Matrix Games Forums

Have just been playing into late 39 with a human opponent and I already feel like something is very broken or odd with the uboat campaign in my 1939 scenario. As the axis I send out my subs and each turn they are attacked with 3-4 strength points lost and do nothing or almost nothing. Thus, I have to send them back because they will most likely be sunk the next turn. Umm, this is not at all what 1939 was like with the allies fighting German uboats. Allied ASW technology was not that good at all. The uboats nearly brought Britain to it's knees after a few years into the war. This is the exact opposite of what I'm seeing in my game. It's costing me much more to repair my uboats every other turn(s), since heal 1 point per turn, then any damage I do to the convoys.

Here is where I scratch my head as to why game designers keep making these silly on-map convey routes and having people micro subs and ships around. It never works, didn't in SC too, and always has major flaws. For those that know 'Third Reich' all the way to it's mature version in 'A World at War', they got the sub war nailed. It's strategic for the war on convoys! Yes, you abstract it. Here's how simple it is. Axis or Allies can decide to put subs in convoy boxes (i.e. North Atlantic) and allies counter with ASW (escorts in this case) and also can assign fleets, but then they are not on the map in a tactical role. Each fleet adds a certain value to the fighting of subs in the box with CVs obviously contributing the most. Yes, Axis or Allies can either use their subs tactically (on the map) or in the convoy boxes for the strategic war on convoys. Tech advances will also help for ASW (escorts) and subs. Warplan already has that, so not that far from fixes this feature of the game.

I believe good allied players have found a way to 'game' the system in Warplan, thus no axis player can ever have a chance with a uboat campaign in the early war years. Heck, they can see your subs on the map and then just send in the ships and subs get whacked, that is if the uber 1939 allied convoy escorts don't take care of them first.

Just silly and if it continues like this in my player vs player match, it will ruin this game for me.

Here's some data people can look at https://www.naval-history.net/WW2CampaignsUboats.htm

Yeah the naval and U-boat aspects of WarPlan are the most lacking ATM. I expect massive improvements if this system is going to succeed in the Pacific (WarPlan 2). The existing system for WarPlan could work much better with a few tweaks but I am not sure the designer is willing to do much to fix them.

I think the U-Boat war and the naval system in AWAW is just superb for a strategic level game. When you look at what we had with Third Reich to what exists now in AWAW it's like chalk and cheese. It would be cool if WarPlan could achieve a similar transition.

Here is what I consider to be some relatively easy tweaks to get the naval system working better.

1. Tweak the U-Boats up v Escosts.
2. Reduce the strength of BC's and Old BB's.
3. Make it more difficult for old BB's to intercept faster ships.
4. Make it possible to intercept naval movements from the ports they leave (a blockade) and their destinations.
5. Add a level of pre planning to amphibious invasions. Let each Nation select invasion hexes based on a ratio of Land craft to hexes. So 3 Landing craft might be 2 hexes, 6 LC's 4 hexes and so on. These selected hexes can be invaded in two turns time. The hexes can be changed each turn but cannot be invaded until two turns have elapsed.

ORIGINAL: Michael T

Yeah the naval and U-boat aspects of WarPlan are the most lacking ATM. I expect massive improvements if this system is going to succeed in the Pacific (WarPlan 2). The existing system for WarPlan could work much better with a few tweaks but I am not sure the designer is willing to do much to fix them.

I think the U-Boat war and the naval system in AWAW is just superb for a strategic level game. When you look at what we had with Third Reich to what exists now in AWAW it's like chalk and cheese. It would be cool if WarPlan could achieve a similar transition.

Thank you. It just baffles me that designers keep trying to build on a flawed tactic system mixing with a strategic one. Once again it was a disaster in SC. Alvaro knows Third Reich, curious as to why he didn't take a better approach to this aspect in his game. The beauty is you can have both! It's a very fun aspect to decide, do I use my subs strategically or tactically. Same as for your fleets. Just adds so much value and very hard to 'game' it. Cause we call know for most playing on-line, it's hard to find honorable opponents that won't 'game' the s***t out of you if they are allowed for their advantage,

He knows Third Reich, but not AWAW. There lies the problem.

ORIGINAL: Michael T

Here is what I consider to be some relatively easy tweaks to get the naval system working better.

1. Tweak the U-Boats up v Escosts.
2. Reduce the strength of BC's and Old BB's.
3. Make it more difficult for old BB's to intercept.
4. Make it possible to intercept naval movements from the ports they leave and their destinations.
5. Add a level of pre planning to amphibious invasions. Let each Nation select invasion hexes based on a ratio of Land craft to hexes. So 3 Landing craft might be 2 hexes, 6 LC's 4 hexes and so on. These selected hexes can be invaded in two turns time. The hexes can be changed each turn but cannot be invaded until two turns have elapsed.

I do like the ideas here. But rather than try and fit a 'square peg in a circular hole' on the sub vs convoys side (item #1), the system needs to be refactored. Keep the tactic side to fleets and subs battles with some tweaks, but create an abstract layer that I mentioned for the strategic (convey) system. Namely ocean/sea boxes for subs, ASW (escorts), and fleets. Players can add at these unit types in at their discretion and formulas for units in the box, which consider tech, will do the rest. Lots of fun!

ORIGINAL: Michael T

He knows Third Reich, but not AWAW. There lies the problem.

DOH!

That is a problem ...

FYI -->> http://aworldatwar.org/

[&o][&o][&o][&o][&o][&o][&o][&o][&o][&o]

I don't think you are going to get a redesign of the U-Boat system in WP1. Best you can hope for is a tweak I think.

@Alvaro, when you read this please take it as constructive criticism. WarPlan is the best Strategic Level *PC* game I have played. The most value for money on a PC game I have spent since WITE. We all appreciate your efforts and ongoing support. We just want it better in some area's. [:)]

ORIGINAL: Michael T

@Alvaro, when you read this please take it as constructive criticism. WarPlan is the best Strategic Level *PC* game I have played. The most value for money on a PC game I have spent since WITE. We all appreciate your efforts and ongoing support. We just want it better in some area's. [:)]

Yes, agreed. I'm frustrated because this game is the best theater WW2 game I've ever played. It's close to being up there with some of the great WWII theater board games. The board games I'm referring to have had decades, not months, not even years, but decades of tweaks to make them what they are today. Just asking that @alvaro takes advantage of that knowledge in his game design.

Michael T plus 1 its a great game! not sure were i sit with the Uboats as yet!

@Alvaro, when you read this please take it as constructive criticism. WarPlan is the best Strategic Level *PC* game I have played. The most value for money on a PC game I have spent since WITE. We all appreciate your efforts and ongoing support. We just want it better in some area's.

Agree 100%

My take on the U-boat war is that there are two issues.

One, as Michael has said, is that the subs need tweaked up and/or anti-sub warfare tweaked down.

The second issue is more strategic. Axis can go for a naval strategy, with building subs and research OR a land strategy and ignore the Kriegsmarine.
There are some problems with the naval strategy:
Land/air research is going to suffer.
Lower production for the land war.
It uses up a lot of oil.
There are no VPs for it.

So even if the U-boat way was rebalanced it would probably still not be worth it until you had built up the army to invade Russia.

It was the similar in HoI (where the production system is similar), best strategy for Axis was to go all out for the land war to invade Russia with maximum strength and then start building a navy afterwards. I think Warplan has it better than HoI but the same issue is there.

Don't know how to resolve this but it is a complex issue.
Maybe research could be spread over the three arms, so you have some points for each of air/land/sea but can concentrate where you want within each of these.
Is it right that a sub group uses 1 oil when a Panzer corps uses 2 ?

Presently Axis has no return from a Naval Campaign.

Damage too low to convoys, and since '39 submarines already take more damage than what they inflict. I've read it simply is bound to worsen over time - so I am not even going to waste time trying it out.
Plus there is simply no cash to devote to the submarines or any naval construction. German economy is as weak as it is and last but not least oil is far too little.

From my perspective atm as Axis is almost non playable unless one plays Veteran Axis vs Novice Allied player. Then it's balanced!

One of my favorite board war games (and computer war game) is Decision Games (previously SPI's in 1976) War in Europe (2004). Although a Division level game it does have strategic warfare built in. SPI pioneered this in the 70's. Here is the refined (2004) U-Boat War rules for reference. If interested I can post the Strategic Air War as well.



[22.0] THE U-BOAT WAR
Between 1939 and mid-1943, the Allies and Axis fought a battle of attrition over the Atlantic sealanes, pitting the German U-Boat arm against a developing Allied Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) effort. From the Allied standpoint, this was the necessary battle. Failure to secure sea communication with England meant, at the very least, no hope of return to the continent; at the worst, loss of the war. Suppression of the U-Boat menace was the top Allied priority.

The Germans, on the other hand, did not accord the U-Boat war the same high priority, at least not during the early war years. During these years, an increased U-Boat build-up might have shut down the Atlantic. It would, in any event, have forced the Allies to divert even more of their scarce resources into replacing lost tonnage and strengthening ASW forces. This diversion would have had to be at the expense of amphibious, army and air forces.

After mid-1943, the Allies mastered the U-Boats. The premise of the U-Boat war is that the German Player can affect the pace of Allied reinforcement by the size of his U-Boat force. Essentially, he tailors the size of his U-Boat force by his Production System. Either he produces fewer U-Boats than he did historically, more, or the same amount. The more U-Boats he has than the historical level, the greater the chance that the Allied reinforcements will be delayed.

During every Strategic War Cycle, there is a U-Boat War Stage. During this Stage. The Axis Player executes the U-Boat War routine. This routine has two Phases; the first, the U-Boat Combat Phase, determines what effect the number of existing U-Boats will have on the Allied reinforcements nominally due in the following Allied Reinforcement Stage; the second, the U-Boat Attrition Phase, determines the number of U-Boats that the Axis Player must eliminate.

[22.1] U-Boat Combat
The Axis Player attempts to retard the pace of Allied reinforcements via the U-Boat Combat Results Table during the U-Boat Combat Phase.

[22.11] U-Boat Combat Results Table
(See separate sheet.)

[22.12] Explanation of Procedure
Two markers are used on the Allied Strategic Cycle Record Track: a Cycle Marker (to record the actual Cycle in play) and a Reinforcement (Reinf) Marker (to record which reinforcements are due the Allied Player). If the results of the U-Boat war proceeded in an exact, historical manner, the Reinf Marker would always exactly correspond to the position of the Cycle Marker. However, if the Axis Player more vigorously prosecutes the U-Boat war, the Reinf Marker will be retarded (and the Allies will receive their reinforcements later than historically). Conversely, if the Axis Player does not match the historical effort, the Reinf Marker will outpace the Cycle Marker and the Allies will receive their reinforcements sooner than they did historically.

At the beginning of the U-Boat Combat Phase, the Axis Player totals up the number of U-Boat Points available and locates the column heading corresponding to this number on the appropriate year-date line on the U-Boat Combat Results Table. He rolls the die, cross-indexing the die number with the column to yield one of three possible results.

[22.13] Explanation of Results
D = Delay. The Reinf Marker is not advanced and the Allied Player receives no reinforcements that Cycle.
Al = Advance One Cycle. The Reinf Marker is advanced one Cycle and the Allied Player receives whatever reinforcements are indicated for that position on the Cycle Record Track.
A2 = Advance Two Cycles. The Reinf Marker is advanced two Cycles and the Allied Player receives (in the current Cycle) whatever reinforcements are indicated in those two Cycle positions on the Cycle Record Track.

EXAMPLE: The Cycle is 3/42. The Reinf Marker is in position 2/42. The Axis Player has 14 U-Boats available. He rolls a “5” on the U-Boat Combat Results Table, yielding an “A2.” The Allied Player advances the Reinf Marker through Cycle 3/42 to Cycle 4/42 and receives all the reinforcements for both those Cycles in the current (3/42) Cycle.

Note that the Reinf Marker is never moved automatically (only the Cycle Marker is so moved); the Reinf Marker is only moved when directed to do so by the U-Boat Combat Results Table. Note also that it can never be directed to move backwards and that the Allied Player never receives the same reinforcements twice.

Only the U-Boat War affects the arrival of reinforcements. The required withdrawal of units is not affected. Withdrawals always take place on their historical dates.

[22.14] If the Reinf Marker reaches the final Cycle (0/6/45) before the Cycle Marker, the Allied Player receives APs, IRs and MRs, both U.S. and CW, in the same pattern established in the last four Cycles listed.

[22.2] U-Boat Attrition
The Axis Player must use the U-Boat Attrition Table once every Cycle to determine the number of U-Boat Points he loses (as a result of the abstracted Allied ASW effort which this procedure represents). See the separate sheet carrying this table and read the procedure below.

Read across the column headings in the appropriate year date on the U-Boat Attrition Table until the number range corresponding to the number of U-Boats available is found. Roll the die and cross-index the die result with the appropriate column. The result indicated is the number of U-Boat Points destroyed that Cycle.

EXAMPLE: The year is 1943; the Axis has 32 U-Boat Points available. The Axis Player rolls a “5” on the die, indicating that two U-Boat Points are eliminated.

[22.21] U-Boats Available: The Axis Player begins the Scenario with a number of U-Boats. These are placed in the U-Boats Available Box of his Naval Operations Display. As he produces U-Boats, he adds them to the Box. When he loses U-Boats (through attrition), he removes them from the Box. The number of U-Boats available is simply the total U-Boats in the Box.

[22.22] Compulsory Attrition: U-Boats are exposed to attrition on every Strategic War Cycle. The Axis Player has no mechanism to shield them from attrition. When he produces a U-Boat, it is placed in the U-Boats Available Box. He has no choice in the matter. [This vulnerability is different from the rules governing Air Points. There, the Axis Player could shield his Air Points by refusing to commit them to operations. U-Boats available are U-Boats on operations.]

[22.23] Discretionary Force Level: The Axis Player can refuse to build U-Boats. Attrition then will eventually wipe out his strength. Or he can build a great many U-Boats. The decision is up to him. He determines the intensity of the U-Boat War by his Production decisions.

[22.24] U-Boat Attrition Table
(See separate sheet.)

[22.3] Effect on Other Reinforcements
U-Boat results affect only the arrival of Commonwealth, American and General Reinforcements. They have no effect on the arrival of other national reinforcements, such as French, Italian, Neutral countries, etc.

[22.31] The United States has its own reinforcement marker, which starts on 1/0/42, and is affected by the U-boat War on and after that cycle date. If the CW reinforcement marker happens to advance to the 1/0/42 box on the Turn Record Track on the 1/0/42 Cycle, the CW and U.S. markers will always travel together and only one marker will be required. Otherwise they will always be in separate boxes as the U-boat results effects each counter in the same way.

[22.32] Strategic bombers, amphibious points, air transport points, RR, escort points and escort transfers are subject to the CW marker, not the U.S. one.

[22.4] Allied Reaction [Optional]
Within the context of the stated rules, the Allied Player is left at the mercy of the Axis Player vis-à-vis his reinforcements. He really can do nothing to directly affect German U-Boat strength. Recognizing that this passivity will grate on some, we offer the following.

[22.41] Immediately following the U-Boat Attrition Phase, and before Strategic Bombing, the Allied Player may expend Air Points to further reduce the German U-Boats. He does this by voluntarily eliminating his own Air Points and eliminating U-Boats according to the following schedule:

[22.42] U-Boat Elimination Schedule

Nr. of Air Points Nr. of U-Boats
1-2 1
3-5 2
6-9 3
10 or more 4

[22.43] The Allied Player may use only this rule when the Commonwealth Reinforcement Marker is three or more cycles behind the current Cycle of play. It may not be used in consecutive Cycles.

[22.5] Maximum U-Boat Delay
The Allied Player may not be delayed in receiving reinforcements for more than five cycles. If the Allied Player is delayed five cycles and the result of the U-Boat War is a “D,” the “D” result is recorded and an “A1” result is applied. On subsequent cycles, if the result of the U-Boat War is an “A2,” the Axis Player may “spend” an unused “D” result to reduce the result to an “A1.” Do not use this rule if 22.4 is being used.

[X4.0] U-BOAT WAR: SURFACE SORTIE & ASW
This option allows for German Surface Fleets to Sortie, and for the Allied air force to engage in additional Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW).

[X4.1] Surface Sortie

[X4.11] The Axis player may order a German Surface Fleet to Sortie and raid Allied shipping. The Surface Fleet will have the effect of two additional U-Boats during U-Boat War resolution. If any U-Boats are eliminated, the Surface Fleet will be eliminated first.

[X4.12] The Axis player orders a Surface Fleet to Sortie for the next Cycle during German Production by placing the SURF counter in the U-boat At Sea box.

[X4.13] The surface fleet will not be available for tactical operations during the upcoming Cycle, as it is in the U-Boats At Sea box.

[X4.2] Allied ASW
See 22.4, with the following additions.

[X4.21] Allied ASW may be used only if the Allied Reinforcement marker is at least two Cycles behind its historical value. When playing this option in conjunction with the Allied Production option, ASW is triggered by a -20% modifier in the just completed U-Boats War, rather than falling two cycles behind the historical reinforcement marker.

[X4.22] The Allied Player can use ASW a maximum of two times per year.

[X4.23] APs eliminated for ASW are not available as cadres under the Allied Production option.

Damage is actually quite historical vs the tonnage of MM according to if you build a historical amount of subs.

So lets go down the list of what you guys are or are not doing.

#1 subs in raider mode
#2 subs in and surrounded by all ocean hexes
#3 attacking different convoy routes OR stacking them all up in one zone
#4 occasionally splitting off a sub from a larger for to attack a different zone as part of deception pulling escorts

Ok now to the comment about micro management of subs. This was a debate in my head about how to do this. Originally I wanted something similar to Third Reich. But the naval component of this game is very strong and to exclude managing subs which usually at most would equal 10-12 stacks of groups in 1-3 fleets would be criminal. The management is very minor. Subs also serve a role of ambushing other units and being a cheap patrol in an area for cheezy invasions. Now on the escort side I did abstract it. Between both you have a pretty good fog of war and deception system that keeps players involved. If this game had been mostly land then yea I would have abstracted naval more and strategic warfare. Subs are always a tough gig.

But I will run some simulations today to see what all the hub-ub is about. Could even be something as simple as lowering sub cost.

Personally I have had good success with sub's. Ask Gary.

But I will run some simulations today to see what all the hub-ub is about. Could even be something as simple as lowering sub cost.

Just checking on fuel consumption, an early sub used about 10x that of an early war tank. So a sub unit should use a fraction of that of a Panzer corps.

How about zero fuel for subs ?
I don't think Escorts or other ancillary craft use fuel.

Zero fuel makes the subs too cost effective.

For what it's worth I've been playing around with this for awhile and have played two games where I changed some things in the editor specifically to test the Atlantic War (solo play and for testing). I include a third game with no changes as well.

Game one-solo testing played through Jan 43:
I changed the oil consumption to zero. The outcome was basically Germany had more oil. Not worth it. It takes too much of Germany's fear of oil consumption out of the decision making process.

Game two-solo testing played through Jan 43:
I cut the production cost by half. This felt way more tolerable and I was able to keep up a near historical production schedule that encompassed both conducting an aggressive Atlantic War and prepping and conducting the war in the east. However, I probably actually built slightly too many subs so I'm thinking I cut the production cost a little too much. But it was closer I think.

Game three-PBEM played through Jan 43
No changes made. I went for an intensive sub build. I won the Atlantic sometime in early 42. Brought the UK to her knees. I think I had around 15-20 subs operating in 5 packs on rotation. I solely investing in long range to keep them at sea. I think I used oilers too. What was the trade off? My Luftwaffe was really hurting going into the east. But that sounds about right doesn't it?

I don't know if the Battle of the Atlantic is broken or not. I respect Alvaro for including it. For the Western Allies that battle and the bombing campaign involved far more men and resources than the land campaigns until Overlord. WP's simple shipyard mechanic imposes a limit that I've experienced in naval construction. In the US Army volume Cross Channel Attack the author makes clear landing craft competed with MM and escorts and thus the opening of Overlord depended on victory in the Battle of the Atlantic.

PP 62-63
"The material requirements for landing craft, chiefly steel and marine engines, had to compete with other high priority building programs. The construction of a landing craft fleet in 1942 was completed only by the issuance of emergency directives and the creation of special expediting machinery. When the immediate emergency passed with the successful landings in North Africa, landing craft construction had to give way in the competition for materials to other war production which could claim greater urgency. The President's January list of "must" programs for 1943 omitted landing craft. Escort vessels and merchant shipping were a more immediate necessity. The need for escort vessels, in fact, was considered so urgent in the early months of 1943 that the machinery which had been set up to expedite production of landing craft was diverted to perform the same function for destroyer escorts.The 1942 landing craft program ended as scheduled in February with a record production of 106,146 light displacement
52 Putnam and Livingston, Amphibious Training Command, cited n. 49.
OUTLINE OVERLORD QANUARY-JULY 1943) 63
tons. From then on it declined and in May was stabilized at about 60,000 tons monthly. This figure was carried forward for deliveries during the first half of 1944."

Eisenhower postponed Overlord one month just to get the additional LS tonnage and the navy was pissed that aircraft carrier and other main ship production was halted to build LS for Torch. Whatever WarPlan can do to enhance the naval and air aspects I'm on board with - otherwise might as well just play an East Front game and script the Western Allies in. The term "war plan" arguably applies most to the air and naval campaigns since success was most dependent on planning and administration radio intelligence, and the never ending competition of electronic technologies and doctrine.

The US MM was creamed during the first six months during what the Germans called the happy time. The mayors of American cities would not black out and MM were silhouetted. RAF Bomber Command consistently fought with the RN and Coastal Command over the use of bombers in an anti-submarine role. US B-24s finally were brought in.