Battleship vs Subs

[Juergen2SSDR]

I think Stalin's Organist does have a point, a BB (TF) might be able to spot a Sub (wolfpack) but not be able to attack it, defend against yes.

So a BB icon representing a TF (Task Force) or BG (Battle Group) can locate a sub... by running into it literaly. As for spotting.. not nearly as good as Cruiser or DD units.

The BB unit should not be able to attack the Sub unit as a BB TF or BG is not designed to hunt subs. However if attacked the BB unit should be able to give minimal defensive backlash with its escorting DD,or Lt Cruisers. (Historicaly the majority of Cruisers did not carry depth charges, and fleet destroyers could not be at sea for prolonged periods of time, because of damage or more maintenance due to heavy sea conditions).

I believe this is the point some of us are trying to make.

Juergen

Semper Fi.

[Lars]

Originally posted by Stalin's Organist:

A fairly detailed account of eth voyage is at http://www.mikekemble.com/ww2/bismarck.html - no mention is made of sinking any trawlers neutral or otherwise. Sightings by US coastguard and Swedish ships went "unpunished".

"The Quest of the Schooner Argus" - Allen Villers

Now you have one.

[Lars]

Originally posted by Stalin's Organist:

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??

So up the hit for bumping into one with a BB, sheesh.

[Guest Mike]

Which is pretty much what I said - sheesh yourself!!

As for Portuguese schooners......something better than a travelogue of Portuguese cod fishing in 1950 would be useful.

[Lars]

What, you think there's other sources on Portuguese cod fishing?

[John DiFool the 2nd]

VJGD, you won't get any argument from me.

There's an operational/strategic game coming out by the folks at Naval Warfare Simulations which will model your warships to a fairly intricate detail, including the ability to design your own, form them into custom task forces, etc. Has me drooling at least.

SC operates at a slightly higher level than that of course, but sailing ships all over creation is very costly in terms of fuel and wear and tear. The British were trying to conserve their oil reserves-they didn't waste it on BBs patrolling except when German surface raiders were out there too. SC doesn't model fuel usage, which is the main problem; sure you can kludge in some rule to get around that, but the main issue remains.

[Guest Mike]

I think that sources on Portuguese cod fishing, whether existing in the real world or only in a fevered imagination, have little or nothing to add to the story of the Bismarck :cool:

[Lars]

Actually, you should read it. Good book. Also check out Cruise of the Conrad by the same author. Takes the last full rigged ship on a cruise down around your neck of the woods.

And yes, it does add something to the story of the Bismarck, whether you think so or not.

[Liam]

Battleships were the Behemoths of the sea, dreadnaughts before them. There were always usually Groups of Ships together when they expected to run into something "special." Of course in certian situations this wasn't the case. Battleship Groups were different for all nations, especially those with larger navys. I'm pretty sure Subs were not designed to attack battleships because they had a better job, commerce raiding. The ideology of the time.

Early in the War there was no belief there was anything that could challenge Battleships, there were so many myths from WW1, but really a Battleship vs a Sub doesn't make much sense. I'm pretty sure a Battleship could outrun one pretty much, unless the Subs surfaced and if that happened it would be dead. The only way a Sub could hurt a Battleship is by a Sneak attack and that happened a lot in WW2. Dispelling the Myth along with Naval Airpower of the Abominable Ships. However once detected a Sub shouldn't have much capability vs a Battleship as the BB probably could call in resources at lot faster unless isolated!

[Lars]

Actually, subs were designed to attack BB's. Commerce raiding was just a different strategy that came about later.

They didn't call them Fleet Subs in the US for nothing. Designed to keep up with and screen the main force.

[Baron]

All very good points and suggestions,

1 BB's should be able to defend against subs but not attack them - find one example of BB's in WW2 that sought out and attacked subs

2 Surface raiders in the game are nonexistent - they cannot attack convoy routes and thus are only good for fire support or getting transports or invasions from place to place - of course this is a pretty good definition of "sea control"

3 Naval forces should never be able to destroy a ground unit - I know this has been discussed before but in the scope of this game it is just not possible

4 Ships should not be able to bombard aircraft either - I'll site the example of Force Z as to what would have happened as a consequence. I hope the addition of tactical aircraft in the WAW expansion will fix this issue I'd suggest the same rule as proposed for the subs - they can defend against AC but not attack them. The obvious exception would be carrier task forces.

