9.3 Naval Combat Wishlist Quesiton

[ColinWright]

I think we can profitably start by looking at naval missions that had a direct impact on land operations, and how those operations were conducted.

I can think of three categories.

1. Escort of amphibious forces/convoying of troops. The German invasion of Norway. British convoys to Greece. British evacuation from Greece. Same for Crete. Torch. The later landings in the ETO. Amphibious operations in the Pacific.

Equally important is to look at those that failed, and why, and those that didn't happen, and why. What was lacking? Sealion. The German attempts to support the invasion of Crete with seaborne landings. The Battle of the Bismarck Sea (decimation of a Japanese invasion convoy, if I recall aright). The system we come up with needs to prevent or deter these as well as permit Salerno, etc.

2. Closely related to the above is interception of seaborne invasions/convoys. Obviously this occurred mostly by default -- the Germans never even tried Sealion, so the Royal Navy didn't get to intercept the flotillas. However, it did occasionally happen, and more importantly, the ability deterred seaborne invasions/determined where they would take place. The Americans were up to Guadacanal in August 1942. They weren't up to a surprise invasion of Truk.

3. Fire support of amphibious landings/fire support of battles happening along the shoreline. Where, when, how far inland? Again, when it didn't happen, why didn't it happen? Why no Mediterranean Fleet giving Montgomery a helping hand at El Alamein? Why no battleships sending salvos inland to help at Monte Cassino (30 km inland -- just battleship range)? Again, the factors preventing fire support need to be defined as well as the factors permitting it.

3. Finally, are there other relevant missions? This is an operational level game -- we don't care about convoys to Russia any more than we (or at least I) care about the minutia of hull vs. armament hits. Aside from troop escort and interception thereof, and fire support and prevention thereof, are there other missions that need to be analyzed and simulated?

[ColinWright]

Part of Curtis' objection to a wholesale revision -- that it's too much damned work -- is perfectly valid, although I suspect he'll treat it as a fine, satisfying, and permanent barrier rather than the daunting challenge it should be.

However, I think I can see a basic change that would help.

First, ships and seaborne units need to 'pay the piper' so to speak. They have to be exposed to potential enemy counter-action at their moment of greatest exposure. This could be as simple as forcing ships to end their turn once they conduct a fire mission and forcing land units to embark at the end of their turn and debark at the beginning of their turn.

This would still leave anomalies. However, it would be an improvement over the current situation.

[sPzAbt653]

... are there other missions that need to be analyzed and simulated?

Well, in addition to the escort of amphibious forces/convoying of troops, seaborne supply would be nice. Merchant Marine Fleets ?

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

... are there other missions that need to be analyzed and simulated?

Well, in addition to the escort of amphibious forces/convoying of troops, seaborne supply would be nice. Merchant Marine Fleets ?

Yeah. One can put in 'sea roads' (or rails) now. These are crude, and susceptible to blocking by an enemy naval unit -- which is sort of vaguely accurate, but a bit tacky.

It is one reason why 'seaborne supply' doesn't seem to me like it would be all that great an obstacle. One presumably can make supply traceable through sea hexes easily enough -- one just needs mechanisms for deciding where it can and can't be traced, and by whom.

Actual supply convoys might or might not be better. One problem here is that it has to be decided what kind of naval model we're going to have otherwise. Ships that stay based in ports are going to make strange escorts.

One thing I do in Seelowe and elsewhere is that I have 'steamers' that are either in independent units or part of cruiser and destroyer flotillas. These are essentially weak naval units with a major ferry capacity. The 'sea roads' are blown at major river hexes adjacent to ports (one can't see the major river under the sea hex, but one can put it in). Present in the hex, the ferry unit permits supplies to pass. If the enemy can sink it, of course, supplies cease to pass.

It works -- kinda. I'm not mentioning it as a finished solution, but perhaps as pointing the way to something or other. At the moment, in Operation Orient Malta should stand as long as the British player can keep enough aircraft based there to keep the Axis player from sinking the ferry unit that promptly reconstitutes. If the Axis player can keep sinking it every turn without interference, Malta should eventually fall.

This is okay -- except that really, of course, British convoys didn't sail up to Malta each turn unmolested until they were 10 km from port, and then the Axis had at them. The British had a go at a convoy only every couple of months, but that convoy was attacked with greater or lesser vigor or success over an expanse of several hundred miles.

