Matrix Games Forums

To End All Wars: Artillery Battle Academy 2: Eastern Front - End of Early Access Space Program Manager unveils its multiplayer modes Another update for Commander: The Great War!Distant Worlds: Universe gets a new updateDeal of the Week: Eagle Day to Bombing the Reich Advanced Tactics Gold is coming to SteamMatrix Games now speaks German!A little bit of history with To End All WarsBattle Academy 2 gets a release date!
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Subs!

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> Scenario Design >> RE: Subs! Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 4 [5]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Subs! - 11/19/2007 10:25:35 PM   
Veers


Posts: 1324
Joined: 6/6/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

I'll also note that against naval units, submarines really couldn't be directed to engage particular targets. Too slow and too blind. The Royal Oak is about the only major warship I can think of that was sunk as a result of a specific plan. All the others -- Ark Royal, Yorktown, Barham, Indianapolis, that late-war Japanese carrier -- were more or less good (or bad,depending on how you look at it) luck.

So there is at least one argument against having submarines as player-controlled, on map units. It implies an ability to direct planned attacks against specific vessels -- and such an ability doesn't seem to have existed.

Unless, as in some scenarii, such as EA, there are several ships in a unit, making it more like the 'luck' that it was historically,

_____________________________

To repeat history in a game is to be predictable.
If you wish to learn more about EA, feel free to pop over to the EA forums Europe Aflame Forums.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 121
RE: Subs! - 11/20/2007 11:17:52 AM   
golden delicious


Posts: 4638
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Veers

Unless, as in some scenarii, such as EA, there are several ships in a unit, making it more like the 'luck' that it was historically,


Even then, you're choosing to hit that unit rather than another. In EA, some units have carriers and some don't. You're also choosing to hit warships rather than merchant ships. You're directly engaging en masse, which is just not how submarines fought.

_____________________________

"Event 902: Bob Cross slays dragons!"

http://www.savemstateathletics.com/tdg/

(in reply to Veers)
Post #: 122
RE: Subs! - 11/20/2007 7:33:05 PM   
Veers


Posts: 1324
Joined: 6/6/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious


quote:

ORIGINAL: Veers

Unless, as in some scenarii, such as EA, there are several ships in a unit, making it more like the 'luck' that it was historically,


Even then, you're choosing to hit that unit rather than another.

True.

quote:


In EA, some units have carriers and some don't. You're also choosing to hit warships rather than merchant ships. You're directly engaging en masse, which is just not how submarines fought.

*scratches head* So wolfpacks never attacked squadrons of enemy warships, only convoys of merchants (with/without escorts)?

_____________________________

To repeat history in a game is to be predictable.
If you wish to learn more about EA, feel free to pop over to the EA forums Europe Aflame Forums.

(in reply to golden delicious)
Post #: 123
RE: Subs! - 11/20/2007 7:47:35 PM   
vahauser


Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline
The primary mission of submarines is to sink enemy ships.  The most useful mission of submarines is to disrupt supply convoys.  However, there are many instances where submarines attacked and sank enemy warships when no supply convoys were around.

If I were the admiral in charge of submarine operations my standing orders would read something like: 
Attack supply transports wherever possible.  Use discretion when attacking enemy warships, but the priority is to attack supply transports if possible.  Do not engage enemy warships if it will compromise your ability to attack supply transports.

Those orders would give my submarine commanders some flexibility, but it would also make clear what the most important priority was.

My reading of history is that most submarine commanders realized that enemy warships were not as high a priority as enemy transports.  But most submarine commanders were also aggressive enough to take advantage of whatever opportunity presented itself.  And if that meant attacking warships as targets of opportunity, then that is what they would do.  That is my interpretation of history (talking WW1 and WW2 here).


(in reply to Veers)
Post #: 124
RE: Subs! - 11/20/2007 8:04:43 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2600
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Veers



*scratches head* So wolfpacks never attacked squadrons of enemy warships, only convoys of merchants (with/without escorts)?


I don't think 'wolfpacks' ever did target enemy warships unless they were part of the convoy's escort. With the exception of Prien's penetration of Scapa Flow, U-boat sinkings of warships were more or less blind luck. Literally, 'oh look at that: a battleship! Quick -- take a shot.'

