Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Changes to Naval Combat?

 
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.] >> [Discontinued Games] >> Gary Grigsby's World at War >> Changes to Naval Combat? Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Changes to Naval Combat? - 5/23/2005 2:57:44 AM   
Harrybanana

 

Posts: 1888
Joined: 11/27/2004
From: Canada
Status: online
I Love this game but I would like to see some major changes made to the Naval Combat system. At the present time it is, IMHO, too easy for the Navy of 1 nation to take control of a sea area from an opponent even when the defender has control of the skies over the sea area, it is close to a major port of the defender, and it is far from a major port of the Attacker. Historically speaking it was very difficult for an attacker to take control of a sea area in these circumstances. The British were very aggressive in the Med and the Italians much less so. Still the Italians managed to retain control of the Central Med, albeit with increasing difficulty, until the fall of Tunisia. The reason they were able to do so is because they had major naval bases in the area and the British didn't (other than Malta which was largely cut off from supply) and because they could protect their shipping with airpower. In GGWaW Land based aircraft and particularly Tac are almost useless against Hvy ships, this is not historically accurate.

Another failing with the game is that naval battles are too common and bloody. Again historically naval battles between capital ships were very rare. They happened yes, but not on the scale I commonly find in my games. Almost every game I play the Italians attack the East Med on the first turn and shortly thereafter the British attack the Italians in the Central Med. Now I know what people are going to say, "just because these big naval battles didn't occur historically doesn't mean they couldn't have, if the Italians want to sail into the East Med on the first turn they should be allowed to". I agree, but they should do so under the same conditions and disadvantages the real Italians would have faced. Moving capital ships into enemy controlled waters was always very risky and put you at a decided disadvantage particularly if the enemy has a major port nearby. The enemy would almost always spot you first which gave them an enormous tactical advantage (just ask the Japanese about Midway). The enemy, aware of your movements, could retreat to port if outnumbered, hide at sea, choose the time of attack, the angle of attack, etc. Also the sea areas in GGWaW are huge, finding the enemy was always a problem, particularly if you don't have any air assets in the area. Often, particularly in the Pacific, large fleets on both sides were looking for one another but no battle occured because they couldn't find one another. In GGWaW I believe the developers tried to address this by limiting the number of ships that engage in combat each round. However, there is nothing stopping a player from continually moving ships which did not attack in the 1st round back into the contested area.

Finally, the mechanics of the game encourage players to attack with their hvies only unless there are enemy subs in the area. Again, historically light ships were very important in a naval engagement not only to screen and protect the capital ships but also to distract and harass the enemiy's capital ships. This importance is not reflected in GGWaW.

OK, I've rambled on enough, here is what I propose to fix things (I welcome your comments):

1. Increase the starting naval attack rating of all TAC aircraft (and the World Standard) by 1. This would at least give a single tac (representing 150+ aircraft) a chance to dmg a hvy. Yes I know this would make TAC naval attack equal to a CAG, but I think this is historically accurate, especially when you consider that the Tac represents far more aircraft. The CAG would still have the better torp attack, which is more important anyway.

2. Any aircraft, except CAG and aircraft on patrol, attacking enemy ships (including transports) at a distance more than 1/2 it's speed has its Ship and Torp attack values reduced by 1 for each Movement Point over 1/2 it's speed. For example a Bomber with a speed of 4 attacking an enemy ship at a range of 3 MPs would have it's Ship and Torp attacks reduced by 1, if the range was 4 it would be reduced by 2. This is to simulate the liklihood that the aircraft would probably not have sufficent fuel to even find the enemy to attack it.

3. Change the rules determining which ships paticipate in combat for each side so that instead each ship in the contested sea area rolls 1 die, on a "1 to 3" it doesn't participate and on a "4 to 6" it does. If all the ships of one side fail to make a successful "participation" roll than no combat occurs. Modifiers to the partipation die roll would be as follows:

a) If a friendly Port is located on an island in the sea zone or an adjacent land area: +1;
b) If no friendly island or land area is located in or adjacent to the sea zone: -1;
c) If a friendly air unit survives air to air (but not necessarily sea to air) combat in the sea zone: +1;
d) For every MP in excess of 5 that a nonsub naval unit is from a sea zone adjacent to a friendly port or 3 from a sea zone containing a friendly island (which ever is less): -1.

4. The modifiers indicated above are also added to your combat die rolls and subtracted from your opponent's combat die rolls. This would be in addition to the effects of interdiction.

