German navy, including subs, is worthless

[TheBattlefield]

ORIGINAL: Leadwieght

It's not been my experience as either the Allied player or the Axis player, playing against human or AI, that German subs are always surrounded and destroyed by a swarm of Allied ships. Sometimes it happens, but usually as a result of a mistake by the German player, like always staying too close to the Western Approaches where the RN can repair and re-supply quickly.

+1

As a German player against the AI, the loop points to the Suez Canal are suitable for hunting (at least 4 submarines) for MMP, troop transports and destroyers. The nearby Canary Islands are ideal for emergency repairs and resupply. In addition, you should position 2-3 boats in the forecourt of Gibraltar. If necessary, these can also be quickly transferred to the combat area at the edge of the map or intercepted already weakened enemy units on their return.

As a result, the Allied budget suffers considerably and even the African front is somewhat relieved. From 1943 on, all boats were to sail to the French ports of the Channel and the North Atlantic. Together with the Luftwaffe and the rest of the Kriegsmarine, up to one third of the allied amphibious armed forces can be destroyed in their rallying points. Only one of many other possibilities to save the German submarine from an early destruction.

[vonik]

I reiterate .
Just prevent Italy DoWing France before Paris falls . In reality that's what happened - Italy was watching the German progress to enter the war at a moment where reward was maximum and risk minimum .
This solves a good half of the Axis Navy problems because if Italy can deal with the RN in Mediterranean, a smart German player can find ways to give RN hard time in Atlantic too .

The other half would be an aditionnal italian (or german) sub in Mediterranean to force the RN to send some destroyers there .

[geordietaf]

Having experienced a couple of PBEM 39 games, one as Axis and the other as Allied I think the kamikaze French fleet is the biggest problem that the Germans have early on. I've seen most of the French navy sitting on the Norwegian convoy route for the first 9 months of the war with limited options to the Axis (to be fair I was daft enough to take the bait and lost most of the Kriegsmarine in the process). There appears to be no penalty to this in terms of driving Norway towards the Axis or offending the US.

As the allied player I too know that the French navy is there to be expended and play accordingly, so I'm not complaining. I do think however that there should be penalties for such unrealistic uses of the French Navy.

[Leadwieght]

I think Vonik makes a good point about the value of Italy holding back. With the new fixes to the Italian mobilization scripts, it's much harder for the Allied player to draw the Italians into the war before the invasion of France is either well under way or virtually done.

As in real life, the Axis player has to be canny with his limited naval assets early on. Trying for a Jutland-style confrontation with the RN or the French will likely end badly. I know, I've done it. You pretty much have to follow the "fleet-in-being" strategy and chip away at the British escort capability while avoiding wasting assets fighting the French, who will be gone by mid-1940 anyway.

So, IMO exactly the opposite of a video-game style approach where you just blast everything you see as soon as you see it.

[Leadwieght]

One thing I've often thought might be a good idea, if used sparingly, would be to implement some kind of naval minefield rule in certain restricted waters.

I'm thinking of how, after a certain date, the Gulf of Finland outlet became a mined area against the Russian fleet in SC2 Assault on Communism. Russian naval units could still go there, but they risked the possibility of significant damage.

I seem to recall that during the Channel Dash in Feb. 1942, both German battlecruisers hit mines and were lucky to get through the Straits of Dover.

Maybe minefields across the mouth of the Adriatic (as long as the Axis holds both Tirana and Brindisi)? Or outside Wilhelmshaven, to discourage the French fleet or the RN form doing a "close blockade" ?

Maybe minefields could, instead of damaging ships, have a chance of immobilizing them for the turn. The opposing player would still have to spot an immobilized unit before he could attack it, but it would raise the cost of certain risky behaviors in a realistic manner.

Food for thought.

[gingerbread]

A simple and pragmatic fix is to match all increases to Italian and Norwegian war readiness caused by the Allies, any flavour, with decreases to American ditto, on a 1 for 1 basis. Might have to increase the Norwegian from its present and also introduce similar Danish concerns, also coupled to American WR.

Further, square the American WR% when calculating income. This will not have any effect once it gets to 100%, but it will have impact before that happens. Example: WR = 50%; 0.5 * 0.5 = 0.25 so income is as if WR = 25%.

