01:19 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Liam]

Really interesting! That would make a true battle for the Atlantic. As historically happened, lots of men, iron, fuel, and wealth was put into it.

I think a Recon plane is too expensive, and too cumbersome. I think the conversion of the role of a fighter into Recon Fighter or Bomber would be a better suited role and giving that individual unit the ability to patrol multiple sea lanes. Not only that but do what they did historically, attach a few extra drop tanks gut the aircraft and make extra fuel storage and attach special weapons for their new purpose..

Limit the distance of fighter recon and allow both fighter and bomber to run recon on land to though at the risk of being shot down...though they were specially suited to dip in and dip out at high alts, at night in places and times the enemy Air wasn't suspecting them. If you don't want to engage an enemy if you're fast enough little chance he'll hunt you down. Just take for granted the fact all enemey air is hunting recon aircraft and air supremacy allows you a free fly of enemy territory as it did historically, despite the camouflage it helped greatly...

I wonder also wonder the way the game is now, the British have a very strong lead in the sea, not saying it's not historical. Though would Germany ever derive anything abroad if she wanted to blockade her? If so maybe making more U-boats for Germany would balance things out, so that the Brits have to hunt as well as blockade... And uhh, was Russian lendlease routes drawn up as an idea? From Britian/US? If historically it wasn't as big a factor perhaps changing the allowance of lendlease to a nation could be done manually. That way if you want to send Russia 100MPPs extra a turn you may. That would create such joy for isolated Russians!

[disorder]

difool

#1 yes wholeheartedly agree!

#2 as is mentioned also by jerseyjohn about expanding the map, wouldnt you just as well add in the japs and finish the game off. WORLD AT WAR!

#3 either way, a special unit or a special adaptation of an existing unit would work. good idea!

#4 agreed i like your "scatter" mode. perhaps operating as a pack of 20 would explain the inappropriate high cost in the sc game!

#5-#6 excellent ideas and well-thought out. a little hazy on the destroyers"off the screen", but cant think of a better idea.

perhaps a supply convoy (just like to another land-mass) but to a given hex in midalantic would allow "refueling" for all wolfpacks?

#7 agree,this is a given

lend-lease --- now theres a thought LIAM should neutral countries (early US) be allowed to help any country they want. or should they maintain a neutral stance? i seem to recall the US giving britain 50 destroyers while they were "neutral". sweden helped out germany a lot with ore didn't they?

should it only be allies that can help each other?

[JerseyJohn]

disorder

The expanded areas would be the same scale in miles as the areas shown. It would not be anywhere near a global map nor even half of one nor would it be a World at War situation. It would be the same map scale, same unit scale, everything exactly the same except with a much larger and realistic geographic area to work in.

For those who have gotten too accustomed to the Game Atlantic, this is more like what it really looks like.

Expanding the map isn't necessary. I guess some people enjoy that wonderful single hex North Africa or the realism of having North America within rowing distance of Europe. Also, there would be a full Norway where perhaps some German naval units could be sneaked past Scapa Flow via the fjiords, as in real life. Addmittedly, players who love the game aspects of a land locked Germany and no space to maneuver in North Africa would need to sacrifice all that.

What it would do is make it possible for U-boats to have a reasonable chance of hiding in the Atlantic while still striking the convoy lanes. It would make it possible to include Iceland and some of the larger islands in the Atlantic, such as the Canaries, so if Spain enters the war there's the danger of German naval bases there. Also, there would be the possibility of Germany snatching Iceland, using it as a naval and air base and depriving the Allies of the same function.

By including the northern half of Africa there would be some link to Ethiopia, tying it in to the rest of the game. In the north all of Norway would be in the map and so would Archangel and Murmansk.

Most of the expanded areas would be dead space, so what, at least there would be extra theaters that could be activated.

There's nothing to lose and plenty to gain, all that would show on the computer screen is the same size area that presently shows, to get anywhere else you either scroll or point on the small map. No big hassle, no big deal, just a much greater play area with more realism and possibilities.

Having these extra areas would also make the scenario editor much more useful.

But, as I said, every time this map issue is brought up it's like pulling teeth and it becomes open season to distort the idea to the point of absurdity. Last time I got involved with this nonsense I swore I'd never do it again, and I should have stuck with that decision. The map as it is is just wonderful, keep it.

