A better model for the submarine war?

[Desert Dave]

JdF2:

... because there are just so many

ports to go around (and you can't stack in ports

at the moment, tho you probably should be able to).

Add some more ports, very easy to do.

Change some CTV's, very easy to do.

Well, it IS May,

And so,

'Round and round the May-pole we go!

This is NOT a major issue, IMHO.

Limited numbers of U-boots,

NOT specifically designed or intended

To sink Capital Ships,

And,

Smaller convoy escorts,

DID in fact, what do you know?

Actually accomplish - that very thing!

[... re-view the various FACTS and stats

already posted and quit pretending that

they don't matter ]

It's like this... you have a chicken coop,

With NINE (9) egg-layers therein.

You go away on vacation to the Big City

For a week.

See the sights, blinded by the light,

Come home and bitch about

All the terrible goings-on! what

Exist in this non-rural world!

You notice!

ONE-THIRD, or (3)

Of yer chickens are laying in the dust

Little feet sticking up.

That's 33%!

Over yonder,

You spy a "lone Wolf."

Leave him be, he is going to be

Impossible to ensnare or somehow catch

By very nature of his being

A lone wolf to begin with.

Nearby,

You spy a "wolf-pack."

Get out the traps,

Grab yer shooting iron.

Blast away!

You'll get some, others will laugh

And say:

"See you later alligator,

I be back!

For another attack!

Then you, and the Moon has gone away."

[ May 23, 2006, 09:42 AM: Message edited by: Desert Dave ]

[dicedtomato]

Time to teach Lars and Haiku Dave some lessons in data analysis and basic mathematics.

First, we'll start with data analysis. Let's look at the evidence they cite at http://www.naval-history.net/WW2RN29-WarshiplossesBritish.htm Look at the first table, the one that says the British lost 10 carriers. But the table also lists how many carriers the British had. 65!! In the alternate universe of Lars, the RN had 65 fleet carriers, which means that it was building one HMS Illustrious every month. But those of us who don't selectively read history know that the 65 is mostly escort carriers, which were relatively cheap little that deliberately went out and hunted subs. What a surprise that some were sunk! It's also interesting that according to the table, carriers had the smallest loss percentage of all types of warships.

Next, let's do a little math. The RN lost 33 destroyers to subs. But the war lasted almost six years, which means that the RN lost about 6 destroyers a years. How does that translate into SC2 terms? Given that the British have maybe a dozen CV, BB and CA units at most, and that the RN probably maintained 100+ fleet destroyers at any one time, I'll assume that 6 destroyers = 2 strength points. But we'll use wargamer logic, and assume that because the Germans decide to target warships, they'll sink twice as many. So now the British lose 4 strength points a year. Definitely worth overhauling the game system, don't you think?

As for Haiku Dave's visions of werewolf U-boats, I wish him a speedy rehab. Lars, report to my classroom after school. Or it's detention for you!

DT

[Lars]

Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

I never said they all were Fleet Carriers, and I never said the RN didn't build more. In fact, I said quite the opposite.

If you look at this page , which has losses by theater and year, you'll see that they lost four Fleet carriers and two escort carriers fairly early in the area we are concerned with..

And as I pointed out earlier, which you seem to have ignored, having all those carriers in 45 does you no good if you lose the war in 41.

[Rolend]

Lars the Germans only had a handfull of U-boats in 41 there is NO way they could of destoryed the RN as you suggest. Now had they the 300+ Dornitz wanted sure they could of made a large impact.

So you would have to go back and change pre war decisions not to mention that you would have to give the Brits the same pre war options to build up ASW as they would of seen the Germans building up all those U-Boats Around and around we go.

[dicedtomato]

Exactly, Rolend. And since Germany was short of raw materials and foreign exchange, building 300 U-boats could only come at the expense of something else.

So what's it going to be? No panzers or no Luftwaffe?

DT

[Lars]

Originally posted by Rolend:

Lars the Germans only had a handfull of U-boats in 41 there is NO way they could of destoryed the RN as you suggest. Now had they the 300+ Dornitz wanted sure they could of made a large impact.

So you would have to go back and change pre war decisions not to mention that you would have to give the Brits the same pre war options to build up ASW as they would of seen the Germans building up all those U-Boats Around and around we go.

No, I only have to change the list of priority targets.

Look at what they managed with what they had.

[Blashy]

This is exactly how it plays out, you go heavy uboats, you'll pay in other areas.

I don't see a problem with that.

[Lars]

I've really got no problem with the existing model either. It's more fun than putting X number of u-boat chits and X number of escort chits in a convoy box. I've played those game systems before, and that's all they really modeled, the attrition aspect.

