European Theatres of Operations Game 2

[82ndtrooper]

and the combat results

[82ndtrooper]

statistics

[82ndtrooper]

My surviving pilots limped home with a new respect for the British navy.

we did sink a battle ship but we lost a lot of planes so all in all it was a pretty close fight considering the cost of the planes and the cost of the BB.

[Bombur]

Ship flak should be toned down, a surface fleet withouth air cover should have no chance against an air attack by massive numbers of dive bombers.

[82ndtrooper]

I cant argue against that at all.

but there is something else to think about in the game.

I can replace all my lost planes in two turns.

but that battleship cost 32000 and it will take 4 or 5 turns to replace it because it can only be built from one production center.

so for this version that does make a difference but when grumpy reworks the naval part he may want to think about your suggestion.

[Bombur]

Yes, battleships are incredibly expensive...but they are also very vulnerable. A few dozens dedicated naval aircraft can easily sink a BB. So I think it would be important both to increase BB´s cost (or even remove them from production list and give them by events) and make surface ships as a whole more vulnerable to aircraft (the right ships, of course, a B-17 is more or less harmless as far as BB´s are their targets)

[RufusTFirefly]

ORIGINAL: 82ndtrooper

I cant argue against that at all.

But I can [:'(]

I dont think that the result of the air attack is surprising.

Lets have a look at the air units:

First of all there are several fighters involved in the attack. It makes sense to add fighters to an attacking group to protect it against interceptors. But we have discussed here that fighters involved in a ground attack (or attack on ships) are handled more as attackers of the ground target then being used as protection against enemy fighters. In this case it is even worse. As there are no interceptors the German fighters seemed to have attacked the ships. It is obvious that fighters attacking ships should have no effect (maybe only on torpedo boats) but suffer heavy losses.

Bombur pointed out that battleships were vulnerable to naval air. Exactly. But the key words are naval aircraft. Battleships are vulnerable to torpedo hits. They are build to take strong hits by big guns of other battleships, therefore they are able to take strong hits by bombs as well. The Tirpitz was attacked with bombs developped to break the tops of submarine bunkers. These bombs were able to break through the armored decks of the ship and cause a lot of damage inside. The usual bombs were not strong enough to damage the Tirpitz heavy enough to sink it.

82ndTrooper used dive bombers here, but no naval bombers. Naval bombers would have attacked with torpedos and should have had more success. Dive bombers are less effective and more bombers are necessary to sink a battleship, therefore losses might be higher too.

And please take into account that the battleship was supported by two cruisers. Cruisers have a high air defence ability. It makes sense that the losses of air crafts are high.

As you have seen by a screenshot given above I have developped Short Sunderland flying boats. I did it to be able to attack German subs. And I have deployed some naval bombers as well. It makes no sense to invest PP in deployment of these units in case the same result in naval attacks can be achieved using dive bombers build for ground attacks. I cannt use the naval air for ground attacks, so deployment of naval bombers only make sens in case they have abilities in naval attacks that dive bombers dont have. Therefore I dont think the hit points of battleships should be changed. And every player should decide himself whether he wants to invest a large amount of PP to build a battleship or not. I dont think it is a good idea to deploy them by evnt 8in case it is done it should be done with carriers as well).

[82ndtrooper]

the Cant-Z-506 is a torpedo plane and so is the SM-79 Sparviero (it is also a medium bomber)

so I did have two torpedo planes involved in the attack.  I sent the fighters in because I only had two torpedo planes nearby and hoped they would draw some fire away from them.

[Bombur]

Rufus, there isn´t any case of air attacks in WWII against naval targets without air cover that resulted in hundreds of attacking aircrafts being shot down and relatively few damage to enemy ships. Usually the opposite happened. Cruisers are no match for dive bombers, the Japanese Vals hit the heavy cruisers Dorsetshire and Cornwall with 40 bombs, sinking both ships. In game terms, it would be an attack of 1-2 dive bombers vs. two cruisers. Similarly, the Battleships Repulse and Prince of Wales had no chance against the Japanese Nells and Betties (in game terms it should be a 2 SF attack). In Crete and Norway, land based aircraft also sank or damaged significant numbers of warships. In all these cases, the attackers lost very few planes. The big trouble is that cruisers are too powerful both in vanilla and in this mod. It should be fixed, as it makes air power almost useless against ships.

[krupp_88mm]

the whole premise that the primary function of cruisers is anti air in this game is severely flawed, cruisers were only slightly marginally better at providing aa fire than any other ship type, cruisers were really useful at being fast and intercepting and providing a screen for BBs against faster torpedo boats and destroyers, and also a fast bombardment role, it would be nice if thats how it functioned in game as well, destroyers vs an unescorted bb should have a god chance of torping it

[explorer2]

Don't forget that cruisers changed a lot during the war.
At the beginning, they were mostly smaller battleships, and by the end (like at Iwo Jima) they were full of AA that was very effective.
Carriers also changed, not just in number of aircraft carried, but in AA. At the beginning, their AA was pretty paltry, but by the end it was decent.
And I agree that it would be nice to somehow model the role of Destroyer's torpedoes against larger ships. In the battle of Leyte Gulf, as 82nd in a former post so well pointed out, they did quite a good job.