5. Any fleets which move into an enemy occupied sea zone which do not particiapte in the ensuing combat are still considered to have "attacked" and therefore can not move back into that (or any other) enemy occupied sea zone

6. The line dividing the Adraiatic from the Central Med would be moved further north so that the Axis port in Southern Italy (presumably Taranto) would be adjacent to the Middle Med, which would also be historically accurate.

7. There would be a special rule for Malta that it would operate as an Island only for the purposes of 3. above, rather than a port until the Axis no longer Control either Sicily or Tunisia.


EXAMPLES:

1. Lets assume the Axis were to attack the WA in the East Med on the 1st turn without their subs (to keep it simple). Each of the Axis 6 ships (3 hvies and 3 lghts) would roll a 6 sided die with no modifier as they have an adjacent friendly area (Tobruk). Therefore, on average 3 Axis ships would participate in the attack. Each of the 4 WA ships would roll with a +1 modifer to it's die roll for the port at Suez. Therefore on average 2 2/3rds WA ships would participate in the battle. Each German ship would attack at -2 (-1 for the Malta interdiction and -1 for the Port at Suez), while each Allied ship would have 2 added to it's die roll. I know lots of you will say that if this rule is implemented the Axis would then just never attack the East Med, which takes away an option from them, which makes the game less fun and playable. I say not true. What it does mean is that if the Axis want to attack the East Med on even terms they will 1st have to get air superiority there, which would not be that difficult.

2. Let's assume the WA swarms into The West Med on turn 1 with the intention of attacking the Central Med on turn 2 with 2 CVs, 6 hvies and 6 lghts (a favorite tactic of mine). Let's further assume the Axis anticipate this and move an additional fighter to Southern Italy on turn 1 to join the ftr and Tac already there and than have these 3 air units fly patrol over the Central Med on turn 2. The WA player decides to not move in with his 2 CAG as they would be unlikely to survive the air to air combat with the ftrs. The 12 WA ships would have a 0 modifier to their participation die roll (not +1 due to the special Malta rule). Therefore on average 3 Hvies and 3 lghts would participate in the battle. The 6 Italian ships would have a +2 modifier to their Participation die roll (+1 for Port and +1 for the air units in the sea zone). Each side would thus likely have an approx. equal number of ships in the battlle; but the Italians would fight with a +2 die roll modifier while the WA would be at -2 and the Italians now also have a tac in the battle which might actually dmg a WA ship. The WA will still probably have more ships in the Sea zone at the end of the battle, causing the Axis ships to retreat to port, but how long they will be able to stay there is another story.


3. It's 1944 and a WA force of 3 CVs, 4 hvies and 2 lghts stationed at Wake Island attacks a Japanese force of 3 hvies and 2 lghts protected by 1 ftr in the sea zone with Bonin Island. Assume the Japanese ftr and 2 WA CAG survive the air to air and the CAG sink or damage 1 Jap hvy and 1 light. The surviving 3 Jap ships will have a Participation modifier of +1 (due to the air unit) while the WA modifier will be -1 (-1 for no adjacent land area, +1 for air units, -1 for being 6MPs from Pearl and/or 4 MPs from Wake). On average 2 Japanese ships will battle 2 WA ships with the Japs having a +2 die roll modifier and the WA a -2 modifier. Note if the WA owned the Marianas they would have a 0 particpation modifier and the die roll modifiers would be +1 and -1 respectively. This would mean those islands in the Pacific would actually have some importance.

I am not a computer programmer and have no idea if these changes can be implemented and if so at what cost. But I would appreciate your comments.

I should say that if these changes were implemented than they may necessitate further changes. For example, Scotland, as everyone knows, is very vulnerable to invasion. These changes would actually make the conquest of Scotland even easier as now the German player could use his Tac to offer more protection for his invasion fleet. As well, if the Germans invade Scotland from the Scotish Sea their fleet there would receive the +1 modifier for the port, not to mention also probably being +1 for having air units there. My own feeling is that Scotland should be rough terain and the WA ftrs should start equal to the German (with the aid of radar they were even superior at least when defending). To compensate the German Tac should start with a 6 land attack value. I have other ideas about allowing defending fleets to automatically intercept invading forces. I think the fact the WA, or the Italians or Japanese for that matter, have to wait until their own turn to attack an invading force, thus allowing massive troop build up, is another flaw with the game; but I'll save that for another post. I realize most of these changes probably can not be made with WaW as it is now, but I hope they will be considered for WaW2 (assuming there will be a WaW2).
Post #: 1
RE: Changes to Naval Combat? - 5/23/2005 4:28:07 AM   
aletoledo


Posts: 827
Joined: 2/4/2005
Status: offline
though I like your suggestions a lot, I have to disagree with you in any changes.

the reason is, we can keep changing and changing everything until the game isn't what it was originally designed to be. at some point we have to say this is the best balance between simplicity, realism and fun we're ever going to get out of this design. IMO I think we're pretty much there and naval combat seems fine.

of course there is always putting together a mod, but I don't think changing the base game to add more complexity is going to make the game any more fun.

