The Shipping War

[Ludi1867]

I am a long time SC and SC2 player who has lurked these boards for years. For me WaW is a fascinating addition to the SC2 world. Overall its many nuances make it a deeper game, and how best to employ the new options is keeping me very busy. The aspect that I am having perhaps the most difficulty with is grasping the changes in the shipping war.

Portraying the U-boat versus shipping battle during the Second World War is, of course, very difficult. The SC concepts of convoy lanes, U-boats with some optional modes and various allied ships and aircraft is overall a creditable effort. The changes introduced in WaW do add more choices, especially breaking off the smaller ships used for the majority of ASW into ‘Destroyer flotillas (DD)’. The U-boats have been given a better chance of evasion as well, with a possibility of diving when attacked and apparently ‘re-surfacing’ randomly somewhere within a two square radius of where they dived from. This greatly enhances U-boat survivability, even if it can result in some unusual locations for U-boats when they ‘teleport’. These are my assessments of how the new features are supposed to work after playing a little, as it is difficult (I think impossible, but have not tried to parse the rules completely) to gain this understanding from the manual.

While these changes are generally improvements, there are some questionable aspects that are perhaps serious enough to unduly unbalance the game, and perhaps they do so inadvertently. One event that has confused me is that on two occasions in PBEM games a U-boat has passed right by (once through) a square in which a BB was located. The U-boat started its move outside spotting range of the BB (which had been carefully placed as part of a ‘containment’ deployment around a U-boat to prevent its escape). If this is a feature, it certainly complicates sub-hunting the game. Is it? If not, it perhaps should be squashed as a bug.

Another feature is the massive damage all ships are potentially liable to when they unexpectedly encounter a U-boat or submarine. In general this is consistent with the damage that can be expected when “ambushed”. For almost all classes of ships this is reasonable and defensible. This is not the case for the DD unit. To have these units suffer serious losses to a U-boat ambush is not sensible, and makes hunting U-boats perhaps more difficult than it should be in game terms. Historically it is also at odds with how events happened at sea, where successful U-boat attacks on escorts on the scale portrayed in the game, without commensurate loss to the U-boats, simply did not happen. Small escorts (destroyers and smaller) were lost to U-boats, of course, but generally U-boats avoided attacking hunting groups of small ships because they were difficult to attack and all too prone to use the attack as an invitation to hunt the ambusher to extinction.

The best way to address this problem, in my view, is to make DD units immune to ambush attacks by U-boats or submarines. This still makes ASW much more difficult than it was because only DD units would be effective at initial detection, and using other units in that role would risk serious damage to more expensive units. Perhaps a ‘mode’ option for DDs could be considered, but it is hard to see what mode, aside from hunting, that these units would be used for in WaW terms. (Things were of course different in the real world, but that level of complexity is not a reasonable option for a game like SC2)

In any event, those are my views. As it stands my initial assessment is that U-boats are now a little bit too much advantaged, because of the massive damage they can inflict on their primary threat. Fighting the AI with the new rules as they are is not overly difficult, but against human players the advantages now found with U-boats is perhaps excessive, and it would be better balanced to give their hunter a reasonable chance in surprise encounters.

[John DiFool the 2nd]

I've been ranting and railing about how the SC series handles the convoy wars ever since SC1 came out. While many of the changes as the series has progressed are laudable, my biggest gripe is the use of tactical manuevers, which would only make sense on a small-scale game (like Silent Hunter), in what is a large scale strategic game. Diving and ambushes is what one sole sub skipper has to worry about; it is not something which should concern Raeder back at sub HQ when considering the disposition of a group of 20 subs.

Instead of considering that sub counter as being one little lonely boat, it must be considered to represent a group of subs. Instead of "raiding" vs. "silent", instead remodel it as "wolf packing" and "spread" instead. The advantage of putting your boats into wolf pack mode is higher damage inflicted on convoys, with the tradeoff being that you are more vulnerable if an ASW or bomber unit finds you. In spread you do less damage but also receive less damage. On the map, a wolf pack has a 1 square "combat radius" (which is visible as a darklighted region around the sub counter) where it may interdict convoys and be subject to attack. In spread the combat radius is two squares; an enemy ship which encounters this radius may not (via random algorithms) ever know that he is near an enemy sub, if the sub doesn't manage to do damage. But all that may be a band-aid solution to a deeper problem.

Surprise encounters are one feature of this game I've never liked, and again is a tactical thing. On a strategic scale it makes no sense to say that a BB task force gets "surprised" by a group of subs (or vice versa), nor an armored corps by a "hidden" infantry army. You are taking an artifact of the turn-based format (in real life ships encounter each other simultaneously, so who's ambushing who?) and promogulating that artifact into a potentially campaign-altering feature.

