Port blockade rule

[ncc1701e]

I wonder if it would not be great to change the following rule:

pb.JPG (24.93 KiB) Viewed 1164 times

My proposal would be regarding this rule:
Small islands may be blockaded by a single naval group. All other hexes can be blockaded by 3 naval groups.

I would propose this change:
Small islands with a port level < 5 may be blockaded by a single naval group. All other hexes can be blockaded by 3 naval groups.

This way a small island with a port level 5 or more like Truk can't be blockade by a single naval group.

[ncc1701e]

And this would be an incentive to upgrade your port. The ones authorized to upgrade of course.

[AlvaroSousa]

FYI the Allies did block Truk in the war. The size of the island doesn't change with a port upgrade.

[eskuche]

FYI the Allies did block Truk in the war. The size of the island doesn't change with a port upgrade.

The issue is that (I suspect, based on our game), that US can simply blockade the ports that kido butai resupplies at for at least the first two turns. It has happened to me too and is extremely annoying. Before you say that you can supply unblockade by putting a ship by it, Allies can "push off" any defending ships by probing all hexes surrounding.

[ncc1701e]

Yes, this is based on our game. After Pearl Harbor, part of the Kido Butai was in Kwajalein for resupply. Well no, one US DD group was there to prevent resupply.

Then, on the next turn, I went to Truk. And, once again, another (or the same) US DD group was there to prevent resupply.

I have to say, this is well done. But... This is why I was thinking of this rule modification.

[eskuche]

Yes, this is based on our game. After Pearl Harbor, part of the Kido Butai was in Kwajalein for resupply. Well no, one US DD group was there to prevent resupply.

Then, on the next turn, I went to Truk. And, once again, another (or the same) US DD group was there to prevent resupply.

I have to say, this is well done. But... This is why I was thinking of this rule modification.

The thing about blockade is that the offensive player is ALWAYS able to keep up a blockade, depending on how willing they are to eat losses. It is strong, and it is why I suggested much earlier that blockade rules be changed to 5/3. This is before the sub/PT/transport no-blockade nerf, however. I'm not really sure how to address the current issue besides saying that IJN needs to keep one DD or so on fleet mode by key islands, though obviously this is asking to interdict a 6 ship stack.

[ncc1701e]

And I agree Truk was blockade during the war. No problem about this. This is just that the port blockade of Truk on the second or third turn of the game is a little strange.

Once Allies have enough ships, again no problem.

[ncc1701e]

It is strong, and it is why I suggested much earlier that blockade rules be changed to 5/3.

I certainly miss this. This is a fleet ratio, correct?

[eskuche]

It is strong, and it is why I suggested much earlier that blockade rules be changed to 5/3.

I certainly miss this. This is a fleet ratio, correct?

Sorry, I mean 5 ships for normal ports, 3 for small island. In light of the above-mentioned nerfs, maybe something like 3 for large and 2 for small might be better. While we're here, I still think subs are way too hard to sink and are ahistorically strong as blockade runners tonnage-wise.

[ncc1701e]

5 is certainly too much. But I agree with you that for small islands, there is something to enhance. Maybe two ships or like I was proposing something depending on the port level.

Another idea:
A small island with port level 1 needs 1 ship to block it.
A small island with port level 2 needs 2 ships to block it.
A small island with port level 3 needs 3 ships to block it; the same amount than normal ports.

[ncc1701e]

While we're here, I still think subs are way too hard to sink and are ahistorically strong as blockade runners tonnage-wise.

But at least now subs are doing port interdiction only. Did you try with planes vs subs? It usually works well.

[eskuche]

While we're here, I still think subs are way too hard to sink and are ahistorically strong as blockade runners tonnage-wise.

But at least now subs are doing port interdiction only. Did you try with planes vs subs? It usually works well.

Have not had good experience. I've maybe sunk two sub groups per game with air. Take a look at these numbers. PT vs. subs have same cost, with 33% less HP, extreme susceptibility to air (subs get 75% reduction in damage from carriers and can only be attacked next to shore hex, 50% less damage when interdicting or attacking), with much less than half sub stats.

Destroyers cost MORE THAN twice as much with 33% less stats. The only benefit is blockade.

sub.jpg (93.32 KiB) Viewed 1102 times

[AlvaroSousa]

A couple things. The Allies don't have the oil to keep them at sea
You can blow the fleet up.

