Missing Naval Unit: Destroyer

[SeaMonkey]

i understand where your coming from Liam, but remember the is SC and this is an abstracted escort taskforce including all your above mentioned vessels. If you take out the carriers then I think the cost could be reduced, but it would be somewhat ahistorical to not represent the carriers, although only UK and USA had them. Perhaps the best of both worlds, allow a low cost (250 MPPs) initially for the "escorts" and as ASW and possible other tech advances add to the features (advent of escort carriers) then the cost would rise appreciably.

[Liam]

SeaMonkey,

Escort Carriers weren't a neccessity for Axis forces, they didn't have TransAtlantic Convoys, they had to pretty much rely on what they could plunder and get locally. So they didn't need that Specialized unit, but the UK/USA did.

Axis were better off with a Surface Raider and Support ships.. They also made some pretty nasty Ones that did Hellish Damage before Combined Allied Surface Ships and Air Units responded to stop the Threat.

Perhaps Country Specific Units would suit more? Like now, it's rare the Allies buy subs, cause they cannot raid for the USA, UK, or USSR. Although if their taskforces had the ability with TECH to upgrade with increased SubSpotting, Increased Spotting range altogether, as Sea Launched Planes give great Range, and increased hitting Power VS Subs rather VS Other ships<more specialized> then I'm for it.

I'm also for reducing Corps to true SeaFodder, if one is intercepted by any Naval Ship without an Escort it sinks to the bottom no questions asked. That way, True Naval Superiority is required in order to win at Sea. That would stop that gamey tactic. Sort of like the Transport attack 100% Readiness Tactic

[ June 29, 2004, 04:13 PM: Message edited by: Liam ]

[pzgndr]

I always understood the Naval units not as one ship but as a Task Force. But I certainly agree that the BB groups should have much lower attack values against U-Boats. It would be nice if the naval units would have naval and strategic attack/defense values AND one extra against subs. That would make Cruiser Task Forces more important.

That's the general idea. Cruisers were just junior BBs in SC1. SC2 will provide additional naval target types for carriers and subs, so we'll be able to create a better rock-paper-scissors effect for the naval war. BBs vs naval targets with better naval attack values. Cruisers vs subs as ASW units with better sub attack values. Carriers vs naval targets with better naval attack values than land-based AFs. Subs will have a new Run Silent option. That sort of thing.

And ... unit upgrades based on research advances will not be automatic, meaning players can customize their units. For example, give BBs gun-laying radar, give Cruisers ASW (sonar), etc. If you give everyone everything, then you'll be paying through the nose to upgrade and reinforce your high-tech units. So what types of naval units you buy, how many, and how you customize them will present some interesting challenges in the new SC2 naval war. :cool:

[John DiFool the 2nd]

Originally posted by Liam:

Blashy,

U-Boats had batteries they required to run above water most of the time. Why aircraft could see them so well.Aircraft is a good way to hunt U-Boats especially if launched by Sea for range. Modern Day Submarines as you say, are Uber... but they're Nuclear now.

The type VII and type IX were submersibles, which

yes had to spend a lot of time at (or near, via

snorkel) recharging batteries. But the type XXI

was the first true submarine, and could spend

most of its time in the deeper layers. The Kilo

is basically a nth-generation offspring of the

XXI, and these electroboats are VERY quiet. The

kind of active sonar they had back then wasn't

very effective (and active pinging as a purely

preventative measure when not under attack just

advertises your position to the U-boats loud &

clear).

The VII and IX were obsolete, which is why they

got blown to heck from May 1943 onward (that, and

Doenitz's refusal to consider that RDF technology

let the Allies know where a U-Boat was-roughly-

every time one of them transmitted back to base).

Modern sub skippers know the importance of radio

silence.

The wolfpacks were a high-risk/high reward

strategy, but ultimately they ended up harming

themselves more than the convoys. I'm not sure

exactly how effective Type XXI's would have been

if they had gone into service in early '43 while

still being used in wolfpacks (and not as lone

wolves), because the Germans needed to sink a

certain amount of tonnage per month to outstrip

Allied merchant ship production, but they still

would have been a terror (until the Allies

invented the airdropped sonobuoy, and even

then...).