[IrishGuards]

good points here from all, when we talk about Italy entering the war, I am finding that the trigger can be
the invasion of Norway and Denmark, with Italy sitting at 75% or above, and Lux being DoW also, that when the German
turn is finished in April I think, Italy goes balistic, and in the war immediately before the allied turn
Now not only do the Allies have the initiative, but any chance of hiding the RM is basically gone.
I have seen Italy at 82% by dec 1939 or jan 40, all from the allies abandoning french N afr, syria and even Gib.
I think minefields around naval bases is good, helgoland in kiel area, gib, eng channel and such.
Gulf of Finalnd is a great example, but I also think the WR/Dip effects should apply to neighboring countries in
a fashion, such as french or Uk fleets go into adriatic, yugo would be affected to the axis, same w norway, especially
since the Norway convoy route takes a beating from T1, when they were actually Norwegian ships.
Now what about inherent Uboats, like the type II coastal uboats that were defending norway convoys?
Also whats the thought that italy recieves either the upgrade to aquilia CV from the Roma, but what about the other 3 keels
laid by Italy in early 1939, littorio and 2 other sister ships?
IG
[X(]

[Leadwieght]

I like the idea of decreasing US war readiness if Allied action increases Norwegian pro-Axis leaning, because that only comes from Allied naval aggression, I think.

Not sure penalizing US mobilization for increases in Italian mobilization makes a lot of historical sense. And in version 1,03 of the game, the Allied player can no longer juice the Italians into an early DoW by prowling off their coasts (as they could in earlier versions). Italian mobilization goes up as the Germans start attacking and winning on the Western Front, plus some slight increase if the Allies strip out their garrisons in Gib, Tunis, Syria etc. Neither of these developments seem particularly likely to encourage isolationist sentiment in the US, or make US strategic planners call for lower levels of war preparations.

I generally am more on the "good game" side of the eternal "good game vs. historical simulation" debate, but I would find this too hard to square with my knowledge of actual historical tendencies.

Just my opinion.

[gingerbread]

Well, the German attacks on BeNeLux would be as before - the suggestion says: ...caused by the allies.

I do agree that the stripping of garrisons would not, as you say, encourage isolationist sentiments in the US, so a modified suggestion is that said stripping should affect Spain, for Algeria & Tunisia, and Turkey or Iraq, for Syria, respectively.

[IrishGuards]

Indeed to both gamers comments here and agreed on certain % implementation's accordingly.
Now since the Norway and Denmark occupation's are more political as opposed to military invasion's, it should be treated as
such for Italy in the WR %
I think if thats not a good compromise, then even though the events occur in Apr 40 maybe dont register them w Italy WR%
until turn's later if possible .. ??
IG
[X(]

[MemoryLeak]

I think people, for the most part, are missing the main point of my posts.

One person said that the naval warfare aspect is abstracted to a high degree. Well, that is what I am
trying to address. I would like to make it more realistic by implementing some decisions
that the player has to make. Do you want to dash all over the Atlantic. If yes, then steaming at
full speed has consequences, or would in my world.

So you, as commander, has to keep on top of it and rotate ships into port more often. As it is now they
stay at sea for months or years. I'm just trying to add some realism to the naval portion of the game.

I don't understand what the resistance is to this. Like I said, the remainder of the game is a simple
slug-fest with the ground troops. After about a 100 turns of that it would be nice to have some
meaningful decisions to make, instead of simply attacking with a dozen units and moving forward a hex. And
doing this the same way turn after turn , game after game. Add another dimension to it.

[n0kn0k]

ORIGINAL: MemoryLeak

I think people, for the most part, are missing the main point of my posts.

One person said that the naval warfare aspect is abstracted to a high degree. Well, that is what I am
trying to address. I would like to make it more realistic by implementing some decisions
that the player has to make. Do you want to dash all over the Atlantic. If yes, then steaming at
full speed has consequences, or would in my world.

So you, as commander, has to keep on top of it and rotate ships into port more often. As it is now they
stay at sea for months or years. I'm just trying to add some realism to the naval portion of the game.

I don't understand what the resistance is to this. Like I said, the remainder of the game is a simple
slug-fest with the ground troops. After about a 100 turns of that it would be nice to have some
meaningful decisions to make, instead of simply attacking with a dozen units and moving forward a hex. And
doing this the same way turn after turn , game after game. Add another dimension to it.

