What is Your Experience with GS 2.1 Naval Warfare?

[rkr1958]

Mine (my opinion that is) is that the Battle of the Atlantic and naval warfare in the Med are playing historically realistic, so much so, that I think we've got it right. My experience in the Battle of the Atlantic is that German subs in 1940 - 1942 are still effective against convoys; but must hunt ones that are unescorted. I find the now the allied player has no problem sending task forces of 2 to 4 DD's (3 on average) to patrol u-boat infested areas and provide escorts for convoys. I also find that as the allied player, I tend to keep my BB's and CV's close to England, and under RAF air protection, if operating in the Atlantic or use most of them in the Med against the Italians and in support of the British 8th army's move into Libya. In the Atlantic, I use DD's in the numbers necessary to escort BB's, CV's, transports and high value convoys (i.e., large UK convoys or the Murmansk convoy). I've also found that the allied player needs to be careful near Norway (assuming it's axis control) as the German surface fleet combined with airpower can be deadly to DD's or BB's that are moved their in insufficient strength.

In the Med, I'll quote from a recent email I sent to Joe Rock from our last move.

I had two air units in range of your sub this turn, but 2-3 steps didn't seem worth the oil expenditure. I'm beginning to think that it's not even worth it to try to keep the Italian BBs alive after Greece. The subs are too effecitve against them, even in port.

I agree that RN sub attacks against the Italian BB fleet is frustration for the axis and effective for the allies. It, in my opinion, is a low risk tactic too. I do think that both the Med and Atlantic naval warfare is playing historical and, personally, I'm pleased with it. I, like you, am not sure what to do with the Italian fleet. Historically, they implement a strategy, similar to the Germans in WW-I, called a fleet in being. Meaning that it's mere presence was a threat to the RN and would force them to divert significant naval resources to guard against it. Historically, it was German airpower that was the threat to the RN in the Med. The Taranto raid carried out be a dozen (or so) bi-planes put 3 of the 6 Italian battleships out of action. In my opinion, the Italian surface fleet was a paper tiger. That is, look good on paper; but in reality wasn't that big of a threat. I think that what we see now in GS with all the naval changes is quite historically realistic and I really like the play of it!

[zechi]

In my current game with Diplomaticus I found the Regia Marina quite useful if supported with Luftwaffe TACs. I wanted to try something new and combine an offensive into Egypt with the Iraqi Rebellion. Before my offensive I captured Yugoslavia and Greece. Allies did not try to intervene. Axis Army advanced into Egypt but stopped near Mersa Matruh as 8th Army decided to defend at the bottleneck of El Alamein. They were supported by two CV and other RN to protect the CV. I placed some German air units on Crete, Rhodos and in Libya and then struck at an RN DD, first with TACs then finished it off with the Regia Marina, which allowed me to continue an attack on a CV who lost already steps because of an interception. Next turn the RN counterattacked and Regia Marina suffered a loss of a BB and DD as well as a SUB heavily damaged. Nevertheless, RN moved into range of my air units and I was able to sink a badly damaged CV (3 steps remaining) with air strike and SUB and to reduce a BB down too 2 steps, but in latter case I go bad results, as normally odds were in favor off sinking it. So losses of the RN were one CV and one DD against one Italian BB.

After this turn the RN retreated out of the Med, which gave a lot of more supply in North Africa and allowed me too place more units in Libya/Egypt to support my ground offensive.

So I would say that the Regia Marina is useful if used in combination with the Luftwaffe.

In general naval engagements are still very randomly, for example in the battle above I got expexted results with German TAC against British BB with 5:1 or 4:1 but scored two times only 2:1.

[Cybvep]

I like convoy warfare - the results seem plausible and the Axis can give the Allies hell in 1940-1941. 1942 is usually more even, while by 1943 subs have to be used conservatively, unless you managed to perform a Sea Lion etc.

In the Med I didn't notice any big changes when compared with the previous versions. The only two big deviations from history are hat subs seem to be too dominant in the Med (not airpower, as the Axis player rarely can spare FTRs or TACs before 1943) and that there are no battles for Maltan convoys, while historically Malta was the centre of attention in 1941-1943. Besides that, it's fine.

[Kragdob]

I tend to agree with the above with one observation that it is quite easy to protect convoys. You need minimum of six DDs to do that and building to the number of like 10 DDs is not a challenge in 1940 (if not facing Sealinon). From my point of view there should be more convoys (with the same total PPs as they are now).

In general naval engagements are still very randomly, for example in the battle above I got expexted results with German TAC against British BB with 5:1 or 4:1 but scored two times only 2:1.

It is my regular observation. I usually subtract 1 or 2 from combat result expectation as they tend to be lower as a rule. I sense some randomness flaw somwhere (wrong calculation of SEED?) but don't have time to investigate.

[metolius]

Has anybody taken a stab at a really serious u-boat effort yet, to see how that would play out? Something like double the usual number of u-boats.

[richardsd]

yes, the problem is that they are a liability late in the game, it can be fun as it usually takes the Allies a couple of turns to figure out whats going on, but once you sink a couple of DD"s they catch on

you can control seas all the way through to the end of 43

if you are really lucky and can hide it long enough you can really hurt Torch!

[Peter Stauffenberg]

I think doing a sub blob as the Axis is not a good idea anymore. The main reason is that DD's perform much better on defense against subs that they used to. So if the Germans start to target DD's then they will receive more step losses than they inflict. Since DD's and subs cost the same then it's not a good idea. You can certainly use this strategy very early in the game if the Allied player is careless and doesn't form DD groups. if you sink a DD here and there then the UK economy won't keep up with the losses.

Once USA joins the Allies the subs will be overwhelmed. The Allies build DD's and strategic bombers to get control and once the battle of the Atlantic is lost for the Axis the bombers fly to Britain to bombard the Axis economy.

The biggest problem with such a strategy is that the Axis will spend so many PP's on the Atlantic that they will not be able to have a strong Barbarossa. Russia is the most dangerous Allied opponent and must be dealt with or you risk losing the game early.

I think you need about 5-7 subs in the Atlantic to harass convoys and use hit and run tactics. If you avoid attacking where DD's can counter strike then the subs can be a menace for quite some time. It means the Allies have to build naval units to protect their transports and ensure the convoys get home. That buys the Germans some time until the Allies start invading.

If you ignore subs completely the Allied player will see this and focus his builds on air and land units. That is not good for the Axis. So you need some effort into subs so the Allies have to fight to win the battle of the Atlantic.