9.3 Naval Combat Wishlist Quesiton

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: 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.

All right then. I appreciate that it won't be easy.

[Telumar]

ORIGINAL: 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.

That's good news!

[macgregor]

ASW as a weapon value that works against subs, and subs as a target type.

Naval interdiction as an air mission choice.

Locking zocs.

Stack movement.

Variable movement allowances.

A spotting round based on air presence, weather, and the number of adjacent units.

The ability for ships to be either advantaged, neutral, or disadvantaged based on the air superiority and/or # of movement points left of participating units.

Some form of mobile supply source for beacheads.

Are these requests 'revolutionary?' This is what I want. I want no more than this. This is a game that is based on half-days to weekly turns. It doesn't need moment-by-moment tactical naval battles, only realistic outcomes.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: macgregor

Are these requests 'revolutionary?' This is what I want. I want no more than this...

Some of these modest requests would actually be rather hard to fulfill. For example, 'mobile supply sources' couldn't just go wherever the player pleased. The Americans could support a landing on Okinawa in mid-1945. They would have had difficulty doing so in mid-1943. On the other hand, can they put a 'mobile supply source' on the north coast of New Guinea? Why yes, that's doable...

It's a very complex equation, involving shipping capacity, specialized equipment, the ability of the enemy to interfere, the distances involved, the ability of the fleet to stay at sea, the equipment to be landed, etc, etc.

'Mobile supply sources' that can be plonked someplace they shouldn't be plonkable would be worthless. It's not enough just to say you want them. What's going to be the formula that determines where they can be placed and what their value would be, and can this formula actually realistically reflect the military situation?

Like -- for example -- the Allies decide to land on Sardinia instead of in North Africa in late 1942. That's nice, and now they're ashore, and your mobile supply source is in place.

So the Germans move some additional bombers into Sicily. What's the mechanism that causes the supply source to weaken or to disappear entirely? How do some P-38's appearing in Malta restore the situation?

Etc. I can see this being done badly. Doing it well -- well enough so that it actually improves the simulation over the designer just deciding what supply points should be where and what value they should have -- that's a different matter.

[ColinWright]

Then too, some of the ideas I simply don't want.

ORIGINAL: macgregor

ASW as a weapon value that works against subs, and subs as a target type.

Been over that. I can't see how 'submarines' could be a unit in TOAW. If they're capable of attacking and decisively weakening a specific enemy unit at the player's will, they're misrepresented. If they can't do this, what are they going to do? Ergo, there shouldn't be submarines.

Just my opinion. But you seem to assume 'submarines' would be an axiomatic good. I don't see it that way.

Naval interdiction as an air mission choice.

Oh sure -- but that's a bit like telling me to go and get some feed for your pet -- without telling me whether you were figuring on getting a cat, or getting a rabbit.

We need to know what the naval system is to be before we can have 'naval interdiction.' The current system -- with its independently moving ships, it's unrealistic AA, and all the rest of it -- isn't something that can be incrementally overhauled. It needs to be totally redone, and only once we have some idea what it is to be can we decide how 'naval interdiction as an air mission choice' would work.

Locking zocs.

Why? I like the current system. Why are 'locking ZOC's' correct? In TOAW, if you want to hold a hex, you have to put a unit in it. What's wrong with that?

Stack movement.

Yeah. What the programming hangup is with that I don't know.

Variable movement allowances.

Vague. They're globally variable in the new patch. You can certainly manipulate them by what equipment you put in the unit. What did you have in mind?

A spotting round based on air presence, weather, and the number of adjacent units.

There IS a spotting round. 'Air presence' doesn't enter into it, though. That would be good -- but again, how?

The ability for ships to be either advantaged, neutral, or disadvantaged based on the air superiority and/or # of movement points left of participating units.

? What does this mean? I'm also doubtful that the RN finds itself at a disadvantage because it's five hundred miles from Alexandria and the Italians are only one hundred miles from Taranto. As a rule, the ships perform about the same regardless of their geographical location. The problem with the Russian fleet at Tsushima wasn't that it was a long way from home. The essential problem was that it was the Russian fleet.

[macgregor]

Then too, some of the ideas I simply don't want.

Provided they don't affect ideas you do want, cumbaya.

Been over that. I can't see how 'submarines' could be a unit in TOAW. If they're capable of attacking and decisively weakening a specific enemy unit at the player's will, they're misrepresented. If they can't do this, what are they going to do? Ergo, there shouldn't be submarines. Just my opinion. But you seem to assume 'submarines' would be an axiomatic good. I don't see it that way.