In any event there are two other games (one by a small publisher dedicated to naval strategy games, another by a mod group for SH3) which should be coming out in the next 3-6 months which should do much more justice to the sub war than SC does.

[pzgndr]

The best way to address this problem, in my view, is to make DD units immune to ambush attacks by U-boats or submarines.

Maybe not totally immune, but the sub defense for destroyers could be increased. Good suggestion.

Instead of "raiding" vs. "silent", instead remodel it as "wolf packing" and "spread" instead.

These terms can be edited in the localization.txt file for a campaign. Whatever they are called, they do provide different mode choices for the player.

The whole shipping war and Battle of the Atlantic remains a challenge to realistically simulate at the strategic scale. I've seen several different models in various board games and computer games over the years and they all seem to have their pros and cons.

[Hubert Cater]

One event that has confused me is that on two occasions in PBEM games a U-boat has passed right by (once through) a square in which a BB was located.

Ludi1867,

This is a new feature for Weapons and Warfare. Essentially subs can pass through hidden enemy ships except for Destroyers, i.e. if the path causes the sub to bump into a Destroyer then the movement is stopped and a surprise encounter is commenced.

[Lars]

Could we get a toggle for that?

I might want to use my subs for scouting.

[Hubert Cater]

I could possibly tie it in with the Silent/Hunt mode if you guys like that. Something like this was actually suggested during Beta but we left it as is since for the most part there was no real argument why you would want your subs to be running without the ability to pass through enemy ships... but I guess scouting is always an option.

[Lars]

Well, I bump into a carrier, I'm going to want to nail that carrier.

I'm willing to lose one sub if I can feed others into the fray, to say nothing of protecting the major fleet units. I'd be p.o.'d if my sub screen didn't report back to the Bismarck.

[Ludi1867]

Hubert,

Thank you for the clarification regarding U-boats now having the ability to pass by all except destroyers freely. I am not much in favour of this feature, but at least I now realize it is intentional, and can adjust my play accordingly.

You did not comment on the significant damage suffered in many cases by destroyers that encounter U-boats by chance. This is an even more serious issue now that U-boats can more easily evade containment, as 'chance' encounters remains the only effective way to search for human controlled U-boats (the AI is not as consistently evasive and this sometimes allows effective air search, but humans certainly are). Is there any intention to make destroyers less susceptible to damage when they first encounter U-boats, or is this another feature?

[Edwin P.]

Surprise Encounters.

I would like to see the chance for a surprise encounter in destroyer meets submarine and submarine meets destroyer based on the relative experience of the two fleets.

An experienced destroyer fleet meeting an inexperienced submarine fleet should have a chance to avoid a surprise engagement since its fleet commander is more experienced.

Example:

20% per experience advantage to avoid a surprise encounter.

Case 1: Destroyer Exp 0 encounters sub Exp 0 = 100% surprise encounter (100% sub strikes first)

Case 2: Destroyer Exp 2 encounters sub Exp 0 = 60% surprise encounter (i.e. 60% sub strikes first)

Case 3: Destroyer Exp 2 encounters sub Exp 1 = 80% surprise encounter (i.e. 80% sub strikes first)

[ October 31, 2007, 02:18 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[SeaMonkey]

Good fix Hubert, let the subs pass through(excepting DDs) when "silent" mode is activated and then elligible for combat in the "hunt" selection.

Surprise encounters can only happen when subs are in "hunt" mode or found by DDs in "silent" mode.

I would say that if DDs disclose a sub in silent mode, the DDs should get the first shot at causing damage.

[Hubert Cater]

Ludi1867,

Difficult for me to say without seeing the tech level for the destroyer and the sub, the supply values and the experience levels for both units as they all play a role.

Either way this aspect has not changed from SC2 as the surprised unit is always at a disadvantage to the hidden unit, i.e. the hidden unit receives a small bonus in readiness and the surprised unit loses a small amount in readiness for the combat calculations.

[Hubert Cater]

SeaMonkey, good ideas here as well

[Lars]

Seems you need three toggles.

Normal Run - read screening for the fleet, you bump into things and takes your chances.

Convoy - Avoid surface ships, still raid the lines.

Silent - Avoid all contact.

[Hubert Cater]

The issue of sub diving also came up in testing and the basic idea was that you may not always want the sub to dive when attacked, i.e. you may want it to stay as-is as part of a screening operation.