What I would like is for surface ships to keep on moving through a sub tile if the sub is set to silent running. But for that we'd need stacking.

Oh, and commerce raiding for surface ships.

[Guest Mike]

Ther is no problem with the building model - there never has been AFAIK - why bring it up at all?

It is the combat model that I and others have problems with.

I DO have a problem having to move u-boats in and out of convoy lanes every move to try to avoid detection, or moving cruisers all over hte map trying to find the little buggers.

Those are micro-management aspects of naval warfare I would rather not have to do.

I want to set the strategies and tactics for the u-boat vs convoy war, and let the Admiralty and Kriegsmarine do the rest and come up with a realistic result.

I have no problem that building 300 U-boats will take resources away from the Luftwaffe - but I want it to be a realistic option.

I want 50 flush-deck destroyers and escort carriers to be part of the equation.

By treating u-boats and fleets as a small number of discrete units SC has provided incentives for quite a-historic strategies and tactics.

[Lars]

You did, you yutz.

Originally posted by Stalin's Organist:

Eg the Germans buy U-boat "points", the allies buy escort "points", they allocate them to areas of operation (Nth Atlantic, Arctic, Baltic, Sth Atlantic, Med, Black Sea, Nth Sea, US Coast)

[Guest Mike]

What is it that you think I "did"??? :confused:

[ May 23, 2006, 03:27 PM: Message edited by: Stalin's Organist ]

[Lars]

You posited a model to totally abstract the sub war, and to totally abstract it to nothing more than commerce raiding to boot.

I've played those systems, and found them rather limiting, as that's the only strategic option you're given. So it comes down to buy sub chits, put them in the box, or just forget about the whole idea and buy tanks.

Best example would probably be War in Europe by SSI. They did the same with the bomber war as a I recall. No Operation Cobra's there.

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by Lars:

You posited a model to totally abstract the sub war, and to totally abstract it to nothing more than commerce raiding to boot.

Um...yeah, and how does this relate to "You did you yutz?"

You should also read more - later on I said I though the idea of shifting ponits between an abstracted commerce-raiding model and somethign liek the current system for more "conventional" warfare might be good - someone had suggested it from anotehr game system.

I've played those systems, and found them rather limiting, as that's the only strategic option you're given. So it comes down to buy sub chits, put them in the box, or just forget about the whole idea and buy tanks.

Well that would be limiting, because it is limited!!

Even my vague proposal had a lot more options than that - with varius geographic areas, choice of tactics for both sides, and eventually the ability to shift resources between "fleets" and "commerce" raid & defence as above.

effectiveness of subs might be altered by putting resources into long range a/c and weather stations - the Germans went some trouble, for example, to operate a weather station in Greenland for a while.

Ie build in the strategic options that actually existed!

Why can't we have a sub-war in the Med for example, where a lot of British boats operated? Or in the Baltic where the Russians had 80 boats at the START of the war and perhaps sank as many as 150 ships while losing about as many submarines????!!

I had thought I'd spelled out lots of options clearly enough even for you!!

[dicedtomato]

But that's the whole point, Lars. The reason why those other games didn't allow strategic bombers to do battlefield carpet bombing is because it was only done on a couple of occasions. And the reason it wasn't done more often is because carpet bombing was a disaster. When the Americans tried it in Operation Cobra, they bombed their own troops, disrupted their own offensive, and killed a high-ranking U.S. general (McNair) in the process. The ground troops didn't want carpet bombing because they didn't trust the bombers, and the bomber barons didn't want to divert their precious aircraft from strategic attacks.

But being wargamers, we want to take an action that happened rarely and with very mixed results, and turn it into a standard game option that you can use every turn.

DT

Originally posted by Lars:

You posited a model to totally abstract the sub war, and to totally abstract it to nothing more than commerce raiding to boot.

I've played those systems, and found them rather limiting, as that's the only strategic option you're given. So it comes down to buy sub chits, put them in the box, or just forget about the whole idea and buy tanks.

Best example would probably be War in Europe by SSI. They did the same with the bomber war as a I recall. No Operation Cobra's there.

[Lars]

Originally posted by Stalin's Organist:

Why can't we have a sub-war in the Med for example, where a lot of British boats operated? Or in the Baltic where the Russians had 80 boats at the START of the war and perhaps sank as many as 150 ships while losing about as many submarines????!!

I had thought I'd spelled out lots of options clearly enough even for you!!

Hey, I pushed for Med Convoys, remember?

I just don't like chits in a box, rather would move units.

[John DiFool the 2nd]

Originally posted by Stalin's Organist:

I DO have a problem having to move u-boats in and out of convoy lanes every move to try to avoid detection, or moving cruisers all over hte map trying to find the little buggers.