[Roosevelt45(the 2nd)]

Didn't the Germans invent some kind of sub that supplied the U-boats on sea?

I don't remember where I read this or what it was exactly, does anyone know what I'm talking about?

[ev]

Originally posted by Roosevelt45(the 2nd):

Didn't the Germans invent some kind of sub that supplied the U-boats on sea?

I don't remember where I read this or what it was exactly, does anyone know what I'm talking about?

Yes, I have read about this too.

Perhaps SC2 could model this by having some sort of supply uboat unit ...similar to a uBoat HQ that moves out ot sea. But this uBoat HQ only provides supply, it does not have a leadership modifier (or the leadership modifier is set to 0).

[Retributar]

Supply U-Boat or Milch Cows(Milk Cows). See previous posting on page1... Turning The Tide Against The U-Boats!.

This loss of submarines, particularly the milch cows, was a severe blow to the German Navy. With diminished capability for refueling U-boats at sea, and with no friendly bases in the area, Admiral Karl Doenitz, commander of the German U-boat fleet, was forced to withdraw his remaining supply submarines and cancel all U-boat operations in the central Atlantic.

[Liam]

Originally posted by pzgndr:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> I always understood the Naval units not as one ship but as a Task Force. But I certainly agree that the BB groups should have much lower attack values against U-Boats. It would be nice if the naval units would have naval and strategic attack/defense values AND one extra against subs. That would make Cruiser Task Forces more important.

That's the general idea. Cruisers were just junior BBs in SC1. SC2 will provide additional naval target types for carriers and subs, so we'll be able to create a better rock-paper-scissors effect for the naval war. BBs vs naval targets with better naval attack values. Cruisers vs subs as ASW units with better sub attack values. Carriers vs naval targets with better naval attack values than land-based AFs. Subs will have a new Run Silent option. That sort of thing.

And ... unit upgrades based on research advances will not be automatic, meaning players can customize their units. For example, give BBs gun-laying radar, give Cruisers ASW (sonar), etc. If you give everyone everything, then you'll be paying through the nose to upgrade and reinforce your high-tech units. So what types of naval units you buy, how many, and how you customize them will present some interesting challenges in the new SC2 naval war. :cool: </font>

[SeaMonkey]

See Liam, that's just it, this will not be old SC, the Atlantic will be bigger, subs can run "silent". What Bill is saying is that by applying the tech levels you've acquired descriminately, you can produce the Naval escort class from the cruiser unit. Example: take a bare bones cruiser unit, get a little experience bombarding, apply "Intel", "Sonar"/ASW and whatever else to enhance it's find and destroy abilities and "Presto" = subkiller/escort. Simple, yet effective....the SC way.

[pzgndr]

Even if Cruisers have these upgraded abilities they're still Mini-Battleships

I did mention something about Cruisers being juniors BBs and meant this as a recognition of the issue. Hopefully SC2 will present more of a difference between the two, with BBs having a greater surface role and Cruisers having a greater ASW role. Tech would allow you to give BBs more ASW capability or Cruisers more GLR capability, or you could focus these techs to create very distinct units. For instance, Cruisers with very high ASW but no additional emphasis on GLR. It would be up to players to decide how to customize their fleets. I hear what you're saying Liam, but short of calling Cruisers some new unit such as Destroyers or ASW TF, I don't understand what more you would want here. You can rename these units to reflect their customized abilities. Does this help? :confused:

[Liam]

SeaMonkey and Panzer,

I get it..I see how the Cruisers could be used for sub hunting. Tech gives you a different approach but you still are left with the fact that Sea Zones are likely still to be patrolled by Corps rather than Cruisers. Unless of course LR Aircraft and More & cheaper subs are available, I assume that costs will go down with a bigger map and more units will be available?

You see when you conduct a Naval battle now you do it like this. I.E. You come into the Baltic to kill my Kriegsmarine. If my Airfleets are busy killing France I am pretty stuck. You've got the #s so what do I do. I weigh my options here. If I have the time to waste I'll finish off France, then rush couple corps to the Rear block off Denmark-Swedish Passage and with 2-3-4 German or Italian Corps 5-6 Royal Navy Ships are locked. Place 1 or 2 subs in the picture all my air transfers over and there goes the War.