That suggests that we would want 'convoy units' that could deliver some quantity of supplies but which would be subject to interdiction-like strikes as they made their run. That takes us (1) back to volume-based supply, and (2) back to what other changes we're going to make to the naval model. It also suggests escorts that can physically accompany the convoy as it moves -- which can't be done with the current naval movement model. Ships don't move as a stack.

[sPzAbt653]

The sea roads cause me problems because Elmer likes to travel his land units on them. I was thinking of a merchant fleet icon with equipment of Liberty Ships or something similar. The counter would have a range (i.e., a five hex radius from port to ship to port, or five hex radius from port to ship to the next ship to the final port, etc.), the more equipment the higher the capacity (oops, back to quantitative supply issues). But maybe if you are doing Sealion, a supply point at Calais can be linked to the port at Southampton by a 'merchant fleet' in the English Channel that can transfer a % of the supply provided by Calais to Southampton. The more equipment in that fleet, the higher the percentage. Then you have air cover and fleet cover for the merchant fleet. Of course, the RAF then swoops in and devestates the whole operation. [:D]

[sPzAbt653]

It also suggests escorts that can physically accompany the convoy as it moves -- which can't be done with the current naval movement model.

What of Destroyers and Escort Carriers stacked with the merchant marine unit that would be considered escorting it ? In the '40-'41 Atlantic, not many escorts available, big losses. Later the US starts stacking escorts with them, losses drop (oops, sub activity again).

What a dream I'm having.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

It also suggests escorts that can physically accompany the convoy as it moves -- which can't be done with the current naval movement model.

What of Destroyers and Escort Carriers stacked with the merchant marine unit that would be considered escorting it ? In the '40-'41 Atlantic, not many escorts available, big losses. Later the US starts stacking escorts with them, losses drop (oops, sub activity again).

What a dream I'm having.

Thing is, for some mysterious reason, ships have to be moved individually. You can't move the whole stack. You can do it with seaborne units, but not ships.

The distinction probably matters, because while the program could conceivably see that this is a group move taking place and execute an interdiction-style attack on the stack as a group, it doesn't have psychic powers and can't tell whether or not you intend to move another ship if you're moving them one by one -- as you have to under the current system.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

The sea roads cause me problems because Elmer likes to travel his land units on them. I was thinking of a merchant fleet icon with equipment of Liberty Ships or something similar. The counter would have a range (i.e., a five hex radius from port to ship to port, or five hex radius from port to ship to the next ship to the final port, etc.), the more equipment the higher the capacity (oops, back to quantitative supply issues). But maybe if you are doing Sealion, a supply point at Calais can be linked to the port at Southampton by a 'merchant fleet' in the English Channel that can transfer a % of the supply provided by Calais to Southampton. The more equipment in that fleet, the higher the percentage. Then you have air cover and fleet cover for the merchant fleet. Of course, the RAF then swoops in and devestates the whole operation. [:D]

I think an elaborated seaborne supply model is going to be tricky. Probably what's needed are units that literally move into the port and disgorge supply into the local (quantitative) stockpile.

...we really do need quantitative supply. I can always go round 'n round with Curtis about it, but it won't alter the fact.

[Oberst_Klink]

Quick observations about sea supply -

See Erik's 'Weseruebung' scenario where quite a lot of aspects were handled with the current system more than OK'ish;

See Bob's CFNA scenarios; the supply issues of the DAK nicely integrated and executed with events;

Sure, it's gonna be tricky to implement the whole ebb'n flow of supplies into a WitP campaign... but again - nothing the events couldn't handle.

My suggestion regarding the whole naval issue - put together a team of 'admirals' who focus on a naval module for 3.5 or an add-on;

Fix the parallel road/RR 'blowing the bridges up' thingie first

Have a nice weekend lads,

kLiNk, Oberst

[sPzAbt653]

I can always go round 'n round with Curtis about it ...

Yes, perhaps it would be better if Curtis or Ralph first decide what they are going to do, then we can all stick our peppers in it to see if it might taste better. Otherwise we are cooking without a pot.

Ralph's first post only asked what might be done to make Elmer able to handle the naval situation. I can't get Elmer to handle the land situation in all cases, much less try to figure out if he should sink or swim in the blue hexes.

