Japanese SNLF

[mcaryf]

I mentioned in the play balance thread an idea to treat Japanese Militia units as small elite forces (the IJN Special Naval Landing Forces) instead of large ill-trained units. I do not want to continue the discussion on that thread as it is mainly about other issues so I started this one.

This SNLF treatment means that the transport capacity cost should probably be reduced to 1. These SNLF units were only 1,000 or so strong so minute compared to a typical GGWAW Corps counter. The hitting power of these units should not be great 3 or 4 but perhaps they could have a higher evasion, say, 6, to mean they do not easily get wiped out by air and have to be hunted out of jungles and cornered before they are destroyed.

I have experimented with changing transport cost and that seems to work OK, so an ordinary transport could carry 5 of these units to amphibious assault. It seems to me this is somewhat more elegant than giving the IJN transports an unrealistically high initial amphibious lift capability.

I also experimented with trying to give Light Fleets and subs an ability to carry capacity 1 but unfortunately that did not work. Historically the IJN transported a lot of troops and supplies in warships and that would have been a nice touch to add. However, the concept would really need to be more like the implementation of heavy bombers as transport aircraft with an in, supply, out rather than the sacrificial line of transports currently required.

I presume, since the capacity data fields do not operate on Light Fleets etc, that it requires real work to implement so will not happen.

Ah well back to teching up my long range heavy bombers to act as supply carriers. Hmmm since the Japanese tac bomber is fairly useless perhaps I could mod that one's stats to make it their Betty medium bomber and make the Heavy Bomber initially much longer range but with no bombs etc so it is a long range island supply facility.

Mike

[SeaMonkey]

Why not just get the developers to allow transports to move when loaded with supplies. You could load a single transport and move its allotted distance, subject to enemy op fire, to its destination and unload in a single turn.

In this manner a single transport could simulate a gamble to supply an isolated base. Heck why not allow a combat unit the chance also, maybe it makes it, maybe it doesn't. Definitely you would want to reconnoiter the route first, with a sub perhaps, then exposing the recon unit to possible loss also.

By the way, I think LFs with significant ASW, or any other surface unit for that matter with the elligible ASW tech, should have a chance to op fire at subs moving through their sea zones. Maybe with the requirement of an attending air unit also to call in the surface fleet to the sub's location. Both getting the op fire possibility.

[mcaryf]

Hi SeaMonkey
I would guess the designers were looking for methods to avoid the turn based structure allowing players the chance to rush out supplies then hide their transports away so they could not be attacked during the next players turn. This way there is a nice line of targets to enable an interception. The trouble is that the scale of the game does mean that unrealistically huge quantities of ships have to be used in creating new chains of supply. I guess each transport is representing 50 or so 5,000 ton MS so really large quantities of ships have to be strung out across the ocean to keep one small island in ammo.

All wargames are a compromose between playability and realism. Turn based ones have their own particular problems and the GGWAW solution is quite elegant although obviously one can point out alternatives and anomalies. My post was about increasing the transport capacity in various ways but I guess I was resigned to the idea that you need something like the chain of ships idea to be fair to the second player.

Mike

[toddtreadway]

Maybe an alternative would be to have an inherent number (say four) transport points in every sea zone that could be used each turn. Op-fire would of course apply.

[SeaMonkey]

Well Mike that is a possibility, that of the transport rush/hide. But if op fire is effectively represented by enemy units on patrol, then the transport must run the gauntlet to get to the isolated garrison, real enough?

The opponent is then required to maintain the blockade, while you have a chance to break the blockade with recon and then combat, afterwards sending in your loaded transport.

Remember the running of "The Slot" by the Tokyo Express to resupply/reinforce Guadalcanal, what could be more accurate/historical?

[mcaryf]

I quite like ToddTreadway's idea of inherent transport capacity but I think 4 would be too high - perhaps 1 would be sufficient just so you can keep up the resistance but nothing more unless you mount a major mission and the 1 could not pass through any region containing enemy units. This would give players the opportunity to isolate certain areas but by decision rather than by the default of the opponent not wanting to string out a line of transports to be sunk.

SeaMonkey you are obviously historically correct in your example of Guadalcanal and the Slot, you could also have used the example of Malta convoys. The problem with GGWAW is that the transport unit is just too big as I mentioned in an earlier post when you consider the supplies or units it is meant to ferry then each one is physically 50 or so ships. There were never 50 transports deployed in the slot nor in the Malta convoys - the biggest convoy to Malta (Pedestal) only had 14 MS in it. Yes I know GGWAW covers a period of 3 months but even in the whole 3 months of the Pedestal year (1942) the British never tried to run 50 shiploads in. This problem is compounded with the need for a transport unit in each region leading to the destination. In the case of Malta this would be the two regions between Gib and Malta. Thus GGWAW is asking players to hazard the equivalent of 100 MS to resupply Malta. The problem with your use of just Op Fire to guard the approaches is that it misses out on the battles that occured when both sides at Guadalcanal tried to resupply the same night and you had the interesting series of encounter battles - turn based games just are not good at genuine encounter engagements ie when both sides choose to move into the same area at the same time.

Mike

[SeaMonkey]

Mike, I understand the reality of the situation, that turn base doesn't represent the actuality of simultaneous opposing actions. Specifically it doesn't matter what each unit represents, whether defined by the developers are not, they are just a tool to simulate a function.

Follow me here, imagine...think abstractly, the act of resupply/reinforcement is not dependent on how many, but how much. Three months of pushing single, or multiples of supply containing vessels(not necessarily transports) to a destination to complete a purpose. Could there be 50? Could they be sail baring, fast destroyers, subs, and yes transports also, all costing the same investment PPs?

Its like the rockets in SC being conceptually thought of as artillery. They had a range of hexes, hexes were 50 miles(defined), there was no stacking so they were deployed behind the infantry and tanks. Sure at range 5, there was no battlefield artillery that could fire 250 miles, but they simulated the function, you just imagined they were deployed in the same hex as the ground pounders.

See, I am in agreement of the illogic of risking a string of transports to try and support an isolated garrison, the Malta example you cited just adds to the presumption that it is.

But just as the gamble of the resupply/reinforcement gauntlet needs to be represented, there is also the necessity of the op fire mechanism to neutralize it...that chance encounter that you suggest. Don't commit to the actual sequence of events as the game reflects, just imagine that it is actions...reactions, occurring simultaneously/sequentially in that 3 month turn, but could actually be only a few brief moments, over and over again.

[mcaryf]

Hi SeaMonkey

I do understand your point about the cumulative effect of several attempts to run supplies through a blockade. I still think the difficulty is that in GGWAW you might have to position a ring of warships to try to ensure the blockade runner does not get through. This enables the phasing player to attack the ring at one point and smash through. In reality recce or intelligence would typically have allowed the blockader to concentrate force to oppose the break-in.

I guess your Op Fire goes some way to place a cost on this tactic but I think the phasing player still has a big advantage unless he is compelled (as in GGWAW) to leave some hostages to fortune on which his opponent can reak his revenge.

Regards

Mike

[SGT Rice]

I'd like to chime in with an idea from the play balance thread a few days ago: what if each player had a limited capability to "make change" with his transports, i.e., divide one transport unit into (a maximum of 30) smaller units. This would required no changes to the existing movement/combat routines, preserving the current methods of interdicting sealanes, but allowing you to resupply a remote garrison with a single supply point by risking a realistic amount of shipping, instead of exposing half your merchant fleet to destruction.

[mcaryf]

Hi Sgt Rice
I think your idea would work but I presume would need some modification to the existing code and the possibility of 30 mini units would add a little complexity to the game. Something along these lines could be done within the existing code by just over doubling the starting allocation of transports (I presume this is not hard to do) and changing each one's carrying capacity to 10 normal and 2 amphibious assault. I suppose the costs to replair/replace could not be changed without code but perhaps this would slow down the WALLIES - after all they were at a huge stretch to land 5 divisions at D Day. The population cost of building extra transports would be an issue but effectively players would be getting extra population through the larger number of starting units, it would be their problem if they let them all get sunk!

Mike

[WanderingHead]

SGT Rice,

Excellent idea. Although maybe 30 transports with capacity of 1 is too extreme.

I've not tinkered with the game files, but thinking about mcaryf's response it seems likely that you could easily get part way there. Cut transport capacity in half, make them take 1 pop and 1 production point to build, and voila you have twice the transport capacity "resolution".

I may be missing something, but it seems like a really good idea to me. The only problem I foresee is that transport capacity research may be twice as fast. Is there a way around that problem?

[Lebatron]

The problem I see with reducing transport capacity and increasing their number is the reduction in impact that subs will have. For that matter other warships too. If one transport became 2 or anything up to 30 the sinking of one by a sub will have a smaller impact. This solution therefore kills subs. Subs would have to be split in parts equal to the number of times transports are split so the ratio stays the same.

I think the transports function just fine. I see no problem with having to make the hard decision whether to resupply some island and risk a transport or not to. Thats what makes it a strategy game.

[mcaryf]

Hi Lebatron

I do think you are right in raising the possibility of issues with subs from splitting up transports but it is not precisely the one you mention.

First I do not think it will be possible via simple mods to make the transport only cost 1 pop point and 1 FP. Thus there might be twice as many transports to start with but sinking them still causes the WALLIES or IJN just as much grief with respect to replacing them.

The issue I see is that twice as many transports will have 2 x the ASW capability unless that too is altered. I do not know if a value like ASW can be set to zero but that would be my suggestion. Thus there are twice as many transports to start, they have reduced transport capability but they have no ASW and cost as much to repair or replace. There are some issues re play balance to look at e.g the freed population from damaged transports might be exploited elsewhere but I think this approach has some possibilities. The key thing is that it gives the players, and principally the Axis, some additional flexibility in the way they deploy their transport capacity. It seems to me that this is quite reasonable compared to history and the removal of ASW is also realistic as in practice transports did not actually have any.

I am still a bit unhappy about the way the game has to accomodate the initial IJN capacity to mount lots of small invasions by giving their ships an unrealistic amphibious assault lift capacity which they did not have irl. My preferred solution to that is to reduce the transport capacity requirement of militia to 1, 2 or 3 so that the IJN can initially whip these units around the place with their transports that have had their lift reduced to 2 or 3. I would, as this thread title, says classify these militia as SNLF units and give them a low attack capability but a high evasion. This way they can take undefended islands and hang about causing a nuisance until overwhelmed with massive numbers (but not just airpower). It seems to me this is just what Japanese units did.

When I have time I shall start playing around with modding unit values, starting forces etc and see what might be possible.

It seems that GGWAW is designed to allow us to do that so I will be able to experiment with my ideas whilst others can use their own variations. This way the replayability is excellent.

Mike