As mentioned, I dont' have a problem with overall combat results versus transports.
I can see using units to block being annoying. But I don't think there's any simple solution. There is the same problems with using subs or other naval units to "block" other units, particularly in chokepionts like the channel or southern Norway. It would be nice if there was a way to sail past another unit, but this has been suggested before - and it seems the game mechanics don't allow it. Perhaps this is a case where leaving it to players to develop their own house rules is best (i.e., transports can only be left at chokepoints if they are moving through on their way to somewhere else).
We need to fix this in 2.2: transports of iron!
Moderators: firepowerjohan, rkr1958, Happycat, Slitherine Core
Re: We need to fix this in 2.2: transports of iron!
Well, I think that blocking a hex with combat unit is a little bit different. The abstraction that you can treat this a an ad-hoc force for suicidal mission is convincing.
The only thing is that it is not uncommon that huge task forces are unable to destroy it. I've given arguments/examples. If you think it's ok that 50 warships is unable to destroy 50 transports or equivalent just because 'balance is right' than I'm unable to discuss with it.
The only thing is that it is not uncommon that huge task forces are unable to destroy it. I've given arguments/examples. If you think it's ok that 50 warships is unable to destroy 50 transports or equivalent just because 'balance is right' than I'm unable to discuss with it.
Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few.
Re: We need to fix this in 2.2: transports of iron!
Main problem with that is that naval warfare in game is nothing like in reality to start with (you need ~80 days to cross atlantic with battleship and all 100+ with convoy, back to sailing fleet romantic? 
)
For sure it is needed to allow any naval combat happening at all, it would hardly occur if ships move from any point to any in 1 turn, like they would in reality.
Classic wargame engine ( with hexes, turn etc you know ) is just terrible to simulate naval combat when turn is 20 days. But game is focused on ground war in Europe, so engine doing its job, we should just accept it as it is.
Secondary - naval units in game reffer to ... nothing in reality. What is sub unit for example? Subs never operated in large "fleets", they were spread all over convoy ways alone or in small packs. Probably battleship unit reffers to traditional tast force - some capital ships protected with lots of destroyers and other small vessels, maybe escort carrier. But what is carrier unit? Carrier fleet is totally pacific war feature. You can count carriers used in European theater using fingers on single hand.
Now to the main part.
Have you ever heard about entire divisions (leave alone corps) being sunk in their transports in european theater? I did not. Because of hex structure of the map you need MUCH MORE ships to protect your transports/convoys, then you need in reality. So if we implement super-squishy transports (easy to sunk with 1 naval attack) we will simple force players to build unrealistic huge fleets to save their cargo at all.
Resume :
Engine is not suited for naval warfare at all, leave it alone. Whatever you do, it will not become realistic, so realism is not an argument. Current rules already punish people for trying to do something amphibious without proper naval superiority, so its OK.
)For sure it is needed to allow any naval combat happening at all, it would hardly occur if ships move from any point to any in 1 turn, like they would in reality.
Classic wargame engine ( with hexes, turn etc you know ) is just terrible to simulate naval combat when turn is 20 days. But game is focused on ground war in Europe, so engine doing its job, we should just accept it as it is.
Secondary - naval units in game reffer to ... nothing in reality. What is sub unit for example? Subs never operated in large "fleets", they were spread all over convoy ways alone or in small packs. Probably battleship unit reffers to traditional tast force - some capital ships protected with lots of destroyers and other small vessels, maybe escort carrier. But what is carrier unit? Carrier fleet is totally pacific war feature. You can count carriers used in European theater using fingers on single hand.
Now to the main part.
Have you ever heard about entire divisions (leave alone corps) being sunk in their transports in european theater? I did not. Because of hex structure of the map you need MUCH MORE ships to protect your transports/convoys, then you need in reality. So if we implement super-squishy transports (easy to sunk with 1 naval attack) we will simple force players to build unrealistic huge fleets to save their cargo at all.
Resume :
Engine is not suited for naval warfare at all, leave it alone. Whatever you do, it will not become realistic, so realism is not an argument. Current rules already punish people for trying to do something amphibious without proper naval superiority, so its OK.
Re: We need to fix this in 2.2: transports of iron!
