UK out of Merchant Marine by U Boat campaign

[AlvaroSousa]

In a game there is history and there is game play. You kind of have to mix the two.

If I really wanted history I would have a power plant resource and allow the Allies to bomb it.

Now the problem with that is that they did bomb power plan facilities. I forgot which year but the Germans were 1 city being fire bombed away from not having enough power because the power plants got blown up. So if the Allies exclusively focused on power plants in Germany they would have brought them to their knees. But you can't do that in a game.

Anyways the A.I. isn't as good as a human in dealing with this. I had to add some extra code to compensate for this attack so the A.I. does better.

[aspqrz02]

The story I heard is that the Allies (the US?) were told by a special (interest) working party that the German electric network was vulnerable to attacks against major electrical switching facilities and that, if a significant number of these were damaged/destroyed it would KO large portions of the electric net ... to prevent the remaining isolated transmission areas from being overloaded (like that huge power outage in the NE US several years ago due to ice storms? or whatever!).

The problem that the working party didn't mention was that it required precision targeting at a level quite impossible to achieve for the allies in WW2 (and possibly even today) ... the Allies were never able to KO German Synthetic (and other) Oil plants permanently either, for the same reason, and their attacks against THEM only became more effective as the war wore on because the existing damage couldn't be fully repaired to 'as new' status and increasingly distant 'near misses' were able to do damage to the more fragile repaired parts ... the accuracy of the attacks against them did NOT increase.

The 'power switching plan' was rejected, as I understand it, because it was deemed too uncertain ... no one, not even the experts who proposed it, was certain (until after the war, and maybe not even then) how many thousands of tons of bombs would have had to have been dumped on the general area of such a target to actually knock it out* permanently and, indeed, they weren't even certain as to how many of these switching plants existed or exactly where all of them were.

* Many German factories supposedly 'destroyed' by allied bombing ... weren't ... the Germans found that factory *buildings* were very vulnerable, but that the heavy machinery was *much* less so, and many plants could be put back into operation by simply clearing away the rubble and keeping the plant running 'in the open' so to speak.

The Strategic Bombing Campaign didn't win the war single-handedly as its supporters claim, but it wasn't the complete waste of space its detractors claim either ... it certainly helped win the war, significantly, but only by application of force over several years.

Phil McGregor

[battlevonwar]

I read the Allies had issues with accuracy repeatedly. To back up Phil, one instance of the Americans and British trying to knock out a rail line took somewhere like 2 fleets of American and British Bombers of hundreds or more and both missed it entirely. Saw a lovely photograph and don't remember the precise numbers. But the notorious inaccuracy of the Allied Strategic Bombing Campaign cannot be understated.
However, 353,000–635,000 civilians killed, including foreign workers in Germany in alone. 60k-100k in Italy... I think that Eventually some of the saturation was effective and at least the workers were killed which would slow down production if the bombings did not. ~Wiki

[aspqrz02]

The thing is, the Bomber lobby in both the UK and the US WAY oversold the capabilities of their aircraft ... shades of Douhetism!

The accuracy of the Bombers in typical northern European weather (bad) was as bad as night-time bombing (or very close to it) ... only on those days where there was good weather (a minority) was the accuracy OK, but still nowhere near as good as it was claimed it was going to be.

The problem was that the loss rate was really unsustainable for the RAF and close to it for the USAAF (the number of required missions before rotation home kept rising, and some crews were sent back for a second tour before the end of the war) ... the RAF went over to night bombing and the USAAF tried all sorts of dodges, but never managed to get their accuracy up.

"An example of the difficulties of precision bombing was a raid in the Northern Hemisphere summer of 1944 by 47 B-29's on Japan's Yawata Steel Works from bases in China. Only one plane actually hit the target area, and only with one of its bombs. This single 500 lb (230 kg) general-purpose bomb represented one quarter of one percent of the 376 bombs dropped over Yawata on that mission. It took 108 B-17 bombers, crewed by 1,080 airmen, dropping 648 bombs to guarantee a 96 percent chance of getting just two hits inside a 400 x 500 ft (150 m) German power-generation plant."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precision ... rld_War_II

That's why the Power Plant/Switching Plant plan didn't go anywhere.

The thing was, a lot of the damage was actually CUMULATIVE. The oil plants could be repaired quickly when seals and valves were ruptured, but the repairs could only be slap and patch and, eventually, there were repairs on repairs and the repairs became more and more vulnerable to more and more distant 'near misses' ... likewise, a lot of the pipe in such plants which, early in the war, was unaffected by near misses became more and more stressed and, eventually, would rupture from less and less distant near misses.

The thing that killed the Germans was the Transportation Campaign of 1944-45 ... the allied Strategic AND Tactical Air Forces targeted not only bridges, but tracks, repair and maintenance facilities and, counterintuitively, switching yards.

Switching Yards were large open areas full of nothing much but a network of tracks and switches that allowed train consists to be broken down or made up with minimum effort, often by the use of gravity ... but they were LARGE areas ... so even piss poor accuracy could KO more and more of the tracks and, more importantly, the switching and signalling gear.

By early 1945 the Germans were actually reduced to pushing currently un-needed RR rolling stock OFF THE TRACKS (effectively rendering them useless without extensive repairs) to make up new train consists ... they were THAT desperate.