I may be up to 3 cents at the moment, but if you're looking for ultra-realism in naval combat, they already have it. try looking into their other game called "war in the pacific". I just bought it and I can honestly say its more complex than anything I've played so far. it incorporates everything that you've brought up and more. the only problem with it I have to say is that its a bit too complex for even the average wargamer, so you really have to be interested in wargamer to even learn it enough for the first turn.

(in reply to Harrybanana)
Post #: 2
RE: Changes to Naval Combat? - 5/23/2005 4:39:16 AM   
morganja

 

Posts: 4
Joined: 5/23/2005
Status: offline
You are totally wrong on this one. I just started a game as German with the new patch 1.033, and decided not to invade Norway and Denmark. Next turn, there is a huge British navy sitting in the Baltic that cannot be moved by the power of the ENTIRE german Air Force and Navy. Tell me what's wrong with this picture. Already the game is tilted too far to the WA, but to allow this is frankly stupid. Could the British navy have sailed into the Baltic even with a neutral Norway and Denmark? Absolutely not, because their fleet would have been instantly sunk. Instead, the entire northern German coast is vulnerable to assault let alone trying to transport things around the Baltic. The Soviet Union, by the way is neautral at this point. How can you say this is as intended? To me, this is a game breaker. A stupid, gamey move by the AI which seems to have been programmed into the game in this patch. This is not game balancing, it is game ruining. Please fix it.

(in reply to Harrybanana)
Post #: 3
RE: Changes to Naval Combat? - 5/23/2005 5:12:24 AM   
Tac2i


Posts: 1993
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: WV USA
Status: offline
The Germans invaded Denmark for a reason. There is no good reason not too in the game. We can debate whether Norway is important to Germany (I think it is) but Denmark is a must.

(in reply to morganja)
Post #: 4
RE: Changes to Naval Combat? - 5/23/2005 5:16:16 AM   
Maginot


Posts: 140
Joined: 2/15/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: morganja

You are totally wrong on this one. I just started a game as German with the new patch 1.033, and decided not to invade Norway and Denmark. Next turn, there is a huge British navy sitting in the Baltic that...

A stupid, gamey move by the AI which seems to have been programmed into the game in this patch. This is not game balancing, it is game ruining. Please fix it.


Lets be honest here. Denmark has no military whatsoever. You start with ample amounts of Artillery, Air, and Flak. Is it really that hard to move a Milita, Artillery, and Flak into Denmark? If Germany is foolish enough to not sieze Denmark on turn one, then Germany should be punished, plain and simple. Not invading Denmark on turn one to me is equivical to not taking France or Japan activating the WAllies in Spring 1940.

(in reply to morganja)
Post #: 5
RE: Changes to Naval Combat? - 5/23/2005 5:44:30 AM   
morganja

 

Posts: 4
Joined: 5/23/2005
Status: offline
Your absolutely right. There is nothing wrong with the naval rules. I think we should be able to sail the British navy right of the Elbe!

(in reply to Maginot)
Post #: 6
RE: Changes to Naval Combat? - 5/23/2005 5:53:57 AM   
Traveler

 

Posts: 115
Joined: 3/31/2005
Status: offline
Harrybanana ideas are excelent. Unfortunatly the whole navel system would have to be seriously rewriten, which i dout will happen.

(in reply to Harrybanana)
Post #: 7
RE: Changes to Naval Combat? - 5/23/2005 6:46:49 AM   
Harrybanana

 

Posts: 1888
Joined: 11/27/2004
From: Canada
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: aletoledo

though I like your suggestions a lot, I have to disagree with you in any changes.

the reason is, we can keep changing and changing everything until the game isn't what it was originally designed to be. at some point we have to say this is the best balance between simplicity, realism and fun we're ever going to get out of this design. IMO I think we're pretty much there and naval combat seems fine.

of course there is always putting together a mod, but I don't think changing the base game to add more complexity is going to make the game any more fun.

I may be up to 3 cents at the moment, but if you're looking for ultra-realism in naval combat, they already have it. try looking into their other game called "war in the pacific". I just bought it and I can honestly say its more complex than anything I've played so far. it incorporates everything that you've brought up and more. the only problem with it I have to say is that its a bit too complex for even the average wargamer, so you really have to be interested in wargamer to even learn it enough for the first turn.


