Naval HQ Unit Idea Revisted

[Edwin P.]

In Summary:

Proposed Naval HQ

- Benefits only Naval Units

- Benefits the 5 naval units it commands anywhere on the map

- Gives a player a base 5% (+1% per Intel Tech Level) chance per turn to spot each enemy naval unit.

And Desert Dave replied:

I'd like to see naval HQs also serve as shore-based "naval stations" and any AF (... preferably with a good naval-bomber rating) within so many tiles of this HQ would have better Air to Sea combat and spotting abilities... but that's just me, ALWAYS trying to improve on the naval war.

This unit might be built by a player expecting a vigorous Battle for the Atlantic. Of course, purchasing a Naval HQ unit means that you have not purchased a regular HQ unit which would benefit your land based units.

I have modified the idea to allow the proposed Naval HQ's spotting ability to be modified by a player's Intelligence Tech level - to reflect increased resources devoted to gathering and evaluating intelligence regarding the movement of enemy fleets.

An analysis of the spotting factor shows that this Naval HQ unit will allow you to spot about 1 in 20 (at tech level 0) to 1 in 10 (at tech level 5) enemy naval ships & transports each turn.

Any comments as to whether this is a realistic reflection of the effects of naval intelligence? Should the spotting factor be increased, decreased, removed or kept as proposed?

Although all major nations should be able to build a Naval HQ unit in the 1939 scenario my guess is that only the UK and Germany would be likely to. The UK as it would greatly benefit the combat capabilities of their large naval forces and Germany to aid in coordinating the actions of German wolf packs in the Atlantic.

Another question arises as to what ratings should these naval HQ units be assigned? Russia 3 or 4 (Russo-Japanese War), Italian 4, UK 7, Germany 6 and USA 6. Any comments?

And how should they benefit the units that they command? Perhaps a bonus to naval ship readiness equal to 3% x Naval HQ Rating? Thus a British HQ unit would give a 18% bonus to the readiness of ships that it commands, a small but not overwhelming bonus. Any thoughts?

Another idea to consider is giving each player a choice of HQ units. Units of a Favored type would receive a readiness bonus of 3% x HQ Rating while units not of the favored type would receive a bonus equal to 1% x HQ Rating. Thus a German Naval HQ that favors Submarine Warfare would give a 18% readiness bonus to Subs and only a 6% bonus to Surface ships it commands. This would reflect the tendency of the naval command to favor certain types of combat in training, staffing and budgeting - Surface Warships, Submarines, or Carriers - above others. Any comments?

Naval HQ Favored Type Choices by Country

Germany - Submarines, Surface Ships

UK - Surface Ships, Carriers (The UK navy did not have anyone championing submarine warfare)

IT - Surface Ships

USA - Surface Ships, Carriers (The US Navy was dominated by Battleship and Carrier Admirals)

Russia - Surface Ships

It would be an appropiate to include a Naval HQ unit in any player built Pacific War Scenario.

The final question is - Would the Naval HQ unit as proposed improve the the game? Or is it simply not needed?

[ May 12, 2004, 11:35 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[jon_j_rambo]

Are Naval Leaders really able to effectively modify that many ships? That's the point of a strategic game, the game player decides the strategy. Were there any good Naval Leaders worth mentioning? No single ship commanders is another story. Breaking the code, won the battle of Midway.

[Edwin P.]

I see Naval HQ units as a reflection of greater resources assigned to Naval Warfare, not merely Admirals. In my view it reflects more spending, better training, improved analysis of intelligence, better coordination of Naval resources and units so as to improve the ability of Naval Units to wage war. It increases the chance that good naval commanders will be promoted to command warships.

In essence, I see a Naval HQ unit as representing a dedication of resources to building an improved Naval command structure which will benefit the war fighting capability of the units it commands.

The Italians and Americans booth fielded Battleships. Which had the better naval commanders, the better intelligence and the better training programs, and the better record in naval battles. The USA did. Why? It had a superior naval command structure. This unit attempts to simulate that and thus provide a way to further differentiate naval Units of one country from another.

And Intelligence (reflected in the Naval HQ Unit) helped to defeat the German Wolf Packs in WWII much as it defeated the Japanese at Midway:

What would have been the prospect for that undertaking if Ultra hadn't become available against the U-Boats in June 1941 and radically reduced their successes against the convoys.

We know that in that second half of 1941 their shipping successes were cut back to 120,000 tons a month average. That has to be compared not with the monthly average of 280,000 tons a months in the four months before June '41 but with the sinkings they would have achieved with their greater number of U-Boats.