All I am asking for is a target type and a weapon that is effective against it. The rest can be up to the SD who can now create his own units, if given the tools. Realism is what I want. Subs were/are as effective as they were/are, and as vulnerable. That can be worked out with the editor. Their strength lay in the fact that not everything could attack them.

Oh sure -- but that's a bit like telling me to go and get some feed for your pet -- without telling me whether you were figuring on getting a cat, or getting a rabbit.We need to know what the naval system is to be before we can have 'naval interdiction.' The current system -- with its independently moving ships, it's unrealistic AA, and all the rest of it -- isn't something that can be incrementally overhauled. It needs to be totally redone, and only once we have some idea what it is to be can we decide how 'naval interdiction as an air mission choice' would work.

See how Interdiction works over land? That's all I want. You here me? You want to make it complicated? Go ahead. But something is wrong if you think you can say it is both too complex, and not complex enough at the same time.

Why? I like the current system. Why are 'locking ZOC's' correct? In TOAW, if you want to hold a hex, you have to put a unit in it. What's wrong with that?

LOL. Give me a break will ya? Units must stop and spot and maybe engage. That is what I want. That is all I want.

Yeah. What the programming hangup is with that I don't know.

Wow! You agree.

Vague. They're globally variable in the new patch. You can certainly manipulate them by what equipment you put in the unit. What did you have in mind?

Some kind of unit whose movement allowance is programmable between 1-70 say, maybe more if possible. But the SD can work with this as a way to show the different speeds of ships. If he's done it already then I'm wrong -Ralph has made an effort to improve the naval aspect.


There IS a spotting round. 'Air presence' doesn't enter into it, though. That would be good -- but again, how?

The # of aircraft that are operating in a hex, as well as the number of ships increases the likelihood of spotting while adverse weather decreases it.


? What does this mean? I'm also doubtful that the RN finds itself at a disadvantage because it's five hundred miles from Alexandria and the Italians are only one hundred miles from Taranto. As a rule, the ships perform about the same regardless of their geographical location. The problem with the Russian fleet at Tsushima wasn't that it was a long way from home. The essential problem was that it was the Russian fleet.

Well proficiency is already in the game. The adverse affect of moving before combat is already implemented with ground units. Lying in wait has it's advantages. The advantage would not be huge, but realistic. Ships get surprised. Titanic was using enough movement to get surprised by an iceberg.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: macgregor



LOL. Give me a break will ya? Units must stop and spot and maybe engage. That is what I want. That is all I want.

You'll just have to wrap your head around the fact that some of us don't want it. It may well be what you want...and? That's a bit like saying you wanted McCain for President -- and that's all you wanted. Well, more people wanted Obama, and that's all they wanted.

I don't see any particularly compelling reason for 'locking' ZOC's. The typical TOAW scale is about 10 km/hex. Say 5 km if you want to. Units pass by defenders 5 km away all the time. So why 'locking' ZOC's? Because they had them in your favorite board games? You'll have to do better than that.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: macgregor

See how Interdiction works over land? That's all I want. You here me? You want to make it complicated? Go ahead. But something is wrong if you think you can say it is both too complex, and not complex enough at the same time.

This sounds good. However, naval units currently move one at a time, so the strikes would happen against -- say -- the Enterprise without escorts whether or not it in fact was accompanied by escorts.

So it's mendacious to say that's 'all you want.' You obviously want at least one other thing too -- else your naval interdiction would produce wildly unrealistic effects.

Then, too, the interdiction would presumably hit the first units to move through -- so I'd just send destroyers until your interdicting aircraft were all in re-org -- then sail my carriers or supply ships or whatever right on through.

Safe as houses. That wouldn't work.

So no 'interdiction' isn't 'all you want.' You actually want several elements -- and that brings us to considering that perhaps we shouldn't try to concoct an interdiction routine for a naval system that needs to be overhauled anyway.

What you want is a bit like coming up with an improved stable for the horses. Thing is, we're probably going to go over to motor vehicles. Maybe it would be a tad inefficient to spend time rebuilding the stables at this point...

Personally, I think ships are going to be handled with a system akin to aircraft. That is to say, they'll be 'based' somewhere and mount strikes -- even 'interdict' sea movement themselves.

Now that's my idea, and it may or may not come to pass. But in that model, obviously one wants the aircraft to function something like fighters, and engage the ships when they perform their combat missions rather than sitting by hoping they change their base.

