Large Convoy Losses Should Force UK Peace Offer

[Edwin P.]

In SC2, convoy losses don't have the impact that they did in WWII.

I recall it being written that if the heavy convoy losses of 1941/42 continued that the UK would have likely made a peace offer to Germany.

Perhaps, UK war readiness (at 100%) should be reduced by 3% to 4% each turn that income from Convoys are less than XXX. If Income is greater than XXX and War Readiness is less than 100 then UK War Readiness increases by (1% to 3%) If UK war Readiness reaches zero then the UK makes a peace offer to Germany and withdraws from the war.

Perhaps have 2 ratings:

War Readiness - at 100% the nation joins the War in Europe

War Opposition - at 100% the active nation becomes neutral and its war readiness is reduced to 50%.

This change would have several effects on game play:

1. It makes the Battle for the Atlantic more important for the Axis by giving them a way to defeat the UK without triggering a rise in Russian war readiness.

2. It gives the USA an incentive to maximize the amount of MPPs sent to the UK.

3. It increases the importance of ASW research for the Allies who must now protect the merchant ships to ensure that the UK stays in the war.

[ November 19, 2006, 07:22 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Retributar]

Im not 100% sure Edwin P. about 'if the heavy convoy losses of 1941/42 continued that the UK would have likely made a peace offer to Germany. ', but if your not on the mark, i think you are very close to being correct on that assumption!.

Someone will need to do some investigation on that item to see what the reality was,...'for-sure'...in that time period!.

At least, with your proposal, NOW!!!,for the 1st time, the U-Boat's would actually have an incentive & a reason for being in the ATLANTIC!.

The trouble with the U-Boat's, which would make trolling the Atlantic nearly impossible is that 'Stealth-Mode', doesn't work worth a 'Fiddlers Fairy Fart' in the wind!!!. So how would a Sub hide???...or maintain it's postion in secret until it could strike???.

[Edwin P.]

According to The West Point Militart History Series The Second World War Europe and the Meditteranean:

An interesting note on World War I:

"Most naval historians believe that the German Submarine blockade almost won the First World War for the Central Powers...the Germans sank over 5,000 allied merchantmen, displacing over 12 million tones. They also sank 10 battleships, 18 cruisers, 20 destroyers and 9 submarines. The Germans in Contrast lost only 187 submarines."

[arado234]

Winston curchill:The only thing that ever worried me was the uboat peril.From the book the the uboat wars:A letter to roosevelt from churchill:The mortal danger we face is the steady & increasing diminution of sea tonnage.Unless we can establish our ability to feed this island we may fall by the way.In the five weeks ending nov3 1940 britains losses totaled 420.000 tons, a figure comparable to the worst YEAR in ww1.The british govt.estimated that it would take a minimum 43 millon tons to keep britain going but the five week loss in nov cut the rate to 37 million tons.England wouldnot survive 1941 if this continued.So the uboats in sc2 should be able to starve england out of the war.I also thoght that the 1.05 patch(i do appreciate all the work you tech guys do)was going to fix that.

[Colin I]

Edwin,

Re WWI: You are right U-boats were very effective BUT at a diplomatic level the decision to go for unrestricted U-boat warface (ie escalation to include neutral shipping)had a negative impact - had a lot to do with US entry.

[Liam]

Yes, the U-Boats were effective as the English Isles required Shipping to survive, the Germans did survive without it in two World Wars. Of Course by 1918 Germany was starved just as much as Britian in either case by the naval blockades. Ukraine Grain was too little too late? I do not know the precise figures, I have heard the rich Dairy diet of the German people, made it particularly harsh they had to rely on their own resources alone in WW1. In WW2, they substituted by stealing it from every other race! Sort of the plunder and Scorthed Earth Policies you see... Plundering to feed the Fatherland, NOT TO FAR OFF THE SUBJECT:

Great Britian needed that ore, oil, food, war supplies, to survive. She lived in Rations after the war well into the 50s as far as I know! That is the impact of the U-Boat, not reflected by SC2 at all! Strategic Bombing is a more powerful weapon, the only way Subs are effective is a pre-invasion force and knockout force at around level 3 or level 4... Unstoppable warmachines... They're not really a strategic weapon at all, I do not ever feel the wraith of the U-Boat in SC, economically, only militarily!