5 I like the idea of calling the ships Task Forces or Task Groups as opposed to the naming system we have now- it would clear up much confusion. You could still have BB TF's and Cruiser TF ECT. Destroyers might be ASW TF's

[Konigs]

Bam! I think we have a winner! Baron has hit abullseye. I think your ideas have much merit and are definitly on track. The fabled I can plant a ship in the Kiel canal and block all ground movement yet you cannot attack it is a good example of the unreal conflicts between ground/ air vs naval units. See you....

[Guest Mike]

Item 4 in his list is irrelevant tho - Force Z was not attacking/bombarding aircraft - it was trying to intercept the Japanese troop convoys.

I imagine that if a BB ever got within bombardment range of some airfields any a/c on them would be reduced to scrap in short order.

There's no problem with BB's attacking aircraft units in this game IMO - if you don't like it then base your a/c 1 hex from the coast!!

[Baron]

Item 4 in his list is irrelevant tho - Force Z was not attacking/bombarding aircraft - it was trying to intercept the Japanese troop convoys.

I imagine that if a BB ever got within bombardment range of some airfields any a/c on them would be reduced to scrap in short order.

It doesn't matter that Force K was not on a bombardment mission. The reason that no surface TF attempted to bomb airfields out of operation is that they were too vunerable and would be sunk. The only examples I know of where this was even attempted was at Guadalcanal and then only at night. Never did it achieve the desired results.

On the night of 14 Oct 1942 two Japanese BC bombarded Henderson field with over 900 14" HE shells designed to destroy aircraft. On the night of 15 Oct 1942 CA's added another 1000 8" shells to the bombardment. The net result - only 48 of the 90 aircraft available to the Cactus airforce were destroyed. The airfield was back in service by the afternoon of the 14th and aircraft from Henderson field sank a BC and 2 DD's.

In WW2 next to submarines the greatest sinker of surface ships was aircraft. Do you actually suggest that surface ship bombardments in SC2 is in any way historical or that the results are in any way factual given the historical record?

The bombardment results in SC2 are ridiculous in the extreme. I'd suggest that the effects should be more along the lines of what a heavy bomber can do as opposed to outright destruction of factors, lower readiness sure - outright destruction - I don't think so.

I certainly hope WAW addresses these issues. The naval war aspect of this game has always played second fiddle to the land campaign - rightfully so in my opinion. That is not an excuse however to leave such glaring errors as is in the premier strategic level WW2 game on the market.

[xwormwood]

I could very good live with moral, readiness or even experience losses through naval bombardement.

Killing entire armies is, well, the worst idea for a result of naval bombardement.

Maybe losses should be limited. 1 or 2 points maximum?

[arado234]

Baron when a unit is destroyed it can be built back cheaper because its supposed to simulate that the unit WASNT totaly destroyed and the survivors are just being added to a new unit.If a unit is down to a strength of one that would indicate over 90% of it was destroyed.If they were subjected to a massive ship bombardment for over a week(which is what each turn simulates) ill bet they would cease to exist as a usefull fighting unit(in other words down to zero).By your own info on the jap attack on henderson airfield they destroyed over 50% of the allied aircraft.If the japanese had kept it up long enough(remeber each sc2 turn is atleast 1 week)the whole area would be prettywell wiped out.

As it is now ships rarely cause more than one damage point.

A friend of mine who fought in normandy saw first hand what happens to people when they are constantly being bombarded.After a while you are prettywell useless to do the most meaningless tasks let alone fight.He told me that lots of germans after being bombarded for just a few hours(let alone a week) would giveup.You could just walk up to them and they would sit and stare like zombies.

[Baron]

I have seen the effects that bombardments have first hand (not to the extent of Normandy I'll admit) and I'll be the first to agree they do have an effect. I will also point out that at Iwo Jima for example( I use this as an example because the entire island was under bombardment for the entire battle). Not only did it not destroy the Japanese as effective fighters but in this battle the Japs inflicted more casualties than they took - the only battle after the Allies took the offensive that they managed to do so. Yes there was an effect but it did not destroy the enemy - you need ground troops to do this period.

One of two things should happen and I've proposed this before.

1 - sea and airborne forces can never destroy the last factor of a ground unit -

sea forces can never destroy the last factor of an air unit(carriers being the exception)

2 - sea bombardment could be done just like strategic bombers - they lower readiness morale ect of the defending unit. This would make it easy for a ground unit to mop up the unit. In my opinion it is probably the better of the two options.