[82ndtrooper]

The Battle of Leyte Gulf main naval battle called the battle off Samar (Taffy 3) a 150 planes from escort carriers where involved in the fight and they did no appreciable damage to the Battleships,Cruisers and destroyers of the Japanese fleet, Most of the damage done was by the US destroyers that where defending the escort carriers. This was late in the war and AA had improved but it does point out that planes where not always devastating to fleets with no air cover. All of the examples of naval ships being destroyed by air when they had no air cover where early in the war. In the pacific later in the war there are several examples of lone ships fighting off Japanese air attacks including kamikaze attacks and surviving while shooting down multiple attacking aircraft. One example in particular is of a lone destroyer (forget the name ) that was attacked by wave after wave of Japanese planes was hit and damaged,  its rudder was stuck causing the ship to only be able to move in a counter clockwise circle. But it survived and shot down multiple Japanese planes in the process. ( nearby carrier based fighters did eventually come to the rescue)

In this game there something that we have to look at and its something that Explorer and I discuss frequently, and that is "Game Playability" meaning that for the good of the game somethings just have to be different form what it was historically or the units have no value and the game doesn't play right.

In this scenario land based planes are very powerful and have a very long range. If naval units dont have a good defense against them then the navy would be unplayable and virtually useless. I agree that its not exactly historical but it is important in the game that the navy be useful and playable.

In the battle in question I think things turned out about how they should have, if i had had more torpedo planes nearby I would have really hurt his navy as it was I sent a mix of all kinds of planes in a desperate attack and sank a BB but got a bloody nose in the process. I am fine with the results.

[Bombur]

The Battle of Leyte Gulf main naval battle called the battle off Samar (Taffy 3) a 150 planes from escort carriers where involved in the fight and they did no appreciable damage to the Battleships,Cruisers and destroyers of the Japanese fleet, Most of the damage done was by the US destroyers that where defending the escort carriers. This was late in the war and AA had improved but it does point out that planes where not always devastating to fleets with no air cover.

-Don´t remember that the CVE Avengers lacked torpedos, that´s why they failed to do any damage....without torpedos they are as useless as any level bomber. And anyway they didn´t suffer many losses.

All of the examples of naval ships being destroyed by air when they had no air cover where early in the war. In the pacific later in the war there are several examples of lone ships fighting off Japanese air attacks including kamikaze attacks and surviving while shooting down multiple attacking aircraft. One example in particular is of a lone destroyer (forget the name ) that was attacked by wave after wave of Japanese planes was hit and damaged,  its rudder was stuck causing the ship to only be able to move in a counter clockwise circle. But it survived and shot down multiple Japanese planes in the process. ( nearby carrier based fighters did eventually come to the rescue)

-Latter in the war the quality of Japanese pilots worsened to such an extent that they hardly could do any damage to a ship even if unopposed. It´s true that AA fire improved a lot, but there was also lots of fighters able to shot down enemy attackers. Despite this, a SINGLE dive bomber was able to sink CVL Princeton in the battle of Leyte Gulf and latter, again, a single dive bomber crippled CV Benjamin Franklin.

[SMK-at-work]

The current system is constrained by the characteristics of AT as a game - "in real life" you could take an old BB from between the wars, add torpedo bulges, radar and 40 x 40mm AA guns and turn it into a floating fortress that was pretty good at shooting down a/c without actually improving much else.

In AT you can not.  But upgrading the AA of battleships was a lot cheaper than building new battleships - so for me buildign cruisers as AA is just a surrogate for what happened - it doesn't really matter to me that they are "separate ships" - what matters is that the BB's they accompany have better AA cheaper than building new BB's.

Oh and as for the effectiveness of dive bombers vs armoured warships - the LW was actually pretty useless vs armoured ships until the Italians taught them torpedo bombing, and they got AP bombs! Neither of which they had at the BoB (which is why the RN would have massacred Sealion...), but both of which they had by Crete.

So in terms of dive bombers not sinking BB's - tough - the game has anti-shipping aircraft - use them.

[82ndtrooper]

@ SMK

I don't think anybody is complaining we are just discussing the game. I am the German player and I am certainly not complaining about the outcome of that battle.
Bombur is right about the naval AA not being historically accurate but since aircraft carriers have already been changed in the amount of planes and the type of planes they can carry I feel at this point the AA of the cruisers is necessary. He doesn't feel this way and that makes for a good discussion. In the end we all want the same thing. A balanced fair game that's fun to play.

[82ndtrooper]

A sitrep from the German High Command.

Sweden has joined the West and is now at war with the Reich !
Intelligence indicates that Russia is starting to mobilize her army in preparation of an attack on the Fatherland.

Diplomatic efforts continue with Finland and Italy in hopes they will join with the Reich in our battle against our enemies.

