Battle for the Atlantic

[Edwin P.]

A collection of posts dealing with the battle for the Atlantic.

Desert Dave says:

You are partly right.

As presently constituted, there is a land connection between Finland and Sweden, but, as is apparent in the screenshot, not between Norway and Finland.

The whole U-boot VS RN sub-hunters should be greatly improved, in that you have MUCH more room up along Norwegian coast to try and slip your subs and/or RAIDERS out above Scapa Flow and into the North Atlantic.

Nothing like that very constricted space in the original map.

The Wolfpacks should really be something to see! and can disrupt and cripple UK's economy, and, IMHO, the subs will truly be well worth investing in.

And don't forget, there will be convoy routes that can be selected, so that - as both the Allied and Axis Admiral, you will have to seriously think about this whole tin-can campaign... a kind of ferocious Cat & Mouse game that will be epic! Especially considering the much larger size of the Atlantic.

The thing is, with that fantastic editor, you can tweak ANY aspect of this game that you like.

For instance, if you REALLY like that Naval Game, as I surely do, then you can slightly modify all target values and spotting ranges, and adjust "naval bombing" ratings for all sea-going powers, and modify unit's cost (... make the subs and cruisers a bit less expensive, and then you'll be able to afford more of them)

And add the port of Trondheim or Narvik so the U-boots will have a staging base to intercept that icy cold Murmansk convoy run... maybe even put a squadron of naval torpedo bombers up there to keep the Brit Carriers honest...

So that the Battle of the North Atlantic can then! be a critical aspect of the WW2 Grand Strategy, as it should be... hooray!

Edwin says

Desert Dave, can you enlighten us on the Subs silent running mode - I assume that this will reduce the chance for spotting submarines and maybe even allow units sail right pass submarines without seeing them?

Also will air units always spot all naval units within range or will there be a chance that they miss spotting a unit, with a greater chance for not spotting a sub (as subs were harder to spot than surface ships). In my mind the chance for not spotting a unit should increase as the range increases and one of the biggest influences on the battle for the Atlantic was the ability to spot German Wolfpacks from airbases in Iceland, Greenland and Newfoundland.

Properly played the game looks like it will provide an incentive for air units to be stationed in these areas in order to protect the Merchant Ship Convoys.

Desert Dave says

Insofar as raiding by surface ships, and just how the "run-silent" feature will be implemented, and the spotting variables, I will hold off on saying anything further.

Hubert is still deciding on some of the aspects of those, so... you know, in this instance it would be better if he reveals what he has decided, WHEN he has decided it.

I am VERY enamored of this whole aspect of the naval game, and have long favored a much more detailed and consequential paradigm for The Battle of the North Atlantic ... as have many others.

I've no doubt, those many others have some sway in the decision making, so keep on!

Asking for whatever it is that you want.

Raiders!!

Me? I really, REALLY want to see them included.

[ April 19, 2004, 02:22 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Edwin P.]

--- Disregard this post I just realized that the Map does not extend to the south atlantic :mad: -

Another item I would like to see included is a South American port in Argentina that could offer a safe haven to one Axis Naval unit.

An Axis naval unit in this port can not be attacked and it cannot attack from the port hex, however, it can be repaired while in this hex. Moreover, any Axis naval unit entering this port hex would be automatically spotted by the the Allied forces as their local diplomatic mission would most likely report the arrival of any Axis naval units.

Naturally, the Allies would have the option to exert diplomatic pressure to force Argentia to close its port to Axis naval units. The chance for them to exert this pressure should dramatically increase after France is liberated.

Before the war, Argentina was a center of struggle against progressive forces in Latin America; since 1935 it was a member of the Latin American Anti-Comintern Pact, in 1936 it prohibited all Communist activities within its borders, and it increasingly began backing Nazi Germany and its allies. Argentina's financial oligarchy and the leaders of its armed forces held a virtual monopoly on power. After the outbrake of hostilities in 1939, Argentina maintained an Axis-friendly neutrality; during the conference of Latin America's foreign ministers held in Rio de Janeiro (between 15 and 26 January of 1942) it rejected appeals to sever diplomatic ties with the Axis. In June of 1943, a coup d'etat was successfully executed under the leadership of A. Rawson, P. Ramirez, and J. Peron; these leaders took advantage of the pro-fascist mood prevailing in the country to establish a military dictatorship. Under pressure from the U.S., on 26/01/1944 Argentina severed diplomatic links with both Germany and Japan; on 27/03/1945 it formally declared on them war but it never actively participated in the struggle against either of these countries.