Also consider the scale of these boxes we are talking about. How many airfields were in range of naval bombardment in WW2? Even the coastal hexes are large enough for the airfields to be out of range of naval gunfire.

I just consider it to be a very "gamey" tactic to use ships to destroy aircraft as this was just not possible at this scale. So I'll agree to disagree with you, ok? Again I hope this is addressed in WAW.

[arado234]

I agree with you to disagree(L.O.L.)but remember the unit in question being attacked at one factor is in a sense already destroyed as far as combat value is concerned.Wiping it out only completely destroys its combat value(What im saying is that a unit with one or two factors left would be in most conditions in a very low state of morale etc etc.Being pounded to zero in I.M.O just indicates the straw that broke the camels back,mass panic,compltete uselessness as a combat formation).The unit in question can be rebuilt at a lesser cost which(im guessing here)indicates the surviving troops are being used to form a new corps or army which takes time depending on how many troops you have to form the nucleous of the new formation.

As far as the airbases being out of range considering the size of these boxes is correct.But then rockets up to now have been able to fire up to six hexes wich is also way off base.Max range for tact.rockets was only a few kilometers.

How far do you think it should go as far as making the game more realistic because you do have some good ideas?

[SeaMonkey]

You are right on A234. SC is not about a literary definition of an actuality, it is about abstraction of an effect.

You have presented the case well and I am in full agreement and this is a really old discussion we've been having for about 4 years.

Sorry Baron, learn to think outside the box, in abstract terms and realize what SC has accomplished on a grand scale is not the details of the smaller ones.

Units of this scale are never completely destroyed, they are rendered "combat ineffective".

[Baron]

I have no problem with 95% of the game Sea Monkey. As 95% of the game is defensible as it is. The areas I have issue with are primarily the naval and to a lesser extent the air.

I don't think anybody can be found that likes Rockets in their present form. They always were a strategic weapon and did not have any successes on the battlefield like the way they can be used in SC2. I'd add them to the list of weapons that don't make a unit lose strength points.

I can think abstractly as long as it defensible. I can follow that you can render a unit combat ineffective at this level. What never happened was naval task forces bombarding enemy air units to that point. Might as well atribute it to creatures from outer space. As long as the abstract is possible I don't have any issue with it.

I'm knit picking now but if the all units are just rendered ineffective at this scale then all units should be able to be rebuilt around the cadres that survived - regardless of supply level. Especially if they were never actually destroyed in the first place correct

I know I'm taking your statement out of context and I apologize - just couldn't resist No game is ever going to be to everyones satisfaction 100%. I do appreciate the game and all the work the playtesters have put into it. I will continue to voice my opinion on areas I feel need improvment and agree to disagree on areas where common ground can not be found. I'd also encourage the testing of these ideas or at least would like an answer like "the codeing is not possible".Until such a time as it is put the the test the argument will survive another 4 years.

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by Baron:

It doesn't matter that Force K was not on a bombardment mission. The reason that no surface TF attempted to bomb airfields out of operation is that they were too vunerable and would be sunk. The only examples I know of where this was even attempted was at Guadalcanal and then only at night. Never did it achieve the desired results.

On the night of 14 Oct 1942 two Japanese BC bombarded Henderson field with over 900 14" HE shells designed to destroy aircraft. On the night of 15 Oct 1942 CA's added another 1000 8" shells to the bombardment. The net result - only 48 of the 90 aircraft available to the Cactus airforce were destroyed. The airfield was back in service by the afternoon of the 14th and aircraft from Henderson field sank a BC and 2 DD's.

You contradict yourself - they never did it and then give a case where they did.

Moreover those results are pretty good... I'll take you word but 48 out of 90 is a good hit for 2 nights work - SC2 turns are a few weeks each so multiply it a few times...

KO'ing he airfield is irrelevant in SC2 - every hex is an airfield and you cannot prevent aircraft from using a hex.

In WW2 next to submarines the greatest sinker of surface ships was aircraft. Do you actually suggest that surface ship bombardments in SC2 is in any way historical or that the results are in any way factual given the historical record?

Absolutely - you give the example yourself.

You're getting confused between 2 things - whether or not ships could bombard airfields, and the effect aircraft attack can have on ships.

Of course ships can be horribly vulnerable to air attack......and if you want to risk them bombarding airfields then you should be allowed to do so.

If 1 bombardment by essentially 1 BB and 1 cruiser unit can KO 1/2 the a/c on a field in 2 nights then that's a very significant result IMO.

