On the subject of naval interdiction

Gary Grigsby’s War in the West 1943-45 is the most ambitious and detailed computer wargame on the Western Front of World War II ever made. Starting with the Summer 1943 invasions of Sicily and Italy and proceeding through the invasions of France and the drive into Germany, War in the West brings you all the Allied campaigns in Western Europe and the capability to re-fight the Western Front according to your plan.

Moderators: Joel Billings, RedLancer

Post Reply
User avatar
Seminole
Posts: 2237
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 12:56 am

On the subject of naval interdiction

Post by Seminole »

I just wanted to pull this out into its own thread, because I think a lot of what we've seen that seems 'wrong' with he game revolves around this aspect (note: haven't played with it much since the latest public beta)
Interesting discussion, I'm going to stay on the theory side a bit. The question, for example, about massing the Luftwaffe shouldn't necessarily be should they from a recreation of historical events point of view, (could the Germans have done it, and would they, and should we let it happen in a game ... is the game historical or historical when it starts but allows exploration of other options) but to my mind whether massing that many bombers in one area should tax the logistics system more than it does? Perhaps the Allies could have done it, but could Germany have done it?

ie. are we asking for the correct component to be fixed?

And if they could then great; please focus on the my point that we must fix the disease not the symptom. Stay out of the weeds.

It's really this last comment that got me thinking. Does naval interdiction 'need' to be a player created air directive?
I've only played the WA up to the Battleground Italy scenario and you don't have the full weight of WA naval patrol aircraft. You won't see auto naval interdiction in the 7-9 range. But the Germans lose most of their aircraft early on to withdrawal, so it doesn't really matter. And it seems more 'right'.

If naval patrol were handled by the AI (you simply made the doctrine changes to determine which groups would or would not participate), the player could still influence concentration by placement of naval patrol assets, but I think we'd get a more balanced result.

Maybe it has been nerfed enough to be moot, I have a couple of Axis games going so I should know shortly, but the way it worked pre-.21 seemed to help the Axis and hurt the Allies, when I would think the preponderance of assets should lead things the other way.

The other thing that makes it hard for me to make judgements from the AARs of others is not knowing how efficaciously the air assets are being employed on either side.
I see 'WTF?' moments in AARs, and sometimes even from my opponents.
"War is never a technical problem only, and if in pursuing technical solutions you neglect the psychological and the political, then the best technical solutions will be worthless." - Hermann Balck
Smirfy
Posts: 1057
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 8:24 pm

RE: On the subject of naval interdiction

Post by Smirfy »

In the Italian scenario you can have every single aircraft on naval patrol and you still lose a mountain of transports. As soon as you leave port oh dear you just lost a transport. . That is against no Luftwaffe. And little remaining Axis ports. Each turn you lose transports. It's as if Convoys never existed. you stay static in Italy and you still lose any number of transports a turn. IM not talking about invaisions here just day to day loses before you know it you have 50,000 dead. It's is a mechanic that was thought up in 5 minutes
User avatar
Seminole
Posts: 2237
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 12:56 am

RE: On the subject of naval interdiction

Post by Seminole »

Allied monthly loss summary for Med.

'43
Jan - 14 British or Allied merchant ships of 48,000 tons
Feb - 14 British or Allied merchant ships of 53,000 tons
Mar - 16 British or Allied merchant ships of 86,000 tons
Apr - 6 British or Allied merchant ships of 14,000 tons
May - 6 British or Allied merchant ships of 32,000 tons
Jun - 7 British or Allied merchant ships of 25,000 tons
Jul - 14 British or Allied merchant ships of 80,000 tons
Aug - 11 British or Allied merchant ships of 43,000 tons
Sep - 11 British or Allied merchant ships of 52,000 tons
Oct - 9 British or Allied merchant ships of 46,000 tons
Nov - 10 British or Allied merchant ships of 68,000 tons
Dec - 18 British or Allied merchant ships of 83,000 tons

'44
Jan - 5 British or Allied merchant ships of 31,000 tons
Feb - 8 British or Allied merchant ships of 36,000 tons
Mar - 5 British or Allied merchant ships of 41,000 tons
Apr - 5 British or Allied merchant ships of 34,000 tons
May - 2 British or Allied merchant ships of 10,000 tons
Jun - 1 British or Allied merchant ship of 2,000 tons
Jul - No Allied merchant ships were lost.
Aug - 1 small merchant ship was lost
Sep - 1 merchant ship of 1,400 tons
Oct - 1 merchant ship of 3,000 tons
Nov - Only one small Allied merchant ship was lost in the Mediterranean through to the end of the war.

So that's 136 in '43 and only 29 sunk in '44, presuming this link is accurate.
"War is never a technical problem only, and if in pursuing technical solutions you neglect the psychological and the political, then the best technical solutions will be worthless." - Hermann Balck
Smirfy
Posts: 1057
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 8:24 pm

RE: On the subject of naval interdiction

Post by Smirfy »

The link is accurate if it that site and the main thing is very very few were transports
marion61
Posts: 1706
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 10:57 am

RE: On the subject of naval interdiction

Post by marion61 »

That's not because of your Naval AD that that happens. Those are shipping losses that are going to occur from u-boats and e-craft in the Med. The higher you raise your naval interdiction on the way to the destination, the less you'll suffer from this. Watch were most of your sinkings occur, if your only moving the TF or units 4 hexes at a time you'll see where they get hit at. Usually it's in a lower interdiction zone, but it can happen in a level 9 hex also.

The naval system is fine, it's just the amount of transports sunk that needed a look at. If you set up your naval correctly, and have them close to support any invasion, you won't get kicked off or beaten back. It works, trust me. You can't think of naval in terms of I have 3 times more planes than the axis so why do I lose naval control? Well if your 3 planes can only get there once a day, and his one plane 3 times a day, then he has parity. Add one more plane to his and he wins, and you would need 3 more planes to get parity back. You run out of planes. Naval is about how many sorties you put up, not about how many planes. The closer your are to your beaches, the more sorties you'll get. Simple fact. Setting the AD up is also important to max your sorties out.
Smirfy
Posts: 1057
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 8:24 pm

RE: On the subject of naval interdiction

Post by Smirfy »

Your posting is very informative but I have had a fundamentally different experience. In one game I did full on Naval Patrolling in another I did minimal. I lost less in the minimal. Fair enough it was the Italian scenario were you don't have the wealth of resource of the grand campaign but you do learn a lot about efficiency. Patrolling, doctrinally and automatically just attrited your Air Force Into the bargain. I'll paraphrase that it's better not bothering, that's sad there should be a great abstract game in there but there is not.

Losses are always going to spike at invaisions no problem with that whatsoever but the rest as it stands, it's just a turn to turn arbitrary tax with no downside for the Axis. Like I said convoys negated most losses when the campaign turned mundane in 44. Mines are an inshore weapon, E Boats are coastal craft and Torpedo Bombers existed only in specialist squadrons on either side. and U Boats, Uboats in 44 if they were not getting sunk they were running out of bases. like I said no downside it's just an arbitrary square on a monopoly board when a transport WHICH YOU CANNOT ROUTE and have no control of lands on and is sunk.

The mechanic is even more bizarre when German units evacuate past your TF's ?????

As an aside why can't AA when put in ports help adjacent squares with values?
marion61
Posts: 1706
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 10:57 am

RE: On the subject of naval interdiction

Post by marion61 »

I'm putting up a pic of what I faced on DDay in Calais. He had just unfortunately moved a fair sized panzer division in the area, but at least he wasn't expecting me. This is the hardest invasion I've ever done, but I'm ashore now, several turns later, there was never a question of getting naval control, and his attacks didn't start until D+2, so it was touch and go, but air power rules the battle field. Troops are there to take the ground. I'm killing over 20k troops of his just from bombs every turn, way more than infantry attacks can do. All he can do now is hang on and delay my break out. It's all about the synergy of the air war, and I'm not sure the scenarios really reflect the capabilities of the campaign game.

I almost wet myself when I saw this. I hadn't shot recon in several turns here until the invasion turn, and Ike said screw it we're going.

Image
Attachments
toughinvasion.jpg
toughinvasion.jpg (177.2 KiB) Viewed 109 times
User avatar
Seminole
Posts: 2237
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 12:56 am

RE: On the subject of naval interdiction

Post by Seminole »

Naval is about how many sorties you put up, not about how many planes.

It's also about what you use, not just the number of sorties.
I've seen mega naval interdiction from Catalina's, etc (haven't played a WA campaign with them, so I speak from the opposing side on these beasts).

The B-24s that start in the Med are good too, with good reason since they are intended to represent a group that was intended for convoy escort and anti-submarine patrol (they were even outfitted with surface search radars, but I'm not sure if that mod is represented in the game).

B-25s are also kick ass.

I don't understand mine loadouts. They just seem worse than bombs, which is counter intuitive.
"War is never a technical problem only, and if in pursuing technical solutions you neglect the psychological and the political, then the best technical solutions will be worthless." - Hermann Balck
User avatar
Belphegor
Posts: 1541
Joined: Mon May 10, 2004 2:03 am

RE: On the subject of naval interdiction

Post by Belphegor »

ORIGINAL: Seminole



I don't understand mine loadouts. They just seem worse than bombs, which is counter intuitive.


An assumption on my part:

I don't find it counter-intuitive; I'll try to explain why
A mine is a passive weapon. You rely on the enemy to blunder into it. Or, it can be used to deny an area if there's a fear of mines about.
Bombs on the other hand can be placed at the right place at the right time (and hopefully hit something). So rather than sowing 1000 mines hoping for a hit you can probably get more hits from 1000 bombs. They are more effective. And more immediately effective.
I couldn't possibly guess at the math for effectiveness if you want to factor in the mines linger thus are effective longer approach.

Dropping a bomb on someone may make them think twice about continuing and facing more bombs. Whereas a mine may not even be noticed at all.
marion61
Posts: 1706
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 10:57 am

RE: On the subject of naval interdiction

Post by marion61 »

Wait till the first time you have all your bombers with mines and torpedos, and have them do a ground attack and forget to change load outs lol. It took me a few minutes to figure out what I'd done, or hadn't done.
User avatar
Q-Ball
Posts: 7314
Joined: Tue Jun 25, 2002 4:43 pm
Location: Chicago, Illinois

RE: On the subject of naval interdiction

Post by Q-Ball »

ORIGINAL: meklore61

I'm putting up a pic of what I faced on DDay in Calais. He had just unfortunately moved a fair sized panzer division in the area, but at least he wasn't expecting me. This is the hardest invasion I've ever done, but I'm ashore now, several turns later, there was never a question of getting naval control, and his attacks didn't start until D+2, so it was touch and go, but air power rules the battle field. Troops are there to take the ground. I'm killing over 20k troops of his just from bombs every turn, way more than infantry attacks can do. All he can do now is hang on and delay my break out. It's all about the synergy of the air war, and I'm not sure the scenarios really reflect the capabilities of the campaign game.

I almost wet myself when I saw this. I hadn't shot recon in several turns here until the invasion turn, and Ike said screw it we're going.

Image

That looks familiar![:D] Your pilots missed the Para Division and SS Panzer in Amiens.

Looked alot better for the Reich 6 weeks ago.....
marion61
Posts: 1706
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 10:57 am

RE: On the subject of naval interdiction

Post by marion61 »

Okay, I wasn't going to name names Q, but now you've forced my hand. Here's about a month and a week after my invasion. July 1, '44[:)]. I also have another loaded gun (invasion), planned for somewhere soon.[;)] lol

Image
Attachments
20150226_11h10_43.jpg
20150226_11h10_43.jpg (167.91 KiB) Viewed 109 times
Smirfy
Posts: 1057
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 8:24 pm

RE: On the subject of naval interdiction

Post by Smirfy »

Whats the best Altitude for Naval interdiction?
User avatar
Seminole
Posts: 2237
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 12:56 am

RE: On the subject of naval interdiction

Post by Seminole »

I don't find it counter-intuitive; I'll try to explain why

What I mean is, why include a mine load-out if it is less effective at the one thing you would use it for in the game?
You rely on the enemy to blunder into it. Or, it can be used to deny an area if there's a fear of mines about.

They also offer a superior 'loiter time' compared to air assets carrying bombs. You always have to worry about the mine, day or night, rain or shine.

I don't know if the naval patrol algorithm weighs mines for their other advantages specific to the role, or if its just an X size explosive, but it surprised me to see it put up worse results than a bomb load.
"War is never a technical problem only, and if in pursuing technical solutions you neglect the psychological and the political, then the best technical solutions will be worthless." - Hermann Balck
User avatar
Fallschirmjager
Posts: 3555
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2002 12:46 am
Location: Chattanooga, Tennessee

RE: On the subject of naval interdiction

Post by Fallschirmjager »

ORIGINAL: Seminole
I don't find it counter-intuitive; I'll try to explain why

What I mean is, why include a mine load-out if it is less effective at the one thing you would use it for in the game?


[&:]

So your saying that my tactic of trying to use mines as air to air weapons will not work? [:(]
User avatar
Belphegor
Posts: 1541
Joined: Mon May 10, 2004 2:03 am

RE: On the subject of naval interdiction

Post by Belphegor »

Fair enough. And a good question.

ORIGINAL: Seminole

What I mean is, why include a mine load-out if it is less effective at the one thing you would use it for in the game?

They also offer a superior 'loiter time' compared to air assets carrying bombs. You always have to worry about the mine, day or night, rain or shine.

I don't know if the naval patrol algorithm weighs mines for their other advantages specific to the role, or if its just an X size explosive, but it surprised me to see it put up worse results than a bomb load.
Post Reply

Return to “Gary Grigsby's War in the West”