Have to agree with you on this one. It could use a bit more tweaking. At the later stage it turns into an economics game more then tactical game due to the sheer number of ships. Perhaps lowering the numbers and range would help? Gotta keep the scale and turn duration in mind though. And the ability to counter transports.

[MemoryLeak]

Well, my idea is to keep the range of the ships the same as the game has them now. For discussion, lets say the range is 12 hexes.
And that represents steaming at flank speed in order to get that far in one turn.

That takes a toll on men and machines which is currently not modeled in the game. So if you move the entire 12 hexes in one turn you take a big hit for
supply, morale and readiness. But if you only go 6 hexes in a turn you don't suffer any penalty because you
were going at Half speed not flank speed.

And you could say if you go 8 hexes that is full speed and you suffer 75% of the penalty not 100% if you went 12 hexes.

This covers two points. It prevents ships from dashing across the Atlantic in one turn and surrounding each contact like
a pack of wild dogs. You have to use your resources judiciously.

Second point it covers is if you do dash around you have to rotate the ships back to port to refuel and rest up, like real life.
They can't remain at sea for years, like you can now. That's ridiculous.

It adds a level of immersion to the Battle of the Atlantic you have to plan your strategy and regulate your ships and subs.

[FF_1079]

I posted somewhere else about this, but I can't find it - so here goes again.

The old DOS game Clash of Steel is the spiritual predecessor of this game - it had the same MPP based structure, you bought units ahead of time, and you had the same types of units as well. The diplomatic game and lend lease levels were similar as well. The Naval game was COMPLETELY different, instead of hexes everywhere, there were Naval Zones that you could assign ships too (aircraft as well, both strike and search). The more ships in a zone, the greater chance of interaction between them. If someone tried an invasion, they had to fight any enemy ships in the box and be wary of ships in neighboring zones moving to intercept. While abstract, it allowed for strategy, and truthfully, moving individual ships around a massive map and magically finding each other is kinda gamey anyway.

[IrishGuards]

remember timing is key ...
IG
[X(]

[crispy131313]

All the suggestions listed are below. There are a lot, hopefully we can sort it through and see if there are any viable solutions to the naval game?

1. Treat Kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe like Majors with allotted MPP (Memory Leak)
2. One Week Turns and slower naval movement (Memory Leak)
3. Decrease supply/morale/readiness proportionate to naval hexes moved in a single turn (Memory Leak)
4. Decrease naval units supply each turn (Memory Leak)
5. Give subs +1 spotting (Bullet912)
6. Increase reinforcement cost of surface fleet from 5% to 10% (crispy131313)
7. Subs hide for turn after diving (Petrosian)
8. Randomize Starting Position of Subs (Irish Guards)
9. French Med Units should be territorial (Irish Guards)
10. If French Fleet is near Italy, then Italy can decided whether to DOW(Irish Guards)
11. Italy Begins with chit invested in Naval warfare (gingerbread)
12. Reduce French Navy power (Vonik)
13. Prevent Italian DOW before Paris is captured (Vonik)
14. Change hard coding (TheBattlefield)
15. Freeze French Colonial forces until Axis are 3 hexes from Paris (Mantis)
16. More diplomatic reactions to unhistorical actions (Mantis)
17. Germany send emergency aid to Italy if DOW'd by Allies (Mantis)
18. Add Uboats in Med (Battlevonwar)
19. Add Minefields to restricted waters (Leadweight)

[Leadwieght]

Thanks, Crispy, for pulling this list together. I would support 4, 16, 17, and 19

[Capitaine]

I think one thing you could do on the naval problem is to keep the movement allowances the same but only allow a naval unit to attack an enemy unit in the first x hexes of its move. So if you have to make a very long move to engage an enemy unit, you won't be able to attack it.

If the "all or nothing" approach above isn't desired, then just decrease the unit's attack factor by the % of its movement factor used prior to its attack. Something like that.

[vonRocko]

If I may add:
 
#20-leave it as it is.

[TheBattlefield]

ORIGINAL: vonRocko

If I may add:

#20-leave it as it is.

A game that is not (carefully) further developed will soon be forgotten...