Submarines as bodyguards

[Garush]

Hello everyone !

I would like to make a small remark regarding the representation of fleets and their capabilities. I've played a lot of games of Warplan, but I'm currently losing to a particularly tricky opponent. He had an excellent idea but I find it somewhat contrary to what could have happened in reality, or if Warplan used a system of maritime zones instead of hexagons. The screen image above is explicit: I cannot attack its surface fleet with my last point of operation because its submarines form a sort of close guard that is impossible to cross. If I want to attack it, as I am not adjacent (which is impossible in this case), I am entitled to the message "You cannot occupy the same hexagon as an enemy fleet".



I know this is completely within the rules of the game, but I would like to have your opinion on this situation.

[Platoonist]

I've often thought that submarines are a tricky thing to simulate in a strategic level game with hexagons. They didn't operate in discrete blocks or units. Even wolfpacks were only temporary mergers to overwhelm a convoy's defenses and then broken up again to spread out and man a wide patrol line. The type of naval zones or sea areas found in games like World in Flames or GG's A World Divided always seemed like a good compromise as it sort of mitigated the feeling (correct or not) that this one tiny tile of map is currently packed with sub hulls at this one particular point in time. The other route is War in the Pacific where you literally give orders to every sub which is more management than most want.

[CHINCHIN]

It is a legal trick, a house rule should be agreed to prevent this.

You can still attack their surface fleet with submarines, aircraft carriers, and aviation.

With the editor it can be solved by giving a combat range to the surface fleets of 2. It would be an easy solution for a next patch, although I don't know if it would have any other negative consequences.

[AlvaroSousa]

Never thought about this. I can't believe anyone else did either in the last 5 years.

This is tricky.

I am not sure how to solve this for WarPlan 1 except increasing the surface range. As someone pointed how I don't know what effect that will have either.

it is pretty cheesy what they did.

[Garush]

Small addition, just for fun: I talked a little with my opponent, and he admitted to me that he had already used submarines in an even more vicious way (yes, yes, it's possible). It uses them to block the marine loops which connect the Atlantic to the Red Sea or the Persian Gulf. I have two games going against him, and I'm getting massacred in both. But I must say that it is very constructive. Well, it stings a little (a lot in fact), but I learn a lot of unpleasant things (which I have to endure, unfortunately). Vicious, I tell you. But respect! A great player.

[Nirosi]

I remembered that "Villain", that used to play here, mentioned it at one point, but he refused to use it for obvious reasons. "Cheesy" is a very nice wording i would say.

[Nirosi]

Alvaro,

For the loop problem can it not be possible to simply move them to hexes 112,0 and 112,1. This way, CVs and DDs would be able to attack them at least (and usually subs in such circumstances do have a tendency to get hit by DDs/CVs)?

[ncc1701e]

Never thought about this. I can't believe anyone else did either in the last 5 years.

This is tricky.

I am not sure how to solve this for WarPlan 1 except increasing the surface range. As someone pointed how I don't know what effect that will have either.

it is pretty cheesy what they did.

Increasing the surface range to 2 will partially solve my problem in Warplan Pacific regarding the cat and mouse game trying to break a naval blockage. More naval action possibles.
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 3#p5152663

[AlvaroSousa]

I can prevent Axis from entering that loop hex since it is set to one side or other all together.

The 2 range for ships I have to thoroughly test. I don't know how that will change the game.

[sveint]

It's an utter wasteful use of u-boats though, and not worth doing.

[CHINCHIN]

Don't believe it, I understand that he used 3 subs on the convoy route, so he "wasted" 4 submarines, on top of that 3 are Italian, which in addition to having -1 in combat I suppose they will have technology from 1939. Also a surface fleet attacking convoys, makes escorts useless, and sinks many merchant ships.

In any case, a “legal cheat” like that, like blocking sea loops, seems totally immoral to me, and against the players' code of honor.

[ncc1701e]

It's an utter wasteful use of u-boats though, and not worth doing.

I disagree in the Pacific. I like to protect my surface fleet with plenty of subs around, in Fleet mode, to protect it.
Here is an example.

---

subs.JPG (123.96 KiB) Viewed 770 times

[AlvaroSousa]

This person is surrounding the unit so the naval can't attack it. That is the difference.

[ncc1701e]

Well this is not more gamey than this to perform a naval blockade.

---

Gamey blockade.JPG (64.35 KiB) Viewed 738 times

[Nirosi]

Well close I would say, but at least here the ships can be attacked, the subs in high sea could not (except by long range aircraft).

[battlevonwar]

I 2nd this point of view...

It's an utter wasteful use of u-boats though, and not worth doing.

[guggy]

The loop problem could be a game killer.
One of my opponents did it to me, I respectfully asked him to remove the sub from the loops and hopefully he agreed.

I think this must be addressed somehow in further update.

[AlvaroSousa]

It will next patch