suggestion for DD units in GS v2.0

[Aryaman]

Hi
This is my suggestion. I am working under the assumption that DD units represent fleets of destroyers without cruisers, if that is the case the shore bombardement power they have is out of all proportion, they mounted light guns (4.5"-47") as main battery and for AA missions basically, so I think they should have 0 attack and 0 shock, so they are used in the role of Antisub and for Antiship support.

[schwerpunkt]

Hi
This is my suggestion. I am working under the assumption that DD units represent fleets of destroyers without cruisers, if that is the case the shore bombardement power they have is out of all proportion, they mounted light guns (4.5"-47") as main battery and for AA missions basically, so I think they should have 0 attack and 0 shock, so they are used in the role of Antisub and for Antiship support.

I'll raise it with Ronnie and Borger as its always struck me as odd.

[joerock22]

I agree with this. It doesn't seem right that the Allies can buy mostly DDs to deal with the subs, and then get good shore bombardment with these units. If you want more effectiveness against ground units, you should have to build more BBs.

[AdmiralSarek]

A 4.7inch gun is 120mm, which makes decent size artiliary. Also a destroyer group the way the game is moddeled should have some light crusiers as well, otherwise it should cost less. Also lighter ships can get closer to shore, go up rivers etc.
So my 10cents, they need some ground bombardment.

[joerock22]

A 4.7inch gun is 120mm, which makes decent size artiliary. Also a destroyer group the way the game is moddeled should have some light crusiers as well, otherwise it should cost less. Also lighter ships can get closer to shore, go up rivers etc.
So my 10cents, they need some ground bombardment.

But we know that field artillery is incorporated into regular infantry units. So if the destoyers got that close, wouldn't the ground unit be able to fire back?

[AdmiralSarek]

"But we know that field artillery is incorporated into regular infantry units. So if the destoyers got that close, wouldn't the ground unit be able to fire back?"

Yes I guess they could, but it would probably be a lossing fight for the ground based artillery.
Or course against tanks/self propelled artiliary the ships could be in a spot of bother.
so hmmm, maybe a little bit of naval atack for ground units? tough call. Of course agasint battleships the land artilary would be next to useless.

Doesn't GS2.0 have some more fortifications in Europe? shore dombardments on these should entail some risk of damage to the ships.

Does shore bombardment take org of off the ship doing it? it probably should as it would represent alot of action compared to a 1day at most naval battle.

Overall the shock should stay with the destroyers, but the ground attack could perhaps go lower.

As an aside I read once that the HMS Nelson or Rodney supported landings in Italy by firing it's 16inch (406mm) guns over the toe of the boot guns have a range of 32,000 m. Land based guns are no match for this.

[Aryaman]

A 4.7inch gun is 120mm, which makes decent size artiliary. Also a destroyer group the way the game is moddeled should have some light crusiers as well, otherwise it should cost less. Also lighter ships can get closer to shore, go up rivers etc.
So my 10cents, they need some ground bombardment.

They even had some AT capacity, but the ships had to be very close to the coast and the target in an exposed position.
However presently DD units have Ground attack 1/Shock 1 while BB have 1/2, so the Ground attack of DD is the same of BB, that is out of proportion by all means IMO even if we count Light Cruisers.

[ncali]

I tend to think the two fleet types represent mixed fleets incorporating predominantly different ship types. This kind of makes sense considering how few destroyer units the British get at the beginning, and the fact that the various minor country navies get destroyer units. That said, I have no real objection to this proposal except perhaps to consider that it would make destroyers relatively less valuable and think about whether a small reduction in their cost or increase in another attribute is warranted.

[AdmiralSarek]

I will have to look in my Janes tonight. But the fleet composition is key.
A destroyer group probably contains a few light cruisers, and a few fleet destroyers. But predominantly it would contain lighter vessels; Frigates, corvettes, old destroyers etc.


As for battleships main guns. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BL_15_inch_/42_naval_gun. BL 15 inch Mark I - he firing life of a 15 inch gun was approximately 335 full charge firings, after which it had to be re-lined.
So hardly good for 20 days of bombardment. But of course the battleship unit will also have heavy and light cruisers and fleet destroyers.

"presently DD units have Ground attack 1/Shock 1 while BB have 1/2, so the Ground attack of DD is the same of BB, that is out of proportion by all means IMO even if we count Light Cruisers."

So having re-thought it make the ground attack 0 for destroyers. Or make it go down as the anti-sub value goes up as destroyers are replaced with more fit for purpose frigates and corvettes.

