@shawkhan
Thank you for providing us with this vivid example. However, I still have doubts that events like in Salerno happened very often during the war. As far as I know shore bombardment was mainly used during the big invasions, like D-Day, Operation Husky or at Salerno. And try to compare the losses the Germans took from shore bombardment at Salerno with the losses 1 step of an ARM or MECH in GS.
In CEAW GS shore bombardment is a common tactic which is used by the Allies nearly every turn right from the beginning of the game on every front and it is very effective, because the chances are high that at least some damage is done. If the Allied navy has nothing else to do, they shore bombard just for the losses they can inflict on the Axis (this happens often in 1939/1940 with the French navy for example), which seems very unrealistic.
I think the proposal of AdmiralSarek sounds very reasonable from a game balance perspective and it also seems more realistic.
suggestion for DD units in GS v2.0
Moderators: firepowerjohan, rkr1958, Happycat, Slitherine Core
)
Actually, I have proven I think, that it is NOT realistic to take away the ability of naval bombardment to inflict losses. If it is a game balance thing, fine.
There are many things in CEAW:GS that are not realistic, such as the ability of ships to remain at sea for the entire war if they like, and the extraordinary losses that TAC and even STR bombers inflict on units. A common Axis tactic for instance, is to bomb Russian armor to oblivion behind the frontlines, which didn't happen. The major purpose of TAC air was to interdict ground movement during daylight hours. It would be more realistic to have air attacks to only have shock value as well. Every Allied invasion was supported by naval guns, which was the 3rd leading reason the Germans lost, according to Field Marshal von Rundstedt. Every major German counterattack would have succeeded in the war against the beachheads if naval guns were not present. Remember that air power was limited to only daylight hours and really shouldn't be allowed to fly at all in bad weather, the Russians being a special case for reasons too long to go into here. Remember, the Battle of the Bulge was only possible because bad weather Grounded Allied air.
I agree that naval units weren't used constantly, but neither were air units.
We have to remember that this is just a game. I suppose that this rule will move the game balance in the Axis favor, and if people think that is a good thing I can live with it, but please, don't think it is historical or realistic.
There are many things in CEAW:GS that are not realistic, such as the ability of ships to remain at sea for the entire war if they like, and the extraordinary losses that TAC and even STR bombers inflict on units. A common Axis tactic for instance, is to bomb Russian armor to oblivion behind the frontlines, which didn't happen. The major purpose of TAC air was to interdict ground movement during daylight hours. It would be more realistic to have air attacks to only have shock value as well. Every Allied invasion was supported by naval guns, which was the 3rd leading reason the Germans lost, according to Field Marshal von Rundstedt. Every major German counterattack would have succeeded in the war against the beachheads if naval guns were not present. Remember that air power was limited to only daylight hours and really shouldn't be allowed to fly at all in bad weather, the Russians being a special case for reasons too long to go into here. Remember, the Battle of the Bulge was only possible because bad weather Grounded Allied air.
I agree that naval units weren't used constantly, but neither were air units.
We have to remember that this is just a game. I suppose that this rule will move the game balance in the Axis favor, and if people think that is a good thing I can live with it, but please, don't think it is historical or realistic.
I think ships should not have damage ability. This dozen of tanks destroyed deffinetely means 0 at corps scale.
Main problem in CEaW is that we have few huge units of both ships and air, while in real war much smaller detachments often used. Following this, this large forces of bombers and ships tend to inflict senseable damage to corps units, but if we are looking for a problem, its organisation of ships and air.
If we max , for example, strength of this untis to lets say 3 (aswell reduce price, oil consumption and so on) we will start to have more historical accurate results, from my point.
But game is fine as it is, some level of abstaction always needed.
Main problem in CEaW is that we have few huge units of both ships and air, while in real war much smaller detachments often used. Following this, this large forces of bombers and ships tend to inflict senseable damage to corps units, but if we are looking for a problem, its organisation of ships and air.
If we max , for example, strength of this untis to lets say 3 (aswell reduce price, oil consumption and so on) we will start to have more historical accurate results, from my point.
But game is fine as it is, some level of abstaction always needed.
-
StevenCarleton
- Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
- Posts: 79
- Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 5:03 am
- Location: Royal Oak, MI, USA
Actually, Rudel's memoirs describe how the Soviet Baltic fleet caused significant losses on the German forces advancing on Leningrad and so his Stukas were sortied against the heavy ships. There is also the famous picture of the Tiger tank laying on its side in Caen, having been hit by BB fire (okay, very anecdotal)
On the other hand, the USN in the Pacific in 44-45 had very little effect on the heavily bunkered Japanese, eventhough the US fleets were enormous and had excellent radio links with ground and air units.
So, like any other artillery, naval bombardment is most effective when it catches troops & armour in the open and has forward fire control from ground or airborne controllers.
It seems that naval ground attack is best reflected as shock effect. It should only create significant step losses in concert with air and/or ground units who can provide fire control, and of course under Blue-Sky weather conditions.
On the other hand, the USN in the Pacific in 44-45 had very little effect on the heavily bunkered Japanese, eventhough the US fleets were enormous and had excellent radio links with ground and air units.
So, like any other artillery, naval bombardment is most effective when it catches troops & armour in the open and has forward fire control from ground or airborne controllers.
It seems that naval ground attack is best reflected as shock effect. It should only create significant step losses in concert with air and/or ground units who can provide fire control, and of course under Blue-Sky weather conditions.
-
StevenCarleton
- Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
- Posts: 79
- Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 5:03 am
- Location: Royal Oak, MI, USA
There seems to be some confusion about the how the game mechanics reflect combat.
Of course, only Iain and Johan can say for sure what their assumptions were, but typically hex/turn-based based games at this strategic/operational level assume:
- A unit controls its hex, but often just occupies an edge, reflecting concentration for defense or attack.
- A unit doesn't necessarily fight the entire length of its turn. If it destroys its opposing unit in day or two, it does something else. Or it could simply be wiped out if on defense, long before the turn ends.
- A unit's effectiveness doesn't always reflect its count of men and machines. For example, military analysts often assert that sudden losses of 50% can render the combat effectiveness of a unit to be near zero since heavy losses often mean the loss of key officers and NCOs and it takes time for a unit to reorganize and regroup.
The case of naval vs. land combat at this level can't reflect all factors, and I'm glad we don't have to as gamers. For instance, BBs and CCs typically had sophisticated fire control systems which allowed them to accurately fire at naval or ground targets on the move, even with severe wave action. Shore batteries would've been at a disadvantage trying to hit a moving ship, bobbing up and down on the waves.
Naval shore attacks would have to deal with minefields and depth of costal waters as stated previously by others.
Of course, only Iain and Johan can say for sure what their assumptions were, but typically hex/turn-based based games at this strategic/operational level assume:
- A unit controls its hex, but often just occupies an edge, reflecting concentration for defense or attack.
- A unit doesn't necessarily fight the entire length of its turn. If it destroys its opposing unit in day or two, it does something else. Or it could simply be wiped out if on defense, long before the turn ends.
- A unit's effectiveness doesn't always reflect its count of men and machines. For example, military analysts often assert that sudden losses of 50% can render the combat effectiveness of a unit to be near zero since heavy losses often mean the loss of key officers and NCOs and it takes time for a unit to reorganize and regroup.
The case of naval vs. land combat at this level can't reflect all factors, and I'm glad we don't have to as gamers. For instance, BBs and CCs typically had sophisticated fire control systems which allowed them to accurately fire at naval or ground targets on the move, even with severe wave action. Shore batteries would've been at a disadvantage trying to hit a moving ship, bobbing up and down on the waves.
Naval shore attacks would have to deal with minefields and depth of costal waters as stated previously by others.
Had an epiphany of sorts. Many of the complaints about naval units bombarding ground units willy nilly would be eliminated if naval units had the same inability to see ground units as submarines. Then targets would have to be spotted by air or ground units first in order to fire. Can't really see how DDs could see 2 hexes inland anyway. Don't know if this is workable in the game system but it could be an elegant way to handle the problem.
Actually the element of surprise in the game would be much enhanced if air units had a more realistic spotting range as well.
And to a previous poster who couldn't extrapolate my report on the effect of a single DD on ground units, the fleet at the battle of Salerno comprised 18 ships, including two 15" gun BBs, the Warspite and another whose name escapes me at the moment. These 18 ships destroyed the offensive power of the 15th PzGrenadier division and 2 panzer divisions, trashing over a hundred tanks, and killing hundreds if not thousands of troops.
As I have tried to explain, naval units at sea cannot spot ground targets well, but once friendly ground units can spot for them, the ensuing devastation was nothing short of awesome.
Actually the element of surprise in the game would be much enhanced if air units had a more realistic spotting range as well.
And to a previous poster who couldn't extrapolate my report on the effect of a single DD on ground units, the fleet at the battle of Salerno comprised 18 ships, including two 15" gun BBs, the Warspite and another whose name escapes me at the moment. These 18 ships destroyed the offensive power of the 15th PzGrenadier division and 2 panzer divisions, trashing over a hundred tanks, and killing hundreds if not thousands of troops.
As I have tried to explain, naval units at sea cannot spot ground targets well, but once friendly ground units can spot for them, the ensuing devastation was nothing short of awesome.
-
StevenCarleton
- Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
- Posts: 79
- Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 5:03 am
- Location: Royal Oak, MI, USA
That's a nice abstraction and a very practical solution!
Your very interesting report (link?) makes it clear that troops in the open were very vulnerable to naval gunfire as part of an amph. landing. I believe Kesselring's forces in Aug 43 were massing north of Naples and had to rush down to Salerno to oppose the landings. No wonder Rommel wanted to put his Panzers right on the coast, in bunkers, in Northern France in 44.
What do you mean by "air units had a more realistic spotting range"?
Your very interesting report (link?) makes it clear that troops in the open were very vulnerable to naval gunfire as part of an amph. landing. I believe Kesselring's forces in Aug 43 were massing north of Naples and had to rush down to Salerno to oppose the landings. No wonder Rommel wanted to put his Panzers right on the coast, in bunkers, in Northern France in 44.
What do you mean by "air units had a more realistic spotting range"?
-
Peter Stauffenberg
- General - Carrier
- Posts: 4745
- Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 4:13 pm
- Location: Oslo, Norway
We're experimenting with changing the values for BB's and DD's.
Currently the BB's have ground attack = 1 and shock attack = 2. DD's have ground attack = 1 and shock attack = 1.
What we've done is to bump the BB ground attack to 2 so the BB's have double the chance of DD's to inflict damage upon units. To counter for that we added a value to general.txt. This value will increase the survivability to the ground / air units vs shore bombardments. Currently this value is set to 2 and that means the BB's inflict almost the same amount of damage while the DD's inflict less. Since the survivability is higher it means you rarely see losses of 3 or 4 from shore bombardments. Usually you see 0 or 1 and occasionally 2.
If that's too much we can increase the increased survivability value by 3 or more. Then shore bombardment will mainly do shock damage.
I've also noticed that shore bombardment rarely inflict damage upon units in entrenched position (cities, fortresses and dug in open hexes).
We've made another change meaning that entrenched units can only be brought down to level 1 by air / naval bombardment. So you need land units to remove all entrenchments. Attacking units with entrenchments mean you inflict less damage. This also means that your land units are most vulnerable when moving to a hex and immediately being bombardment. Then you have no entrenchment levels. This will encourage units staying in entrenched position.
I just tell this to show you that you're maybe discussing aspects of the game that's different from what we're working with.
Currently the BB's have ground attack = 1 and shock attack = 2. DD's have ground attack = 1 and shock attack = 1.
What we've done is to bump the BB ground attack to 2 so the BB's have double the chance of DD's to inflict damage upon units. To counter for that we added a value to general.txt. This value will increase the survivability to the ground / air units vs shore bombardments. Currently this value is set to 2 and that means the BB's inflict almost the same amount of damage while the DD's inflict less. Since the survivability is higher it means you rarely see losses of 3 or 4 from shore bombardments. Usually you see 0 or 1 and occasionally 2.
If that's too much we can increase the increased survivability value by 3 or more. Then shore bombardment will mainly do shock damage.
I've also noticed that shore bombardment rarely inflict damage upon units in entrenched position (cities, fortresses and dug in open hexes).
We've made another change meaning that entrenched units can only be brought down to level 1 by air / naval bombardment. So you need land units to remove all entrenchments. Attacking units with entrenchments mean you inflict less damage. This also means that your land units are most vulnerable when moving to a hex and immediately being bombardment. Then you have no entrenchment levels. This will encourage units staying in entrenched position.
I just tell this to show you that you're maybe discussing aspects of the game that's different from what we're working with.
Last edited by Peter Stauffenberg on Sat Nov 20, 2010 4:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
Peter Stauffenberg
- General - Carrier
- Posts: 4745
- Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 4:13 pm
- Location: Oslo, Norway
The spotting range is divided into land spotting and sea spotting. The first is used to spot into land hexes and the latter into sea hexes. You need to have some kind of land spotting for the naval units so they can see where they intend to invade or bombard. Subs can't bombard land units so they don't need a land spotting range.
We have to take into consideration that a BB unit doesn't only consist of battleships. The fleet has many units of different kinds. The fleet can even have CVL's in the task force who could perform some kind of spotting overland. So I think a land spotting range of 2 is not bad. Naval units are used to spy upon enemy positions to prepare for an invasion. That will become harder if you don't have some kind of land spotting range.
I'm also sceptical to giving the air units higher spotting range. That means rear units can more easily be bombarded and destroyed. E. g. early in the war the battered front line units have to retreat to have a chance to be repaired. If e. g. strategic bombers can see far into enemy land it means you can't retreat and save the unit. The strategic bomber can attack and finish off the unit. You see this late in the game when the spotting ranges are higher.
Even if the strategic bomber has a longer attack range it doesn't mean it was great for attacking land units deep into enemy land.
We have to focus on what's the most important issue here. That is to reduce the weird combat effects where naval units can cripple land units if lucky on shore bombardments.
I've noticed that garrisons are very poor to have in coastal defense. These units have less survivability and thus more susceptible to shore bombardment. With the amphs they tend to retreat if brought to red efficiency. This means that garrisons should NOT be used as coastal defender except in cities. Put corps units on the coast line.
We have to take into consideration that a BB unit doesn't only consist of battleships. The fleet has many units of different kinds. The fleet can even have CVL's in the task force who could perform some kind of spotting overland. So I think a land spotting range of 2 is not bad. Naval units are used to spy upon enemy positions to prepare for an invasion. That will become harder if you don't have some kind of land spotting range.
I'm also sceptical to giving the air units higher spotting range. That means rear units can more easily be bombarded and destroyed. E. g. early in the war the battered front line units have to retreat to have a chance to be repaired. If e. g. strategic bombers can see far into enemy land it means you can't retreat and save the unit. The strategic bomber can attack and finish off the unit. You see this late in the game when the spotting ranges are higher.
Even if the strategic bomber has a longer attack range it doesn't mean it was great for attacking land units deep into enemy land.
We have to focus on what's the most important issue here. That is to reduce the weird combat effects where naval units can cripple land units if lucky on shore bombardments.
I've noticed that garrisons are very poor to have in coastal defense. These units have less survivability and thus more susceptible to shore bombardment. With the amphs they tend to retreat if brought to red efficiency. This means that garrisons should NOT be used as coastal defender except in cities. Put corps units on the coast line.
-
AdmiralSarek
- Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
- Posts: 49
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 12:32 am
- Location: New Zealand