The Rock

[JLPOWELL]

Any Ideas regarding how (while still keeping the game simple) how best to handle Gibraltar?

Gibraltar is rather poorly handled in ToF (and most war games) its interdiction ability vastly overestimated. It blocks the straight like a solid wall. The reality is that air units and shore guns and most importantly naval units based there could force an engagement with anything attempting to transit the narrow (14.3 kilometer) straight. The actual count of naval guns and there size was not too impressive. With less than a dozen large ( well 9.2 inch so not huge Wikipedia 9.2" Guns ) guns and a few dozen 6" guns the fort itself simply wasn't going to significantly hinder any BB even CA moving through. Transports of course are another matter, but if a couple of BB and a few CA are engaging with some DD deploying smoke even a transport fleet could force the straight against the fort alone.




I have a few ideas

First and most important. IF NOT AT WAR with the holder anyone can sail thru the straight. After UK is taken in ToF (it happens...) for example GE and IT cannot transit and could not even attack GB as it is listed as neutral 'pro axis' but in the allied sphere of influence. The absurdity of the diplomatic situation described is something for another post.

Perhaps The Fort would get a 'free shot' at ships passing each stack as it moves (not much of a shot a BB or CA would have little to fear but transports would have a chance of a problem.

And / Or ships 'based' would get a free first shot then an automatic engagement. After the engagement the moving player would be on the 'other side' Pretty hard to sneak past even with subs against Naval units operating out of 'The Rock' The Fort perhaps should also be included in the engagement (perhaps with the firepower of a strong BB unit which cannot be destroyed (give it 999 Hit points or something)

Another idea is to give GB a stationary CV unit in the port (could be damaged and repaired like a normal CV) It would get a 'shot' with the fort at each stack of enemy units passing. It could also do recon and air strikes on adjacent sea areas like any other CV I expect this could be modded except for the 'free shot'

No fog of war at Gibraltar while Spain is neutral (or enemy). Anyone with binoculars is going to pretty much see everything significant...

Really addressing this would increase the game complexity too much (stacking for instance. Air units would be based with ground units at Gibraltar, but the Gibraltar 'hex' really would have to be 'smaller' in capacity than a normal land hex as you just can't deploy large formations in such a small space (only 6.8 sq km).

[JLPOWELL]

Just a PS

Most war games (not just ToF) seem to take this as a 'given' from the Napoleonic period through WW2 (I seem to remember it is the case in a 1980's era naval game as well LOL) It looks like a case of someone 'decided' it was 'the' design and almost everyone who came after followed the 'precedent'.

[Razz1]

You forget about the Guns on the other side of the straight.
The bombers at the airport in Africa and the ships waiting on either side.

Pretty easy to sink ships in a small area.

What about the English channel at 21 to 150 miles wide?

You didn't see the German navy sail through there for a reason. Except there was one made dash but that is a different story and a much larger area.

I can see Catalina Island on a clear day and that is about 12 miles away.

Your looking at 6 miles with no pollution in WW2. Pretty close to seeing ships easily with out binoculars. Add a few of those and you can target ships easily.

Not much room to zig zag while the Enemy's Navy sails from port to meet you.

What about mines that make you sail a more narrow path and your buddies sitting in submarines laughing while they shoot you like fish in a barrel?

Even sending submarines through the pass was considered suicide although it did succeed with looses. (Operation Betasome)

[battlevonwar]

I tend to think of the nightmares the Allied Navy had in WW1 with Gallipoli. It's sad that you cannot traverse the narrow passage without risk though or attempt to overpower it. :: shrugs :: I would love to pour the Italian Navy into the Atlantic at a heavy cost.

[JLPOWELL]

Basically the Germans didn't go thru because there was really never any reason to take the risk. I never contended it would be easy, but the fort (with fewer and smaller guns than a single BB) wasn't going to stop someone who had a plan and shipping (and a good reason) to try to force it. The RN and a bit of air power (very limited due to space constraints on Gibraltar) is the reason GB could interdict traffic but that would be naval battle with the help from the fort. The English Channel should be closed then as well and well comparing with the Dardanelles is just really not accurate the geography is VERY restrictive there, as is the case in Denmark to a lesser extent. I have been to all four places (and Catalina as well for that matter LOL) Air and navy can interdict a narrow area and did. Mines at Gibraltar would not be to effective (Deep with very strong current) actually more effective in the Channel. The Dardanelles is of course completely different. BTW the guns on the other side were in Spanish territory and weren't going to fire on neutral shipping (and really didn't amount to much in any case)

Really Razz did you even think of exposure times, rates of fire, ranges, traveling at night... (effectively only 2 9.2" guns facing south)? I am saying the FORT doesn't block the straight. It gives advantage but you get a battle not a force field. A relatively secure sally point for air and naval forces. I don't expect the Bismark would have needed to avoid 9.2" fire at 10000 yards, it would simply have been ineffective. My point is it is a naval battle not a wall.

The naval rules in ToF need a bit of work. The game is good but it can be better.

The rules of this game block it like it was a concrete wall. Just plain silly, particularly when you can sail the English channel without any problems.