[ March 19, 2003, 06:57 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[disorder]

JERSEYJOHN obviously im not aware of anyone "running down" the big map idea. please forgive me if my thoughts on this offend you. i am not patently against map size change.

you are right about the top of n. africa. very nasty.

i was not implying "idiocy" on anyones part. i have always (in the month i've had the game), wondered why the entire scope was not added in. on my size screen, scrolling is involved anyway, and it really woundn't make any difference to me what size the screen was "enlarged" to,or HOW it was enlarged. it would obviously add to the "realism" and "feel" of the game. it needs to be done! with or w/o the japs!

but IMHO, it wouldnt take a Peenemunde rocket scientist to realize that if you were going to "change" the screen, you might as well add china and the rest of it.

i've seen some comment abt. the japs taking islands being "dull" playing time.

if the truth be known, my favorite playing times do not involve finland. would conquering aussie's and hamstringing the pacific fleet be any better. i don't know.

no insinuations here. change is GOOD!

SERIOUS NEWBIE ? # 32 what is the most loss of mpps that uk can take in a turn? more than 40?

[disorder]

sorry, my newbie ? was referring to how many mpps max can be taken by nazi subs in convoy routes, such as between can and uk.

[JerseyJohn]

disorder

No need to appologize, my response was sort of cranky and not intended to be that way. I forgot you weren't here when we had the Great Global Battle! a few months back.

We came to the conclusion back then that the game was better not encompassing both Europe and Asia but treating them as seperate games with a possible offmap tie in.

Since then any mention of including the Japanese War or a global game harkens back to those old bickerings. Sorry it hit the wrong trigger.

Actually, I'm pretty satisfied with the Map in the East. It's just that if it were to be expanded I'd like it to include the entire Red Sea, which is the only reason I mentioned the East at all. But even if it were expanded 50% in that direction, there would still be plenty of buffer areas before the map came close to India or China or any of the other regions associated with the War in the Pacific.

Once again, my appologies for being so strung out over so trivial a matter.

[ March 19, 2003, 07:53 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Liam]

The inclusion of extra seazones are important in my opinion for a lot of ships and men were lost there. Especially in the North...and even some in the Indian Ocean..That would expand the Naval capability of the game. This is strategic Command Europe, if the Pacific was including would be a different story altogether. When you consider the diversity of Supply and Navies and AirPower in this game already some adjustments could be envisioned. Murmansk, Iceland, Persian Gulf and that would make for some more playability.

[disorder]

LIAM i understand, just letting you know what my first thoughts of the game were.

SIGN ME UP FOR MORE PLAYABILITY!

abt that newbie ?--

when playing AI i believe i had 4 subs between can and uk and was managing a pretty respectable 26-40 mpp drain on uk economy.

is there a set maximum amount that can be taken?

[Edwin P.]

The idea of expanding the map would certainly make things more interesting and boost the importance of strategic warfare in the Atlantic.

Allies > It would also allow for LendLease Convoys to Russia, while the US is still officialy neutral and increase the importance of Iceland and Norway. In fact, it could even allow the allies to redeploy air units to Russia, either via Operating the unit or by loading them onto transports.

Axis> With an increased chance for sub survivability and more MPP merchant shipping it would make a submarine warfare strategy more important and give then a good incentive to take Iceland/Norway and disrupt convoy routs to the USSR and England.

In fact, prior to the US entering the War, and after Russia is at War, I would allow for the US to send a certain number of MPPs per month to the USSR. The amount should increase as US war readiness increases. When the US delcares ware the Allied Player should decide how much MPPS the US should send to Russia for that turn or the next month.

Then this convoy would take X turns to reach Russia via an allied selectable route 1,2, or 3. To stop the convoy the Axis player would have to station troops on that route or hold a choke point such as Norway and/or Iceland.

Allowing the allies to select the convoy route gives them more control over its chance for success and how fast the MPPs arrive at UK ports. In fact during the war allied merchant ship conveys would often change their routes in order to avoid German submarines.

Example: A direct route might take only 3 turns. A southern route through the South Atlantic might take 5 turns while a northern route might take 4 turns to reach the UK.

[Edwin P.]

DiFool

#7 Stacking in Ports, Yes, Yes, Yes.

It brings up a chance for a Pearl harbor situation, if each air/land/naval attack on ships in port could damage multiple ships (which are tied up at the piers or have crews on shore leave).

[Liam]

Disorder, I am not quite a newbie<but I'm a rookie majourly> I know it seems kewl to have 4 German subs operating in the N.Sea and you think you're getting something in return for it. Though this game is a matter of Fronts. You'll find that any decent Allied player tosses your U-boat fleet and you don't collect for long on it unless you're making lots of MPPs and earned tech

[Liam]

Oh and as far as convoys are to Russia people from the US, since the US is not a major player in Europe. Why not allow the Allied player to modify the politics by increasing the MPP flow to the two future Allies though at the possibility of stirring up Axis Minors more quickly... That would be giving more control to the Player and less to the game... Also perhaps with this lowering US readiness by contributing too much to the War effort Already Syndrome.

The map could be bigger without a problem, I think playability wouldn't be hurt a bit...In fact to make things more simplistic why not just add in a few hexes regarding the ports and supply routes available to the Allies were many 'axis subs' were sunk that are not currently visible on the map.

[H.J. von Arnim]

Why not expanding the map also to include Japan (as a member of the axis which it historically was) to sort of take care of the US and/or Russia ? That really would be interesting as there were lots of seabattles between Japan and the US....

[disorder]

LIAM

this of course was a serious question, and not hypothetical(regarding max sub mpp damage to uk). yes i told myself from the start that as long as my sub tech increased i would put into it. it just happened that they zoomed in tech, so by mid 41 they were maxed!

not offering this as anything but a question about game mechanics. perhaps you know someone who would answer my question?

[Edwin P.]

Liam

I like your idea for adjustable MPP contributions by the US to Russia and UK, and its effect on the acitivation of Axis Minors.

To make it more realistic I would not allow any MPP transfers to Soviet Russia during the winter months when ice blocked access to their Northern Port. This would be supplemented by a pop-up event window (with a picture of a frozen ocean) advising the Allies that Artic Ice has blocked access to the northern russian port.

To reflect the effects of weather, this might be adjusted by a percentage for each winter month - ie November 20% Ice, December 80% Ice, January 95% Ice, Feb 80% Ice, Mar 20% Ice or the game might come with an option for Historical Weather.

Thus the US could send the USSR MPPs 7 to 8 months of the year.

[Liam]

disorder:

as said in the manual resulting MPP losses determind by on a value of sub strength as well as potential MPP income from these areas. Gibraltar, Alexandria, Canada, Malta...

Usually I max out at 12 MPP damage<tech 1> strength 10 subs... You figure Canada is only worth 30 MPPs so anymore than 3 subs unless protecting one another is too much involvement... 25 in the med, combination 55 MPPs...about that I assume, with an Italian fleet in place and no British assualt on Minors you're suffocating her production bad...

as far as Russian Convoys,

you should be allowed to manipulate it cause it would effect the lack of income for Russian and Britian. You would in effect cause things to change, but it would balance the German Minor Annexations... Think of 100 MPPs in 1940 to Britian! The requirement of a German Sub fleet would be massive! If you expanded the German sub fleet into raiders instead of surface hot dogs you would get more out of them. Lately if you're fortunate you get the Hood or a Brit Battleship..Good payoff but it's a waste for even having German subs...Also having a Archangel/Murmansk shipment of MPPs would give the Russians a "much needed" boost from UK/USA and it's so hard for Russia to hold off the Germans in 1941...If the German's get the right start off.. Perhaps some players may choose not to bring the US in till 1942 or later and just contribute to her Allies... It is a possible event in history without Pearl, and without German declaration of War...With German declaration as was historical we may have neutral waters around certian amount of the Atlantic blocking U-boats from getting right up on US MPPs transports...

I think that Ice up north would be nice... I don't recall many shipments then, and I do recall Churchill complaining than nearly all of their precious shipments to Russia were sunk by German Raiders operating there to prevent Russia from getting much needed early supplies.

This would stop some of the Neutral battles, if you implaced greater punishment for Allies invading neutrals and make a real North Atlantic War and once you own the Atlantic you own the MPP trade offs... Making N.America as would've been historically and dead end for Support with enough subs...Also forcing Germany to contribute to buying subs and subtech to keep up with the times or else allow unimpedded Convoys

[disorder]

LIAM

thanks for your comments