Battleship vs Subs

[Juergen2SSDR]

I have played every Strategic Command that has come out, and am now waiting for my SC2 to arrive, and will of course buy the new expansion.

I just have one issue for the those that designed the naval battles portion. Battleships should not be able to attack Subs.

When the sub gets attacked (In my eyes it should be by Cruisers, Destroyers(New) and by other Subs.

A sub should be able to "Evade" Battleships and Carriers. Unless you mod the game with an Escort Carrier with ASW planes a normal Carrier would not realisticaly have the capability of searching for subs.

I played the Demo and was disapointed that every bloody BB searched out and destroyed my subs.

I hope in the new versions that this can be corrected, it just seems very unrealistic.

I consider BB as one ship, not a division of ships, as well as cruisers, as they are capital ships. Destroyers on the other hand are not capital ships so I could realisticaly assume that seeing the Destroyer icon, would in acutaly be a divison of Destroyers.

Anyone else think the same, or is that too nit picky.

Juergen

[Lars]

Originally posted by VeronicaJGD:

I consider BB as one ship, not a division of ships, as well as cruisers, as they are capital ships. Destroyers on the other hand are not capital ships so I could realisticaly assume that seeing the Destroyer icon, would in acutaly be a divison of Destroyers.

Well, that was your mistake.

Think BB = Battleship task force. Will still have some DD's as screen.

[Blashy]

And BBs had depth charges, not a ton of them.

[Juergen2SSDR]

Ok if that is the case, is there any differance between UK, USA, ITA, FRA, and German BB's. and other naval units, or is just a roll of the dice with modifiers. It just seems that it has been one sided as of sorts.

[SeaMonkey]

Any difference? Not much at the beginning of Fall Weiss, but later??? Well you are the CEO, do you want to be different? If so, make the effort(tech applications) and it will come to pass.

Assumptions can be highly inaccurate.

[Lars]

Well, not really his fault for making that assumption. Hubert gave the units "names" instead of division or squadron numbers.

[rleete]

Originally posted by Lars:

Well, not really his fault for making that assumption. Hubert gave the units "names" instead of division or squadron numbers.

"His fault"? How many guys named Veronica do you know?

[Juergen2SSDR]

My girlfriend and I share the same account.

And I do not know of any BB that had Depth Charges, and no Navy in there right mind would send a BB Task force to hunt subs. Maybe a Cruiser or Destroyer Squadron, but no Nation would risk a Capital Ship for a sub. ie.. BB or CV unit, they are way to costly. And fuel,

I could understand if the Gents at Battlefront inteded a BB to be a Division of ships, but then why have a Cruiser Icon, and the new Destroyers.

It should be a Surface Icon Division, perhaps a Carrier Icon, to indicate a Carrier's presence, and then a Destroyer icon to symbolize a Destroyer task force, usually for screening convoy routes.

It is strange, that there are some Tactical examples, but yet the game is mostly Strategic....

I like the game, but no Admiral would task a BB fleet or a "Heavy" task force to hunt subs. A Cruiser and Destroyer task force yes.

Im my opinion the Sub should always be able to dive away from the BB icon, thus proving that a Sub icon or "Wolfpack" could see such a large task force bearing on its position.

Also this would allow the Subs to be more lethal in confronting such Capital ships if there are not sufficient covering force... ie... Destroyer icon, and Cruisers. and Most Heavy Cruisers did not have adequate Depth charges, if any to linger to long in hunt for subs. That was a specificaly designed operataion for Destroyers.

[Lars]

Originally posted by rleete:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Lars:

Well, not really his fault for making that assumption. Hubert gave the units "names" instead of division or squadron numbers.

"His fault"? How many guys named Veronica do you know? </font>

[Juergen2SSDR]

maybe this will help out..

Veronica.. and Juergen...

there. now you wont be confused

[Guest Mike]

there was once a boy named sue.

In fact battleships were often used for convoy escort at the start of the war when the German surface fleet was active - Scharnhorst and Gnesenau often turned away from attacks because one or other RN Battleship was coming up over the horizon.

But again the poster's quite reasonable confusion (IMO) comes directly from setting up the naval war as if the units were just land units that float and failing to address the fundamental characteristics of sea warfare in their own right.

[SeaMonkey]

Just thinking of a scenario like that.

Well SO you'd better be taking notes, ready with your ideas for sea areas because I'm sure we'll all be awaiting some new dynamics for SC Pacific.

Still a little early but never the less a time for contemplation of the future.

I've got a number of old Naval oriented board games I intend on using for reference.

CaW, Harpoon and WitP should help with updated computer features.

[targul]

I understand your constrenation here but when a BB leaves port it goes with escort. Same is true for carriers.

You are correct that BB's are not effective verses Subs which makes it clear that they must already have there escort otherwise stacking would be absolutely necessary to display the ships.

Hope this helps.

[Guest Mike]

That's a sweeping statement that is not always true.

Hood and Prince of Wales had no escort, the escort for Bismark was Prinz Eugen - no destroyers.

And when they did have destroyers those were generally for close escort - not off hunting around for submarines - eg Force Z (Prince of Wales & Repulse) had 4 destroyers.

Battleship units should be able to inflict hits on submarines that attack them, but shuold not e able to find or attack submarines tehmselves.

[targul]

There is an exception to all rules and the result is usually as displayed. The BB dies without proper escort.

I sincerely doubt a BB commander went on a hunt for a sub though without his escort. He would probably regret finding a sub without the escort.

So since we do not have stacking we must assume it is a task force with the appropriate ships or we have nothing.

Would be nice to make our own task forces though maybe by some sort of upgrade that makes us feel a little more in command.

[SeaMonkey]

Well gentlemen this is exactly what I have been wishing for in a game of this scope, CFC(Custom Force Configuration).

Not just for Naval units but also for land. Of course this does mean micromanagement to a certain degree, but this is where choosing a commander and name for the TF comes into play. You could also be in charge of designating the appropriate icon, or the AI would make the choice depending on the predominant type.

Again, this would probably complicate the AI's participation, perhaps reducing its competency level.

Eventually we could anticipate a sort of melding between the simplified features of TOAW and WiF with a choice of playing out the critical battles at a reduced operational/tactical level of maneuver breaking down the superior Commands into their components.

[Guest Mike]

I don't see any task group based around a battleship going sub-hunting in the first place, so the rest of its makeup is moot.

[SeaMonkey]

Imagine that a group of German pocket battleships and their escorts with isolated single aux. cruisers breaking into the Atlantic under various scenarios of bad weather, Luftwaffe activities, deception, etc.

Couple that with an aggressive Uboat campaign pressed to the max by Admiral Raeder for a short interim catalized by intelligence intercepts of large convoys making their way to UK from USA.

I know...no way they could be coordinated, like the wolfpacks were.

What type of Taskforces would you put together as the RN commander to patrol the routes?

Now what kind of game is SC? What if?

Wonder what the commander of a BB TG would do if he were attacked by a Uboat(s). Could it be that he might detach a destroyer or two from the group to go.....gasp.....Subhunting....while the capital ships make a getaway.

[Guest Mike]

Yes as you say - if HE WAS ATTACKED by a submarine.

But if you've got a battleship in your group then you don't waste it by steaming around looking for submarines - you keep it handy if there's surface raiders around - which is exactly what the Brits did in 1939 and early 40. Or you send it home so it isn't a target in case you DO find a submarine - 'cos it isn't going to help sink the sub!!

[Lars]

This is all rather moot.

Yes, you can find subs with BB's in the game. But it's usually too damn costly to the BB group when it bumps in to one.

The effect is all we really care about, not the details.

As I said, rename the units to something like BB Division 7 and Desron 11 instead of actual names, and all this BS goes away.

The same should be done for HQ's too, imho.

[Lars]

Originally posted by Stalin's Organist:

Hood and Prince of Wales had no escort, the escort for Bismark was Prinz Eugen - no destroyers.

Er, there was also a U-boat screen for the Bismark and Prinz Eugen.

Have an account of a Portuguese cod fishing vessel that was blown away for being in the right place at the wrong time when the Bismark was coming down by Greenland. Neutral power, but the Germans were taking no chances on a sighting report getting out.

[targul]

I like using the historical designation for capital ships and commanders. Gives game a better feel of WWII then Task Force 7 or Commander 3.

I am not anxious to develop my own TO&E for each of my units though. Present systems allows adequate variety for me.

I am really concerned about the expansion with all the extra clutter on the map and the commando units etc. I like the concept but this map is pretty small and from what I have seen the new map is not much larger so it maybe just too much for a small map on strategic scale. But only the actual release will let me know if I will stick with 1.07 or add the expansion.

[Juergen2SSDR]

I agree with most everyone here, there is a point to just re-name the BB Icon to a TF-or TG. That would explain a sort of Heavy Task force. But again, a Heavy task force is usually designed for Shore Bombardement, Surface Attack. The Cruiser and soon to be DD Icon would be more suitable for ASW duties.

So my suggestion to Battlefront developers would be to make the damage a BB icon does less powerful than it is, this would make sense. A heavy task force ie.. BB icon would most likely have BB, BC (Battle Cruisers.. like Hood, or Graf Spee)

The Cruiser Icon, would defenitely have more "Depth Charge Capability" but again not as much as the new DD Icon soon to be released in the new add on.

Juergen

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by Lars:

This is all rather moot.

Yes, you can find subs with BB's in the game. But it's usually too damn costly to the BB group when it bumps in to one.

Sure - but finding U-boats is half eth battle...mov the BB's first - if they bump into a sub them bring up a nearby cruiser.....if the BB's don't bump into any u-boats then search with the cruisers as well......BB's can KO any seriously weakened subs leaving cruisers to go look for more....why would yuo do it in any other fashion??

The effect is all we really care about, not the details.

It's the effect I have problems with!!

As I said, rename the units to something like BB Division 7 and Desron 11 instead of actual names, and all this BS goes away.

Renaming is irrelevant - why would you think that renaming will solve the problem of BB's sinking subs?? :confused:

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by Lars:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Stalin's Organist:

Hood and Prince of Wales had no escort, the escort for Bismark was Prinz Eugen - no destroyers.

Er, there was also a U-boat screen for the Bismark and Prinz Eugen. </font>