You have a ton of ships back home.

If it becomes that large of a problem I can move the Japanese oilers to the 3rd turn. Pretty much when the PH strike force is supposed to move to Truk. Now they can resupply at sea and deal with these pesky Allies.

[AlvaroSousa]

As for subs. If the cost effectiveness is too good for subs then I can add this rule. Which by coincidence I was thinking about last week when you posted the "surprise" bug and I think you commented on the cost ratio.

What I thought of is that if a sub makes a surprise attack it gets the full value of surface.
If it doesn't get the surprise result half the value.

Against convoy they get full value.
This is for both attacking and intercepting.

[eskuche]

A couple things. The Allies don't have the oil to keep them at sea
You can blow the fleet up.

You have a ton of ships back home.

If it becomes that large of a problem I can move the Japanese oilers to the 3rd turn. Pretty much when the PH strike force is supposed to move to Truk. Now they can resupply at sea and deal with these pesky Allies.

I think blockade as a general principle is just too good. Imagine one DD group denying the entire Kido Butai, or, even worse, an entire stack of 20-30 ships, of supply for half a month (lol). In real life they would sortie out even with "low supplies." Not sure what an elegant fix would be without putting more math and calculations into it, though.

The gameplay issue here is that Japan needs to aggressively advance. Having a 2 turn delay while you move stuff from the west is fine on turn 30, but on turn 1-2-3 this kills momentum without reasonable counterplay, again, as blockading is almost always achievable if desired. (Note I am arguing for my opponent here)

[eskuche]

As for subs. If the cost effectiveness is too good for subs then I can add this rule. Which by coincidence I was thinking about last week when you posted the "surprise" bug and I think you commented on the cost ratio.

What I thought of is that if a sub makes a surprise attack it gets the full value of surface.
If it doesn't get the surprise result half the value.

Against convoy they get full value.
This is for both attacking and intercepting.

That seems like a nice, thematic move in a right direction, if the surprise bug is fixed, of course. I think a 50% bump in cost (and/or a 10-25% reduction in PT cost) would be reasonable. In theorycrafting, I'm fairly certain Allies could end the game by spamming 20 turns of ~100 subs and then throwing them at the south China sea to deplete all of Japans convoys and kill everything on the map not on the home islands.

[Remington700]

I would propose this change:
Small islands with a port level < 5 may be blockaded by a single naval group. All other hexes can be blockaded by 3 naval groups.

This way a small island with a port level 5 or more like Truk can't be blockade by a single naval group.

I agree.

I have not been a fan of being able to resupply all of the Kido Butai in the Marshalls. So I am not worried about the blockade of Kwajalein. From what I have read it had minor fleet facilities. However you do bring up a great point about Truk. It should take more than a destroyer squadron to blockade a port of this size. I think if a single island hex has large enough facilities to resupply an unlimited number of ships it should be treated similar to a multi-hex island - requiring three squadrons for blockade. The same would be true for any of the built up islands.

[AlvaroSousa]

To unblock all you need is 1 group to counter it. Since they con't control the island their detection level is 1.

[ncc1701e]

To unblock all you need is 1 group to counter it. Since they con't control the island their detection level is 1.

1 group of which type please? I don't see it in the manual. It only says:
"Enemy fleets next to that port prevent the blockade."

I have tried with one PT boat group but they can't break a port blockade.

PT Boat.JPG (93.21 KiB) Viewed 1036 times

For once I thought they might be useful as a blockade breaker.

I agree they can't be used to do a port blockade but perhaps they could be useful in defense. In particular because they are not consuming any oil.

[Remington700]

I use the torpedo boats for resupplying units in a port. They work great if there are no enemy task forces in the area. But because the resupply causes them to be in fleet mode, the patrol boats are very vulnerable. So if I use them in a contested sea area I try to limit their moves to six hexes to keep them in night movement. Unlike destroyers, cruisers and battleships they do not get a 12 hex night move.

I have tried multiple times to use the patrol boats to defend against an unescorted invasion but I cant get them to do the damage to impact a landing. I feel like I must be missing a way to get more value out of them - but for now "they are expendable" (to quote the book).