Don't care to lose 400-500 MMPs in corps and your 3000 MPP fleet is dead, great trade off. This is repeated then in half a dozen more Theatres... Reason being, no way around it, it's effective but really would 3-4 corps block a passage in real life or in a wargame realisticly? No!

Trying to make sure that in SC2 this isn't the case. I don't know if the designers are familiar with the way that Naval Combat works in SC but it's much like the above. For instance if you want to attack Egypt, even with spare parts you can do it with enough Corps and a few well places armies, there is a method... I suppose my insisting on a Cheaper Naval unit is to fill the Gaps so instead of getting this say at Gibraltar which is extremely common..

Battleship over Gibraltar Port, Corps hex to the south, Bang German ship hits it Indentified. Another Cruiser above the Port with a Corps above it, Italian ships hits the Transport, Bang, identified. Counter attack, Bang, bring in the Rear Fleet from Gibraltar you've got a killing Zone... Even keep the Corps in rear and surround the Remaining pounded Italian/German Navy and Lock it up.. Enemy Air can't free it, due to distance or lack of #s and you've got a seriously flawed system of combat...

Which as you can see if you attack messes you up. The Heavier more expensive units can Counter you and the worthless units can retreat or be destroyed doesn't matter few thousand men get sunk it's a transport with no combat ability anyways.

I think this looks better:

Destroyer or another Unit, like a cheaper Cruiser takes the place of the Fodder unit. Lower the price somewhat of the Battleship and make the Capitol Battleships have more experience. Maybe that would make for some more realistic Naval combat without another unit. Carriers weren't as prolific in the Atlantic and are still very limited and expensive

One is impossible. Allied Transports nor German Axis ones never played Cannon Fodder as far as I know or Recon Vehicles. The Other makes sense... however I may be off, the way SC2 Combat, Naval Maps, etc.. will turn out, I'm not certian they'll be much different in this aspect as far as I hear and can see in the previews.

[ July 01, 2004, 01:28 AM: Message edited by: Liam ]

[Sombra]

@Liam with "force pool" limits applied, it could be that you will need the corps elsewhere then guarding the sea. Just my two cents.

On the other hand you still need the backup for the corps spot units to create effective killing zones

[pzgndr]

you still are left with the fact that Sea Zones are likely still to be patrolled by Corps

Maybe. With new force pool limits and other changes, hopefully some of these gamey strategies will be reduced.

Another thing I'll emphasize again is the addition of new naval combat types. In SC1 all we have are generic naval attack/defense. SC2 will add carrier and sub attack/defense values. This will allow us to better create a rock-paper-scissors effect. Naval combat will still be an abstraction with individual unit movement and combats, unlike some other game systems with sea zones and TF actions, but hopefully things will be better balanced in the long run.

If battleships, cruisers, carriers, and subs are all better modeled with appropriate strengths and weaknesses, the overall naval game should be much improved. This should translate into more realistic strategies. That's the plan anyway. I suppose there may still be opportunities for expoiting some weakness in the SC2 game system, but let's hope for the best, yes?

[Lars]

Liam, you could just put the Transport defence value down as low as it will go. Bye bye gamey tactics.

[Liam]

Sombra: Yes Agreed! Limitations on #s is an important factor I suppose. It's always easy though to abandon something, this in the past can hurt. You have divert a Taskforce of Land Armies to retake a City if there is a missing corps. Ultimately I suppose better Recon Technologies will make more inexperienced players want to assualt undefended cities more? Hopefully.

Panzer: I suppose that the set is already on what is there. If the Combat abilities of the units as you pointed out are altered it could be entirely different than I an picturing. Bigger Maps too! I'd like to see a few Naval combats and experiment with the game engine I had a game once with Terif when I was still a fledgling. He had no Royal Navy Ships left but his 3 Carriers after about May Fall of France. I thought, it's over but that was not the case. He blocked my Cruisers and Subs with the Transport. He even blocked my transports with Transports so that I couldn't invade England. He moved them tactically in way that England didn't need Land Defense and in the end he he won.

