Transport blocking - What could be changed in GS 2.2?

[zechi]

In my current game with Joe Rock I'm playing the Axis and decided to go for the "Close the Med" strategy. Currently this is working not so bad as it is late Summer 1943 and the western Allies did not get a foothold in Europe or North Africa. Of course the Soviets are strong as I did a 1942 Barbarossa. They are quickly advancing in the North and Center of the eastern front and managed to cut off an entire Army group in the Baltics commanded by Manstein. The army group orderly retreated and bagan evacuation from Baltic ports. However, just before I could evacuate the most valuable units Joe cleverly blockaded my last remaining port of Tallin:



I quickly moved some naval units into the theater. First to reach the Baltics is an experienced max tech SUB. Furthermore, two DDs were (one Italian) were also moved into the Baltic sea. Nevertheless, the blockade stopped the evacuation effort for 1-2 turns. Even on the third turn it was not possible to get through the blockade with my naval units. Even my max tech SUB with 2 stars, leadership bonus by Manstein and attacking from a port against the crappy Soviet naval tech transport was not able to kill a transport in one shot. In fact I got a 9:0 hit (calculator said 8:0) against the transport which would have made an escape by sea possible.

Of course blocking ports with transports is a legal move under the current rules, but from my point of view this should be changed as soon as possible. I still feel that it is completely unrealisitic that a corps is loaded on a transport and used as a blocker in critical situations. From my experience transports are only used as blocker in really decisive situations as the costs are usually high (costs for loading and possible losses).

Furthermore, I think a maxed out SUB should be able to sink an unescorted low tech transport easily with one attack.

Nevertheless, from a "ingame" point of view the blockade was not unrealistic. At the beginning of the blockade the Axis had no naval presence in the Baltic Sea, i.e. any evacuation attempt could be at least challenged by the Soviet navy, as they have at least a BB + SUB in the Baltic Sea. Furthermore, I doubt that the Germans had any capability to evacuate a complete Army Group, especially with heavy equipment. I also think it should be possible to block ports, which is currently not really easy if the port has many sea hexes around it.

Therefore I propose the following changes:

1. Naval units (including other transports) can move through transports, i.e. blockades would not be possible anymore.

2. Warships and Subs can block ports. To do this they need to move adjacent to the port hex. Then no transports can be formed in the port. If this is too strict alternatively any transport formed is attacked (like an interception) by the blocking naval unit. A warship or sub attacked by air or any other naval unit can't block a port in the same turn.

I don't know if these changes would be too difficult to implement and perhaps somebody has even a better idea to handle the problem, but wanted to start a new discussion about this issue.

[Cybvep]

I think that blockade would be too harsh. "Interception" should work better. I agree that transports shouldn't block hexes.

[GogTheMild]

Speaking from limited experience I would agree with both of Cybvep's points.

I don't see why "a warship or sub attacked by air or any other naval unit" shouldn't still be able to 'intercept' (not block) in the same turn.

I feel that currently transports are a little too 'hard' as targets. Could their defence, against all opponents, not be turned down a notch?

"I doubt that the Germans had any capability to evacuate a complete Army Group, especially with heavy equipment." Probably no nation could, at any time in WW2; at least in a sensible time scale whilst opposed. (Although it could be argued that the Germans didn't do a bad job of evacuating Courland, and could have done better if they (Hitler) had wanted to.) Nevertheless I would personally like to see this left in for playability reasons.

[Cybvep]

No, leave transport stats untouched. They are already vulnerable enough (you can really maul them with air and naval units if you get the opportunity and keep in mind that in CEAW it's impossible to prevent bombers from attacking transports - even a suicide 1-step FTR acting in the interception role will allow you to do full damage with your TACs), the system just handles poorly special situations like this one, as the use of transports in a blocking role is not really WAD, although it's a legal move ATM.

[joerock22]

I understand why Zechi was upset, but after thinking about it, I don't view this as being unrealistic or really "gamey." In the game, it takes a ridiculously large number of naval units to seal off a port. In real life, a sub or BB squadron would likely be able to do it by themselves (at least where enemy transports are concerned). If the Russians had sent their entire Baltic Sea Fleet to blockade Tallinn, of course they would be able to! Even the largest ports are not that large! But in the game, this is not possible without 2 other "filler" units. So I used transports to fill the gaps.

If two players want to prohibit something like this from happening, then by all means, play with a house rule. (I offered to do that with Zechi if we play again because I don't feel that strongly about it). But transports are already weak enough; making them weaker could affect game balance. If the majority want to make changes to the transport system, I probably won't protest too loudly about it. But personally I think it's fine as is.

[Cybvep]

Zechi didn't suggest to make the transports weaker.

[zechi]

Just to clarify this. I don't feel strongly about this and I also do not think this is a game breaking issue. The current version of GS is great. As the game is abstract the transport blockade can be justified/explained in different ways, but I think a more realistic/less gamey system could be possible.

I think that this could be an issue the design team should look at if they do a 2.2 patch in the future. I know that 2.2 is far away as 2.1 was not even released officially yet, but it could be a good idea to discuss the matter and do some brainstorming about it.

[Morris]

If two players want to prohibit something like this from happening, then by all means, play with a house rule. (I offered to do that with Zechi if we play again because I don't feel that strongly about it). .

It sounds a good idea .

[Kragdob]

House rule is good for now.

Why not introduce the rule that if unit attacks transport but if DD/CV/BB is protecting (on hex adjacent to both transport and attacker) than transport uses protecting unit stats (loses would still be on transport). But if not protected transport is easily destroyed by single naval unit.

[Cybvep]

I think that's transports are vulnerable enough. That's not the problem. Sure, sometimes you get unlucky and the transport survives, but shi* happens. You can already maul transports with air and naval attacks severely, though. IMO we need to focus on preventing the blocking behaviour, hence the proposition to make transports "transparent", i.e. they wouldn't block a hex they occupy. Also, in order to make naval supremacy more important, naval units could "intercept" transports moving in and out of a port, just as Zechi suggested. His ideas may need to be refined a bit if they are to be implemented in 2.2, but I think that he is on the right track.

[Kragdob]

I think Borger mentioned earlier that making units passable (same should be for air units maybe) would require a major change in the game engine. So a might be living with a home rule for some time...