Naval/Air Revisions and the new patch

[Michael the Pole]

I was disappointed to read the list of revisions for the new patch (now for release Monday?) To my mind, they seem like "rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic." The game, imo, handles the ground war very well but thats really the easy challenge and has been done a hundred times before. For all the new ground that the game covers, we could all still be playing Panzergruppe Guderian or DNO/Unentschiden or running around an empty parking lot pushing shopping carts and shouting BANG at each other (an attempt to simulate the Desert campaigns sponsered by the University of Texas Wargamers society that I had the misfortune to be involved in in 1972) The real challange in simulating the war in Europe is in the interaction of the three main arms -- ground, air and naval forces. And, imo, here Road to Victory clearly fails. The good news is that some relatively simple fixes would go a long way twoards repairing the situation.
There has to be a way for airforces to interact with naval forces. This is critical! There are entire campaigns that took place historicaly that never happen in the game, and the reason is that airforces have no effect on navies. As has been discussed elsewhere in this forum, the Danish and Norwegian campaigns (and Norway was important enough to Hitler that he was willing to wager the entire Kreigsmarine on its capture) are pointless under the present rules set. In fact, if it wasnt for an arbitrary "house rule" restricting entry into the Baltic to the player who controls Copnhagen, the Royal Navy could easily establish the Baltic as an English lake and hold sailing regattas off Gdansk. This is quite simply, bad simulation![:-] Again and again, the side with naval superiority (usually the Commonwealth) found itself unable to utilize that superiority because of the severe losses it would sustain from enemy air forces. Examples of this are so numerous that its almost pointless to list them, so I'll restrict myself to just one. In 1940 - 41, the Royal Navy didn't dare conduct major unit operatios in the English Channel because of fear of German airforces. In fact, the situation was so bad that the vast majority of Englands imports were restricted to entering the country through the port of Liverpool, which was a major bottleneck to the Commonwealth supply problem. The Royal Navy based itself in Scapa Flow (as it had in WWI,) but only dared to enter the Atlantic by going the long way around north of Scotland.
So whats to be done? Fortunately, I think the solution is relatively simple. All navies were terrified of their opponents airforces, so I dont think that air superiority, per se, enters into the question (after all, Germany hardly could be said to have ever had air superirity over the Channel or the North Sea.) Lets establish a method for allowing air units to adopt an anti-shipping role.
I suggest that placing an air unit in a coastal hex would allow the player to assign an anti-shipping mission (using a button on the console) to the entire sea zone. (It would probably be necessary to subdivide the larger sea zones such as the North and South Atlantic zones to keep units in France from attacking naval units off Iceland or the United States.) This would then allow the use of an attrition table to assign damage steps to enemy naval units each time an opposing naval action takes place. The table should crossreference the number of air unit points assigned to the sea zone (minus the number of enemy air points assigned maritime missions to the same sea zone) with a die roll. The result would be the number of steps (points) of damage suffered by the enemy ships. These steps of damage could be spread randomly throughout the enemy fleet - keeping in mind that the majority of ships sunk by air power were usually smaller vessels, although damage to battleships and carriers was not unknown. It is significant that until Prince of Wales and Repulse were sunk by the Japanese in the opening days of the Pacific War, no capital ship had ever been SUNK by airpower while underway in open water. These damage steps should be inflicted at the end of naval combat resolution, as most damage of this sort was suffered while the naval units were leaving the combat area. The number of enemy air points in a sea zone should also affect the results of losses to transport movement and convoys. Carriers should also be included as contributing air points to a sea zone (aircraft carriers are much too powerful, imo. They should be worth no more than a cruiser plus a single air division, rather than being more than half again more powerful than an entire air-force or luftflotte which might contain as many as 1000 aircraft. English carriers were espescially weak in number of aircraft carried. The reason why battleships feared carriers wasnt their strength in the battle line, it was their ability to strike from afar without fear of counterattack. A good example of this is the fate of HMS Glorious, sunk by Scharnhorst and Gneisenau during the Norwegian campaign. I suggest that carriers be given the value of a cruiser plus the points of an airdivision.)
This leads us to another major flaw in the naval system. The problem with repairing naval damage was not so much the actual cost in coin or resources, it was TIME, and to a lesser extent, place. Examples are rampant of vessels which were removed from action for months or years by battle damage. The vast majority of the histories of Tripitz, Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were taken up by repair time. Several British vessels were left at dockside for more than a year because priority was given to ships that could be repaired and returned to action more quickly. The ability to repair any amount of battle damage in a single turn is a gross distortian of the naval game.[:-] It should require a month to repair each single step of damage to a naval unit. I realize that this would require some bookkeeping, but after all, THIS IS A COMPUTER GAME!!![:D] It would also be historically acurate to restrict repairs for major fleet units to certain major ports (the amazing flight of Scharnhorst and Gneisenau up the English Channel was due to the inability of the Germans to repair damage at Brest under the constant harrassment of the Royal Air Force.) Perhaps a better way to handle it would to halve the repair time in certain fleet ports.
Another major flaw in the game is the restriction on strategic bombing to strategic bombers. While this was certainly Allied doctrine, it wasnt Axis. The entire Battle of Britan including the Blitz on English production and port capacity was carried out by the same medium bombers that chased the French out of France and the Soviets accross half of Europe. This could easily be remidied by providing a "Strategic Bombing Mission" button. When taken together with the Air Superiority mission and the Maritime mission button proposed above, this button would encourage the production of air divisins rather than air fleets (which is probably more accurate.) Units which are performing one of these specialized missions COULD NOT BE USED for normal operations or interception missions.
I am eager to hear what ther community and the designers have to say to these proposals. Again, I strongly believe that improving the interaction of these three main branches of the opposing coalitions is key to making this a really ground breaking simulation of World War II in Europe rather than the usual "tanks accross the Steppes" game.