1. Losses from the navy alone in WWII is 62 thousands. This makes 6 full scale motorized divisions. And transports, almost always protected, still could count another couple of thousands. Majority of transport were shipped after 1942 where Atlantic begun to be relatively safe route.Plaid wrote:Have you ever heard about entire divisions (leave alone corps) being sunk in their transports in european theater? I did not. Because of hex structure of the map you need MUCH MORE ships to protect your transports/convoys, then you need in reality. So if we implement super-squishy transports (easy to sunk with 1 naval attack) we will simple force players to build unrealistic huge fleets to save their cargo at all.
2. Because of the game scale I also work on this level - I compare transport unit (in numbers) and attacking fleet (in numbers) and there is something extremely unrealistic between what would happen in reality and what is happening in the game (e.g. whole Regia Marina unable to sunk single convoy).
3. For hunting u-boats there were around 400 destroyers (DD) on the Atlantic + 500 destroyer escort (DE) + 250 frigates + 250 corvettes + 20 escort carriers. I am not counting numerous aircrafts. How much of that is build in the game? The point is that Allies still builds much less then real Allies did. And this is why you try to sneak a transport knowing that it requires all German/Italian/UK fleet to destroy so either it will not be worth it or you manage to escape (transports have unrealistically speed of 17 hexes).
Why do you build GS2.0 and GS2.1? It will never be 100% realistic so maybe leave it alone?Plaid wrote:Engine is not suited for naval warfare at all, leave it alone. Whatever you do, it will not become realistic, so realism is not an argument. Current rules already punish people for trying to do something amphibious without proper naval superiority, so its OK.
I know that engine is working in large scale and it will not be perfect but are you really serious guys? "leave it alone", "It works well enough". Do you think Apple would be where it is now if Jobs were talking like that?
Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few.
Re: We need to fix this in 2.2: transports of iron!
I am not one of GS team, my words have nothing to do how game developes, its only opinion.
P.S.
If you want offtopic, I think that Apple produce overpriced crap for rich kids mostly.
P.S.
If you want offtopic, I think that Apple produce overpriced crap for rich kids mostly.
-
Peter Stauffenberg
- General - Carrier
- Posts: 4745
- Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 4:13 pm
- Location: Oslo, Norway
Re: We need to fix this in 2.2: transports of iron!
I wrote earlier that battleships can do heavy damage on a transport unit. Without the upgrade to naval combat (Italy and Russia) they do 4 damage on average. With the upgrade (all other countries) they do 7 damage on average. If you in addition have some air units nearby then you can easily sink the transport with a single naval unit if the transport was sent unescorted. A tactical bomber usually inflicts 2-3 steps early in the game and over 5 steps late in the game.
Transport units are NOT only just the troop transporting ships. You also have minor escort ships (smaller than destroyers). Another factor is that troops were also transported onboard cruisers and battleships, especially infantry.
If you look at the GS players you see that most players actually escort the transports because they fear losing them to sub, air and naval attacks from the enemy.
Maybe you have been unlucky with the Italian navy and not sunk a transport sent unescorted. Then you have to remember that the Italians have lower efficiency than all the other countries so they inflict lower casualties in general. The Italian naval units have lower tech as well. So it's much more valid to look at attacks against transports by other countries (e. g. like Germany).
Yet another aspect is that GS lacks real fog of war for naval warfare. It was not that easy to spot enemy naval units. Just read the Battle of Midway as an example. Big naval forces were close to each other, but couldn't see each other due to clouds, fog, waves etc. You needed air units to spot the naval units and then hope you had time to send your own navy to the area in time to catch them. So if you have a situation where the Regia Marina attacks a transport and let's say 1-2 steps survive then you can think of these ships evading the battle in the heat of the moment. It's not like the transports are shooting back at the battleships. They were simply lucky and escaped. Naval battle is, of course, different if at open sea and close to the coast. Close to the coast it would be harder to hide and have task forces lose each other.
Anyway, GS has a simplified way of dealing with naval warfare and it works for the GAME.
Transport units are NOT only just the troop transporting ships. You also have minor escort ships (smaller than destroyers). Another factor is that troops were also transported onboard cruisers and battleships, especially infantry.
If you look at the GS players you see that most players actually escort the transports because they fear losing them to sub, air and naval attacks from the enemy.
Maybe you have been unlucky with the Italian navy and not sunk a transport sent unescorted. Then you have to remember that the Italians have lower efficiency than all the other countries so they inflict lower casualties in general. The Italian naval units have lower tech as well. So it's much more valid to look at attacks against transports by other countries (e. g. like Germany).