Main point is, we need some kind of plan about where the whole naval/air war system is going to go. It's really pointless to announce 'you just want interdiction' when that wouldn't work with what we've got, and it's unknowable how it would work with wherever we're going to -- since that last hasn't even been decided.

[macgregor]

Locking zocs in a game like this with so many rounds, is not really locking. If the turn doesn't end, ships will continue movement. Considering the horizon is 12km, spotting on the high seas generally offers the opponent a shot or two at you, even if you can outrun him -something which will likely delay you more often than not.

If it really comes down to you wanting something different than I that's one thing. At some point we have to agree to disagree. I'm guessing by your tone that what you want in place is NOTHING. Because otherwise you'd be offering something that makes more sense.

[macgregor]

Unless treated as a stack, I don't believe naval air interdiction should damage ships, and I guess this differs from the land. What it should do is take away movement, at times leaving the ships in a spotted hex where they can then be attacked -as a stack.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: macgregor

All I am asking for is a target type and a weapon that is effective against it. The rest can be up to the SD who can now create his own units, if given the tools. Realism is what I want. Subs were/are as effective as they were/are, and as vulnerable. That can be worked out with the editor. Their strength lay in the fact that not everything could attack them.

This ignores my main point. Submarines -- unlike the weapons normally represented in TOAW -- couldn't in practice be assigned to attack a specific target and carry out such an attack. They usually went on patrol, and attacked whatever turned up.

Look up the major submarine sinkings of warships in World War Two. Doenitz didn't order U-505 to find, attack, and sink Barham -- nor did anyone make a similar move to sink the Ark Royal or the [/i]Indianapolis[/i].

Subs work by serendipity as much as anything. They have a generally corrosive effect on the enemy's marine supply, and they can certainly make the ocean a dangerous place in general. But to have a counter you can move to a specific hex and attack a specific unit? That's just unrealistic. The only mission I can think of that meets that description is Prien's sinking of the Royal Oak -- and that was a one-off. It happened, and then the British blocked the hole he'd snuck through. Didn't happen again.

So I see 'submarine' units as unrealistic to start with. They are either a major factor in a given scenario or they're not. If they're not a major factor, how to represent them is academic. If they are, the best way to do it would seem to be with events creating a random chance certain warships withdraw, or reducing the sealift, or removing anchorages, or whatever -- not by putting in units.

At best, it's a case where the 'bang for the buck' -- the net gain for the programming work involved -- is a horrible number. It's simply not worth the effort needed for a good system. We spend a lot of time for all the programming routines required for this hidden unit that is to be attacked by only certain types of weapons (none of which currently exist in the program) -- and all we get in the end is a simulation of dubious authenticity. The first time you move that sub unit and attack a specific unit in a specific hex, you've just done something that very rarely happened in reality.

[macgregor]

You're right, and in my house rules subs cannot move and attack. I could task Ralph with making it impossible.

This solution is obvious. Yet you still see it as a reason to omit subs entirely.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: macgregor

You're right, and in my house rules subs cannot move and attack.

What exactly can they do, then?

I could task Ralph with making it impossible.

This solution is obvious. Yet you still see it as a reason to omit subs entirely.

I do. The things we can move, and direct, and use to attack (or defend) a specific point at a specific time?

Those are units. The weather? The supply situation? The rail capacity? The effect of submarines? Those are parameters, set by event.

Look, if there were somehow already reasonably well-simulated submarines in the game, I wouldn't agitate to take them out. But there are not already submarines in the game, putting them there would involve a lot of programming, and I don't see that there would be much benefit.

[macgregor]

Well in WW1 & 2 they act like mobile minefields; moving slowly and waiting for ships to run into them. Modern subs are faster and carry ranged weapons. Maybe house rules is the best way to deal with the older subs not being able to move and shoot.

You already said you don't want this. So be it. In that case though, did you really need me to explain that to you? This is what you did last time. The game I'm wishing for is crystal clear in my mind, makes the game much more interesting by representing ALL aspects of operational warfare, and doesn't require drastic changes to the style of play.

If you wanted a bridge/road hex that connected a bridge to a road moving along a river(that was no longer considered a bridge) I'd have no qualms either.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: macgregor

Well in WW1 & 2 they act like mobile minefields; moving slowly and waiting for ships to run into them...

Ah. However, it still strikes me as involving an awful lot of programming 'bang' for very little simulation 'buck.'

Then too, submarines can usually be kept away from any one critical target. Churchill was able to cross the Atlantic on the Queen Mary in 1942 -- and in reasonable safety. German submarines never succeeded in seriously disrupting any of the major landings as far as I know.