[secadegas]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653
Otherwise we are cooking without a pot.

Please keep the pot quiet for a while. Incredibly... there is still people who play this game more than post.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

Quick observations about sea supply -

See Erik's 'Weseruebung' scenario where quite a lot of aspects were handled with the current system more than OK'ish;

See Bob's CFNA scenarios; the supply issues of the DAK nicely integrated and executed with events...

This works -- if the course of events can be anticipated, or is determined by events happening off stage.

It's not so hot otherwise, and in particular, if someone does something that the designer didn't expect, things are likely to go impressively askew.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Part of Curtis' objection to a wholesale revision -- that it's too much damned work -- is perfectly valid, although I suspect he'll treat it as a fine, satisfying, and permanent barrier rather than the daunting challenge it should be.

Back in the USA!

I'm aware that there is a large portion of the designer community that wants to compel ships to return to port frequently. But note that there is already another suggestion about that (see Telumar's post #12). So long as it's designer optional I have no objection, but I don't think we can afford two competing versions of it. And, Telumar's version seems more flexible and refinable.

Furthermore, yours will require Naval Reaction on steroids. I'm trying to avoid Naval Reaction altogether. I think it will be very expensive to code (if it's not to be absurd) and will still be so gameable that no one will use it - just like Local Reserve. Who really wants the computer controlling the actions of their units for anything, much less everything?

However, I think I can see a basic change that would help.

First, ships and seaborne units need to 'pay the piper' so to speak. They have to be exposed to potential enemy counter-action at their moment of greatest exposure.

We can have Naval Interdiction (in fact, pretty soon, I hope).

This could be as simple as forcing ships to end their turn once they conduct a fire mission and forcing land units to embark at the end of their turn and debark at the beginning of their turn.

That's an idea, but rather rigid. Plenty of times ships can conduct more than one fire mission per turn. I was hoping my Variable Turn Interval thing I discussed in the middle of my Post #33 would catch on. It seems so much better to me to have the players themselves moving their units than the computer.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright


Thing is, for some mysterious reason, ships have to be moved individually. You can't move the whole stack. You can do it with seaborne units, but not ships.

Not true anymore. Group movement of naval units began in 3.4.

The distinction probably matters, because while the program could conceivably see that this is a group move taking place and execute an interdiction-style attack on the stack as a group, it doesn't have psychic powers and can't tell whether or not you intend to move another ship if you're moving them one by one -- as you have to under the current system.

And we hope to be able to treat those groups as groups for interdiction purposes - de facto task forces.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

...we really do need quantitative supply. I can always go round 'n round with Curtis about it, but it won't alter the fact.

My objections have always been about priority. But it will rise to the top eventually - maybe pretty soon. By 4.0, I'll be pressing for it as much as anyone.

[macgregor]

If Ralph continues to maintain radio silence, I may have to send search planes out after him.

[LOK_32MK]

Ralph
thank you for looking at this. Implementing 9.1 and 9.2 would be a great addition to the game. I think i understand the programming complexities of implementing 9.3. As a scenario designer who is interested in naval combat I'd say an approach like air interdiction would be a good first step (even if it is not perfect). Any approach that prevents enemy ships from sailing unobstructed across the map and can be coded in a realistic time frame would be a great addition to the game.
Thank you for all your work on TOAW.[&o]

[LOK_32MK]

Ralph
one more question: is it possible to limit the naval movement or even better let the designer set the naval movement (range) of a unit? That can help a lot in some scenarios in limiting absurd amphibious assaults and other non-realistic naval transport. 

[macgregor]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
...we really do need quantitative supply. I can always go round 'n round with Curtis about it, but it won't alter the fact.

For what my opinion is worth, I agree that as far as ships would be concerned, a separate category of supply for 'fuel' would have to be represented.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: LOK_32MK

Ralph
one more question: is it possible to limit the naval movement or even better let the designer set the naval movement (range) of a unit? That can help a lot in some scenarios in limiting absurd amphibious assaults and other non-realistic naval transport. 

Yeah -- that would be a help. For example, naval ranges could be tailored so that if the Royal Navy wants to strike into the Channel/around Crete, it has to stick around to take its licks from the Luftwaffe.

The same goes for airborne movement as well, incidentally. All seems lost for the Polish Home Army in August 1944 -- but wait! Here comes the 101st Airborne...