It has been calculated that the Ultra saved about one and half million tons in September, October, November and December '41.

And even if Britain's essential imports had not without that reduction been reduced to a dangerously low level, the intermission that provided was invaluable in enabling the British to build up reserves in merchant shipping and develop anti-submarine defences.

So that when the U-Boats returned to the Atlantic after their first defeat (they did that in the autumn of 1942), they had been delayed in making a decisive thrust for more than a year. Now when they returned they had been supplied with an advanced Enigma, one that instead of using three wheels concurrently used four wheels, which as you can see noticeably increased the mathematical difficulties of solving the key.

In fact Bletchley couldn't solve it from February to December 1942. Mercifully for us (though not for the Americans) most of the U-Boats were on the Atlantic American coast at that time, but as they came back to the North Atlantic convoys they were still using this cipher and they brought about another crisis in the Atlantic.

It again was the Ultra which brought them under control. The figures of sinkings of Allied shipping reached the highest in the war in March '43. They had been brought down by May '43 to lower proportions than ever before in the war as a result of this return of Ultra to the scene.

Effect of Ultra on the Battle for the North Atlantic and the Campaign in Africa

[ May 13, 2004, 12:31 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[jon_j_rambo]

Eddie --- In that context, I will agree. I was thinking of one individual, you are describing a system, both tangible & intangible.

[Edwin P.]

Rambo - I understand your point. I wish that we could assign individual leaders to Corps, Armies and Tank Groups. Imagine Patton leading an Army and giving it some special bonus - say a +1 AP so that the unit commanded by Patton can move one more hex than normal or assigning General Lucas to a Corps and finding that it has a -1 AP penalty assigned to its movement allowance, reflecting Lucus's tendency to move cautiously into battle.

[ May 13, 2004, 12:39 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[jon_j_rambo]

Yes, that would be cool. Specific leaders attached to specific units, chances to die, chances to influence, etc.

[Lars]

It's an idea but I think it would just muck up the game system.

The only two countries who would ever build one would be the Germans and the Brits. The Brits should probably get one at the start anyway and if I were the Germans I think I'd just go for more subs. The bonus's you put forward aren't really great enough to make me bother with building one. Long Range air would give me the spotting anyway and be more useful in other ways.

Really, I think you're Naval HQ idea could be more neatly folded in to an Intel Tech. The intelligence battle went back and forth in the Atlantic, with the Germans breaking the Brits convoy code repeatedly and the Brits breaking the German Ultra repeatedly. So if you could just rig Intel Tech to affect naval spotting to a greater extent than other unit's spotting, depending on who's on top, you've gotten most of what you want.

And besides, you just know the flyboys will be wanting their own HQ next. Dang map will be overrun with them at this rate.

[Roosevelt45]

Would this Naval HQ work like a normal HQ?

it looks pretty vulnerable to me without fighting capacity.

How many of these HQ's would we be able to make?

I know of Karl Dönitz for the germans but that's all.

[Lars]

I think Grand Admiral Erich Raeder is the one who's name would be on it, Roosevelt.

[Edwin P.]

Lars

1. Excellent Analysis

2. In my mind the Flyboys already have an HQ as the current HQ unit supports land and air units, but you and Desert Dave are probably right they will want their own.

3. I had thought that a naval HQ gives you an extra combat skill boost equal to another surface ship at a lower cost, along with a few bonuses - ie you can keep your ships at sea longer due to the readiness boost, an important factor in launching campaigns far from friendly ports and you have a chance to spot enemy subs without having to purchase expensive bomber units or wait for advances in long range.

Roosevelt 45

This proposed Naval HQ would work like a normal HQ but only benefit Naval Units and perhaps as David Dave suggested "air fleets (... preferably with a good naval-bomber rating) within so many tiles of this HQ would have better Air to Sea combat and spotting abilities".

It would be very vulnerable to ground attack but as its command range is infinite it would most likely always be stationed in their home country and relatively safe from attack.

My guess is that if the idea is incorporated into SC that a build limit of 1 would be used for most countries and like Lars said only the UK or Germany would be likely to build one. (or the US and Japan in a Pacific Scenario)

Grand Admiral Erich Raeder - FAVORED SURFACE WARFARE - NAVAL HQ RATING 6

Raeder's strategy was to build a German Navy that could challenge the British Navy. This brought him into conflict with Hermann Goering who as director of the German economy directed more resources to the Luftwaffe than the navy.