The game really needs some intercept rules. There does not seem to be any way to 'force' a battle. (the enemy gets to stay) at the very least the small forces (surface) which avoid combat should retreat.

One good example is that I just had a landing in Narvik succeed (division vrs division) with 4 carriers and much of the home fleet in the sea zone. Simply ridiculous. (add to that that Narvik was not only occupied but surrounded and the French teleported home instead of laying siege and retaking it you have a simulation problem. ( I do understand when a country surrenders it is hard to get game to resolve the issue of forces fighting in the territory but you do get some pretty unrealistic events which could be handled a bit better. For all practical purposes if the UK France and Germany are fighting in Norway NO one cares if Norway surrenders. In this example the single Norweagan division was effectively irrelevant. BTW my guess (FoW makes uncertainty) is that the landing may have been more than one unit or a followup unit was landed as the German unit in Narvik was full strength. BattleVonWar perhaps as the German in the game you can let us know what happened, clearly the RN did't have much effect. All I saw in PBEM was 4 French Divisions in and all around Narvik then a German full strength division in the city. (the FR division in the city was damaged but at as I recall over 20%)

Bottom line is its a game with some flaws, we can ignore them or look to make it better. If ToF wasn't pretty good already it wouldn't be worth making suggestions.

[JLPOWELL]

If a zone is undefended you should be able to traverse it. If a significant enemy force is there you would need to win to get past them (not in the wide Atlantic perhaps but in the North Sea and Channel areas for sure). The Dardanelles are of course MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH narrower and shallow and guarded from both sides etc. And yet the RN was able to penetrate into a bit them and get troops ashore BTW the naval part of Gallipoli was successful (they were successful in landing the troops) they just couldn't win the land battle.

ORIGINAL: battlevonwar

I tend to think of the nightmares the Allied Navy had in WW1 with Gallipoli. It's sad that you cannot traverse the narrow passage without risk though or attempt to overpower it. :: shrugs :: I would love to pour the Italian Navy into the Atlantic at a heavy cost.

[Razz1]

I'm not disagreeing with you just pointing out there were more things to consider besides Gibraltar if you wish to pass.

If it was so easy to implement forces not deploying to the pool when a country surrenders Paradox would have implemented it.

In those games you can program it so troops do not deploy to the pool. However it was a design decision to do it the way the games are at Paradox.

For TOF this option is behind the scenes.

No matter which way you program it you can't please all.

There's always the debate: If the country surrenders, how many Generals will refuse the order and continue the fight.

Just because the government accepts Vichy doesn't mean the army and air force have to follow suit. After all they are fighting for their country and loved ones.

For Narvik and other points in the game, defense has improved allot for those key cities in the Third Reich.

[Rasputitsa]

I don't think that Gibraltar was much of a block its self, the shore guns are not likely to stop a determined effort to pass, in a 7 day turn you could more easily pass the straits at night and submarines should have an even better chance. Apart from in its own self defence I don't think that Gibraltar as a fortification has much effect. Like any other fort hex, it shouldn't stop enemy units passing in adjacent hexes, but would be more difficult to attack, until the fort level is reduced

The effect that Gibraltar has, is the ability to call down air and naval forces on an enemy, but only if those forces are available. Without air and naval forces, Gibraltar is ineffective.

If there are no naval, or air, units present, or in adjacent sea zones, Gibraltar is just another fort. With either air, or naval, units present there could be a combat bonus, since detection (apart from submarines) is almost assured and reaction time for Gibraltar based units is very short. Air units can make many more attacks, with home base so close, for refuelling and rearming, naval operations are simplified.

In any condition submarines should be able to pass the straits, but with a higher detection probability, because the area to be searched, or to hide in, is so limited.[:)]

[aspqrz02]

Two words.

Plunging Fire.

Even the strongest BBs do not have great deck armour.

The higher the gun platform, the more likely that shells fired from it will hit the weak deck armour rather than the stonnger belts around the sides and citadel.

Even 6" guns could cause severe damage.

Your argument is rather like the one Churchill used to try and get the RN to send as fleet into the Baltic during the opening stages of the war ... the IGS had to gently, but forcefully, point out the problems of passing through narrow straits and remaining in range of land based air ... not exactly the same, but similar.

Phil

[doomtrader]

It is really hard to model such small territory on this scale, so we must make some sacrifices.

aspqrz, where have you been for the last month?

[Rasputitsa]

ORIGINAL: doomtrader
It is really hard to model such small territory on this scale, so we must make some sacrifices.

The reality is that, apart from submarines, the axis navies did not try and force the straits, whether the fortress of Gibraltar deserved its reputation is not so important, but it is the way it was viewed.

I would only say that there should be a way to take axis submarines past an allied controlled Gibraltar, even if there is some random cost in strength points, to reflect the anti-submarine defence, with odds increasing as allied tech level increases. The same could be applied to any of the narrow seas (Channel, Skagerrak, etc.). [:)]

[JLPOWELL]

Plunging fire at 10000+ meters Seriously? From a 100m elevation? Its all going to be somewhat plunging at that distance based on trajectory. Besides the fort just didn't have many guns, a single BB outguns the whole thing. The guns are adequate for soft targets, but of course the main purpose is to stop an enemy from sailing right up to the harbor shooting up the airfield and shipping.

