Subs, convoys and fleets

[xwormwood]

I think the whole subwar system needs a different approach.

Example;

There has never been something like a sub-taskforce to fight fleets.

Wolfpacks formed because of radio informations about convoys, and they never ever formed in harbors, they never ever traveld together to a specifiv coordinate.

Subfleets leaving any harbor together are absurd.

Knowing this, lets move on to the convoys.

Which convoys? would be the right question if you are playing the 1939 campaign, because they weren't formed on september 1st 1939 or formed effectily anytime near this date.

Where is the happy hunting time for the subs?

Until a real convoy system has been researched, there should be plenty of single ships floating on the high seas, being easy prey for any sub or warfleet (which did have an impact on convoys, but unfortunalty not in SC2 1.05a).

And while we are talking about convoys: where are the malta & med convoys?

Those convoys were crucial for the UK north-african campaigns. Still no sight of them in SC2 anymore.

I strongly recommand to take a look into the classical wargame "storm accross europe" (SSI).

The whole naval actions was handled there abstract, but in my opinion more realistic.

Don't understand me wrong:

as much fun it is to move your fleets around (yes, i do like indeed the morbid way you can roam through the oceans with your way to strong axis fleets), so wrong is this micromanaging in a game of the scale à la SC2.

A last word about fleets: italian (when neutral) fleets shouldn't be allowed to divide the eastern from the western med sea (build a fleet tower above tobruk), forcing the english fleet to use the long way aroung africa ot to wait until italy enters the war and being able to fight a way through.

Any differents thoughts or comments?

Lets hear them.

[ February 17, 2007, 02:55 PM: Message edited by: xwormwood ]

[Exel]

I like the sub system, and the naval system in general. It may not be the most realistic one, but then again many other parts of SC are similarly abstracted. The gameplay is great and within an acceptable sphere of WW2 realism I think.

[Bromley]

I have mixed feelings about neutrals which would probably be solved by a decent replay system.

Basically, neutrals should be, umm, neutral - both sides can move through them without triggering a stop. Both sides should see this in their pausable and replayable replay.

I quiet like the way subs are handled in SC2. I can see your points, but counter to those is that the RN can't split its units from the SC2 tile-sized units, so on balance maybe it works? Certainly there's a cost-benefit to early sub hunting as the Allies atm, in that I find my Allied fleet tied up in Norway, possibly the Baltic, at Brest and possibly Gibralter/Spain. All that leaves little time to hunt the U30, that can then do decent damage.

[xwormwood]

Originally posted by Exel:

I like the sub system, and the naval system in general.

Have you ever played Storm or Clash?

I think it is important to know both games and their approach to a naval system.

Even though both had their own problems, i think they had both the better solution.

[Moonslayer]

I have played both of those and definately prefer the SC2 version. SC2 has much more potential and with the creases ironed out (eg ships unable to move through each other, AI knowing exactly where your subs are etc) then it will be a far superior system.

I am a great fan of the naval conflict side of things... I always found storm/clash far too limiting and frustrating.

[xwormwood]

Well, i don't know.

In SC / SC2 you are fighting sub-fleets.

This just seems not right.

Subs were more like a cancer of the seas, and the only cure should be to improve asw-tech, install airzone and send in more escorts to keep this plague away.

This situation and the overall approach toward subwar was done better in both Clash and Storm.

In SC / SC2 you suddenly stumble onto THE one sub-counter, and when this is gone, subs are gone.

THE subfleet is nothing but a crutch in game mechanics, because (as i wrote above) there was never ONE subfleet. If at all subs formed a fleet (wolfpack or whatever) at the high seas, but never on the way towards the target or back to harbor.

As long as the naval system is not spltted down towards a Panzer General-like level (more or less single ships or counters which representing a much smaler amount of ships) it is just not the best solution to recreate WW2-subwar.

Another two things:

with all these fleet units i do miss the ability to do some special ambushes with them, just like something à la Pearl Harbor, Tarent, Operation Menace, Skapa Flow etc.

AND

i don't understand why there are plenty of damages for seaships through bad weather (i still think these damages are somewhat questionable when they hit submarines) but none through seamines.

The coastlines and harbor entrances where infested with mines, and hundreds of ships sunk or get badly damaged through them.

Mines should cover at least fortified coastlines,

so that an Atlantikwall would be a worthy building to create.

I do admit that neither Clash or storm had seamines as well, but compared to SC2 they are dinosaurs, 10 or 20 years older.

[John DiFool the 2nd]

Originally posted by xwormwood:

Well, i don't know.

In SC / SC2 you are fighting sub-fleets.

This just seems not right.

Subs were more like a cancer of the seas, and the only cure should be to improve asw-tech, install airzone and send in more escorts to keep this plague away.

This situation and the overall approach toward subwar was done better in both Clash and Storm.

In SC / SC2 you suddenly stumble onto THE one sub-counter, and when this is gone, subs are gone.

THE subfleet is nothing but a crutch in game mechanics, because (as i wrote above) there was never ONE subfleet. If at all subs formed a fleet (wolfpack or whatever) at the high seas, but never on the way towards the target or back to harbor.

As long as the naval system is not spltted down towards a Panzer General-like level (more or less single ships or counters which representing a much smaler amount of ships) it is just not the best solution to recreate WW2-subwar.

While the SC2 solution is certainly unsatisfactory,

it's still better than the "sit back and let the

random numbers decide the war" approach of the

games you mention. Yes the scale of SC2 just does

not permit something to be modeled which occurred

on a finer scale. But just dumping everything into

Strat boxes is plain boring and one dimensional.

I wonder if something would be workable along the

lines of what SC2 attempted if we used a double

scale map a la Thrawn's, and added a bunch of

functionality. Looks like that will be something

for SC3 tho if anything...

At any rate I'm eagerly awaiting the Silent Hunter

3 mod Subwolves, which should do an excellent job

of modeling the sub war in the Atlantic.