[gwgardner]

I agree.

Yes, this upcoming patch is somewhat cosmetic, but I'm encouraged by the developer's commitment to work on the AI in the next patch, and the mulberry addition is most welcome. 

The developer has not committed to adding some form of air/naval interaction, but you're totally right, that is necessary to make it a much better simulation.  I'm hopeful it will be added to the list of upcoming changes, and it should be done soon, before the programmer resources are pulled off to other projects completely.  It's the only hope to make this game lasting.

[yoshino]

I agree too.[:)]
This game's Axis navy is too weakness(or else,Allied navy too strong).
Usually Axis navy ruined quickly.

[balenami1291]

ORIGINAL: yoshino
This game's Axis navy is too weakness(or else,Allied navy too strong).
Usually Axis navy ruined quickly.

So it's quite impossible for axis plan operation "Seelowe"
and mulberries became an option only for Allies....

I think mulberries could be a very dangerous stuff for game balance an historical fidelity...

[Lucky1]

With respect to the last point, I find the current game (most notably its supply structure) to be quite imbalanced. Simply put, it is quite easy (with cheap units) to prevent the WA from accessing a supply point after an amphib invasion. So, while mulberries were historically used by the allies only (if only because Germany never launched a large-scale amphib invasion), the game mechanics really necessitate that they be available to Germany as well. Basically, they  are simply an abstraction with the game to indicate that if Germany or Italy ever launched an amphib attack, they certainly would have contemplated a means of supplying troops rather than hoping like hell that they would capture a city/port intact on the first go. Mulberries are a very welcome and frankly necessary addition. To worry about historical fidelity would mean that Britain would never have to worry about amphib invasion. Too it would require that Germany attack Crete every time. Who needs diplomacy? Let each country join at the historical timepoint. Although I do not pretend to speak for anyone other than myself, I have little interest in a game that forces un-erring reinactment of WWII without the slightest possibility of 'what if?'.
 
I agree with having some mechanism for air units to interact with naval units (I raised this point early on). Hopefully this is addressed by the developers at some future time. I hope their commitment remains, as this product still requires much work.
 
 

[James Ward]

Face it, it the WWII Europe naval was a minor part of the campaign, it was basically a land war. Outside of u-boat effort,which can be abstracted by reductions in pp and supply the Axis never came close to controlling the seas.
In a game where ground units are corps and air units are armies trying to make a naval system that shows individual ships just won't work. The naval system could use some work but it should abstracted and deal with degree of control of various sea areas to allow naval operations and the u-boat war not individual ship actions.

[gwgardner]

An abstraction of air/naval interaction is all we're asking for. Individual ships are already present in the game. Random/semi-random hits to those ships, based upon level of land-based air power commitment to anti-naval in a given sea zone, is all that's needed.

I favor an addition to the sea zone box, reflecting a Production Point commitment to land-based anti-naval in that sea zone.

[later]
There is some advantage to Michael the Pole's suggested mechanism - placing air units on coastal hexes. That would certainly offer greater game-play, as the opposing force would have the option of doing counter-air, and the method for purchasing the units is already in the game. But again, the actual air/ship combat would be abstracted as outlined by Michael.

[James Ward]

ORIGINAL: gwgardner

An abstraction of air/naval interaction is all we're asking for. Individual ships are already present in the game. Random/semi-random hits to those ships, based upon level of land-based air power commitment to anti-naval in a given sea zone, is all that's needed.

I agree but I think the abstraction should be focused on interdicting only supply, to UK, Russia, North Africa etc. Part of the UK's pp's should be sent by sea, as it is only Lend Lease sent by sea now so even if the UK has no navy they get full pp's. This is wrong.
SC II has a good convoy model thought it tries to implenent individual sea units into the mix which doesn't quite work out well. Sea boxes are a great idea for this. Commit 'effort' to them, even if this needs to be in the form of sub units, air units carriers etc, and I think it would work. Since there are already sea areas I have high hopes they can implement something along these lines because I really like the land portion of this game.

[Michael the Pole]

ORIGINAL: James Ward

Face it, it the WWII Europe naval was a minor part of the campaign, it was basically a land war. Outside of u-boat effort,which can be abstracted by reductions in pp and supply the Axis never came close to controlling the seas.
In a game where ground units are corps and air units are armies trying to make a naval system that shows individual ships just won't work. The naval system could use some work but it should abstracted and deal with degree of control of various sea areas to allow naval operations and the u-boat war not individual ship actions.