[JLPOWELL]

Pretty much my point. BTW I do understand the need for simplicity in a game. Simplicity is ToF's greatest strength. That said I think the naval rules are its greatest weakness (the events system and 'unit caps' do vie for the top spot however now that the T Rex Tanks have been nerfed a bit.)

If you want to improve something you get the greatest result fixing the most deficient element. There was a thread a while back about 'fixing' the air rules. Sure there are some improvements to be made there, but by and large the air section is working pretty well. The naval rules on the other hand are a different matter. When I get a chance I think I will start a thread on what is right and wrong with the game IMHO. Perhaps I will call it "The Good The Bad and the Undocumented"

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa

I don't think that Gibraltar was much of a block its self, the shore guns are not likely to stop a determined effort to pass, in a 7 day turn you could more easily pass the straits at night and submarines should have an even better chance. Apart from in its own self defence I don't think that Gibraltar as a fortification has much effect. Like any other fort hex, it shouldn't stop enemy units passing in adjacent hexes, but would be more difficult to attack, until the fort level is reduced

The effect that Gibraltar has, is the ability to call down air and naval forces on an enemy, but only if those forces are available. Without air and naval forces, Gibraltar is ineffective emphasis added J.

If there are no naval, or air, units present, or in adjacent sea zones, Gibraltar is just another fort. With either air, or naval, units present there could be a combat bonus, since detection (apart from submarines) is almost assured and reaction time for Gibraltar based units is very short. Air units can make many more attacks, with home base so close, for refuelling and rearming, naval operations are simplified.

I any condition submarines should be able to pass the straits, but with a higher detection probability, because the area to be searched, or to hide in, is so limited.[:)]

[aspqrz02]

Back at work. School teacher, down under (Australia) where the summer holidays are, well, in your winter ... so I had a lot of time to spend gaming and discussing things until the end of January ... then back to the grind, a new school year and lots of pointless record keeping and excessively rigid (and equally pointless) and meaningless assessments for all and sundry.

Another month (more or less) off at present, so I should be at least as active as before ... and I have the whole of the second half of the year (beginning of July 2012 to end of January 2013) off as well (what we call "Long Service Leave", which I don't think anyone else in the world has, or not the same, but is closest to an academic sabbatical, sort of, though almost all workers get it ... as long as you work at least 10 years with the same company ... me, 35 years in [8|] )

Phil

[aspqrz02]

Unless you have better sources than I have (I am using Osprey's Fortress #52: The Fortifications of Gibraltar 1068-1945), the maps show *seven* 9.2" guns in battery, five of which are on the crest running across the top of the rock, and which have, according to my sources "almost 360 degree" fields of fire. These would have the capacity for "plunging fire" as noted elsewhere/.

The two which are lower, at almost at the tip of the rock/peninsula and would easily have 270 degree fields of fire.

There were also 2 x 9.2" Howitzers down near the bottom 9.2" rifles with similar field of fire.

Wouldn't want to face them myself, not even in a BB ... and definitely not in a CA or CL.

Then there's the 6" guns and the like.

However, as others have intimated, and you have almost done, Gibraltar is not, in and of itself, a compleat obstacle ... it is a severely constricting road bump that would be useful in conjunction with the RN "fleet in being" ... the damage you'd take traversing the straits (and there's a very strong current which will increase time in range) means that you'll be facing the RN on the "other side" at a severe disadvantage ...

And, of course, forget about merchantmen traversing it unscathed ... they are LST's (large low targets) that even the 25lbers could damage.

Not impossible. Just not a real good idea ... a real dumb one, in fact.

YMMV.

Phil

[aspqrz02]

The Italians, even, ran it relatively regularly, east to west, mostly, and the Germans, to a lesser extent, west to east.

There is a strong current, which made it somewhat dangerous, as they obviously had to traverse it submerged, but the water is relatively deep.

The Kattegat and Skagerrak are a different kettle of fish. Shallow. Very shallow.

Likewise the Dardanelles and the Golden Horn.

Phil

[aspqrz02]

The Rock elevation is 490 meters or so, and the five "high" 9.2" batteries are along the spine, not at the peak, but I'd guess (from the map) at least 380-400 meters ... and the 9.2" Mk. IX/X Coastal Defence gun had a range of 26700 meters rather different from your estimates in both cases.

Edit: Range with the new *high angle fire* mounts used in the batteries on the Rock was on the order of 36000 yards, to boot.

Phil

[JLPOWELL]

The Straight is no more blockable by coastal artillery than the channel. Distances are similar. Comparing with Dardanelles is ridiculous. We have a good discussion at least, but some pretty strong opinions about what a few guns could do at the extreme of their range (perhaps we add some rain and dark of night....) and or some counter fire from a heavy BB or three and some smoke and surprise and who knows perhaps its not impossible or even that hard PROVIDED the defending NAVAL units can be dealt with. My original point is the game does not handle this well.

[JLPOWELL]

And as they say on Monty Python something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT

[JLPOWELL]

And now the English Channel something not quite so different..