A suggestion for ASW and convoys

[SMK-at-work]

Reading http://www.gwpda.org/naval/brgerm.htm tells me pretty much what I think we all knew anyway......therewere, in fact, no significant ASW improvemetns in WW1, and the only defence agaisnt U-boatsd was the convoy system.....for which there was only enough pressure to adopt after the unrestricted u-boat campaign came to fruition in 1917.

So I propose a fairly radical change for GoA ver 2 ('cos I think it's a bit much to be incoporating in short term without considerable playtesting!!)

1/ Ditch ASW and ASW research completely
2/ Allow the allies to use convoys in a similar manner to the CP using unrestricted sub warfare - ie a tick box in the naval allocations dialogue.

The effect of convoys would be 3-fold.

Firstly it would lower the efficiency of allied transports...the time and effort required to assemble convoys and hte need to all sail at the speed of the slowest ship and on a common route had an appreciable effect on total moveable tonnage - i've read various figures from 8-15% loss of efficiency fron convoys, while in another thread Shawkan suggests 20%, which I wouldn't argue with.

So let's assume 20% as a nice round number - 1/5th of all goods delivered by convoyed shipping are lost - rounding up I suggest, to make it a "worthwhile" loss.

Secondly subs should have a decreased chance of encountering transports.....since much of the ocean becomes empty.

Thirdly subs that do attack transports should have an increased chance of being attacked by DD's on ASW duties ....since the subs have to attack convoys and that automatically puts them in closer proximity to escorts.

the British actually instituted some convoys as early as 1914 - eg coal and provisioning the Falklands, some convoys in hte north Sea and to the Netherlands and France from mid-late 1916.

However as we probably all know large scale convoys were not instituted until 1917 in response to the successes of the unrestricted U-boat campaign. and even then there were gaps - eg outgoing empty vessels from the UK were not initially escorted.....so they were attacked instead of the incoming loaded ones that were. And coastal convoys around the UK were not instituted until June 1918.

Each time convoy coverage was increased the U-boats looked for the easier kills elsewhere - the convoys were safe, but other shipping still suffered!


so fourthly - the TE has 2 or 3 "stages" of convoy coverage - only a % of shipping is covered by the affects of convoys and this increases with each stage. so the loss in efectiveness gets larger, but more and more ships get covered by the protective effects.

I'd suggest something like the following:

Stage 1: 1/3 of Nth Atlantic shipping is covered
Stage 2: 2/3rd ditto
Stage 3: 3/4 ditto (ultimately 80% of shipping bound for the UK sailed in convoys), and perhaps also 1/2 in the Med - there were convoys in the Med and they were apparently introduced quite late for merchant shipping (French troop movements had been convoyed in 1914) but I can't find any specific dates for them starting

There should be some trigger....eg available British shipping falls to some level (say 12 transports - 2/3rds of the startign total?). Each extra level of convoying shuold only be allowed to be introduced if the available shipping stays below that level.

[SMK-at-work]

As a minor addition the Brits might be allowed to put 1 air point on ASW for each stage of convoy for each air point so to simulate the considerable number of airships and flying boats that were used to patrol coastal waters around the UK - they actually started doing so with blimps in 1915, but they became more important as u-boats shifted to concentrate on unescorted coastal convoys in the first half of 1918.
 
the effect would be to add 1 ship to those counting as being convoyed for each air point on ASW.
 
Another point - the proportion of ships being convoyed would cover all transports regardless of mission - so amphib and sea supply would get teh benefits too.
 

[Joel Rauber]

Are you thinking that the Brits can only enter stage 1 voluntarily, the next stages only occur if the triggers occur and the Brits have the convoy box checked?

An alternative use for air points is an interesting idea.

How about German airpoints against British economic effort? somehow

We might also try to come up with a V1.3 easy fix suggestions as well. I.e. there should probably be two threads going, one for V1.x ideas and another for more comprehensive V2 ideas.

[SMK-at-work]

It'd be a player choice whether to enter each and any stage IMO - but you could only "upstage" 1 level at a time - perhaps only every 2nd turn?
 
German airpoints shouldn't affect british economic efforts - they were nowhere near that....but they might be allowed to invest 1-2 level 3 or higher points to attack British morale?  the Brits could retain an equal number of air points for home defence - the home defence points would partially negate the german points, plus have the ability to shoot them down as now (air casualties are fairly rare still) - the German points would not have the ability to shoot down any British points
 
as a v1.3 fix for convoys I'd jsut give DD's a slightly higher chance of hitting UB's from after about 6-8 months of unrestricted sub warfare accumulated time - so if the CP introduces it and then stops it after a couple of months then that time would count towards it.

[SMK-at-work]

I jsut realised I didn't word the trigger thing very well........my idea is that the brits would only get the opportunity to use convoys if the trigger point was reached - the option would be "greyed out" until then.  Similarly the option to increase the coverage of convoys would be greyed out unless the appropriate trigger had been reached.