So how about something like this? Note, this is the easiest for me to implement:

Silent

- Sub can pass through enemy units except for a Destroyer

- Sub will dive (if a dive is successful) when attacked and move away

- Sub cannot attack convoy lanes

Hunt

- Sub cannot pass through enemy units

- Sub will dive (if a dive is succssful) but will not move away

- Sub can attack convoy lanes

[Hyazinth von Strachwitz]

sounds good... I would prefer that Subs will always dive and move away, but that makes them too strong..

APPROVED!

[Lars]

Originally posted by Hubert Cater:

The issue of sub diving also came up in testing and the basic idea was that you may not always want the sub to dive when attacked, i.e. you may want it to stay as-is as part of a screening operation.

So how about something like this? Note, this is the easiest for me to implement:

Silent

- Sub can pass through enemy units except for a Destroyer

- Sub will dive (if a dive is successful) when attacked and move away

- Sub cannot attack convoy lanes

Hunt

- Sub cannot pass through enemy units

- Sub will dive (if a dive is succssful) but will not move away

- Sub can attack convoy lanes

That would work.

[Terif]

Yep, good solution

[SeaMonkey]

Is it any wonder why this game has gotten so good?

[Lars]

You know what, how about this.

Silent

- Sub can pass through enemy units except for a Destroyer

- Sub will dive (if a dive is successful) when attacked and move away

- Sub can attack convoy lanes

Hunt

- Sub cannot pass through enemy units

- Sub will dive (if a dive is succssful) but will not move away

- Sub can attack convoy lanes

If you truly don't want the sub spotted, don't sit on the convoy lines.

[Hubert Cater]

This could be part of an Axis strategy where it is in the convoy lanes as part of a trap since the Allied player may think it is a safe passgage due to 0 raiding reports.

This implementation gives the Axis player that particular option as it was for Blitzkrieg as well.

[Ludi1867]

First, I would like to thank Hubert for his prompt replies, as well as the other commentators who have made this a very interesting thread for me to review. I would also like to endorse the modification that Hubert has proposed. There is some merit to Lars counter-proposal, but my view is that Lars amendment would perhaps make U-boats too challenging/powerful. Another possibility that might be a middle road would be to enable a move away for diving subs in hunting mode, but limit the move away to one hex (as opposed to the two it is, I believe, now).

The bottom line is that it really is difficult to emulate the shipping war in a game of this nature. Too many changes start to impact the overall balance of other parts of the game. Overall I think the option that Hubert proposes probably does address the balance issue best within the present overall design.

[targul]

Have you examined the cost of a sub vs the damage a sub does. Subs do 20 points of damage typically a turn when they hunt. Do they get to hunt for 10 turns without discovery. Rarely if ever.

Once discovered they are quickly surrounded by British and sunk or brought to level 1. Should they survive they must now limp home for repair where they are not doing any damage.

I believe if you did a cost anaylsis of subs you would find even with there new dive which I really like they are very vulnerable and rarely pay for themselves.

[Lars]

Originally posted by Hubert Cater:

This could be part of an Axis strategy where it is in the convoy lanes as part of a trap since the Allied player may think it is a safe passgage due to 0 raiding reports.

This implementation gives the Axis player that particular option as it was for Blitzkrieg as well.

Er, think I missed something here.

As is currently in WaW, if the sub is on silent, surface ships (other than DD) just keep on going, correct?. So where's the trap?

[PanzerMike]

Originally posted by targul:

Have you examined the cost of a sub vs the damage a sub does. Subs do 20 points of damage typically a turn when they hunt. Do they get to hunt for 10 turns without discovery. Rarely if ever.

Once discovered they are quickly surrounded by British and sunk or brought to level 1. Should they survive they must now limp home for repair where they are not doing any damage.

I believe if you did a cost anaylsis of subs you would find even with there new dive which I really like they are very vulnerable and rarely pay for themselves.

This is my experience too. Subs are not worth it most of the time. This needs tweeking. Perhaps the escape dive should occur more often, allowing to sneak away succesfully to live to fight another day.

[Hubert Cater]

Lars it is the other way around, the current implementation is that subs can pass through enemy ships on their movement and not vice-versa.

Basically the silent mode proposal, i.e. where subs cannot attack convoy lanes, is just an extension of the current implementation.

This gives subs a chance to sit on a convoy lane without actually raiding. Traps are not the only reason for this, it could also be to get all your subs into position, maintain the current supply level etc., etc.

Essentially as a player you may want your subs to sit on a convoy lane without actually raiding, for whatever reason, so this is just an implementation on how to achieve that option.