Yet another aspect is that GS lacks real fog of war for naval warfare. It was not that easy to spot enemy naval units. Just read the Battle of Midway as an example. Big naval forces were close to each other, but couldn't see each other due to clouds, fog, waves etc. You needed air units to spot the naval units and then hope you had time to send your own navy to the area in time to catch them. So if you have a situation where the Regia Marina attacks a transport and let's say 1-2 steps survive then you can think of these ships evading the battle in the heat of the moment. It's not like the transports are shooting back at the battleships. They were simply lucky and escaped. Naval battle is, of course, different if at open sea and close to the coast. Close to the coast it would be harder to hide and have task forces lose each other.
Anyway, GS has a simplified way of dealing with naval warfare and it works for the GAME.
Re: We need to fix this in 2.2: transports of iron!
I would agree but:
When I checked the number of vessels commissioned for hunting Uboats I think that, when compared to what is produced in the average game it should be the factor to be considered.
In the game we have naval units artificially grouped in units but number of transports are also much lower. If you don't need to protect every transport/convoy (20 or more Uboats is unable to sink a transport - how this compares to the example I gave above?). Than Allies don't need to make investments like the real Allies had to. This results in unrealistic situations like 1942 Overload etc.
Ergo, I don't find arguments that BB is Italian, 300mm guns firing at range of 20 kilometers every 10 minutes can sink a lot even if you hit every tenth time. Also Regia Marina was a 5th or so fleet in the world. I'm shocked that need of committing it to sink single convoy is normal for you, when German heavy cruiser sunk 6 vessels in minutes.
Argument about FoW is reasonable and I think it should be decreased except maybe CVs.
When I checked the number of vessels commissioned for hunting Uboats I think that, when compared to what is produced in the average game it should be the factor to be considered.
In the game we have naval units artificially grouped in units but number of transports are also much lower. If you don't need to protect every transport/convoy (20 or more Uboats is unable to sink a transport - how this compares to the example I gave above?). Than Allies don't need to make investments like the real Allies had to. This results in unrealistic situations like 1942 Overload etc.
Ergo, I don't find arguments that BB is Italian, 300mm guns firing at range of 20 kilometers every 10 minutes can sink a lot even if you hit every tenth time. Also Regia Marina was a 5th or so fleet in the world. I'm shocked that need of committing it to sink single convoy is normal for you, when German heavy cruiser sunk 6 vessels in minutes.
Argument about FoW is reasonable and I think it should be decreased except maybe CVs.
Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few.
Re: We need to fix this in 2.2: transports of iron!
I'm not about the product but rather business philosophy. Jobs cared for details that often ruin the glitch. And this puts Apple in very rare group of companies (the can PR it very will tooPlaid wrote:If you want offtopic, I think that Apple produce overpriced crap for rich kids mostly.
).Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few.
Re: We need to fix this in 2.2: transports of iron!
Can anybody tell me how unescorted transports in non-port provinces receiving higher dmg would destroy the game?
Re: We need to fix this in 2.2: transports of iron!
Transports are always escorted. It is what model imply. There is no unescorted transports, so they cant take increased damage.
Re: We need to fix this in 2.2: transports of iron!
Obviously I meant TPs with other naval units nearby.
Re: We need to fix this in 2.2: transports of iron!
For example if any naval attack will kill transport outright you can see some funny outcome (germans and italians building 20 of destroyers/battleships instead of traditional defence of europe comes to my mind)
You need 6 naval units to screen only 1 transport, for big invasion you will need much much more.
"Real life" D-Day which is considered largest amphibious operation so far was "packed" with all its troops and huge naval cover into something like 3-4 hexes on CEAW map. But in game each corps unit requires separate hex for its transports, so transport/landing formations are very "extensive" and you need unreasonable high nubmer of escorts to screen it from all sides.
And if transports will die from 1 hit, partial escorts (like 2 destroyers on opposite sides of transports) will not work. After your sub sunk air or armour unit (with 1 hit) you should not care about counterattack damage, anyway you won.
You need 6 naval units to screen only 1 transport, for big invasion you will need much much more.
"Real life" D-Day which is considered largest amphibious operation so far was "packed" with all its troops and huge naval cover into something like 3-4 hexes on CEAW map. But in game each corps unit requires separate hex for its transports, so transport/landing formations are very "extensive" and you need unreasonable high nubmer of escorts to screen it from all sides.
