New feature request: enhancing Amphibious Operations

[ncc1701e]

And this is the last one; the last feature that I find interesting to implement inside WPP. This last feature is more an evolution of something existing.

Compared to WPE, WPP has introduced a great new feature that is the naval effectiveness loss from port distance. It is working great in my opinion and allow to restrict navies to their historical area of operations.

However, there are two things that I do not like with the existing naval effectiveness loss:
1. There is no distinction between USA, UK and Japan
2. The value does not evolve, it is hard coded

---

naval effectiveness.JPG (131.13 KiB) Viewed 850 times

[ncc1701e]

In the course of WW2, we have seen a sleeping giant becoming one of the strongest navy in the world.

From the early years of operations in 1942 to the final campaign, from mid 1944 to 1945, the US navy logistics has completely changed and improved whereas Japan and UK were not able to catch up. Thanks to logistics improvement, the US navy was able to maintain their fleets longer at sea compared to the initial years.

At the beginning of the war, in terms of technology, Japan was a little above the USA but soon was catch up by them. UK was behind both Japan and USA. And, I would not rate UK carrier operations as equal to USA carrier operations even in 1944 or 1945.

December 7th, 1941, the game is exactly reflecting that:

Japan
Carrier Operations - tech level 1942
Amphibious Operations - tech level 1942

USA
Carrier Operations - tech level 1942
Amphibious Operations - tech level 1941

UK
Carrier Operations - tech level 1941
Amphibious Operations - tech level 1941

With the labs available for Japan, UK and USA, inside the game, it is really only the USA that can reach level 1944 both for Carrier Operations and Amphibious Operations. And, this is a correct simulation of the historical events.

---

Japan tech level.JPG (113.47 KiB) Viewed 846 times

[ncc1701e]

Now, let's focus on Amphibious Operations. What is Amphibious Operations about, well it is about Logistics and this is exactly that Logistics. As such, it is looking quite empty today.

---

Existing Amphibious Operations.JPG (106.17 KiB) Viewed 842 times

---

And, my idea is to improve it in order to introduce a different level of penalty per year of technology found, and, of course per country, regarding naval effectiveness loss from port distance.

In fact, I am thinking of a table like the following:

---

Amphibious Operations 2.JPG (35.07 KiB) Viewed 842 times

---

[ncc1701e]

This table could perfectly fit inside the existing implemented table for Amphibious Operations technology:

---

New Amphibious Operations.JPG (150.89 KiB) Viewed 838 times

---

What is the idea behind? Well, after few games, this is extremely difficult for Japan or for UK to invest a lot in both Carrier Operations and Amphibious Operations. Only the USA can really do both as historically.

As such, as the year increases, US navy will have less and less difficulties to maintain fleets longer at sea whereas Japan and UK will have to stay longer in port to recover effectiveness.

If USA and UK surface groups are stacked together in the same naval stack, each group will have its own penalty, the one for USA and the one for UK. As such, UK ships will have to go back earlier to port.

This would also avoid an intensive usage of UK carriers group in 1944, by the Allies player, whereas they had an impact but, not a so significant impact, on the operations of 1944 and 1945. US navy really do the job and the intent of this improvement is just to reflect this.

Thanks for your consideration.

[AlvaroSousa]

Too many special rules start to over complicate the game.

[ncc1701e]

Well, this is an idea I had to answer this:

As for effectiveness losses, in general, I find the sludge hammer approach to effectiveness of ships at sea to be such that it completely ruins any simulation of the war. While one can say, hey, submarines suffered losses to effectiveness while on long patrols, I would counter that the US 5th fleet was at sea the entire war, while in this game, in my campaign they were in port for 90% of the game.

Personally, I would only require ships to be in port for repairs. I would have a distance of say 20 hexes away from any main supply port where ships could operate with very small penalties. The further the ships operate away from the home port, the greater the penalties. This would serve to reduce effectiveness of long range submarines operating far from home. At the same time I would allow oilers to increase effectiveness of fleets. The 5th fleet remained at sea the entire war because it was constantly being resupplied with everything the fleet required to maintain a high level of combat readiness.

United States Fifth Fleet was created April 26th, 1944. So the "entire war" is a little exaggerated anyway.

[*Lava*]

United States Fifth Fleet was created April 26th, 1944. So the "entire war" is a little exaggerated anyway.

They were still at sea longer then the USS Navy in my campaign for the entire campaign.

[*Lava*]

And actually, it was the 3rd Fleet (my mistake) that was the real striking arm of the USS Navy, also called the "Big Blue Fleet." Created March 1943. Elements of the 3rd Fleet were used to form the 5th fleet.

[ncc1701e]

So, do you think the above solution will help your fleets staying at sea any longer later in the war? Or, is it too complicated?

I like your idea of supply oilers retrieving some effectiveness too. The fact is, as an old player of Warplan Europe, I can foresee the exploit that could be done with this mechanism. Supply oilers are cheap and players will buy tons to keep fleets running outside acceptable range from bases.

I think we should perhaps do nothing. The fleets are operating quite fine now, meaning they are in their historical range of operations. It will be very rare to see Japanese CV fleets near Auckland or Melbourne now.

And, with the new port upgrade mechanism, USA can reduce the naval effectiveness penalty by putting more and more bases with port level 5 on the way to Japan.

[sveint]

Just give the US a flat bonus starting in 44?

But is it really needed? I've never played that far.

[*Lava*]

The problem ATM is that the US has only one direction of attack. They must go from New Caledonia, Solomon Islands and then to Manus. Once you take Manus, you can then move West towards the Philippines and North to Truk. Once you take Truk you can then head Eastwards to Gilbert Islands.

In reality the US offensive was a 2 prong attack. The first through the Solomon Islands and the second through the Gilbert Islands.

Look here: http://www.emersonkent.com/map_archive/ ... s_asia.htm

The way the game is set-up there is absolutely no way to attack the Gilbert Islands unless you have taken Truk And Enewetok first. The reason, of course, is because of the drastic hits in effectiveness.

To at least follow a historic path, something must be done which would allow the US to attack the Gilbert Islands from Hawaii. Given how the game is set-up, Johnston Island, Canton Island and Tarawa would have to be made into upgradeable ports.

As it is, the Japanese player would do best, I believe, to set-up a defensive naval perimeter from the Palu Islands to Truk. Fighting in the Coral Sea is far to restricted for naval battles, with the Allies having the advantage of lots of bomber support. Still, since it is the only avenue of attack, there is no real surprise which direction the Allies will be coming from. And thus, the Japanese can plan accordingly.

[ncc1701e]

But if you upgrade Pago Pago to port level 5, I am under the impression that you are perfectly in range with Tarawa as well as Canton Island.

And this, whatever the situation in the Solomons. So a fleet from Pearl Harbor may attack without too much penalty.

[AlvaroSousa]

Just because the US did a 2 prong attack it doesn't mean a player has to.

If the most effective way to take out Japan is in the South then that is the most effective way.

You can go Marshall Islands to Marianas with the port upgrades.

[*Lava*]

That would only be worth it if you could upgrade Tarawa to a level 5 port, so the Allies could start their Pacific prong from the Gilbert Islands. With no level 5 ports in the Gilberts it's best to just leave them alone.

Still it is a long way from Pago Pago, America Samoa to Tarawa, so it would need to be tested.

However, it could offer another option for the Allies to choose and at the same time mimic the historic campaign.

Just off hand, I would say making Tarawa an upgradeable port could significantly change the game play... for the better.

[*Lava*]

Just because the US did a 2 prong attack it doesn't mean a player has to.

If the most effective way to take out Japan is in the South then that is the most effective way.

You can go Marshall Islands to Marianas with the port upgrades.

At the moment, there is only one viable attack lane which is through Rabaul. Opening another, which is also historical, gives the player options and I would assume makes it a bit more difficult for the Japanese to defend. How can a Japanese player not have the advantage if he can concentrate all his power (his entire fleet) on defending the Solomons?

This is why it is also important for the Allies to begin attacking the Japanese Convoy Lanes as soon as possible.

I think there has been too much emphasis on making the Japanese more powerful so they could do better than the actual war, and that is why folks were invading India and Australia. They should instead be concentrating on a better naval defense and knocking out China. As it is, they need only knock out China.

That is why gimping long range submarines also plays into the Japanese hands as he doesn't have to worry about protecting his Convoy Lanes and buying lots of MM to make up the losses.

[ncc1701e]

That would only be worth it if you could upgrade Tarawa to a level 5 port, so the Allies could start their Pacific prong from the Gilbert Islands. With no level 5 ports in the Gilberts it's best to just leave them alone.

Still it is a long way from Pago Pago, America Samoa to Tarawa, so it would need to be tested.

However, it could offer another option for the Allies to choose and at the same time mimic the historic campaign.

Just off hand, I would say making Tarawa an upgradeable port could significantly change the game play... for the better.

That's funny that you say this because I was asking myself: "ok I have invaded Tarawa and now what?".

Since Tarawa is a port level 2, it will be hard to do the next island-hopping to Kwajalein. In your map, it says Tarawa 1943 and Kwajalein 1944 but, in fact, there were only three months between the two battles.

I agree with you that Tarawa should be included in Port Upgrade list. This may lead to another strategy both for USA and Japan. For USA, you did explain it very well, this is the historical path of Admiral Nimitz. For Japan, maybe by raiding Pago Pago or Johnston Island?

---

Pacific War.JPG (257.65 KiB) Viewed 670 times

[ncc1701e]

I think there has been too much emphasis on making the Japanese more powerful so they could do better than the actual war, and that is why folks were invading India and Australia. They should instead be concentrating on a better naval defense and knocking out China. As it is, they need only knock out China.

That is why gimping long range submarines also plays into the Japanese hands as he doesn't have to worry about protecting his Convoy Lanes and buying lots of MM to make up the losses.

There are just two bugs to solve regarding subs. Naval effectiveness penalty won't apply to subs. I think we just have to see how it goes after these fixes and these fixes were not applying to MM anyway.

Given its national production, Japanese player must think defense right after turn 4 or 5.

[*Lava*]

I agree with you that Tarawa should be included in Port Upgrade list. This may lead to another strategy both for USA and Japan. For USA, you did explain it very well, this is the historical path of Admiral Nimitz. For Japan, maybe by raiding Pago Pago or Johnston Island?

I would look at Canton Island instead of Johnston Island as it is actually a pretty strategic point. By moving US ships from the East Coast, to Hawaii, to Canton Island, to New Caledonia, you can keep your effectiveness loss to 0. By taking Canton Island you force the US to either sortie against the Japanese fleet to retake it, or cause them to use Johnston Island to become the intermediate stopping place before moving down to Pago Pago. It effectively increases the time to get ships down to the Solomon Islands by 1 turn.

Either way, if Tarawa was upgraded and the outlaying islands supported with bombers... it could be hard as snot to take by the US.

[anarchyintheuk]

FYI, 3rd Fleet and 5th Fleet were the same thing, i.e. "the Big Blue Fleet." They just rotated designations and fleet staff/commander by operation.

Solomons - 3rd Fleet
Gilberts/Marshall Islands - 5th
Marianas - 5th
Philippines - 3rd
Iwo Jima/Okinawa - 5th
Home Islands/End of the War - 3rd

7th Fleet was MacArthur's navy. Until the Philippines campaign it had no CVEs/BBs.

[ncc1701e]

Either way, if Tarawa was upgraded and the outlaying islands supported with bombers... it could be hard as snot to take by the US.

Yes, but as you said, that would mean fewer planes in the Solomons or elsewhere, you can't be strong everywhere at once.