If the rules don't allow the aircraft to exact their historical revenge then that's another issue entirely.

Of course at least those casualties on the Japanese warships cam long AFTER the bombardments of the 14th and 15th of October - hte Hiei on Nov 14-15 for example - I don't have details to hand, but by then the air unit would have been reinforced even further I imagine.

[ September 29, 2007, 05:50 PM: Message edited by: Stalin's Organist ]

[Baron]

Stalin’s Organist - you are correct in that the Bombardments in Oct. got away scotch free (I confused the incident with the loss of the Hiei (air) and Kirishima (sea) in Nov battles) but the aircraft were replaced in a day during the Oct. bombardments(thus validating your statement that all squares are airfields). Interestingly enough both the BC bombardments were Kongo class BC but the bombardment groups consisted of at least 2 BC's or 2 CA's on each occasion so in SC terms they would be considered a CA. I'd also point out that Guadalcanal was unique in that Henderson field was in bombardment range - not so in the ETO.

People can bombard with TF's all they want to but the effects of the AC we have now are laughable. You lose more AC than they inflict damage on a full strength TF. Thus there is no reason NOT to bombard with the ships at present. I'm not sure which is more frustrating to me personally - that the ships can do so with darn near immunity or that they can actually destroy (render combat ineffective if you will) entire armies, corps or air forces. I still believe knocking down the readiness and supply level thus softening these units up for ground forces is the way to go. From what I understand in WAW there is a new type of aircraft that actually can make it deadly for ships to come into range without air cover. I for one certainly hope so! As far as examples of aircraft sinking ships: the examples are too numerous to even go into – something this game cannot recreate at the moment. What we have now is units that are creating effects that they never were able to achieve or on the other hands units that cannot achieve the results they did in fact achieve.

From Sea Monkey: SC is not about a literary definition of an actuality, it is about abstraction of an effect.

I agree with the statement now how do you recreate the effect with the units we now have? I would say you can’t and thus my frustration.

[arado234]

No need to apologise baron.I think you do have some good ideas.

I think by the very nature of this game and most strategic tactical games is that its pretty hard to avoid some combat results that are very unlikley to happen in real war.

The only game ive ever played that gets so precise is squad leader.Anyone who has played it knows how militarily accurate it is.There is no way in the world you could do that in any game like sc2.

[Baron]

I never was much into Squad Leader, I've alway prefered Operational or Strategic level games myself. I do enjoy the Combat Mission series though. I'm not very good at it but I do enjoy the games

All the die rolling used to do me in in the old boardgames. I rememeber over the course of one weekend I managed to get Lee killed at Gettysburg and on Sunday Naplolean in War and Peace! I wish there were random number generators back then

[Liam]

I think the only reason CAs and BBs can bombard the hell outta land forces is that the Strategic Level demanded more use out of them then pure Naval Units where they have no use. There are rarely naval conflicts in SC2, as the Axis Navy is rather Pathetic, it is usually 1 or 2 big battles, and bababbooommm the UK has nothing else to do.. That or the Axis research Advanced Subs and the Royal Navy Runs... The way the game is geared now the Naval units almost act as Sea Zone Control Unit, Straight Control unit, etc... 1 effect definitely should be avoided is the feel, when one say the Warspite or Bismark, one tends to associate that unit purely with it's Original 1 BB floating around with some escorts and is the King of the Sea, then when someone sees it bombard Hamburg or bombard Liverpool or destroy the 8th Army or 5th Panzer you get a feel that it's unrealistic. Perhaps it would be better said Battlegroup Bismark, or Battlegroup Warspite... not losing the history but being a bit more accurate. In the MASSIVE SC terms, I think a Naval unit includes everything from Marines, Mines, Domilitionists, MiniSubs, MiniBoats, RiverBoats, on and on and on... They should even be able to carry a level of supply to adjacent Land units if they're able to kill them so easy

But regardless it's a complex topic, and SC2 is a very very abstract sort of weapon with say Rommel HQ, being a supply base-Leadership Bonus Zone-Historical leader, etc... You should be able to assign your Commanders to your HQs and not be limited. And buying 4-9 level HQs should represent something else, like the amount of Horses, Motor Vehicles, Priority to that weapon Though in SC we all get the idea, just removing a script where CAs BBs kill land units entirely would be lovely PLUS, let us rebuild sunk transports, a lot of those men could jump ship or get saved!!!!!! at least a percentage chance