Lars:

The thought is a good one, Minus Tanks-Armies-HQs. Make everything else, Partisans-etc.. 0 Defense

[Terif]

Transport wars in the good old days...hihi

I think too that to make more realistic naval warfare possible it should be easier for combat ships to destroy transports and also that airfleets should not be able to destroy ships so easily - or at least only when they are really close to the coast (1-2 hexes) and not in the open ocean. This would ships make much more important and valuable.

A defence of 0 wouldnt help, cause this only influences the damage for the attacker (=enemy ship) and not for the transport.

So if possible we need another attack/defence naval combat type against corps (similar to the planed carrier and sub attack/defense values). If a transport can be sunk with a single strike of an enemy combat task force, then they could not be used as cheap cannon fodder for reconnaissance and cutting of enemy fleets. Additionally Sealion would only be possible when axis has enough combat ships to protect its invasion fleet or they could loose all of them in the attempt (much more realistic and Sealion would not be that easy as it is now, but still possible).

[Lars]

Originally posted by Terif:

A defence of 0 wouldnt help, cause this only influences the damage for the attacker (=enemy ship) and not for the transport.

Sorry, what I meant was make the strength of a transport 1.

[ev]

Originally posted by Terif:

A defence of 0 wouldnt help, cause this only influences the damage for the attacker (=enemy ship) and not for the transport.

...well defense should be 0. I cannot imagine a transport group caussing much damage to a squadron of Battleships...

[Liam]

Originally posted by ev:

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

A defence of 0 wouldnt help, cause this only influences the damage for the attacker (=enemy ship) and not for the transport.

...well defense should be 0. I cannot imagine a transport group caussing much damage to a squadron of Battleships... </font>

[Liam]

Originally posted by Terif:

Transport wars in the good old days...hihi

I think too that to make more realistic naval warfare possible it should be easier for combat ships to destroy transports and also that airfleets should not be able to destroy ships so easily - or at least only when they are really close to the coast (1-2 hexes) and not in the open ocean. This would ships make much more important and valuable.

A defence of 0 wouldnt help, cause this only influences the damage for the attacker (=enemy ship) and not for the transport.

So if possible we need another attack/defence naval combat type against corps (similar to the planed carrier and sub attack/defense values). If a transport can be sunk with a single strike of an enemy combat task force, then they could not be used as cheap cannon fodder for reconnaissance and cutting of enemy fleets. Additionally Sealion would only be possible when axis has enough combat ships to protect its invasion fleet or they could loose all of them in the attempt (much more realistic and Sealion would not be that easy as it is now, but still possible).

agreed almost on all points.. Thanks for adding your 2 cents Terif

[Lars]

Originally posted by Liam:

Naval transport vessels are very poor cause they're overstuffed with supplies,men and equipment. They should have 0 Defense cause I've never heard of a Transport with anything more than a MG on it, but how hard you make them to kill is the obvious question. Too hard they can still be used as Fodder and Naval Blockade Units. Terif's ideas on Killing off Amphibious units a bit easier is good. Plus bonuses to hitting Naval units closer to a Coastline.. IF the SC2 team doesn't alter these values I think the SC2 Players will.

Some had 5" guns mounted for defense against surfaced submarines.

Not recommended for use against BB's

(although, read about the battle off of Samar for what 5" guns can do to capital ships, it's not entirely negligible.)

[Liam]

Heh, probably had some of those Transports with pompoms too but not many. The poor stuff you put on a transport the less troops, plus a Vast Majority of Transports if we'd look it up, likely 90% were defenseless...That or unable to do amphibious OPs.

Tank, HQ, maybe Army too, should have reinforced Steel but the rest should go down to the bottom IMO. That way the gamey tactic is eliminated. The valuable units are too expensive to risk in some foolish action like attacking the Bismark. I assure you in half an hour, that puppy could sink several corps... No matter what they had on their decks... The lack of Salvos would be the limit

Not recommended for use against BB's

(although, read about the battle off of Samar for what 5" guns can do to capital ships, it's not entirely negligible.) [/QB]