This is exactly the problem I was speaking of in my original post. Like the astronomer who once described the solar system as "consisting of the Sun, Jupiter and scattered debris," there is a segment of the gaming population that has always seen the history of WWII through the constricted view of a tank periscope. They are wholy content so long as they can shove armor around the flattest terrain possible, and will only tolerate the least intrusive interference in their latter day cavalry charges. To describe the naval campaigns in the European theatre as "minor" ... (personal generalization deleted by author in hopes of keeping the peace.) More importantly, Mr Ward misses my entire point. The critical issue, and the immense missing factor that threatens to warp Road to Victory as it has so many strategic/operational games before this isnt the naval war, it is THE INTERACTION OF LAND SEA AND AIR FORCES!
As gwgardner says, all that we're asking for is an abstraction. The current system is not hopelessly flawed, it is merely incomplete. The addition of a couple of new missions for air units can fix this game so that all of the campaigns that are not centered upon tanks roaring over the empty steppe can be simulated.

[cpdeyoung]

I have been interested to see the various comments.  Another big factor in favor of the anti-shipping air mission is that it would gve me a reason to build air forces.  I take them when given, but rarely build many.  I build a lot of ships.  I enjoy the naval side of the game, and I would be very sorry to see the individual ship model given up.  I would enjoy a more detailed naval model, but this could be an option.  Perhaps a scale of abstraction from broad to detailed.
 
Also I would favor allowing air components to be shipped, rather than only allowing re-basing.  This certainly happened and would not harm balance in my opinion.
 
Chuck

[James Ward]

ORIGINAL: Michael the Pole

To describe the naval campaigns in the European theatre as "minor" ... (personal generalization deleted by author in hopes of keeping the peace.)

That's because it was minor. The only effect, at the level this game represents, that the naval war had was on supply/equipment to the UK, USSR and North Africa.
I don't recall any naval battles effecting the East Front. The Italian navy had enough fuel to sortie only a handful of times in 4 years. The German navy offered no threat at all outside of the Baltic and the Allies really had no need to enter the Baltic. If the preset lend lease convoys could be 'attacked' based on the level the Axis wanted to commit resources and some sort of convoy system to the UK for PP from the commonwealth nations could be put in place, and be able to be interdicted also, too then I think you would have a good representation for a game of this scale.

[cpdeyoung]

I think the naval war in the ETO is different from that in the Pacific, but not minor.  The Axis submarine campaign and Overlord were not minor historically.  If one reads S. E. Morrison's history of U.S. Naval Operations one misses the naval combat between aircraft carriers, and surface ships that were present in the Pacific, but the lack of these exciting battles does not reflect the importance of naval operations in the ETO.  The Soviets needed Lend-Lease, and the convoys to Murmansk were very important.  For England the convoys meant survival.  For the USA, control of the Atlantic meant participation in combat.
 
When I play this game I give my interest in naval might-have-beens full play, and in my games the naval side is very important indeed.  My Germans and Italians contest the control of the seas with the Allies, and this system allows me the simulation I enjoy.  I think the balance between land and sea is pretty good in this game, and I would love even more detail.
 
In fact my goal for this game is a vast expansion of scale, something like "War in the East", the SPI board game, with units down to brigade level, individual ships, cadre production spirals, detailed research, complex diplomacy and events!  I don't expect it, but I would like to see it.  Since mid August, 2008 I have played this game a lot, serious gaming time, and I still really enjoy it.  I can't wait to get my hands on the next version.
 
Chuck

[James Ward]

ORIGINAL: cpdeyoung

I think the naval war in the ETO is different from that in the Pacific, but not minor.  The Axis submarine campaign and Overlord were not minor historically.  If one reads S. E. Morrison's history of U.S. Naval Operations one misses the naval combat between aircraft carriers, and surface ships that were present in the Pacific, but the lack of these exciting battles does not reflect the importance of naval operations in the ETO.  The Soviets needed Lend-Lease, and the convoys to Murmansk were very important.  For England the convoys meant survival.  For the USA, control of the Atlantic meant participation in combat.

Without a doubt the sub war, along with the air interdiction from Malta, were extremely important. This is part of the game that is practically non-existent but COULD be implemented using any of a number of methods as suggested.
Overlord, on the other hand, while a large effort would last 1 turn in this game so if that part of the naval games needs to be abstracted/removed in order to make the sub war work better than so be it.

[toddtreadway]

I haven't played this yet.  Bought it a couple months ago, but I'm waiting for a majority of players to give it two thumbs up before investing time in it.
 
Are you saying that the land-based-air does in coastal areas does not attack the bordering sea zone?  That was the way it worked in Clash of Steel, and I thought it would work the same way in this game.

[Michael the Pole]

Yes, Todd, and thats the gist of the problem.  I must admit that the problem is so severe that the game has lost it savor for me.