Aletoledo, you've got some good points about making too many big changes. Obviously my changes would have to be playtested before they could be used. It's why I'm suggesting they may be more appropriate for GGWaW2 if there ever is such a beast. I don't think my rule changes make the game more complicated though, just different.

(in reply to aletoledo)
Post #: 8
RE: Changes to Naval Combat? - 5/23/2005 6:51:43 AM   
Harrybanana

 

Posts: 1888
Joined: 11/27/2004
From: Canada
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: morganja

You are totally wrong on this one. I just started a game as German with the new patch 1.033, and decided not to invade Norway and Denmark. Next turn, there is a huge British navy sitting in the Baltic that cannot be moved by the power of the ENTIRE german Air Force and Navy. Tell me what's wrong with this picture. Already the game is tilted too far to the WA, but to allow this is frankly stupid. Could the British navy have sailed into the Baltic even with a neutral Norway and Denmark? Absolutely not, because their fleet would have been instantly sunk. Instead, the entire northern German coast is vulnerable to assault let alone trying to transport things around the Baltic. The Soviet Union, by the way is neautral at this point. How can you say this is as intended? To me, this is a game breaker. A stupid, gamey move by the AI which seems to have been programmed into the game in this patch. This is not game balancing, it is game ruining. Please fix it.


Morganja, I'm not sure if your saying I'm totally wrong or the game as is is wrong. 1st you always invade Denmark and put artillery and AA/ftr there. But if you don't, in my version it would be eaiser for you to kick the WA out of the Baltic as You have a port there and they do not and air to sea has been improved. I don't think my changes favor the WA or the Axis in terms of balancing, but again only playtesting would establish this.

(in reply to morganja)
Post #: 9
RE: Changes to Naval Combat? - 5/23/2005 7:28:26 AM   
aletoledo


Posts: 827
Joined: 2/4/2005
Status: offline
quote:

decided not to invade Norway and Denmark. Next turn, there is a huge British navy sitting in the Baltic that cannot be moved by the power of the ENTIRE german Air Force and Navy. Tell me what's wrong with this picture.
if this happened to me, I'd immediately take denmark and put air and artillery there. this would be the perfect trap! then they wouldn't be able to move out of the baltic and would thus be sitting ducks for whatever attack I would plan.

though when the naval surface forces meet its variable as to how many will fight, every sub and every plane gets an attack. it would take 3 or four turns to research up torpedoes and produce a few extra planes to then go annihilate those trapped ships.

(in reply to Harrybanana)
Post #: 10
RE: Changes to Naval Combat? - 5/23/2005 9:41:08 AM   
Drax Kramer

 

Posts: 156
Joined: 9/13/2004
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana

In GGWaW Land based aircraft and particularly Tac are almost useless against Hvy ships, this is not historically accurate.


When? In 1940? In 1940, land based aircraft are supposed to be almost useless against heavy ships. Only small percentage of anyone's air force was trained and equipped to attack ships at sea. And historically, torpedoes were much more lethal than bombs since it is known that letting water in is far more dangerous for ships than letting air out.

quote:

I agree, but they should do so under the same conditions and disadvantages the real Italians would have faced.


How do you simulate the lack of fuel and unwillingness to risk battleships in what was presumed to be a short victorious war?

quote:

Finally, the mechanics of the game encourage players to attack with their hvies only unless there are enemy subs in the area. Again, historically light ships were very important in a naval engagement not only to screen and protect the capital ships but also to distract and harass the enemiy's capital ships. This importance is not reflected in GGWaW.


Heavy Fleets contain attached destroyers flottillas, these units are not solely comprised of battleships.


quote:

1. Increase the starting naval attack rating of all TAC aircraft (and the World Standard) by 1. This would at least give a single tac (representing 150+ aircraft) a chance to dmg a hvy. Yes I know this would make TAC naval attack equal to a CAG, but I think this is historically accurate, especially when you consider that the Tac represents far more aircraft. The CAG would still have the better torp attack, which is more important anyway.


Disagree. Land based aircraft were notoriously bad in attacking ships unless they belonged to the navy. Specialised training needed for attacks on moving ships on the sea is reflected in the cost of building carrier aircraft. If a player wants for his stukagruppen to learn how to hit battleships, let him spend some research as his historical counterparts did. In 1940, Luftwaffe did not posess torpedoes.