[ April 17, 2004, 01:42 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Some_God]

This might be a dumb nub question, but who is Desert Dave?

[Edwin P.]

A major merchant ship trade route existed between South Africa and the UK and the value of this route gradually increased over the course of the war. South Africa also contributed considerable forces to the Commenwealth Armed forces.

Perhaps this should be recreated in SC2 by adding two factors;

1. A selectable Merchant ship route from South Africa to the UK which Axis naval forces can attempt to disrupt. The value of this route would gradually increase over time.

--- Route 1 would go directly north past Portugal and France to the UK. (default route)

--- Route 2 would go farther west of Europe before returning to the UK. Selection of this route would reduce this convoy's MPP by 30% to reflect the longer transit time.

2. Giving the UK 2 South African corps during the course of the game. The UK player can decide via a pop up box where these units will go. Either to Egypt or to the UK.

a. Egypt - Corps appears in Egypt in 2 months if the Suez is controlled by the Axis

b. UK - South African corps appears in a south atlantic hex in 1 month aboard a transport. It must sail north past Axis naval forces to reach the UK.

[ April 17, 2004, 02:24 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Shaka of Carthage]

Edwin P

The South African "trade route" is already represented by the Mediterrian route. You are correct that historically, the value of the items shipped over that route increased, but thats basically true of all of the UK trade routes.

The South African military forces never exceeded more than three (3) divisions. And due to thier perceptions and culturial beliefs in who they were, they would not serve outside of Africa. Thats why they were used in Ethiopia and North Africa, but disappeared afterward.

[ April 17, 2004, 03:40 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

[Edwin P.]

pzgndr

Member

Member # 8290

posted April 19, 2004 12:33 PM

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

Pretty much the same naval system. Two map changes that should help a lot are a bigger Atlantic and a two-way South Atlantic loop for both transports and naval units.

Subs will be slightly different with a Run Silent option to keep them from convoy raiding and alerting the Allies. Carriers will also become a different unit type, which means being able to make carrier (air) attacks against naval targets more effective than land-based Air Fleets. New naval bomber research will improve these naval attacks.

So expect the naval war to have a different flavor in SC2. Allies will now have the ability to switch fleets back and forth from Suez and Gibralter and Axis won't quite know for sure where they are. Axis will have the North Sea and Iceland route available to break out into the Atlantic so Allies will have to cover more blue areas. FoW should make all this VERY interesting.

[Desert Dave]

There's a hunting Moon out tonight.

Breaking bright on the white-knifed Atlantic.

And you notice,

And there's this keen shiver

All along the spine,

The first night sighting!

Of a sleek and feral... U-boot.

The first U-boot of the hunting season.

Could it be?

One of Doenitz's best?

That prowling silhouette... a Type 9?

Aligned just right?

In your frantic ASDIC mind?

It's time!

To settle an old, old score.

As old as... back in the Swamp,

Stricken again,

By the alligator's roar.

[ April 21, 2004, 12:06 PM: Message edited by: Desert Dave ]

[Edwin P.]

Desert Dave

Member

Member # 8295

posted April 21, 2004 10:19 AM

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

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />

As orignally posted by John DiFool the 2nd:

I do wonder what the Axis can do to sneak past if

the Allied player decides to form a solid line of

ships from Scapa on up to the pack ice limit.

That would be problematical for another reason.

Naval units that stray... more than ONE tile away from a port, such as Scapa Flow in your example, will have an increased possibility of suffering weather damage from rough Seas during those mud and snow seasons.

That could very well be... what? October through March or April?

Of course, this is in addition to the supplies expended by extensive naval maneuvers distant from a port, as was the case with Original SC... where readiness would go down the longer you were at Sea.

Subs would also risk wear & tear, though on a lesser scale, since they can run submerged. They can avoid some of the immediate brunt of the Storms and crashing wave action.

So. It remains the case that you are playing the Cat & Mouse game, even with naval sorties that are intent on interceptions.

</font>

[Edwin P.]

One thing I miss is Naval Commanders,

Perhaps add a Naval HQ Unit whose purchase gives a bonus to the readiness and various Naval Attack Ratings and Defense Ratings of Naval Units they Command. A Naval HQ would not offer any benefits to Land or Air Units.

Of course, if you decided not to purchase a Naval HQ unit then your Naval units would operate as normal. A Naval HQ unit gives the five fleets it commands a bonus no matter where they are on the map.

Thus the Germans if they truely wanted to fight a naval war might purchase a Naval HQ unit, reflecting increased training, coordination and intelligence gathering for Naval units, to increase the combat capabilities and readiness of their Naval units.