And if transports will die from 1 hit, partial escorts (like 2 destroyers on opposite sides of transports) will not work. After your sub sunk air or armour unit (with 1 hit) you should not care about counterattack damage, anyway you won.
Re: We need to fix this in 2.2: transports of iron!
Again, if TPs get higher damage when they are unescorted, i.e. there are no other naval units nearby, then what's the problem?
-
Samhain
- Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
- Posts: 344
- Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 2:58 am
- Location: Cork, Ireland
Re: We need to fix this in 2.2: transports of iron!
I really don't know what the hype over Apples is. I've used Windows and Apple, it just seems like the layouts and stuff that's there first day are different and Apple doesn't support flash.
In spite of the Final Fantasy character it's pronounced sao-win after the Irish pagan god of death. I'm not a pagan but we're on a wargames website so I thought it fitting.
Re: We need to fix this in 2.2: transports of iron!
Exactly, all this is about transport without escort. With increasing survivability as number of escorts (on adjacent hex) increases.Cybvep wrote:Again, if TPs get higher damage when they are unescorted, i.e. there are no other naval units nearby, then what's the problem?
Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few.
-
Peter Stauffenberg
- General - Carrier
- Posts: 4745
- Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 4:13 pm
- Location: Oslo, Norway
Re: We need to fix this in 2.2: transports of iron!
I don't see what we are trying to fix here. What is the problem with the current system? Are we seeing lots of transports invading without caring about being escorted? I can't say I've seen this in my games.
Let's say you attack an unescorted armor transport and inflict only 5 hits. That's still half the strength of the panzer corps and it will almost 40 PP's to repair it for the owner. If you decide to invade with the depleted transport it can more easily be crushed once it's ashore etc.
So what is the problem here? I don't think transports should be weaker than they are.
Let's say you attack an unescorted armor transport and inflict only 5 hits. That's still half the strength of the panzer corps and it will almost 40 PP's to repair it for the owner. If you decide to invade with the depleted transport it can more easily be crushed once it's ashore etc.
So what is the problem here? I don't think transports should be weaker than they are.
Re: We need to fix this in 2.2: transports of iron!
I think that the issue is GARs in TPs being used as "escorts".
Re: We need to fix this in 2.2: transports of iron!
There is transport limit for this. Also garrison transports already have reduced survivability.
Re: We need to fix this in 2.2: transports of iron!
It is whole different story when you have such situation e.g. in NA. Basically current solution makes any naval blocade pretty useless. I get 4 German corps lose maybe 1 but it pays off when I get Spain. Loosing a corps, especially when chances are you will only need to strengthen it after landing, is much moor profitable than loosing or repairing a BB.Stauffenberg wrote:I don't see what we are trying to fix here. What is the problem with the current system? Are we seeing lots of transports invading without caring about being escorted? I can't say I've seen this in my games.
Let's say you attack an unescorted armor transport and inflict only 5 hits. That's still half the strength of the panzer corps and it will almost 40 PP's to repair it for the owner. If you decide to invade with the depleted transport it can more easily be crushed once it's ashore etc.
So what is the problem here? I don't think transports should be weaker than they are.
Same story on Atlantic. Why buy a DD when I can pay less than 50 to replace losses and DDs are useless in the late war.
All this results in Allies building unrealistic small fleets during a game.
Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few.
Re: We need to fix this in 2.2: transports of iron!
Check out my strategy article (which is a work in progress) on what I believe it takes for the allies to win the war at sea. The effort and resources required are not, in my opinion, insignificant. And, I disagree that DD's are unless late in the war. My opinion is that if the allies can get away with building a small navy and not need DD's late in the war then it's the fault of the axis player in that they didn't put enough resources and energy into their u-boats and into the Battle of the Atlantic.Kragdob wrote:Same story on Atlantic. Why buy a DD when I can pay less than 50 to replace losses and DDs are useless in the late war.
All this results in Allies building unrealistic small fleets during a game.
My strategy article isn't finish; but one chapter I plan to include is from an old game when I, as the axis, wreaked havoc on the allies off the coast of Norway. German u-boats operating under the umbrella of 3 German fighters and 3 German bombers sunk Murmansk convoy after convoy. And, sunk at least 4 to 6 allied warship squadrons. I don't have the exact numbers; but will get them when I pull up my saved turns up from that game.