In October 1939, Raeder sent Adolf Hitler a proposal for capturing Denmark and Norway. He argued that Germany would not be able to defeat Britain unless it created naval bases in these countries. In April 1940 Hitler gave permission for this move but he was disappointed by the heavy losses that the German Navy suffered during the achievement of this objective.

Raeder supported Operation Sealion, the planned German invasion of Britain, but argued that first the Luftwaffe had to gain air superiority. When Hermann Goering failed to win the Battle of Britain, Reader advised Hitler to call off the invasion. He was also a strong opponent of Operation Barbarossa.

Adolf Hitler grew increasingly disillusioned with the performance of the German Navy and after the Luetzow and Admiral Hipper failed to stop a large Arctic convoy he accused his commander of incompetence. Raeder resigned in January 1943, and was replaced by Karl Doenitz as Commander in Chief of the Navy.

Karl Doentiz - FAVORED SUBMARINE WARFARE - NAVAL HQ RATING 7

Doenitz's services in building up the German Navy, and in particular the offensive U-boat arm, for the coming war, were outstanding. An extract from the official publication "Das Archiv" an the occasion of Doenitz's promotion to vice-admiral, dated 27 September 1940, reads as follows:

"* * * In four years of untiring and in the fullest sense of the word uninterrupted work of training, he [Doenitz] succeeds in developing the young U-boat arm, personnel, and material till it is a weapon of a striking power unexpected even by the experts. More than three million gross tons of sunken enemy shipping in only one year achieved with only few boats speak better than words of the services of this man."

An extract from the diary for the German Navy, 1944 edition (1463-PS) emphasizes Doenitz's contribution. It describes in detail Doenitz's work in building up the U-boat arm; his ceaseless work in training night and day to close the gap of seventeen years, during which no training had taken place; his responsibility for new improvements and for devising the "pack" tactics which were later to become famous. His position is summarized further as follows:

" In spite of the fact that his duties took on unmeasurable proportions since the beginning of the huge U-boat construction program, the chief was what he always was and always will be, leader and inspiration to all the forces under him. *** In spite of all his duties, he never lost touch with his men and he showed a masterly understanding in adjusting himself to the changing fortunes of war." (1463-PS)

[ May 13, 2004, 11:28 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Roosevelt45]

AND he was appointed by Hitler to be the next Fürher(of course this was useless because at that time the Russians had already laid siege on Berlin).

After that he was put on trial in Neurenberg but I don't know wether he was executed or not.

[Desert Dave]

Again, and to elaborate a bit more... I sure wouldn't mind seeing a "generic" HQ.

For Naval, it would be that combined Naval Station and HQ.

For Air, it could be a sort of... "super Airport control HQ" which could be placed in whichever area is MOST in need of bolstering.

Just as with the potential Naval HQ. And both or either could be "named" as each Player pleases. At purchase, it would merely be called... "Naval HQ" or "Air HQ." (... and naval station/HQ could also direct naval bomber activities and spotting!)

IF you were to only allow ONE EACH maximum per Major Power (... and rated according to each country's historic abilities and achievements) of these, then the decision, the gamer's CHOICE would have to be made... where O where should it go?

Now, this "generic HQ"... one each for land and sea, would likely have to be more expensive.

So that the Player would be hesitant to just throw one out there somewhere, say, on one of the Coasts, or deep in the red heart of Russia, since it WOULD be unique and expensive.

Well, nice thoughts on a lazy Thursday afternoon, when the lawn needs mowing again!

Hubert will as per usual have final say on this, but... I do join those who favor further control for SOME of the sea or air forces. :cool:

[Terry]

The naval HQ's seem a brilliant idea - after all the convoy systems bewteen the US and UK were all controlled by the North Atlantic HQ in Liverpool (which still survives today and can be visted). The air HQ systems simply reflect the British 'sector' idea and again should work.

Edwins point on assigning invidual leaders names is excellent, although I can't help but add (tongue in cheek) that maybe Patton should also get +1 for fighting his own men!

[Edwin P.]

Red Fleet - Naval HQs?

What do all of you think about a Naval HQ? Like the British Admiralty that coordinated Naval Ops? It could raise readiness, fasten experience gathering and support U-Boat Hunting missions (lowering percentage of diving away). The German HQ would support evasion of U-Boats and coordinate attacks against merchant shipping.

[SeaMonkey]

Excellent proposal, as I said before Edwin. I'll throw a pro-lot into the ballot box for the generic HQs as stated by DD. As far as the features attached, there are many here for potential consideration. I'll trust HC's decision on those.