The British and Italians might do the same thing to increase their ability to control the seas.

Of course, money spent on purchasing a Naval HQ unit would be money diverted from other other options.

I would also give Naval HQ units a 5%(+5% per Intelligence Tech Level) to spot the location of any enemy unit in an Ocean Hex, reflecting the superior intelligence coordination and analysis available from a Naval HQ unit.

In Summary:

Proposed Naval HQ

- Benefits only Naval Units.

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

- Gives a player a base 5% chance per turn to spot each enemy naval unit, adjusted by Intelligence Tech Level.

[ April 22, 2004, 01:44 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by Edwin P:

In Summary:

Proposed Naval HQ

- Benefits only Naval Units

- Benefits the 5 units it commands anywhere on the map

- Gives a player a base 5% chance per turn to spot each enemy naval units.

No end to your innovative suggestions!... good idea, and it would sure be VERY appropriate in a potential Pacific SC! where daring naval commanders such as Spruance would get more of their post dated due.

Trouble is, THEN folks would want special Air commanders too. :eek:

There is only so much space on the GS game board.

_________________

OTOH, you could have HQs that are rated in MORE than one area, such as Kesselring maybe being higher rated in Air Ops?

Or, Patton and Rommel higher rated in "mechanized warfare."

But then, now that we are discussing offense and defense ratings for HQs, why not have logistics or risk-taking as variables? Among MANY others?

See, there is no end to these potential HQ ratings, so I guess it would revert back to what Hubert wants, as is always the case.

Me?

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.

[Edwin P.]

There is only so much space on the GS game board.

And only so much MPP to spend. Decisions, Decisions.

Trouble is, THEN folks would want special Air commanders too.

As an aside, would you put an Air Commander in charge of an Army Group? So give them an Air HQ that can only benefit Air Fleets and Bombers and prevents enemy air units from spotting friendly units adjacent to an air unit commanded by an Air Group HQ unit - "Surprise, Surpise, Surprise" - Gomer Pyle

Of course, I would probably prefer the more general purpose HQ unit that can benefit both Air and Land units.

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

Excellent addition that it is limited to Air to Sea Combat and Spotting Abilities vs Naval Units.

Perhaps carrying this a bit too far, you could have 3 German Naval HQ choices - one rated highly in submarine warfare, one rated highly in surface warfare and one rated highly in Naval Air as Naval Admirals tend to have their own preferences which influence ship building, spending priorities, and operations. In fact, I might even say that a German Naval HQ with a preference for Subs might reduce the cost of submarine building by 5% to reflect this or give a +1% bonus to Submarine Research. A Naval HQ with a preference for Air Operations might give a +1% bonus to naval bomber research. 1% too small? Its a 20% boost to the research provide by one tech chit (ie 5% to 6%).

[ April 22, 2004, 03:32 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Lars]

Originally posted by Edwin P.:

As an aside, would you put an Air Commander in charge of an Army Group?

I don't know, Kesselring didn't do that bad.

[Edwin P.]

Yes, but he started as an Artillery Officer

[Lars]

But he was transferred to the German Army Air Service in WWI.

He must have learned a lot sitting in that balloon.

[Edwin P.]

Originally posted by pzgndr:

There really wasn't a good historical basis for starting 2 subs in the Atlantic in 1939 in SC1. Because of map limitations and problems breaking out into the Atlantic, it made some sense to start a couple out there.

For SC2 with the North Sea lanes open, there's no compelling reason to impose this artificial constraint. It clearly shifts the early naval battles (if any) to the North Sea and North Atlantic. No longer will the Allies be able to simply hunt down the 2 starting subs, find them and kill them, and then swing the entire French and British fleets to the Med to find and kill the Italian fleet before the French go away.

Now the German sub commandant can hold back his wolfpacks and wait for the right opportunity to unleash his fury. And where will the Royal Navy be when that happens??

[ April 27, 2004, 06:29 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Edwin P.]

Originally posted by pzgndr:

Well ... don't expect those Level 5 U-boats to have nuclear power and ICBMs.

I think it IS fair to say that you can expect more cat & mouse games in the bigger Atlantic. And with the unit customization possible with unit builds and upgrades, you could focus ASW upgrades on Cruisers to serve as sub-hunters while the big gun BBs get the gun laying radar upgrades for the serious naval battles and shore bombardments. So that should add something to the game.

As for subs, sub attack and sub defense are going to be new combat types. The whole naval combat system will have naval/carrier/sub types where before everything was just one naval type. This provides a lot more flexibility and the opportunity to fine tune those little differences we wish we had in SC1. So expect some changes for the better. :cool: