Ship Class Design

[Veers]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

I'll also note that against naval units, submarines really couldn't be directed to engage particular targets. Too slow and too blind. The Royal Oak is about the only major warship I can think of that was sunk as a result of a specific plan. All the others -- Ark Royal, Yorktown, Barham, Indianapolis, that late-war Japanese carrier -- were more or less good (or bad,depending on how you look at it) luck.

So there is at least one argument against having submarines as player-controlled, on map units. It implies an ability to direct planned attacks against specific vessels -- and such an ability doesn't seem to have existed.

Unless, as in some scenarii, such as EA, there are several ships in a unit, making it more like the 'luck' that it was historically,

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Veers

Unless, as in some scenarii, such as EA, there are several ships in a unit, making it more like the 'luck' that it was historically,

Even then, you're choosing to hit that unit rather than another. In EA, some units have carriers and some don't. You're also choosing to hit warships rather than merchant ships. You're directly engaging en masse, which is just not how submarines fought.

[Veers]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Veers

Unless, as in some scenarii, such as EA, there are several ships in a unit, making it more like the 'luck' that it was historically,

Even then, you're choosing to hit that unit rather than another.

True.

In EA, some units have carriers and some don't. You're also choosing to hit warships rather than merchant ships. You're directly engaging en masse, which is just not how submarines fought.

*scratches head* So wolfpacks never attacked squadrons of enemy warships, only convoys of merchants (with/without escorts)?

[vahauser]

The primary mission of submarines is to sink enemy ships.  The most useful mission of submarines is to disrupt supply convoys.  However, there are many instances where submarines attacked and sank enemy warships when no supply convoys were around.
 
If I were the admiral in charge of submarine operations my standing orders would read something like: 
Attack supply transports wherever possible.  Use discretion when attacking enemy warships, but the priority is to attack supply transports if possible.  Do not engage enemy warships if it will compromise your ability to attack supply transports.
 
Those orders would give my submarine commanders some flexibility, but it would also make clear what the most important priority was.
 
My reading of history is that most submarine commanders realized that enemy warships were not as high a priority as enemy transports.  But most submarine commanders were also aggressive enough to take advantage of whatever opportunity presented itself.  And if that meant attacking warships as targets of opportunity, then that is what they would do.  That is my interpretation of history (talking WW1 and WW2 here).
 
 

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Veers



*scratches head* So wolfpacks never attacked squadrons of enemy warships, only convoys of merchants (with/without escorts)?

I don't think 'wolfpacks' ever did target enemy warships unless they were part of the convoy's escort. With the exception of Prien's penetration of Scapa Flow, U-boat sinkings of warships were more or less blind luck. Literally, 'oh look at that: a battleship! Quick -- take a shot.'

Even with the Japanese -- whose submarines did target warships -- sinkings were more or less random. Submarines are too slow, have a very limited range of sight, and can't keep chattering back and forth with fleet about where things are and where they are if they want to remain undetected. So they're sort of like typhoons -- sometimes sink ships, but the process isn't really under anyone's control.

Now, I can see why Erik wants submarine units, and that he's gotten them is interesting, but I really don't think units are the way to go with submarines, generally speaking. In OPART, the event engine handles their effect better.

I think we have to avoid the 'Medieval Total War' syndrome. Yes, 'diplomat' units are nice, and so are 'merchant' units -- but are such discrete counters really the best way of modeling the effect if serious simulation is what we're after? I don't particularly want an OPART with 'staff' units and 'intelligence' units -- and 'submarine' units. It might be more entertaining -- but it would be worse simulation.

[Veers]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

ORIGINAL: Veers



*scratches head* So wolfpacks never attacked squadrons of enemy warships, only convoys of merchants (with/without escorts)?

I don't think 'wolfpacks' ever did target enemy warships unless they were part of the convoy's escort. With the exception of Prien's penetration of Scapa Flow, U-boat sinkings of warships were more or less blind luck. Literally, 'oh look at that: a battleship! Quick -- take a shot.'

Even with the Japanese -- whose submarines did target warships -- sinkings were more or less random. Submarines are too slow, have a very limited range of sight, and can't keep chattering back and forth with fleet about where things are and where they are if they want to remain undetected. So they're sort of like typhoons -- sometimes sink ships, but the process isn't under anyone's control.

Now, I can see why Erik wants submarine units, and that he's gotten them is interesting, but I really don't think units are the way to go with submarines, generally speaking. In OPART, the event engine handles their effect better.

I think we have to avoid the 'Medieval Total War' syndrome. Yes, 'diplomat' units are nice, and so are 'merchant' units -- but are such discrete counters really the best way of modeling the effect if serious simulation is what we're after. I don't particularly want an OPART with 'staff' units and 'intelligence' units -- and 'submarine' units. It might be more entertaining -- but it would be worse simulation.

Works for me. My question was a real question. I have very limited naval warfare knowledge. Have Donitz's memoirs (among other naval history books) on the shelf, but I haven't gotten to read it, yet.

[Szilard]

ORIGINAL: vahauser

My reading of history is that most submarine commanders realized that enemy warships were not as high a priority as enemy transports.  But most submarine commanders were also aggressive enough to take advantage of whatever opportunity presented itself.  And if that meant attacking warships as targets of opportunity, then that is what they would do.  That is my interpretation of history (talking WW1 and WW2 here).

Different navies had different different doctrines, of course. In fact, AFAIK US Navy doctrine was pretty similar to Japanese up until 1944: the focus was warships. By the time this was published: http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/ss-doc-1.htm it was out of date, and the hugely successful commerce war was starting. But I think it gives the flavor of what submarines were supposed to be for, up until then.

[a white rabbit]

..Japanese submarine doctrine was use as a supplemement to a battle fleet, a tactical combat and recon arm, not as a strategic ie anti-merchant shipping arm. It remained so thru the war, the at-start submarines dictated this but new builds largely followed the same idea..

..the US submarines started  in a tactical role but very quickly switched to a strategic role, quickly being mid to late 43. The at-start were mostly short range but new-builds were given increasing range/patrol radius, eventually turning the China Sea into a US sub lake..

..the German subs started as mostly short-range, ie North Sea patrol range but they evolved very quickly to permit extended range use in the Atlantic and further. Doctrine was mostly sink anything but convoys got priority..

..the British subs were mostly short range at start, North Sea patrol area and as a tactical Fleet support arm, with a sink anything doctrine. They had some range extension in new-builds but never up to US ranges, and remained basically on a sink anything doctrine, if only because of a lack of merchant targets..

[Erik2]

I think I've arrived with a set of equipment/supply values that are reasonable.
For the subs to work I've come up with these house rules, please comment.

1) Subs may only attack enemy vessels that are adjacent at the start of the turn.
(This will prevent them from hunting surface vessels nilly-willy around the map).

2) Surface vessels must attack revealed subs that are adjacent at the start of the turn.
(Since the defender fires first this should give the sub a reasonable change to sink an enemy ship).

3) Surface vessels may not attack subs that are invisible (considered undetected).
(This means that only subs actively moving next to enemy vessels will create an engagement).

4) Surface ships may not attack subs directly using ranged bombardment.
(Other ships may move next to the revealed sub and participate in the engagement).

5) Seatransports may not disengage from a revealed sub.
(This means that the player can't move any seatransports out of harm's way without sinking the sub first).

[cymloveselva]

[&o]Great & heavy thread!
By the way, I didn't see any submarine equipment in the Editor... Please correct me if I'm wrong...

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: cymloveselva

[&o]Great & heavy thread!
By the way, I didn't see any submarine equipment in the Editor... Please correct me if I'm wrong...

No...there isn't any. You could try coming up with something -- but I think the event engine is the best way of handling submarines. When it came to military units, the sinkings were largely random. No one ever said, 'go sink the Scharnhorst' -- and voila, there were six submarine attacks on the Scharnhorst.

[a white rabbit]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

ORIGINAL: cymloveselva

[&o]Great & heavy thread!
By the way, I didn't see any submarine equipment in the Editor... Please correct me if I'm wrong...

No...there isn't any. You could try coming up with something -- but I think the event engine is the best way of handling submarines. When it came to military units, the sinkings were largely random. No one ever said, 'go sink the Scharnhorst' -- and voila, there were six submarine attacks on the Scharnhorst.

..agreed, if it's not a specifically submarine scen and so using a complete BioEd mod, then really the EvilEd is the best way..

[cymloveselva]

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

ORIGINAL: cymloveselva

[&o]Great & heavy thread!
By the way, I didn't see any submarine equipment in the Editor... Please correct me if I'm wrong...

No...there isn't any. You could try coming up with something -- but I think the event engine is the best way of handling submarines. When it came to military units, the sinkings were largely random. No one ever said, 'go sink the Scharnhorst' -- and voila, there were six submarine attacks on the Scharnhorst.

..agreed, if it's not a specifically submarine scen and so using a complete BioEd mod, then really the EvilEd is the best way..

Event engine... good idea! But concept of designing Sub attacks shouldn't be an easy task...[;)]

[a white rabbit]

ORIGINAL: cymloveselva

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit

ORIGINAL: ColinWright




No...there isn't any. You could try coming up with something -- but I think the event engine is the best way of handling submarines. When it came to military units, the sinkings were largely random. No one ever said, 'go sink the Scharnhorst' -- and voila, there were six submarine attacks on the Scharnhorst.

..agreed, if it's not a specifically submarine scen and so using a complete BioEd mod, then really the EvilEd is the best way..

Event engine... good idea! But concept of designing Sub attacks shouldn't be an easy task...[;)]

..toaw can do sub-war, but not in combination with land war, not really...

..the two aren't linked anyway, not really, you wanna do the North Atlantic, then fine, it can be done, but not along with the East Front, use the EvilEd..

..i've a disc of books and another two of movies, actual and fiction, on the Atlantic, and when i finish my current projects, Malaya, Philippines, DEI, and some cute Indochine stuff, (the retreat from Cao-Bang in particular) i'll look in detail at the Atlantic and playing with boats. It's viable, i had fun on a test-bed scen, but it needs the BioEd and a very blue map..

..it's not just the sub-attacks, it's getting the "right" sea to happen.....

[ColinWright]

.

[cymloveselva]

It would really nice if you can share with us your test-bed scen...
By the way, I would truly wish for some real navy scen, especially those Subs Wars and Pacific Wars...[8|]

[a white rabbit]

..it was under toaw-acow, and when i moved, i only kept notes, but it goes like this..

..for subs use the correct value, low AP low AT guerilla units, change the icons, build from scratch the navy surface stuff, use the mtrsed flag, for freighters use the road-only flag, set with 0 AP/AT..

..now change open terrain to blue sea, and put the convoy "roads" in as invisible, use groups of hexes, say 5 wide. S'ok, the freighters can't really go off them without getting seriously hammered for movement. Treat all air power as ranged artillery except spotter type planes (Condors) and there use helio move with a recon ability..

..for weather add lot's of rain

..the point was to get a playable North Atlantic, not a viable sub-warfare add-on, and as the former, it works quite well, at least on local (hot-seat) testing we enjoyed it..

..it's a question of perception..

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit
..the point was to get a playable North Atlantic, not a viable sub-warfare add-on, and as the former, it works quite well, at least on local (hot-seat) testing we enjoyed it..

Conjures up images of this little Filipino farming community where TOAW has really caught on. You're wandering down the dirt path past the thatched awning, and you hear these two Asiatic peasant women furiously arguing the validity of Norm's armor figures for Soviet tanks of the early fifties.

[macgregor]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

I think we have to avoid the 'Medieval Total War' syndrome. Yes, 'diplomat' units are nice, and so are 'merchant' units -- but are such discrete counters really the best way of modeling the effect if serious simulation is what we're after. I don't particularly want an OPART with 'staff' units and 'intelligence' units -- and 'submarine' units. It might be more entertaining -- but it would be worse simulation.

With all due respect, and I'm still a little befuddled on why when scenarios are completely designable as well as editable people would poopoo the idea of improving naval combat and unit development, why would you be comparing a submarine in a 'warfare sim' to a merchant or diplomat unit. You do realize their significance in warfare, don't you? There seems to be a 'well as long as I don't have to move units' contingent as well. At some point I'll have to come down off my optimistic horse and face the reality that TOAW is by and for eastern front types who only want land warfare, more specifically either a republican president or Hitler himself against the bear. Not to compare the two but look at the scenarios and the threads themselves. I'm just doing the math. There are no scenarios covering the current situation in Iraq or Afghanistan, naval combat in any age is still a pipedream for TOAW(send in boots on the ground), but count the eastern front/war with Russia scens, threads and posts. Maybe my problem is with the selected game demographic.

[vahauser]

ORIGINAL: macgregor

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

I think we have to avoid the 'Medieval Total War' syndrome. Yes, 'diplomat' units are nice, and so are 'merchant' units -- but are such discrete counters really the best way of modeling the effect if serious simulation is what we're after. I don't particularly want an OPART with 'staff' units and 'intelligence' units -- and 'submarine' units. It might be more entertaining -- but it would be worse simulation.

With all due respect, and I'm still a little befuddled on why when scenarios are completely designable as well as editable people would poopoo the idea of improving naval combat and unit development, why would you be comparing a submarine in a 'warfare sim' to a merchant or diplomat unit. You do realize their significance in warfare, don't you? There seems to be a 'well as long as I don't have to move units' contingent as well. At some point I'll have to come down off my optimistic horse and face the reality that TOAW is by and for eastern front types who only want land warfare, more specifically either a republican president or Hitler himself against the bear. Not to compare the two but look at the scenarios and the threads themselves. I'm just doing the math. There are no scenarios covering the current situation in Iraq or Afghanistan, naval combat in any age is still a pipedream for TOAW(send in boots on the ground), but count the eastern front/war with Russia scens, threads and posts. Maybe my problem is with the selected game demographic.

As far as I'm concerned, you are correct. I honestly don't care about any other theater besides WW2 Eastern Front. I'm certainly not very interested in modeling naval combat in any era. And I really don't care about any other period except 1936-1946 (WW2) in general, East Front in particular.

First and foremost, land combat is far and away most important to me. Tactical air system (I don't care about modeling strategic air system) is next most important to me in terms of supporting land combat. Naval system is dead last in importance to me. Naval system only has even the tiniest interest for me in terms of tactical support of land combat. I don't care about anything else.

Here is my interest level for TOAW (10 being highest interest):

WW2 East Front = 10
WW2 Western Europe = 6
WW2 Mediterranean/North Africa = 3
WW2 Pacific = 1
Everything else = 0

Land combat operations = 10
Tactical air system in support of land operations = 9
Naval system in support of land operations = 8
Everything else = 0

[EDIT: Oh, and by the way, I'm a left-wing liberal who voted for Obama. So there goes your demographic theory out the window.]