Politically during WW1, they were going to doom Germany, unrestricted U-Boat warfare is what really hurt Germany. However German U-Boat Captains did complain UK Merchant Shipping were armed and baring False flags often... They had to shoot first before they could warn the Merchant shipping, the British were not going to let the Germans take down their shipping without a political cost.

Originally posted by Colin I:

Edwin,

Re WWI: You are right U-boats were very effective BUT at a diplomatic level the decision to go for unrestricted U-boat warface (ie escalation to include neutral shipping)had a negative impact - had a lot to do with US entry.

[Colin I]

Liam,

Agreed. UK population was actually quite well fed compared to the German during WWI, the colonial factor made a big difference.

In game terms I think I'm with Edwin - if U-boats get out of hand a low chance of inducing UK surrender is the only way to really emphasise the danger. In SC2 I do build U-boats but usually as a cheap way of contesting the seas to facilitate Sealion or scupper D-day.

[Blashy]

For one UK would not "surrender".

They would simply have signed some form of peace or neutrality treaty.

And it would have taken a HUGE amount of tonnage to be sunk for an extended period. A lot more than what actually occured.

[Colin I]

Blashy,

OK. So SC2 should be able to have UK go neutral in the event of being crippled by U-boats with a war readiness of X% which can be influenced by diplomacy?

[arado234]

How about english overall morale starts to drop if the sinkings go up.Its one thing to be able to hide your losses in combat from the public,its a whole other matter to hide starvation.If sueing for peace is an option there should also be a backstabbing option somehow put into the game.I find it hard to believe that if england did sue for peace & germany was able to wipe out russia that hitler wouldnt turn his attention back to england & demand more out of them.

[Edwin P.]

If the UK withdrew from the war, my guess is that the US and Russia would use diplomacy to bring the UK back into the war as Colin I suggests.

With; "UK war readiness be reduced by 3% to 5% each turn that income from Convoys are less than XXX." it should take about 20 to 25 turns of convoy losses to cause this to happen - this translates to minimal supplies for about a full year and would require sustained Axis submarine activity - while giving the Allies the time to build new naval units.

Of course, if UK War Rationing was above 50% shouldn't this reduce the build limits for the UK by 1 per unit type to reflect a shortage of imported raw materials? Or rationing at 50% could reduce the AP of all UK units or give UK units a readiness penalty (or as suggested a Morale Penalty) to reflect a supply shortage.

Thus:

01. War Rationing increases to 50% - UK build limits reduced by 1 for all unit types

02. War Rationing increases to 80% - UK units receive a 10% Readiness Penalty, due to supply shortage.

03. War Rationing at 100% - UK withdraws from the War but may re-enter with diplomatic pressure from the US and Russia.

[ November 20, 2006, 11:33 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[SeaMonkey]

Good idea Edwin, but let's keep this simple.

As losses accumulate there should be a temporary triggering mechanism to reduce the capacity of UK(home) supply sources(cities).

Example: after 200 MPPs have been lost to raiding, UK cities go to 90% effectiveness.

Then perhaps a new threshold is activated for the next level of reduction.

The recovery would be slow, based upon the amount of time to replace the sunk transport capacity and the ability of the Kreigsmarine to maintain the sinking threshold. In this case 200MPPs with an inherent recovery of say 20 MPPs per turn for UK.

Let's say the sub raiding reaches the threshold and supply goes to 9 for UK cities. Next turn if the subs don't maintain a greater loss than the recovery, UK cities go back to 10.

If the subs maintain a greater MPP loss than the UK inherent replacements then the next plateau of reduction ensues and UK cities go to 8/80%.

And so on and so forth.