According to Strategic Bombing Survey by early 1945 trains in Germany could only 'safely' run at night and could travel only an average of 12 miles (~20 klicks) before running into an obstacle (downed bridge, bombed track, destroyed train etc.) that prevented further movement.

The TAFs were set to basically strafing any train they saw, even Fighters got in the act ... and MG bullets will happily blow a boiler on a steam train (and probably won't do the diesel or electrics on diesel or diesel electric any good either) ... and they even began strafing and bombing the River Barges that moved a HUGE percentage of German industrial goods.

IF they'd done some or all of that earlier, then the Germans would have had a hard time of it.

Of course, you don't seem to be able to bomb RR capacity in WarPlan.

Phil McGregor

[AlvaroSousa]

Ok so I found where the problem was.

The sub war is fine if the Germans use small groups per lane. The issue comes when they use large groups per lane. Stacking 9 subs in the North Atlantic even in 1943 will cause havoc.

So let me come up with a solution to this on Friday and hopefully have a beta patch.

Probably what happened was no one was spending money on subs and now everyone is and this flaw was in there before.

I am thinking of limiting 3 subs per hex just like 3 CVs per hex.

[aspqrz02]

It's not the number of Subs PER HEX but the NUMBER OF SUBS available.

The Construction time, especially now its reduced to 100 days, is WAY too short ...historically it was around 12 months and all the Subs available from September 1939 to August 1940 were actually pre-war starts ... they should be in the *reniforcement* queue ... and any 1939+ production should take 360 days ...

That way you don't, and probably cannot, have the ridiculous numbers of U-Boats early in the war.

I strongly suspect that both the number of Dockyards needed per sub group are too few and the cost of a Sub Group too little as well.

Increasing the number of Dockyards plus increased construction times would certainly force the Germans to take a longer view.

Phil

[ago1000]

The bottom line is the sub unit is being used in a gamey manner. Alvaro is right, it requires tweaking. I've duplicated PanzerMike's results with 15 subs. A group of 9 and 6 attacking the Arctic Route to Russia. I don't know much about history nor anything about Naval combat, especially in the Atlantic. But I would guess Search and Destroy (Allies) and Hide, Hit and Run(Axis) strategies are in play here in simple terms. If you take the Wolfpack unit, as is, 10-15 active subs and place 9 of them together, 90 to 135 active subs in a sea hex they would have been easily detected, hunted down and destroyed (Did that ever happen in history, 135 subs in a location? If so, how did it turn out?). If you're going to have 9 fleets together of any kind then their detection level should sky rocket. Even the compositions of fleets is very difficult to simulate because a US Carrier Group would be comprised of a total different number of supporting ships, escorts than a CV British, Japanese or Italian CV group. It could be that Alvaro may have to limit subs to be only one group at sea, and/or increase construction time and/or change the detection levels if you combine too many fleets together. After the changes are made, then game balance can be revisited. Very long process but still an Awesome game!!!![:)]

[battlevonwar]

Hmmm, ago1000, against the AI you achieved these results? Is there a human counter that you would choose to employ that could have any counter-play? How much production, oil maintenance and repair cost goes into that strategy vs how much it sinks? Got the math?

P.S. Checked the build times on convoys and escorts vs Subs. Wow ... nearly double the speed ... When they cost so much nobody built them.

[ago1000]

Yes against the AI with Seasoned and Optimal AI Setting. I haven't done the Math. This game was started with 1.00.04f.

[AlvaroSousa]

I tested the 1943 scenario and at this point the PP swing should be in the Allies favor and it is clearly in the Axis favor. The convoy lines try and mimic how it was really fought.

There was a limit on how many escorts were required to make convoy defense effective. In the game it is 10 for maximum effectiveness. The advancement improves their kill ratios. So if on the same convoy you have a 3 subs in 3 different hexes those escorts will defend and fight vs all 3 subs separately.

As it is now when 9 are stacked vs the max of 10 it is like 9 groups vs 2 groups and the escorts lose badly.

So I will work on this on Friday to try and get out a beta for the weekend try outs. Meanwhile I would suggest trying a 1, 2, or 3 sub house rule per hex.. except ports of course.

[ago1000]

@battlevnwar - Re: Human Counter

I mentioned this in another post:

I've noticed Land base aircraft are the most effective/deadly against Naval fleets.

From an Axis perspective, the most vulnerable times are when my fleets are in port, leaving or returning. The Allied land base aircraft (bombers) have a better chance of actually causing a little damage (1 in 3 I find). A damaged fleet (lame duck) in a combined fleet makes the whole group more readily detectable in open sea. This forces me at times to leave them(lame ducks) behind in port.

[aspqrz02]

The Germans should never EVER have 15, or even NINE, Sub Groups AT SEA. According to my references even when they reached that NOMINAL number (some time in late 1941 for 4-5 Groups) they only averaged TWO Groups AT SEA AND OPERATIONAL at any one time rising to THREE in early 42 and FOUR by mid-42 ... by which time the Allied Escorts and Hunter-Killer Groups should have the numbers and the technology to make them increasingly redundant.

Phil McGregor

[Journier]

vs the AI 15 is possible i guess? thats making your barbarossa mighty tight, if your playing against basic historical AI probably doable, your down 4-5 tank corps...

vs a human I would be immensely surprised if that ever occurs. just the simple increased upkeep costs every turn a human causes against you eat away at that magical sub number.