Drax

(in reply to Harrybanana)
Post #: 11
RE: Changes to Naval Combat? - 5/23/2005 2:56:47 PM   
hakon

 

Posts: 298
Joined: 4/15/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drax Kramer


quote:

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana

In GGWaW Land based aircraft and particularly Tac are almost useless against Hvy ships, this is not historically accurate.


When? In 1940? In 1940, land based aircraft are supposed to be almost useless against heavy ships. Only small percentage of anyone's air force was trained and equipped to attack ships at sea. And historically, torpedoes were much more lethal than bombs since it is known that letting water in is far more dangerous for ships than letting air out.

quote:

I agree, but they should do so under the same conditions and disadvantages the real Italians would have faced.


How do you simulate the lack of fuel and unwillingness to risk battleships in what was presumed to be a short victorious war?

quote:

Finally, the mechanics of the game encourage players to attack with their hvies only unless there are enemy subs in the area. Again, historically light ships were very important in a naval engagement not only to screen and protect the capital ships but also to distract and harass the enemiy's capital ships. This importance is not reflected in GGWaW.


Heavy Fleets contain attached destroyers flottillas, these units are not solely comprised of battleships.


quote:

1. Increase the starting naval attack rating of all TAC aircraft (and the World Standard) by 1. This would at least give a single tac (representing 150+ aircraft) a chance to dmg a hvy. Yes I know this would make TAC naval attack equal to a CAG, but I think this is historically accurate, especially when you consider that the Tac represents far more aircraft. The CAG would still have the better torp attack, which is more important anyway.


Disagree. Land based aircraft were notoriously bad in attacking ships unless they belonged to the navy. Specialised training needed for attacks on moving ships on the sea is reflected in the cost of building carrier aircraft. If a player wants for his stukagruppen to learn how to hit battleships, let him spend some research as his historical counterparts did. In 1940, Luftwaffe did not posess torpedoes.



Drax


According to Acthung Panzer, Rudel sank the Soviet battleship Marat with just one bomb.....

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/gen9.htm


If you do a little research, you will find that dive bombers in general were pretty effective vs all kinds of ships, even if torpedo planes may have been slightly more so. (Dive bombers have the obvious advantage of being able to strike land targets, too.) The invulnerability that heavy fleets have vs dive bombers (and the bombing attack of CV-planes) is highly unrealistic, in my opinion.



(in reply to Drax Kramer)
Post #: 12
RE: Changes to Naval Combat? - 5/23/2005 3:13:55 PM   
VI66_slith


Posts: 267
Joined: 9/14/2002
From: U.S.A.
Status: offline
In my opinion, Matrix wanted an widely accessible game; if you keep adding more rules, more mechanics, more...more...more, you will end up somewhere else than initially intended, ultimately alienating your base. It was alluded to earlier that a game of high complexity already exists in the Matrix line-up, WiTP, and I agree. I myself play WiTP, and when I want a quick game for instant gratification, I play GGWaW; and when I sit down to play GGWaW, I want to do just that, not worry about endless modifiers and triggers, I'll play WiTP when I desire those. As far as GGWaW is concerned, I have not experienced victory vs. a human opponent to this point, but I think the game for the most part is fine the way it is.

< Message edited by VI66 -- 5/23/2005 3:16:25 PM >


_____________________________

"Many, who should know better, think that wars can be decided by soulless machines, rather than by the blood and anguish of brave men." ~Patton

(in reply to Drax Kramer)
Post #: 13
RE: Changes to Naval Combat? - 5/23/2005 7:44:38 PM   
Harrybanana

 

Posts: 1888
Joined: 11/27/2004
From: Canada
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drax Kramer


When? In 1940? In 1940, land based aircraft are supposed to be almost useless against heavy ships. Only small percentage of anyone's air force was trained and equipped to attack ships at sea. And historically, torpedoes were much more lethal than bombs since it is known that letting water in is far more dangerous for ships than letting air out.

Disagree. Land based aircraft were notoriously bad in attacking ships unless they belonged to the navy. Specialised training needed for attacks on moving ships on the sea is reflected in the cost of building carrier aircraft. If a player wants for his stukagruppen to learn how to hit battleships, let him spend some research as his historical counterparts did. In 1940, Luftwaffe did not posess torpedoes.


Drax


Actually the German X Fliegerkorps, which took part in the Norwegian Campaign in April and May 1940, had Maritime attack training. In the Norwegian Campaign this unit damaged the BB Rodney and 3 cruisers and sunk 1 destroyer. I would say this is the equivalent of damaging 1 Hvy. I agree that torpedoes are more effective, which is why I suggested increasing the ship attack rating only. Note that even with a ship attack value of 4 there is still no chance that 2 TACs alone will even damage a hvy with their ship attack rating. Their 4 attack - 3 for a hvie's armor gives them only 1 die needing an "8" with their 2nd TAC. Of course they do stand a 41% chance of dmging the hvy with their Torps, but this would be true even without my changes. In the Battles around Malta and Crete in early 41 (before the German aircraft were withdrawn to Russia) several allied ships were damaged or sunk by German bombers.

(in reply to Drax Kramer)
Post #: 14
RE: Changes to Naval Combat? - 5/23/2005 9:14:09 PM   
morganja

 

Posts: 4
Joined: 5/23/2005
Status: offline
My bad. I was under the impression that one had to control both sides of a strait to close it off. I must have been thinking of some other SPI game from the 70's. I think the idea however is great. Bases are central to the Pacific War strategy as well as a constant factor in the use of the British navy. Iwould love to see it implemented liek that perhaps in a mod or an expansion.

(in reply to Harrybanana)
Post #: 15
RE: Changes to Naval Combat? - 5/23/2005 9:15:59 PM   
morganja

 

Posts: 4
Joined: 5/23/2005
Status: offline
can anyone explain to me in Alzheimer's english, how torpedo attack and Anti-ship attack differ in respect to Air Units? thanks.

(in reply to morganja)
Post #: 16
RE: Changes to Naval Combat? - 5/24/2005 12:57:47 AM   
Joel Billings


Posts: 28560
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: online
Torpedo attacks are not impacted by the armor rating of the defender. Both the ship attack and torpedo attack will fire at a defending ship. Against heavily armored ships (heavy fleets), the basic ship attack is at a big disadvantage in that they have the armor of the defender subtracted for the number of the attacker's dice.

(in reply to morganja)
Post #: 17
RE: Changes to Naval Combat? - 5/24/2005 2:57:57 AM   
Drax Kramer

 

Posts: 156
Joined: 9/13/2004
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: hakon

According to Acthung Panzer, Rudel sank the Soviet battleship Marat with just one bomb.....

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/gen9.htm

If you do a little research, you will find that dive bombers in general were pretty effective vs all kinds of ships, even if torpedo planes may have been slightly more so. (Dive bombers have the obvious advantage of being able to strike land targets, too.) The invulnerability that heavy fleets have vs dive bombers (and the bombing attack of CV-planes) is highly unrealistic, in my opinion.



Yes, Rudel managed to hit a WW1 battleship anchored in a port, not much different than hitting a ground target. Trying to hit a maneuverable ship would be a tad different. Note also the date when Rudel managed his hit.

Navigating over the water is more difficult than over the ground and thus require more specialised training. Hitting moving targets that fire at you is even more difficult. Hence, only a limited number of crews could be adequately trained. If German players want for Luftwaffe to be better at attacking ships, let them do what their historical counterparts did, spend some time (read research) on training. There's no free lunch in war.


Drax

(in reply to hakon)
Post #: 18
RE: Changes to Naval Combat? - 5/24/2005 3:03:40 AM   
Drax Kramer

 

Posts: 156
Joined: 9/13/2004
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana


Actually the German X Fliegerkorps, which took part in the Norwegian Campaign in April and May 1940, had Maritime attack training. In the Norwegian Campaign this unit damaged the BB Rodney and 3 cruisers and sunk 1 destroyer. I would say this is the equivalent of damaging 1 Hvy. I agree that torpedoes are more effective, which is why I suggested increasing the ship attack rating only.


One fliegerkorps roughly equals one German heavy bomber. But what you ask is for game to artificially increase the anti-shipping ratings of the entire Luftwaffe bombing force. Historically, these guys got special training and were rarely operating more than two kampfgeschwaders (less than 200 aircraft) in the entire course of war.

I'd have no problem with representing this small and well trained group with a carrier aircraft unit which is the costliest air unit in the game, requiring the longest training. Once they are lost, Germans are better to have some antishipping research spent to increase the antishipping capabilities of average kampfgruppe rather than relying on small band of experten.


Drax

(in reply to Harrybanana)
Post #: 19
RE: Changes to Naval Combat? - 5/24/2005 12:25:21 PM   
hakon

 

Posts: 298
Joined: 4/15/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drax Kramer

Yes, Rudel managed to hit a WW1 battleship anchored in a port, not much different than hitting a ground target. Trying to hit a maneuverable ship would be a tad different. Note also the date when Rudel managed his hit.

Navigating over the water is more difficult than over the ground and thus require more specialised training. Hitting moving targets that fire at you is even more difficult. Hence, only a limited number of crews could be adequately trained. If German players want for Luftwaffe to be better at attacking ships, let them do what their historical counterparts did, spend some time (read research) on training. There's no free lunch in war.


Drax



What Rudel did was essentially to kill half of the battleships represented by the HF in Leningrad. (I assume one HF represents 2-3 BB + escorts). This was 1 man, 1 bomb. Of course, it was in port, and a bit old. But it was not during the initial days of barbarossa, so the AA guns would probably be manned.

A lot of the battlehips serving in WW2 were build during WW1 or just after. Imo, unupgraded battleships are not far more advanced than WW1 ships. The point is, that 1 1000kg bomb is able to cause very significant damage to a battleship.

As for the difficulty of hitting a ship in motion, that is very relevant for level bombers. Level bombers could hit ships in port pretty well, but at sea, they were pretty much useless. (Especially when flying at high altitutes). This is why the navy didnt have them, and employed dive bombers instead. Unless facing very heavy anti air fire, a dive bomber had a pretty good chance at hitting even a moving ship. The air-to-ship bombing value on CV-planes is exclusively dive bombers, while tactical bombers could be both. (German ones would be stukas to a large extent.)

Torpedoes _were_ more effective than bombs at actually sinking ships. Though most warships did have pretty extensive protection vs torpedo hits. (Separate compartments below deck.) But dive bombers would still sink any ship, given enough time (and planes), and they would certainly damage ships to the extent that it would require months of repairs.

The point is, that the anti-shipping bombing stats on CV-planes and tactical bombers should be higher, or even better, the armor on heavy fleets should be reduced by at least 1 level. (This would require rebalancing HF ship attacks.)

(in reply to Drax Kramer)
Post #: 20
RE: Changes to Naval Combat? - 5/25/2005 2:11:01 AM   
Drax Kramer

 

Posts: 156
Joined: 9/13/2004
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: hakon

But dive bombers would still sink any ship, given enough time (and planes), and they would certainly damage ships to the extent that it would require months of repairs.

The point is, that the anti-shipping bombing stats on CV-planes and tactical bombers should be higher, or even better, the armor on heavy fleets should be reduced by at least 1 level. (This would require rebalancing HF ship attacks.)


I see your point, I just don't agree with it. Rudel hit Soviet battleship in port attack in Spring 1940 turn, four turns after the beginning of the game. Do you think he was going to do that in 1940? And even if he could, he was an ace, you don't represent entire force with its best part. When you contemplate what factor to give to tactical air you have to think of average pilots, not the aces. "Rudel" effect is represented when you roll all sixes.

If your argument is that Germans should start with increased antishipping factors for dive bombers and increased torpedo factors for heavy bombers in 1941 and later scenarios, I'd support you, but in 1940 Luftwaffe was not an efficient anti-shipping force.


Drax

(in reply to hakon)
Post #: 21
RE: Changes to Naval Combat? - 5/25/2005 4:31:32 AM   
Harrybanana

 

Posts: 1888
Joined: 11/27/2004
From: Canada
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drax Kramer


I see your point, I just don't agree with it. Rudel hit Soviet battleship in port attack in Spring 1940 turn, four turns after the beginning of the game. Do you think he was going to do that in 1940? And even if he could, he was an ace, you don't represent entire force with its best part. When you contemplate what factor to give to tactical air you have to think of average pilots, not the aces. "Rudel" effect is represented when you roll all sixes.

If your argument is that Germans should start with increased antishipping factors for dive bombers and increased torpedo factors for heavy bombers in 1941 and later scenarios, I'd support you, but in 1940 Luftwaffe was not an efficient anti-shipping force.

Drax



Well German Tac starts with a "3" ship attack rating in 1940. Assuming they put in the points they could have it up to a "4" by the time of Barbarossa. Against a Russian Hvy in Port or at sea it would get 1 die needing to roll a "9" to damage the Hvy. I believe that is impossible. Against any other nation's heavy fleet it would need a "12". Essentially, even with a 5 ship attack rating a single Tac (or any other aircraft) would still need to roll a "12" on 2 dice (ie your ace #s) just to damage a hvy. Admittedly this does not take into account the effects of it's torpedo attack or multiple attacks from different units.

(in reply to Drax Kramer)
Post #: 22
RE: Changes to Naval Combat? - 5/25/2005 5:43:09 AM   
Uncle_Joe


Posts: 1985
Joined: 8/26/2004
Status: offline
What I find amusing is the whole concept of a battleship at sea with alerted defenses etc being hard to take out by air. Isnt that what the British kept on telling themselves before the Repulse and Prince of Wales were taken out by Japanese land-based air. I also seem to remember that same argument being made by the proponents of the 'big gun' theory in US naval circles.