Even with the Japanese -- whose submarines did target warships -- sinkings were more or less random. Submarines are too slow, have a very limited range of sight, and can't keep chattering back and forth with fleet about where things are and where they are if they want to remain undetected. So they're sort of like typhoons -- sometimes sink ships, but the process isn't really under anyone's control.

Now, I can see why Erik wants submarine units, and that he's gotten them is interesting, but I really don't think units are the way to go with submarines, generally speaking. In OPART, the event engine handles their effect better.

I think we have to avoid the 'Medieval Total War' syndrome. Yes, 'diplomat' units are nice, and so are 'merchant' units -- but are such discrete counters really the best way of modeling the effect if serious simulation is what we're after? I don't particularly want an OPART with 'staff' units and 'intelligence' units -- and 'submarine' units. It might be more entertaining -- but it would be worse simulation.


< Message edited by ColinWright -- 11/20/2007 8:08:03 PM >


_____________________________

"...this country belongs to us, to the white man."

-- Israeli Interior Minister Eli Yishai, interview published on 6/3/2012. Interesting world.

(in reply to Veers)
Post #: 125
RE: Subs! - 11/20/2007 8:08:16 PM   
Veers


Posts: 1324
Joined: 6/6/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright


quote:

ORIGINAL: Veers



*scratches head* So wolfpacks never attacked squadrons of enemy warships, only convoys of merchants (with/without escorts)?


I don't think 'wolfpacks' ever did target enemy warships unless they were part of the convoy's escort. With the exception of Prien's penetration of Scapa Flow, U-boat sinkings of warships were more or less blind luck. Literally, 'oh look at that: a battleship! Quick -- take a shot.'

Even with the Japanese -- whose submarines did target warships -- sinkings were more or less random. Submarines are too slow, have a very limited range of sight, and can't keep chattering back and forth with fleet about where things are and where they are if they want to remain undetected. So they're sort of like typhoons -- sometimes sink ships, but the process isn't under anyone's control.

Now, I can see why Erik wants submarine units, and that he's gotten them is interesting, but I really don't think units are the way to go with submarines, generally speaking. In OPART, the event engine handles their effect better.

I think we have to avoid the 'Medieval Total War' syndrome. Yes, 'diplomat' units are nice, and so are 'merchant' units -- but are such discrete counters really the best way of modeling the effect if serious simulation is what we're after. I don't particularly want an OPART with 'staff' units and 'intelligence' units -- and 'submarine' units. It might be more entertaining -- but it would be worse simulation.



Works for me. My question was a real question. I have very limited naval warfare knowledge. Have Donitz's memoirs (among other naval history books) on the shelf, but I haven't gotten to read it, yet.

_____________________________

To repeat history in a game is to be predictable.
If you wish to learn more about EA, feel free to pop over to the EA forums Europe Aflame Forums.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 126
RE: Subs! - 11/20/2007 10:21:25 PM   
Szilard

 

Posts: 236
Joined: 1/3/2001
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser

My reading of history is that most submarine commanders realized that enemy warships were not as high a priority as enemy transports.  But most submarine commanders were also aggressive enough to take advantage of whatever opportunity presented itself.  And if that meant attacking warships as targets of opportunity, then that is what they would do.  That is my interpretation of history (talking WW1 and WW2 here).




Different navies had different different doctrines, of course. In fact, AFAIK US Navy doctrine was pretty similar to Japanese up until 1944: the focus was warships. By the time this was published: http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/ss-doc-1.htm it was out of date, and the hugely successful commerce war was starting. But I think it gives the flavor of what submarines were supposed to be for, up until then.


(in reply to vahauser)
Post #: 127
RE: Subs! - 11/21/2007 3:29:21 AM   
a white rabbit


Posts: 2364
Joined: 4/27/2002
From: ..under deconstruction..6N124E..
Status: offline
..Japanese submarine doctrine was use as a supplemement to a battle fleet, a tactical combat and recon arm, not as a strategic ie anti-merchant shipping arm. It remained so thru the war, the at-start submarines dictated this but new builds largely followed the same idea..

..the US submarines started  in a tactical role but very quickly switched to a strategic role, quickly being mid to late 43. The at-start were mostly short range but new-builds were given increasing range/patrol radius, eventually turning the China Sea into a US sub lake..

..the German subs started as mostly short-range, ie North Sea patrol range but they evolved very quickly to permit extended range use in the Atlantic and further. Doctrine was mostly sink anything but convoys got priority..

..the British subs were mostly short range at start, North Sea patrol area and as a tactical Fleet support arm, with a sink anything doctrine. They had some range extension in new-builds but never up to US ranges, and remained basically on a sink anything doctrine, if only because of a lack of merchant targets..

< Message edited by a white rabbit -- 11/21/2007 3:39:54 AM >


_____________________________

..toodA, irmAb moAs'lyB 'exper'mentin'..,..beān'tus all..?,

(in reply to Szilard)
Post #: 128
RE: Subs! - 11/21/2007 10:07:36 PM   
Erik Nygaard

 

Posts: 564
Joined: 11/2/2000
From: Oslo, Norway
Status: offline
I think I've arrived with a set of equipment/supply values that are reasonable.
For the subs to work I've come up with these house rules, please comment.

1) Subs may only attack enemy vessels that are adjacent at the start of the turn.
(This will prevent them from hunting surface vessels nilly-willy around the map).

2) Surface vessels must attack revealed subs that are adjacent at the start of the turn.
(Since the defender fires first this should give the sub a reasonable change to sink an enemy ship).

3) Surface vessels may not attack subs that are invisible (considered undetected).
(This means that only subs actively moving next to enemy vessels will create an engagement).

4) Surface ships may not attack subs directly using ranged bombardment.
(Other ships may move next to the revealed sub and participate in the engagement).

5) Seatransports may not disengage from a revealed sub.
(This means that the player can't move any seatransports out of harm's way without sinking the sub first).

< Message edited by Erik Nygaard -- 11/21/2007 11:09:13 PM >

(in reply to Erik Nygaard)
Post #: 129
RE: Subs! - 2/2/2008 6:22:46 AM   
cymloveselva

 

Posts: 31
Joined: 1/26/2008
Status: offline
Great & heavy thread!
By the way, I didn't see any submarine equipment in the Editor... Please correct me if I'm wrong...

(in reply to Erik Nygaard)
Post #: 130
RE: Subs! - 2/2/2008 7:02:15 AM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2600
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: cymloveselva

Great & heavy thread!
By the way, I didn't see any submarine equipment in the Editor... Please correct me if I'm wrong...


No...there isn't any. You could try coming up with something -- but I think the event engine is the best way of handling submarines. When it came to military units, the sinkings were largely random. No one ever said, 'go sink the Scharnhorst' -- and voila, there were six submarine attacks on the Scharnhorst.


_____________________________

"...this country belongs to us, to the white man."

-- Israeli Interior Minister Eli Yishai, interview published on 6/3/2012. Interesting world.

(in reply to cymloveselva)
Post #: 131
RE: Subs! - 2/2/2008 9:00:13 AM   
a white rabbit


Posts: 2364
Joined: 4/27/2002
From: ..under deconstruction..6N124E..
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright


quote:

ORIGINAL: cymloveselva

Great & heavy thread!
By the way, I didn't see any submarine equipment in the Editor... Please correct me if I'm wrong...


No...there isn't any. You could try coming up with something -- but I think the event engine is the best way of handling submarines. When it came to military units, the sinkings were largely random. No one ever said, 'go sink the Scharnhorst' -- and voila, there were six submarine attacks on the Scharnhorst.



..agreed, if it's not a specifically submarine scen and so using a complete BioEd mod, then really the EvilEd is the best way..


_____________________________

..toodA, irmAb moAs'lyB 'exper'mentin'..,..beān'tus all..?,

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 132
RE: Subs! - 2/3/2008 3:14:06 PM   
cymloveselva

 

Posts: 31
Joined: 1/26/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright


quote:

ORIGINAL: cymloveselva

Great & heavy thread!
By the way, I didn't see any submarine equipment in the Editor... Please correct me if I'm wrong...


No...there isn't any. You could try coming up with something -- but I think the event engine is the best way of handling submarines. When it came to military units, the sinkings were largely random. No one ever said, 'go sink the Scharnhorst' -- and voila, there were six submarine attacks on the Scharnhorst.



..agreed, if it's not a specifically submarine scen and so using a complete BioEd mod, then really the EvilEd is the best way..



Event engine... good idea! But concept of designing Sub attacks shouldn't be an easy task...

(in reply to a white rabbit)
Post #: 133
RE: Subs! - 2/3/2008 5:35:13 PM   
a white rabbit


Posts: 2364
Joined: 4/27/2002
From: ..under deconstruction..6N124E..
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: cymloveselva


quote:

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright


quote:

ORIGINAL: cymloveselva

Great & heavy thread!
By the way, I didn't see any submarine equipment in the Editor... Please correct me if I'm wrong...


No...there isn't any. You could try coming up with something -- but I think the event engine is the best way of handling submarines. When it came to military units, the sinkings were largely random. No one ever said, 'go sink the Scharnhorst' -- and voila, there were six submarine attacks on the Scharnhorst.



..agreed, if it's not a specifically submarine scen and so using a complete BioEd mod, then really the EvilEd is the best way..



Event engine... good idea! But concept of designing Sub attacks shouldn't be an easy task...



..toaw can do sub-war, but not in combination with land war, not really...

..the two aren't linked anyway, not really, you wanna do the North Atlantic, then fine, it can be done, but not along with the East Front, use the EvilEd..

..i've a disc of books and another two of movies, actual and fiction, on the Atlantic, and when i finish my current projects, Malaya, Philippines, DEI, and some cute Indochine stuff, (the retreat from Cao-Bang in particular) i'll look in detail at the Atlantic and playing with boats. It's viable, i had fun on a test-bed scen, but it needs the BioEd and a very blue map..

..it's not just the sub-attacks, it's getting the "right" sea to happen.....

_____________________________

..toodA, irmAb moAs'lyB 'exper'mentin'..,..beān'tus all..?,

(in reply to cymloveselva)
Post #: 134
RE: Subs! - 2/3/2008 7:57:11 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2600
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 2/3/2008 8:06:54 PM >


_____________________________

"...this country belongs to us, to the white man."

-- Israeli Interior Minister Eli Yishai, interview published on 6/3/2012. Interesting world.

(in reply to cymloveselva)
Post #: 135
RE: Subs! - 2/8/2008 1:43:15 AM   
cymloveselva

 

Posts: 31
Joined: 1/26/2008
Status: offline
It would really nice if you can share with us your test-bed scen...
By the way, I would truly wish for some real navy scen, especially those Subs Wars and Pacific Wars...

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 136
RE: Subs! - 2/8/2008 5:14:31 PM   
a white rabbit


Posts: 2364
Joined: 4/27/2002
From: ..under deconstruction..6N124E..
Status: offline
..it was under toaw-acow, and when i moved, i only kept notes, but it goes like this..

..for subs use the correct value, low AP low AT guerilla units, change the icons, build from scratch the navy surface stuff, use the mtrsed flag, for freighters use the road-only flag, set with 0 AP/AT..

..now change open terrain to blue sea, and put the convoy "roads" in as invisible, use groups of hexes, say 5 wide. S'ok, the freighters can't really go off them without getting seriously hammered for movement. Treat all air power as ranged artillery except spotter type planes (Condors) and there use helio move with a recon ability..

..for weather add lot's of rain

..the point was to get a playable North Atlantic, not a viable sub-warfare add-on, and as the former, it works quite well, at least on local (hot-seat) testing we enjoyed it..

..it's a question of perception..

_____________________________

..toodA, irmAb moAs'lyB 'exper'mentin'..,..beān'tus all..?,

(in reply to cymloveselva)
Post #: 137
RE: Subs! - 2/8/2008 5:33:11 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2600
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit
..the point was to get a playable North Atlantic, not a viable sub-warfare add-on, and as the former, it works quite well, at least on local (hot-seat) testing we enjoyed it..




Conjures up images of this little Filipino farming community where TOAW has really caught on. You're wandering down the dirt path past the thatched awning, and you hear these two Asiatic peasant women furiously arguing the validity of Norm's armor figures for Soviet tanks of the early fifties.


_____________________________

"...this country belongs to us, to the white man."

-- Israeli Interior Minister Eli Yishai, interview published on 6/3/2012. Interesting world.

(in reply to a white rabbit)
Post #: 138
RE: Subs! - 3/19/2009 4:57:42 PM   
macgregor


Posts: 968
Joined: 2/10/2004
Status: offline



quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

I think we have to avoid the 'Medieval Total War' syndrome. Yes, 'diplomat' units are nice, and so are 'merchant' units -- but are such discrete counters really the best way of modeling the effect if serious simulation is what we're after. I don't particularly want an OPART with 'staff' units and 'intelligence' units -- and 'submarine' units. It might be more entertaining -- but it would be worse simulation.

With all due respect, and I'm still a little befuddled on why when scenarios are completely designable as well as editable people would poopoo the idea of improving naval combat and unit development, why would you be comparing a submarine in a 'warfare sim' to a merchant or diplomat unit. You do realize their significance in warfare, don't you? There seems to be a 'well as long as I don't have to move units' contingent as well. At some point I'll have to come down off my optimistic horse and face the reality that TOAW is by and for eastern front types who only want land warfare, more specifically either a republican president or Hitler himself against the bear. Not to compare the two but look at the scenarios and the threads themselves. I'm just doing the math. There are no scenarios covering the current situation in Iraq or Afghanistan, naval combat in any age is still a pipedream for TOAW(send in boots on the ground), but count the eastern front/war with Russia scens, threads and posts. Maybe my problem is with the selected game demographic.

(in reply to Veers)
Post #: 139
RE: Subs! - 3/19/2009 5:08:10 PM   
vahauser


Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: macgregor




quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

I think we have to avoid the 'Medieval Total War' syndrome. Yes, 'diplomat' units are nice, and so are 'merchant' units -- but are such discrete counters really the best way of modeling the effect if serious simulation is what we're after. I don't particularly want an OPART with 'staff' units and 'intelligence' units -- and 'submarine' units. It might be more entertaining -- but it would be worse simulation.

With all due respect, and I'm still a little befuddled on why when scenarios are completely designable as well as editable people would poopoo the idea of improving naval combat and unit development, why would you be comparing a submarine in a 'warfare sim' to a merchant or diplomat unit. You do realize their significance in warfare, don't you? There seems to be a 'well as long as I don't have to move units' contingent as well. At some point I'll have to come down off my optimistic horse and face the reality that TOAW is by and for eastern front types who only want land warfare, more specifically either a republican president or Hitler himself against the bear. Not to compare the two but look at the scenarios and the threads themselves. I'm just doing the math. There are no scenarios covering the current situation in Iraq or Afghanistan, naval combat in any age is still a pipedream for TOAW(send in boots on the ground), but count the eastern front/war with Russia scens, threads and posts. Maybe my problem is with the selected game demographic.



As far as I'm concerned, you are correct. I honestly don't care about any other theater besides WW2 Eastern Front. I'm certainly not very interested in modeling naval combat in any era. And I really don't care about any other period except 1936-1946 (WW2) in general, East Front in particular.

First and foremost, land combat is far and away most important to me. Tactical air system (I don't care about modeling strategic air system) is next most important to me in terms of supporting land combat. Naval system is dead last in importance to me. Naval system only has even the tiniest interest for me in terms of tactical support of land combat. I don't care about anything else.

Here is my interest level for TOAW (10 being highest interest):

WW2 East Front = 10
WW2 Western Europe = 6
WW2 Mediterranean/North Africa = 3
WW2 Pacific = 1
Everything else = 0

Land combat operations = 10
Tactical air system in support of land operations = 9
Naval system in support of land operations = 8
Everything else = 0

[EDIT: Oh, and by the way, I'm a left-wing liberal who voted for Obama. So there goes your demographic theory out the window.]



< Message edited by vahauser -- 3/19/2009 5:15:12 PM >

(in reply to macgregor)
Post #: 140
RE: Subs! - 3/19/2009 6:18:31 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2600
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: macgregor




quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

I think we have to avoid the 'Medieval Total War' syndrome. Yes, 'diplomat' units are nice, and so are 'merchant' units -- but are such discrete counters really the best way of modeling the effect if serious simulation is what we're after. I don't particularly want an OPART with 'staff' units and 'intelligence' units -- and 'submarine' units. It might be more entertaining -- but it would be worse simulation.

With all due respect, and I'm still a little befuddled on why when scenarios are completely designable as well as editable people would poopoo the idea of improving naval combat and unit development, why would you be comparing a submarine in a 'warfare sim' to a merchant or diplomat unit. You do realize their significance in warfare, don't you? There seems to be a 'well as long as I don't have to move units' contingent as well. At some point I'll have to come down off my optimistic horse and face the reality that TOAW is by and for eastern front types who only want land warfare, more specifically either a republican president or Hitler himself against the bear. Not to compare the two but look at the scenarios and the threads themselves. I'm just doing the math. There are no scenarios covering the current situation in Iraq or Afghanistan, naval combat in any age is still a pipedream for TOAW(send in boots on the ground), but count the eastern front/war with Russia scens, threads and posts. Maybe my problem is with the selected game demographic.



Well...

My point would be that the problem with naval warfare in TOAW isn't really with the weapon selection -- and while there's little actual harm in creating longer ship lists, it's not going to do much to make naval warfare in TOAW more realistic.

I'm all for improving naval warfare in TOAW -- but in my view, the short ship list is the least of the problems.


_____________________________

"...this country belongs to us, to the white man."

-- Israeli Interior Minister Eli Yishai, interview published on 6/3/2012. Interesting world.

(in reply to macgregor)
Post #: 141
RE: Subs! - 3/19/2009 6:51:48 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 6927
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: macgregor

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

I think we have to avoid the 'Medieval Total War' syndrome. Yes, 'diplomat' units are nice, and so are 'merchant' units -- but are such discrete counters really the best way of modeling the effect if serious simulation is what we're after. I don't particularly want an OPART with 'staff' units and 'intelligence' units -- and 'submarine' units. It might be more entertaining -- but it would be worse simulation.


With all due respect, and I'm still a little befuddled on why when scenarios are completely designable as well as editable people would poopoo the idea of improving naval combat and unit development, why would you be comparing a submarine in a 'warfare sim' to a merchant or diplomat unit. You do realize their significance in warfare, don't you? There seems to be a 'well as long as I don't have to move units' contingent as well.


I think Colin is objecting to submarines as discrete "units", not the idea of modeling them in any fashion. As such, I tend to agree, at least in the traditonal way "units" function - holding on to their hex, subject to Theater Recon, able to seek out and attack targets at will, etc. They need to be modeled more like PacWar/WitP models them: They can be assigned to a "patrol zone". When "on patrol" if enemy TFs enter that zone, there's a chance they may be subject to submarine attack. Players would have the ability to change the patrol zone, requiring a dormant phase due to travel time, etc. Detection of the submarines would have its own algorithm separate from theater recon, ZOCs, etc.

(in reply to macgregor)
Post #: 142
RE: Subs! - 3/19/2009 7:05:41 PM   
macgregor


Posts: 968
Joined: 2/10/2004
Status: offline
I did over-analyze my frustration a little. If I made mention to the ship list it's only because that's something I've been working on. To me it's just the opposite. I need naval warfare in TOAW to make it work for me. Label me 'the strategic guy' but even strictly within the operational realm, a navy can make a decisive difference accept in perhaps...the Russian front scenarios. Forgive me. But IMO 'boots on the ground' is not proving itself as a great strategy right now. The most versatile operational combat sim, with all kinds of editing capability, limiting people's imagine to land combat, if it is to be at all educational(which it doesn't have to be) puts the creative brainpool into somewhat of a box, and IMO channels them into a certain way of thinking.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 143
RE: Subs! - 3/19/2009 7:25:33 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2600
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: macgregor

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

I think we have to avoid the 'Medieval Total War' syndrome. Yes, 'diplomat' units are nice, and so are 'merchant' units -- but are such discrete counters really the best way of modeling the effect if serious simulation is what we're after. I don't particularly want an OPART with 'staff' units and 'intelligence' units -- and 'submarine' units. It might be more entertaining -- but it would be worse simulation.


With all due respect, and I'm still a little befuddled on why when scenarios are completely designable as well as editable people would poopoo the idea of improving naval combat and unit development, why would you be comparing a submarine in a 'warfare sim' to a merchant or diplomat unit. You do realize their significance in warfare, don't you? There seems to be a 'well as long as I don't have to move units' contingent as well.


I think Colin is objecting to submarines as discrete "units", not the idea of modeling them in any fashion. As such, I tend to agree, at least in the traditonal way "units" function - holding on to their hex, subject to Theater Recon, able to seek out and attack targets at will, etc. They need to be modeled more like PacWar/WitP models them: They can be assigned to a "patrol zone". When "on patrol" if enemy TFs enter that zone, there's a chance they may be subject to submarine attack. Players would have the ability to change the patrol zone, requiring a dormant phase due to travel time, etc. Detection of the submarines would have its own algorithm separate from theater recon, ZOCs, etc.


Historically, sub sinkings of ships -- warships in particular -- were governed more by random chance than by anything else.

No upper level commander could decide to 'attack' the Barham or the Indianapolis. The subs just happened to bump into them. Even the success of a specific mission such as Prien's penetration of Scapa Flow was more or less fortuitous -- the Germans had tried to penetrate Scapa Flow repeatedly without success in World War One, and as far as I know, they didn't succeed again at a later time in World War Two. Indeed, when one considers the lack of success of the Japanese midget submarines at Pearl Harbor, one begins to suspect that the ability of any given submarine to execute any one specific attack must have been so low as to make the prospect of bothering to assign such attacks in TOAW less than alluring. I mean, does anyone want to assign 'missions' fifty times over before seeing success? And indeed, in reality, subs rarely operated that way.

Naturally, one could shift the operations area or the general emphasis -- but seeing specific subs as targetting specific enemy ships just isn't the way to go at it. If anything, one would want them to be handled more or less as aircraft currently are. You control their area of operation by moving them to the appropriate base, and you assign them to a particular class of mission. You can't decide that a specific air unit set to interdiction is going to hit a specific moving unit in a specific hex -- your actions only affect the likelihood that there will be an interdiction hit on someone somewhere.

TOAW should model things like submarines as accurately as possible -- it should model everything as accurately as possible. But given that the focus of the game is on land warfare, and given that the unit-carrying-out-a-specific-attack model doesn't really seem especially valid for submarines anyway, I don't think going down the 'sub units' route is the way to go.

Naval warfare in TOAW has bigger problems. In Seelowe I've stuck in a couple of probability events for the random withdrawal of British and German warships. Arbitrarily, some of the associated news items variously attribute the withdrawals to 'mines' or 'U-168.' The one for the Hipper is 'engine breakdown.'

That solves my problems as far as subs (and things) go. Now, the other problems the naval warfare model has -- those are serious.




_____________________________

"...this country belongs to us, to the white man."

-- Israeli Interior Minister Eli Yishai, interview published on 6/3/2012. Interesting world.

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 144
RE: Subs! - 3/19/2009 7:28:35 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2600
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
...


< Message edited by ColinWright -- 3/19/2009 7:29:24 PM >


_____________________________

"...this country belongs to us, to the white man."

-- Israeli Interior Minister Eli Yishai, interview published on 6/3/2012. Interesting world.

(in reply to Veers)
Post #: 145
RE: Ships! - 6/3/2009 4:37:58 AM   
hellfish6


Posts: 299
Joined: 6/15/2008
Status: offline
Sorry to dig this up, but I had an idea I wanted to run by you guys before I spend the time and effort trying it myself.

I'm building a set of scenarios (based around Central America in the cold war, Belize to Panama at 5km/hex with most scenarios involving company/battalion sized units) and would like naval vessels to play an important supporting role. The thing is, I'm not looking to include whole massive fleets necessarily, but small riverine craft and small missile boats mostly, and with the potential for frigates, cruisers, destroyers and even an Iowa-class battleship or two.

I don't think the TOAW naval units, as they are modeled now, will do it any justice. They're too abstract, and too fragile.

I'm thinking about using a "build your own ship" capability to model naval vessels.

Basically, I'd have one marker representing a single ship and use a bunch of components to build a ship.

Components might be like:

Mass (1 unit = 1000 tons of ship mass) to simulate size, armor, non-vital components, etc.
Bridge (basically a command group)
Weapon mounts (20mm+, to include everything up to triple 16" gun turrets, SM-2 SAMs and Tomahawk VLS systems)

So a US Knox-class frigate might be made up like this:

1 x Bridge
4 x mass (4260 tons, rounded off)
1 x 5"/54 Mk42 Gun
1 x Mk16 (Harpoon and ASROC)
1 x Phalanx (or Sea Sparrow SAM)

Thus, if the ship is attacked from the air, there's a chance to knock out the 5" gun, rendering the ship fairly useless as a gunfire support vessel. There's also a chance that the attacker might only hit a unit of mass - meaning the ship suffers non-critical damage.

Smaller ships, like riverine craft and patrol boats would remain as they are in default instead of breaking them down into components.

The end result I'm looking for is a system that properly simulates naval gunfire support at a small scale, flexibility of naval systems, and allows for damage of ships (not an all-or-nothing combat result).

Could this system work? Are there any ship components (engineering? sensors? crew?) I can add that would be useful?


(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 146
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 3 4 [5]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> Scenario Design >> RE: Subs! Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 4 [5]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.141