[FrankHunter]

"Tech" levels don't just represent tech such as tanks and gas.  Like artillery and assault troops it also represents better use made of existing systems, such as better tactics, coordination etc.  Anti-sub warfare improved during the war and so I made it a tech level thing.  Its just a preference of mine to do things that way rather than with set triggers. 

[SMK-at-work]

Arguably ASW did not get any better in the war and more subs were sunk "simply" because more subs were built and they worked harder to attack allied shippipng - thus making them more vulnerable.

Convoys were THE "ASW" measure of the war - they would have been successful without hydrophones or airships - heck they would actually have been successful without escorts simply because a lot of subs would have been left staring at empty ocean for their patrols!  And convoys are not a feature that lend themselves to "research" - they are something like unrestricted sub warfare - the player gets a choice.


My idea of putting in some sort of trigger level is jsut to stop the allies from choosing to use them right from the get go, because they actually resisted using them for as long as possible.

[EUBanana]

mm.  well, the naval system is already very abstracted, I think just putting points into a box called "ASW" suffices, really, no need to make it explicit with convoy boxes to tick.  I think even the unrestricted warfare thing is probably overkill, though at least that was a political decision, I think convoying was more about doctrinal advancement than politics.

[Joel Rauber]

I'm finding myself agreeing with Frank and EUBanana, having a tech-level box probably abstracts triggers good enough.

[Shawkhan]

...ASW warfare is as side specific as is unrestricted submarine warfare. As a matter of fact, it appears to be a perfect counterpoint for the Entente player. What CP player is going to spend resource points on ASW? Of course ASW should be a box. Unrestricted sub warfare was a policy decision made by an autocrat(WilhelmII). The convoy system was forced upon the British as a matter of survival, merchant ship owners lost money(time means money) by having to wait around for convoys to form up and always sailing at the speed of the slowest ship, rather than their most economical cruising speed. When there are 6 or less British transports left is a perfectly acceptable trigger point for the British to tick off 'convoy'. At least it would be one way for the stupid British AI to have an automatic decision made for it to keep it from always surrendering in 1916.

[FrankHunter]

But why bother having a box to tick?  Why not just set it automatically?  Why would anyone not tick it?

And convoys won't keep the British from surrendering if they don't have food. 

[SMK-at-work]

No, but they might stop the brits from losing so many transports - that was hte historical effect.

There has to be adown side - I suggested that when convoys are seelcted they only function at 80% of efficiency - ie 1 in 5 resources or food doesn't get delivered.

Then hte Brits have to decide whether it's worth it or not.

[boogada]

I am not sure about this. But it seems unhistorical that the CP looses so many sub units after ASW is developed. ASW should not increase the sub losses so drastically. It should rather decrease the numbers of transports hit by each sub. Thats what happened when the convoy system was installed. The subs were still around, but they didn't got a chance to engage the merchant vessels any longer. 

[SteveD64]

Has anyone else, as the CP, suffered the effect of the TE piling on French and British destroyers in the North Atlantic and defeating the uboats at the very beginning?  That's my only concern when playing against another human. 

I don't have a problem with ASW research as it stands right now as I think it could mean to represent the resources used up in trying to feed an island nation at war which includes not only agriculture policy but also the workers required to build shipping on top of the actual manpower and brainpower used to finally come up with the voila! moment when convoys were finally implemented on a truly wide scale.  You could think of it as a seperate department within the British government and navy.   I may be reaching with this one but surely the Brits devoted a lot resources to these problems that can't be shown by simple naval point allocation.

my 2 cents

also I agree with boogada

[Lascar]

ORIGINAL: boogada

I am not sure about this. But it seems unhistorical that the CP looses so many sub units after ASW is developed. ASW should not increase the sub losses so drastically. It should rather decrease the numbers of transports hit by each sub. Thats what happened when the convoy system was installed. The subs were still around, but they didn't got a chance to engage the merchant vessels any longer.

That sounds like a more elegant solution than excessive U-boat losses.

[SMK-at-work]

ORIGINAL: CLEVELAND

Has anyone else, as the CP, suffered the effect of the TE piling on French and British destroyers in the North Atlantic and defeating the uboats at the very beginning? That's my only concern when playing against another human.

I haven't seen it happen - pre-ASW DD's just don't wipe out the subs - they get 1 hit here & there...sometimes 2 in a phase....but hardly ever enough to sink one.

[Joel Rauber]

As the TE player against AI I tried that and my experience echoes what SMK said. Though I didn't do the strategy consistently either which may explain some of my lack of results. But I at least didn't lose a lot of transports, so I had some good turns from shipping and some bad turns as well when a lot of transports got damaged and had to be repaired.