Those are micro-management aspects of naval warfare I would rather not have to do.

Then on this point at least we have a difference in

taste. Why isn't it micromanagement to move tank

units around on the Eastern front (probing for

weak spots and avoiding strong spots perhaps), but

it's micromanagement to do the same thing with

subs and fleets?

I certainly have no problem with moving my boats

around-my issue is that the Brits DIDN'T have H/K

units at the beginning; their doctrine was not set

up for sub hunting, the relevant DDs & CLs were

subservient to the big gunned ships, and dedicated

escort ships (DEs) for the most part didn't exist

yet, and they didn't have the weapons (yet) to

decimate a big wolfpack in 2 shots. So on that

score we agree. :cool:

[Lars]

Originally posted by dicedtomato:

But that's the whole point, Lars. The reason why those other games didn't allow strategic bombers to do battlefield carpet bombing is because it was only done on a couple of occasions. And the reason it wasn't done more often is because carpet bombing was a disaster. When the Americans tried it in Operation Cobra, they bombed their own troops, disrupted their own offensive, and killed a high-ranking U.S. general (McNair) in the process. The ground troops didn't want carpet bombing because they didn't trust the bombers, and the bomber barons didn't want to divert their precious aircraft from strategic attacks.

But being wargamers, we want to take an action that happened rarely and with very mixed results, and turn it into a standard game option that you can use every turn.

When done right, it was highly effective. Look what happened the next day in Operation Cobra when the bombers came back again. The Panzer Lehr was toasted.

Look, just because it wasn't done much, doesn't mean it couldn't be done, and done well, if they had put really their minds to it.

It's called a strategic option. Try to open your mind a little bit, instead of thinking strictly in a orthodox box due to the way the history books are written.

[dicedtomato]

I occasionally open my mind up like you do, Lars. That's when I read science-fiction instead of history. I, at least, know the difference.

What I've tried to explain to you again...and again...is that there are reasons why history turns out the way it did. Maybe the Americans did the best they could with carpet bombing given the limitations of 1944 technology. Maybe the Germans did the best they could with their subs.

If you want to assume that subs and carpet bombing were much more effective than they were, that's fine. But shouldn't we also assume that the Americans had long-range fighters to escort their bombers in 1942, or that the Allied bombers targteted oil from the beginning?

At what point do you diverge so far from history that you're not simulating WWII any better than Risk does?

DT

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by John DiFool the 2nd:

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

I DO have a problem having to move u-boats in and out of convoy lanes every move to try to avoid detection, or moving cruisers all over hte map trying to find the little buggers.

Those are micro-management aspects of naval warfare I would rather not have to do.

Then on this point at least we have a difference in

taste. Why isn't it micromanagement to move tank

units around on the Eastern front (probing for

weak spots and avoiding strong spots perhaps), but

it's micromanagement to do the same thing with

subs and fleets? </font>

[Lars]

Originally posted by dicedtomato:

I occasionally open my mind up like you do, Lars. That's when I read science-fiction instead of history. I, at least, know the difference.

What I've tried to explain to you again...and again...is that there are reasons why history turns out the way it did. Maybe the Americans did the best they could with carpet bombing given the limitations of 1944 technology. Maybe the Germans did the best they could with their subs.

If you want to assume that subs and carpet bombing were much more effective than they were, that's fine. But shouldn't we also assume that the Americans had long-range fighters to escort their bombers in 1942, or that the Allied bombers targteted oil from the beginning?

At what point do you diverge so far from history that you're not simulating WWII any better than Risk does?

DT

You might as well just read history, it turns out the same way every time.

Some of us like to consider the "what if's". If you're using the same units, but in a different way, it doesn't devolve into SF, imho.

[dicedtomato]

Don't worry, Lars. I guarantee that even without super-subs and carpet bombing, SC2 won't resemble history. But I do believe that with the game as is, you will get the same outcome each time; an Axis victory.

DT

[SeaMonkey]

Give surface vessels the ability to "evade" similar to the sub's ability to dive.

[Lars]

Originally posted by dicedtomato:

Don't worry, Lars. I guarantee that even without super-subs and carpet bombing, SC2 won't resemble history. But I do believe that with the game as is, you will get the same outcome each time; an Axis victory.

DT

Really? I've found if you play with historical strategies, you'd pretty much end up with historical results.

Might look a bit rough around the edges, sure, but pretty close.

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by SeaMonkey:

Give surface vessels the ability to "evade" similar to the sub's ability to dive.

I don't favour fixing an inaccuracy by introducing another one - better to fix the actual problem!!

[SeaMonkey]

Yeah... your right SO, guess I've been watching to many movies.

I respectfully withdraw my idea. :confused: