Realism and naval battle

[Gilber]

Hi,

If I have understood correctly in naval combat when a surface unit (Battleship, Battle cruiser, etc.) attacks an enemy surface unit in a port the combat is treated as a resource attack and naval losses are rather treated as collateral damage.

It is a pity that the attacker cannot choose the type of attack (a bit like the Carriers who can choose between Fighter and naval/Tactical).

For the unit in the port the losses are often small and the probability of loss inflicted is often low (10% or 20%).

While in reality it is quite the opposite. A unit immobilized in a port that would be attacked by an enemy surface unit is disadvantaged (immobile it is an easy target) and suffers significant damage (such as the Catapult operation mentioned in the Events).

So in this case it might be more realistic that the attacking unit is an attack bonus and the surface unit in the port a negative defense bonus, or both.

What do the "Experten" and game designers think about it?

[Sugar]

Did you notice that attacked ships in ports don`t retaliate?

[Gilber]

Yes Sugar, you're right. Ships in ports don't fight back.

But for ships in a port I would suggest rather than an action at sea:
they can retaliate but with a weaker attack (it could be readyness weaker)
and they suffer more damage (it could be a negative defensive bonus).

the problem also arises for aircraft carriers, I'm not sure it's very realistic for an aircraft carrier to launch an air action when it's immobilized in a port?

[Ktonos]

What I would like to see is an option for a Medium bomber to attack the resource value of a city even if it contains a unit.

[Gilber]

Yes ktonos, you are right.
i think it's the same concept.

If we accept the idea that on a tile there may be two différent target; a resource and a military unit that is attacked by a unit that can potentially attack both, we must leave the choice to the attacker.

I think that the idea of providing medium bombers with strategic capability is realistic if we consider that the luftwaffe has carried out strategic raids (on london and coventry for example) with medium bombers.

of course these changes may change the balance of the game and it may be necessary to modify at the same time the build limits.

[lkendter]

Same for ships hitting a port. If a ship got close enough to port, the docked ship would be toast.

I've had CV planes hit the port, not the ships. Haven't we heard of Pearl Harbor?

[Sugar]

Carriers don`t attack the ressource on naval/tac, and subs are also targeting ships. War ports are heavily defended, there's a reason why neither Japan nor GB used their Battleships to attack Taranto or Pearl Harbour, but their cvs.

Surface vessels shouldn't be able to attack ships in ports at all, in case they are the defenders should be able to retaliate.

[TheBattlefield]

ORIGINAL: Sugar

Carriers don`t attack the ressource on naval/tac, and subs are also targeting ships. War ports are heavily defended, there's a reason why neither Japan nor GB used their Battleships to attack Taranto or Pearl Harbour, but their cvs.

Surface vessels shouldn't be able to attack ships in ports at all, in case they are the defenders should be able to retaliate.

+1

...but perhaps not all ports should be heavily defended automatically and accordingly we could think about expansions (submarine bunker) and further research upgrades (coastal artillery, naval defense) for ports.


[8D]

[Gilber]

ORIGINAL: Sugar

Carriers don`t attack the ressource on naval/tac, and subs are also targeting ships. War ports are heavily defended, there's a reason why neither Japan nor GB used their Battleships to attack Taranto or Pearl Harbour, but their cvs.

Surface vessels shouldn't be able to attack ships in ports at all, in case they are the defenders should be able to retaliate.

it's true that Taranto and Pearl Harbor were attacks with carriers.

it was the most effective way to surprise and destroy a fleet in a port, probably for the main reason of the surprise effect.

an admiral who has the choice between an attack with carriers and an attack with vessels will most certainly choose an attack with carriers, but that does not mean that an attack with vessels is not effective and it certainly does not mean that an attack with vessels is impossible.

Moreover, port attacks with vessels is a historical reality such as Operation Catapult. The result was for the French fleet (1 battleship sunk and 2 battleships almost totally destroyed and other ships destroyed or sunk) losses comparable (perhaps even superior) to Operation Judgment in Taranto.

why not let the attacker (with vessels) choose between attacking the installations or targeting the ships?

[Sugar]

A surprise attack against a neutral nation isn't probably the best example for such an attack as you`re describing, they also had a carrier, and the frenchmen did indeed fire back, like during Operation "Menace", which was a failure.

[Gilber]

ORIGINAL: TheBattlefield

ORIGINAL: Sugar

Carriers don`t attack the ressource on naval/tac, and subs are also targeting ships. War ports are heavily defended, there's a reason why neither Japan nor GB used their Battleships to attack Taranto or Pearl Harbour, but their cvs.

Surface vessels shouldn't be able to attack ships in ports at all, in case they are the defenders should be able to retaliate.

+1

...but perhaps not all ports should be heavily defended automatically and accordingly we could think about expansions (submarine bunker) and further research upgrades (coastal artillery, naval defense) for ports.


[8D]

having the possibility to build submarine bunkers like the Germans did may be interesting.

[Gilber]

ORIGINAL: Sugar

A surprise attack against a neutral nation isn't probably the best example for such an attack as you`re describing, they also had a carrier, and the frenchmen did indeed fire back, like during Operation "Menace", which was a failure.

Sugar, I agree each confrontation is different and you certainly have to go into more detail to understand.

for example:

operation catapult was not really a surprise operation because the french knew perfectly well the presence of the english since the morning while the major action took place on July 3rd just before 6pm. the english had even issued an ultimatum.

when the English battleships opened fire the result was almost immediately catastrophic (battleship Bretagne sunk in 3mm) almost all the damage came from heavy calibre fire that lasted only 15 to 20 mm.

the aircraft of the HMS Ark Royal did almost not intervene at that time but on July 6.

for Operation Menace it is a very different situation (the firing between battleships was marginal in the confrontation mainly for reasons of fog).

I'm just saying a ship in a port should be able to fire cannon on ships and the damage should be potentially significant.[:)]

[Sugar]

So why didn´t such attacks happen more often when it's that easy to sink warships in their ports? Because that's usually not the case due to their heavy defense.

In this game there aren't any war ports, and you cannot place more than one ship in any of them. You also won`t be able to leave the port, like the french did during catapult.

You`re demanding to make those attacks more easy than they already are, I'm demanding the opposite or at least the opportunity to retaliate. May someone else decide which option is more realistic.

[Gilber]

sugar, you are much more experienced than I am on this game,
if you tell me that making vessels in port vulnerable to attacks from other vessels would deteriorate the balance of the game. I understand.

I was just saying that for someone who discovers the game it's hard to understand that you can attack a ship directly in a port with a Carier or a submarine but with a battleship you can only attack the installations and possibly as collateral damage with a low probability you can hit the ship in the port.

if we could attack a ship in a port with a battleship it would of course make sense for the ship at dock to retaliate. (probably a weaker response).

undoubtedly a large part of the problem comes from the fact that we can only put one vessel per tile which is not very realistic.

[TheBattlefield]

ORIGINAL: Gilber

if you tell me that making vessels in port vulnerable to attacks from other vessels would deteriorate the balance of the game. I understand.

What fate would the Regio Marina expect after the declaration of war, if their ships could be attacked with full "hit and run" force in the undefended ports? What about the German North Sea ports and the occupied channal ports? Would they still be usable?

And would all of this be more realistic in the historical context and in terms of game balance than the simplifying circumstance that warships primarily attack a resource and secondarily the unit inside the port?

undoubtedly a large part of the problem comes from the fact that we can only put one vessel per tile which is not very realistic.

...which problem causes the thankful renouncement of a confusing and game dynamics paralyzing unit stacking? [:D]

[Sugar]

First point: realism. Apart from catapult and Casablanca such attacks didn't happen for a reason. The reasons are heavily defended warports and that one simply can't place a surface fleet in striking range without the enemy's notice; there are many other ships and boats trafficing and of course patrols. Next point is retaliation, both french fleets returned fire.

Stacking isn't an issue at all, because you can move, attack, and move again.

Next point: balancing. Until my latest games just a few of my opponents used their RN and french ships to attack the RM in their ports, if they tried to they weren't successfull, except the latests attempts. Allthough I think the player should be able to use the french fleet at his will, the surviving of the RM shouldn't be a matter of good or bad luck like the 10-20% chance of collateral damage. There's no realistic way to protect the RM other than to place them in ports, and no possibility to provide air cover against 4-5 cvs.

The whole naval combat needs an urgent overhaul, the issue is that a fleet itself isn't able to scout. Extend the scouting range of coastal regions to 3, and give the smaller vessels more scouting range according to their size. That's what they're for, screening.

[demyansk]

Curious, any chance Axis can get a hold of French ships?