The Germans also took out quite a few British destroyers in the waters around Dunkirk in the days of the invasion, and some were certainly under power and with intermittant air cover. Even a lot of smaller craft were hit by German air (although some were certainly not too maneuverable).

That said, I think the Torpedo rating also is a general stat for effectiveness vs ships. A lot of 'Tac Bombers' and certainly most 'Heavy Bombers' didnt carry much of a torpedo load-out. So, IMO, the Torpedo rating is an abstraction that includes bombs. For game purposes, it makes no difference...the end result is that the plane can take out a ship.

The crux of it is the way the game mechanics function, there is little or no chance that planes will 'gang up' on ships unless they outnumber them in a single attack. That means that instead of needing a '9' to take out a Heavy or Light with a Torpedo attack, its always a '12' (on 2 dice for most starting planes). End result is that its not going happen very often. IMO, it really shouldnt happen all that often and in order to pull it off, you have to mass planes against massed fleets. Note that as of 1.33, even Fighters get to 'roll' even if they have no chance of a hit. But their attacks DO make it easier for follow-on attacks to hit.

A good way to try and hurt ships is to stagger your attacks. Send in a few Fighters first to 'soften up' the defense ratings of certain ships. THEN send in the bombers and hope that they target ships previously targeted by the Fighters. If you send them together, the chances of this are nil unless you have more aircraft than there are ships. But by sending in multiple groups, you significantly increase your odds of killing ships.

Overall, I've had no real trouble keeping ships out of areas where I have airpower until they start to research AA for the ships. THEN it can become a pain and, in fact, it can become close to suicidal to attack ships with 4 (and 5) AA factors unless you have cranked up your Evasion on your planes.


_____________________________


(in reply to Harrybanana)
Post #: 23
RE: Changes to Naval Combat? - 5/25/2005 11:31:46 AM   
Drax Kramer

 

Posts: 156
Joined: 9/13/2004
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe

What I find amusing is the whole concept of a battleship at sea with alerted defenses etc being hard to take out by air. Isnt that what the British kept on telling themselves before the Repulse and Prince of Wales were taken out by Japanese land-based air. I also seem to remember that same argument being made by the proponents of the 'big gun' theory in US naval circles.


The difference is that British battleships have been attacked and sunk by the experts, pilots who were trained to fly above the sea, find their targets and hit them. In 1940 German stuka pilots simply did not posess the necessary training.

quote:

The Germans also took out quite a few British destroyers in the waters around Dunkirk in the days of the invasion, and some were certainly under power and with intermittant air cover. Even a lot of smaller craft were hit by German air (although some were certainly not too maneuverable).


All of them were hit in close proximity to the coast while they were assisting in the evacuation.


Drax

(in reply to Uncle_Joe)
Post #: 24
RE: Changes to Naval Combat? - 5/25/2005 1:47:30 PM   
hakon

 

Posts: 298
Joined: 4/15/2005
Status: offline
My issue is not limited to german bombers, but is related to the general issue of bombs being unable to harm heavy fleets.

As for the germans dive bombers in 1940, to my knowledge they lacked effective anti shipping armor piercing bombs, much more than lack of training. (A battleship is a pretty big target compared to most of the things they were trained to hit, so physically hitting it would not be such a big problem.)

With a 1 level increase, german tac bombers should be able to harm the bombing attack. Japan should be able to do so with their starting tech.

The way it is now, as Uncle_Joe describes, the anti-ship stat is really an anti merchant/light fleet stat, while the torpedo attack is the anti-heavy fleet stat. I dont see the reason for this kind of abstraction, and would like to see bombs being closer to torpedoes in effetivity than they are at the moment.

(in reply to Drax Kramer)
Post #: 25
RE: Changes to Naval Combat? - 5/30/2005 12:58:41 AM   
QBeam

 

Posts: 48
Joined: 4/2/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana
However, there is nothing stopping a player from continually moving ships which did not attack in the 1st round back into the contested area.



There's the chief problem right there.

In general, your position is very sound--it is way too easy to project naval power into enemy territorial waters. Some of that is necessary, because of the scale of the game.

Another relatively simple fix would be add a defensive combat bonus for having a friendly port in a sea zone.

_____________________________

Carthago Delinde Est

(in reply to Harrybanana)
Post #: 26
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Discontinued Games] >> Gary Grigsby's World at War >> Changes to Naval Combat? Page: [1]
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

0.195