[harrybanana]

I think there was actually an incident during the landings in Sicily where some American destroyers were engaged by some panzers of he HG Division. As I recall the panzers realized very quickly that they were outclassed and withdrew.

I am also of the opinion that the DDs in the game are actually composed of a mixed force of Corvettes, frigates, DDs and CLs, while the BBs are a mix of BBs, CAs, CLs and DDs. I have no problem with DDs having their attack reduced to 0. But at the same time I think their build time should be significantly reduced. I am not aware that DDs took twice as long to construct as subs and Corvettes and Frigates were bult in very short periods of time.

I also think that there should be more DD units at the start of the game. The British and Canadians combined had 190 destroyers at the wars start while the Germans had only 57 subs. Yet in the game the Germans start with 3 sub units and the British with only 2 DDs, one of which can't even be moved for about 1 year.

Ideally a unit which bombards should have to return to port before it could bombard again; but this is probably not possible to incorporate into the game engine.

[AdmiralSarek]

I think that the code needs to be changed so that when destroyers and battleships are bombarding forts or cities that they can take damage as in real life these areas had coast defense guns etc. The free damage that the allies can do with shore bombardment really does get kind of silly after a while.

[AdmiralSarek]

I have had some more thought and now think that in the new G.S.2.0 in my educated opinion Battleship groups and Destroyer groups should have their ground attack set to 0, and keep the shock as is. So they can decrease entrenchment and decrease organisation, which sounds historically accurate, but not kill thousands of troops. Also bombarding cities with harbours (as they would have cost defence guns) and forts should entail some risk.

This is for the following reasons:
1) Play balance, the Allies can just sail around murdering the garrisons in France and the Mediterranean, especially when the German air is needed in the Russian summer.
2) In G.S. 2.0 you can amphibious attack so naval bombardments don't need to reduce steps.
3) Look at the guns on the battleships, after about 300 shoots they need to go back to port and have the barrels re-lined, hardly makes them suitable for weeks of shore bombardment. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BL_15_inch_Mk_I_naval_gun), 355 shots for this one, firing rate 2 rounds per minute. The Battlewagons just don't use their main guns that much, they are for sinking other ships.
4) It is more historically accurate to what they actually achieved.

Interested in hearing others thoughts.

[shawkhan]

Before we take away the ground attack ability of naval units it might be wise to examine their record in the European theater.
Both the Salerno landings and the Normandy invasion at Omaha beach were saved by naval bombardment which Destroyed panzer attacks by the German forces. DDs were especially valuable as they were of more shallow draft than the larger ships and could fire at closer range. The big disadvantage of naval bombardment in WWII was the lack of accuracy at range, not the effectiveness of the naval guns.
Initial naval bombardment from naval guns was quite inaccurate, but still useful for shock effects. The concussion from one ton shells exploding would render defending troops unconscious or nearly so for upwards of an hour. If landings occured while the defenders were disrupted, things would go quite well. Naval landings seldom went well during WWII.
Naval bombardment's accuracy became deadly once Naval gunfire support teams were ashore. Once accuracy was increased any German counterattack, even at night when the planes couldn't fly, was rendered suicidal within range of naval guns. This was the real reason why Allied forces, once ashore, could not be dislodged by the Germans.
On at least two major occasions Allied forces would have been pushed into the sea w/o naval gunfire support. And yes, naval guns were horribly deadly against unentrenched troops.

[AdmiralSarek]

shawkhan, you points are valid. But D-day is not quite the same as being able to reduce steps of off divisions willy nilly, and hard to simulate in this game.
How many men in a Garrison and an Infantry division, and hence how many would be killed buy a one step loss from bombardment?.

What about play balance, how does that feel to people?

[Aryaman]

I read that for the upcoming Commander WW1 game Cruiser units will have no shore bombardement capacity, I think CEAW should be modified along that line

[shawkhan]

Unfortunate that. The 8" guns of cruisers were instrumental in stopping the attack of 150 German panzers at Salerno.

[AdmiralSarek]

Do you know how many of the 150 German panzers were destroyed?
Becasue that is ground attack.
Shooting at them untill they go away is shock, which decreases organisation.
Remember for tanks anything other than a direct hit will do nothing (with 8inch shells anyway) ,the same applies to bombing.

Ships just having shock means that they only decrease organisation, which is important.
Anyone else play Hearts of Iron? in that the ships gave an efficiency boost (the oposite of say attacking across a rive) to the attacking troops. This worked well, unfortunately it won't work in this game engine. Just giving them shock is closer.


Enough of the history, what about game balance?

[shawkhan]

OK, here is a short account of what just ONE DD accomplished at Salerno against German Tiger Tanks, the best there was. You can mod the game any way you want but facts are facts. Naval bombardment WAS deadly, especially DDs at close range.
The Germans were now making a terrific counterattack on our precarious landing area. Some of the Tiger (Mark VI) tanks were actually moving southward along the beach to the beachhead. We (the Edison) were faced with counter battery fire from these tanks and other Wehrmacht gun emplacements throughout the remainder of this engagement. The flat trajectoried 88 mm shell had a unique piercing sound as it passed between our Director and the #1 stack. We had been used to the fluttery sound of larger projectiles in arched trajectories. (Like our 5" 38s, most enemy artillery projectiles were subsonic. The 88, I later learned, had a 4,000 feet per second muzzle velocity, and when you heard the sound, the projectile was long gone. At Salerno ranges, the 88 shell was in a very flat trajectory, where a "miss was as good as a mile", usually more. They had to hit you directly and hope you had enough metal to set off their fuze, which was essentially designed to be anti tank, armor piercing.)
We got right down to business with our newly adopted SFCP and went to work. From my own station in secondary AA on the after deck house, although we had a few air attacks the first afternoon, I was able to get quite a perspective on our participation in the engagement. The Skipper and the Gun Boss teamed up in a driving and dynamic display of destroyer gun power. The Exec. and Navigator teamed up in a most difficult job of high-speed navigation in restricted waters, while opening up fire lanes for the 5" guns. Some unseen bond between these two teams kept matters from getting completely out of hand. The Captain wanted to present an unpredictable target to enemy fire while maintaining our guns on firing bearings for long periods of time. I am sure the Exec. and Navigator did not actually have time to think about Rocks and Shoals (the vernacular name for Navy Regulations), as they kept us from straying back into the mine field to seaward or running aground on Salerno's shores. The engineers supplied flank emergency ahead and back in total disregard of acceleration curves.
(Since we were firing almost all of the time , and the water was full of spent cartridge cases-"brass"- it needs to be added that the firing cut-out cams would take Guns #1 and #2 out of action, or Guns #3 and #4, depending on how fast we could turn in that mine safety zone and get going the other way.) All the "systems" worked perfectly. Guns and engines and boilers are stress-tested to some per cent over normal, and the Edison worked that extra percent all the time in the no man's land of Salerno. Yes, we had to be rebricked and regunned after Salerno, but the systems never failed under those punishing conditions.

On some of the early targets, we had to fire rapid continuous (about 20 rounds per gun per minute) fire for one, two and in one grueling demonstration, for six minutes at a time. Although our "doctrine" told us this could be uneconomical of projectiles (rapid "timed" fire was better) the "spot" from the NLO was "on" and the urgency in his voice conveyed to us a requirement for extreme performance. Later we went to continuous timed fire, more economical of projectiles and nearly as effective on a per unit time basis. The Army's Artillery General Officer ashore who was fighting this phase of his battle with our artillery, sent repeated messages of encouragement. Finally, in the waning hours of daylight, as we left the firing scene, he sent one of the most magnificent messages of appreciation to Rear Admiral Lyal Davidson that I have ever seen recorded. "Thank God for the fire of the blue-belly Navy ships. Probably could not have stuck out Blue and Yellow beaches. Brave fellows these; tell them so. General Lange." Later and without waste of language, he told vividly of tanks piled up in rubble and how attack after attack of the German forces had been blunted, and finally turned back, and the beachhead made secure. Again, by mail we received from this expressive and appreciative source, photographs showing the terrific damage inflicted on twelve German tanks. They were piled up like scrap iron. Many of us were truly amazed at the localization of effective blast damage from concentrated 5" 38 HC fire.

[afk_nero]

I agree that this could be effective but this is not the situation in the game.

Firstly destroyer groups are being used to attack corps entrenched along the coast (up to 50miles).

I would like to hear of if there where any examples of roving packs of naval units attacking entrenched corps - not in support of landings but just to damage the corps, over a 20 day period.

The situation that currently exists in the game is not historical - the support by naval with landing can be simulated in the new rules under amphibious landings.

Other than the attacks on islands (and even then usually in support of an assault) I cannot recall battle groups of a ships spending many days preparing for an attack. Please also remember there are certain elements not reflected in the game - e-boats, large shore batteries (applicable for certain cities and area's) which made it difficult for this to happen.

I agree with the commentary that this could be effective in certain cases but randomly roving up and down an enemy coast blowing up entrechend corps in cities is not what happened and should not be reflected in the game.

We need to keep remembering the scale and timeline of CEAW.

[pk867]

The map scale is about ~50km or 28-30 miles per hex.