So I see a great deal of work to produce an effect of dubious authenticity and no great significance in TOAW terms. There are a lot of subs out there -- so sealift is lower, some of the supply hexes are weaker, and every now and then a warship abruptly 'withdraws'. In the end, this will probably be just as accurate a simulation as any 'submarine' routine you can devise. Why not just use events and put the programming effort to work elsewhere?

[macgregor]

Adding a weapon value and a target type? I'm as much of a programmer as you and I don't see how it can be that tough.

Another what if. ASW values will be given to the appropriate escorts and aircraft, and certainly, if you put enough around one group of ships, perhaps surrounding them, you can protect whatever you want. What did I say? 10 posts re-explaining it last time? You may beat that mark.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: macgregor

Adding a weapon value and a target type? I'm as much of a programmer as you and I don't see how it can be that tough.

Your 'target type' needs to be hidden. The weapon needs to attack it without the target being revealed -- or are we to have little subs that suddenly appear and then all these ASW vessels from all over the Atlantic swoop down on them?

I can see a system with 'submarines' alright. One that offers a valid simulation -- that's another matter.

Personally -- given that none of the weapons slots exist, none of the requisite unit behaviors exist, and none of the attacking routines exist -- it does strike me as a lot of work, and I'd rather see that work go elsewhere. Particularly as events amply suffice to simulate the effect of submarines on just about every campaign that I can think of that TOAW is at all appropriate for in the first place.

Like, with what this would call for, we can have quantitative supply. Or maybe a different model for air/naval warfare entirely. Why pour the effort into something so unimportant to most TOAW scenarios?

[macgregor]

Guerilla units are hidden. The fact that only certain units can attack subs will minimalize the value of seeing them anyway.

The spotting round could be modified because the unit is submarine, but the fact that they operate alone(as one unit) and that # of units on a hexside would be the primary determining factor for an engagement, finding subs won't be that easy.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: macgregor

Guerilla units are hidden. The fact that only certain units can attack subs will minimalize the value of seeing them anyway.

The spotting round could be modified because the unit is submarine, but the fact that they operate alone(as one unit) and that # of units on a hexside would be the primary determining factor for an engagement, finding subs won't be that easy.

And when it's spotted? What happens then? Given the current naval movement allowances and all? What -- if any -- would be the consequences of stripping the escorts from convoys that haven't run into subs? What keeps half the Royal Navy from pouncing on any sub spotted?

Point is, that if you start to work this out in detail -- as opposed to just saying 'it's all I want -- it'll be simple' -- you'll find yourself with two alternatives.

(1) A totally mickey mouse 'submarine game' that'll be less accurate than what you could get with events.

or (2). An involved overhaul of several major components of the system -- all on behalf of something quite peripheral to TOAW. The work really should go elsewhere.

It's like my house. Now, I could put in solar panels. Done right, it would marginally increase the value of the house and marginally lower my electricity bill.

Or...I could finish the deck. The latter does more both for my quality of life and for the resale value of the house. Given my somewhat limited resources of energy for such projects, I think I'll focus on the deck.

It won't work to announce 'putting in solar panels is cheap and easy' and set aside $200 and a Saturday for the project. That won't accomplish anything good.

[macgregor]

I've always strived to make whatever requests as minimally invasive as possible. Some of the ideas I've seen mentioned would look a little contrived.

Navairint would work exactly like landairint. I think house rules may still have a place, as this idea of surrounding ships in order to eliminate them would not be realistic. Ralph mentioned something about surrounded units fighting their way against the weakest surrounding unit -perhaps that could be incorporated. Ralph already added the naval value, which is teats on a hog for most land units -what's one more value?

I'm not saying Ralph's job will be easy implementing this, but in the end the game will basically look and play the same. In the combat report for naval units, the first round will show the engagement determination, then advantage determination, and the rest will not change at all. The only sacrifice this makes is with regards to chronology. The Brit may not be able to decide to send the 51st inf to Alex, and then have it be done in one,perhaps even two weeks time. I plan on slowing down the naval movement to as much as a third of what would seem to be the capability. Call it 'refueling and resupply' perhaps even some training which while essential to ships, isn't represented.

But the idea of sub killing groups being able to race across the Atlantic to pounce on whatever sub gets spotted would not occur, not to mention the disadvantage of all that movement on spotting and combat. Move a desron 10 hexes(250km)and the likelihood of finding a sub should be reduced to almost nil.