The western Allies now consist of :
British Commonwealth - includes Canada, Australia and North Africa.
Greece
French Colonies
Turkey
Sweden
Russia (not at war with us yet but all intelligence indicates they soon will ally with the west)

Conquered Territories are :
France
Belgium
Netherlands
Luxembourg
Denmark
Yugoslavia

Our Allies :
Romania
Bulgaria
Hungry

Current campaigns :
Greece
Turkey
Sweden

Campaign Status : Greece

We have had very little contact with elements of the Greek Military up to now and with the conquest of Yugoslavia complete we can now focus our attention on them.
The Romanian 1st Guards Army has been ordered to handle the Greek problem and elements of the Waffen SS will assist. We expect full contact with the Greek military soon.

Campaign Status : Turkey

Elements of the Turkish Army have invaded Belgium and the Belgium Army is engaged with them at this time. The 7th Infantry Army has been ordered from France to Belgium to defeat and capture Turkey with the assistance of the Belgium Army.
Luftwaffe assets will shared between both the Turkish and Greek fronts.

Campaign Status : Sweden

The entrance of Sweden into the war has caught us by surprise and we have no army ready to deploy on this front. Therefore we will be pulling units from various Army Korp assets and creating a new army for this purpose. This will take some time but elements of the Luftwaffe have already been assigned and moved into the theater. The navy will also assist.
Gentlemen do not complain about your Korp assets being reassigned the Fuhrer has ordered this personally and he will not tolerate insubordination.
Sweden must be handled as rapidly as possible we cannot have British forces on our northern front. They must be isolated and smashed !

Armies assigned to the Russian border :
1st Prussian
6th Army
10th Panzer
14th Panzer
8th Motorized
2nd Romanian
3rd Romanian
all Hungarian Armies.

Western defense forces

1st Army
5th Army

Reserves

1st SS Panzer
1st Fallshirmjaeger
4th Fallshirmjaeger
5th Fallshirmjaeger


Gentlemen we are nearing the limit of our current ability to deploy forces where we need them. You must finish your objectives as soon as possible and without regard to casualties. Destroy Greece and Turkey ASAP!!  Your armies are needed elsewhere.

For the Reich

OKH

[GrumpyMel]

On the Campaign, seems like it's really starting to heat up. Looks like the Allies got some lucky rolls to get both Sweden and Turkey in...thier odds of activating are both pretty low.

How were you going to handle Russia? Were you going to have Rufus play it as well as the Allies or did you want a 3rd player for it? If you want a 3rd player, I can take it if you want?

[GrumpyMel]

On future updates to the scenerio....

I agree that both the air war and the naval war both have some ahistorical aspects in them.... but frankly game-play trumps historical accuracy from my perspective. If we really wanted to get closer to historical balance then the AT engine would have to be able to model some things about air & naval combat that it currently doesn't.

Right now, air-power is very powerfull in AT in general and in this scenerio in particular...I'm wondering if it's perhaps a little too powerfull even.... at least versus ground forces...and am thinking about some potential tweaks. My general inclination might be to try to lower the cost of light flak a bit....allowing the side which is loosing the air war the ability to build more flak units to protect thier ground forces and critical cities/bridges better.

The big thing about this scenerio is that with the scale of the map, I really had to boost aircraft range significantly...while flak range remains pretty much the same.... changes the balance in favor of aircraft. Rather then up flak range so they are shooting 100 miles with a Bofors, I'd rather just allow the player to make more of them.

[GrumpyMel]

Regards the Naval Game.....

I will be looking to address the naval game in my next update. I probably WILL tweak the AA of cruisers down a bit....as I feel they are a bit too strong right now (as in Vanilla AT). That said, I don't want to make naval units too weak versus Air....and while I'm going to tweak Cruisers AA down some...I probably will uptweak AA for BB's and DD's a little. I'm also going to try to scale it a bit so naval AA increases for all ships throughout the war...starting pretty weak and getting more effective.

I'm also thinking about breaking ship types out a bit more...at the very least breaking out Light and Heavy Cruisers and possibly allowing more specialized ships like dedicated AA Cruisers to be built.

I'm also going to start differentiating ship speeds more...so there are more factors I have available to give players a reason to build ship X as opposed to Ship Y.

In compensation for Cruisers loosing some importance in an AA role....I'm going to make them Faster then most other ships and also increase thier Recon value significantly (I need some ship type to play Scout role on this scale map anyways). There may be some justification for the later as I think alot of them did cary a float plane for scouting purposes.

Anyways, I think it'll make for better balance. I'll also likely reduce the cost to build DD's, Subs and Transport Ships a bit.

[GrumpyMel]

Regards Tech....

I also find the fact that a player could uptech to Jets in 1940 if they really concentrated on it a bit too problematic. House Rules are great to solve that, but I also want to try to address it in the scenerio as well. I think the COST of Tech increases is good overall...but probably the ability to pump up one area so quickly if you concentrate on it is a bit rough. If I can figure out a way to do it in the event code.... what I may try to do is increase the cost of building techs BEFORE thier historical date.

For example...if you build 41-42 tech in 1940, you can do it but it costs you 450 PP's. If you wait till 41, it only costs 300. This will allow the player the flexibility to build stuff outside of it's historical timeline, but they'll be paying a premium to do so.