AAR: Supermax VS Vokt (No Vokt pls) Version 4.0

After action reports for Commander Europe at War.

Moderators: rkr1958, Happycat, Slitherine Core

Morris
Major-General - Tiger I
Major-General - Tiger I
Posts: 2275
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 11:00 am

Re: AAR: Supermax VS Vokt (No Vokt pls) Version 4.0

Post by Morris » Sun Oct 23, 2016 4:01 am

don't leave anyone on the freezing lake in spring ! they will be out of supply !

Peter Stauffenberg
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4706
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 4:13 pm
Location: Oslo, Norway

Re: AAR: Supermax VS Vokt (No Vokt pls) Version 4.0

Post by Peter Stauffenberg » Sun Oct 23, 2016 2:39 pm

Only 1 sub can attack a port per turn. It has been like that in GS for ages. Subs haven't become any stronger in later GS versions except that subs can evade attacks.

We had port attacks by subs in the real WW2 as well. E. g. Royal Oak was sunk by subs at Scapa Flow. In the Battle of Taranto combined allied air and naval forces attacked the Italian fleet in port. Pearl Harbor is another example of port attacks. Tirpitz was attacked at port by British subs and later air units. In reality air units proved much more valuable than subs. One reason was that ports got lots of defensive mechanisms against subs after the Royal Oak sinking showed that naval units were vulnerable in port to subs.

If we want to make a rule change the easiest would be to alter the sub naval attack value by -3 if the defender is located in port. That means the sub can still attack, but the effect of the attack will not be good.
This is a simple change where I add this value in general.txt so it can be fine tuned later if needed.

What do you think?

dagtwo
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Posts: 93
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 4:53 pm
Location: Surrey, BC Canada

Re: AAR: Supermax VS Vokt (No Vokt pls) Version 4.0

Post by dagtwo » Sun Oct 23, 2016 2:59 pm

This seems reasonable to me.
Hex grids Rule!

GogTheMild
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Posts: 455
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2012 8:44 pm
Location: Derby, UK

Re: AAR: Supermax VS Vokt (No Vokt pls) Version 4.0

Post by GogTheMild » Sun Oct 23, 2016 5:53 pm

A sensible change.
We sleep peaceably in our beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on our behalf.

petertodd
Corporal - Strongpoint
Corporal - Strongpoint
Posts: 70
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2010 3:31 am

Re: AAR: Supermax VS Vokt (No Vokt pls) Version 4.0

Post by petertodd » Sun Oct 23, 2016 6:28 pm

I agree that the proposed change would be an improvement, since it would end the practice of continual harassment of BBs (in particular) in port. Like supermax, I have sometimes employed blocking subs to stop this nonsense. However, as Stauffenberg points out, occasionally subs did manage to get into ports and wreak havoc, so it would be nice if there was a possibility of such an occurrence (though not a big deal). I'm really looking forward to get my hands on GS4, which looks like a substantial improvement on what is already my favorite wargame of all time (and I've been playing more that 50 years, including a long break when I had to concentrate on earning a living).

Cybvep
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Posts: 1259
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2011 1:38 pm

Re: AAR: Supermax VS Vokt (No Vokt pls) Version 4.0

Post by Cybvep » Mon Oct 24, 2016 6:25 am

Most of the time subs will deal 1-2 PP damage to a BB stationed in port. And that's for 1939-1940. The situation becomes harder for subs later on. I don't consider that to be a big problem, especially for the Germans. In most games the German fleets are safely stationed in the Baltic ports or operate within the range of friendly air cover, just as IRL. The Allies don't have that many subs, either. The question is whether we will get any sub attacks at all if sub attacks on ports are nerfed. Maybe a different sort of a limit should be introduced? For example, a cap on sub attacks on the same port. 1 attack per 3 turns, maybe?

GogTheMild
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Posts: 455
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2012 8:44 pm
Location: Derby, UK

Re: AAR: Supermax VS Vokt (No Vokt pls) Version 4.0

Post by GogTheMild » Mon Oct 24, 2016 11:33 am

That I really like. :D (Although I would go for 1 every 4 turns.)
We sleep peaceably in our beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on our behalf.

pk867
Colonel - Ju 88A
Colonel - Ju 88A
Posts: 1599
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 3:18 pm

Re: AAR: Supermax VS Vokt (No Vokt pls) Version 4.0

Post by pk867 » Mon Oct 24, 2016 6:27 pm

In Max's situation he is trying the Donitz plan without considering what the Allied player would do. In leans times as Victor is doing is striking when he can.

with what he has. Once Max was attacked he should have moved out and sent his subs for retaliatory strikes against UK ships in port.

The surface ships can out run the subs and move to safer waters. Invest in ASW and DD's which Max has stated. The Allied player has to deal with all the time. Having low ASW will hurt. You can not have it both ways. I thought it was humorous that the Axis player would complain about subs when that is the Axis bread and butter for naval combat.

Cybvep
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Posts: 1259
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2011 1:38 pm

Re: AAR: Supermax VS Vokt (No Vokt pls) Version 4.0

Post by Cybvep » Mon Oct 24, 2016 6:41 pm

Once Max was attacked he should have moved out and sent his subs for retaliatory strikes against UK ships in port.
I'm not sure about it. Of course it's always a possibility, but I guess that convoys may be juicier, softer targets at this stage.

BTW what is nonsensical is that subs can "protect" ships stationed in ports from other subs by occupying a hex neighbouring the port. Same in case of attacks on convoys. Sometimes it's even better to have subs than DDs for that purpose. It's always been like this, but I have no idea why.

Peter Stauffenberg
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4706
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 4:13 pm
Location: Oslo, Norway

Re: AAR: Supermax VS Vokt (No Vokt pls) Version 4.0

Post by Peter Stauffenberg » Mon Oct 24, 2016 7:17 pm

My experience is that the ASW units are quite dangerous for the subs in GS v4.0. Subs that go after convoys where 2 escorts can fire at them can quickly be decimated if they're not lucky with the evade rolls. Especially if a CV is within fire range.

So it's less likely that subs will go after escorts unless they have formed a big wolfpack and maybe some surface raiders as well. Such a force can be hard to deal with. The Allied player needs to focus on being strong where he escorts instead of spreading his escorts thin. I use at least 3 DD's per convoy and try to have a CV in each attack force. Having a BB as well in the attack force is good.

If you spread your escorts thin then subs can attack just one escort without retaliation attacks from other escorts. That's a bad strategy for the Allies.

Cybvep
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Posts: 1259
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2011 1:38 pm

Re: AAR: Supermax VS Vokt (No Vokt pls) Version 4.0

Post by Cybvep » Tue Oct 25, 2016 6:34 am

I forgot to mention that this AAR is really great. In fact, it's always the case with Supermax's AARs :).

supermax
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Posts: 1286
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 7:05 pm

Re: AAR: Supermax VS Vokt (No Vokt pls) Version 4.0

Post by supermax » Tue Oct 25, 2016 8:22 pm

Cybvep wrote:I forgot to mention that this AAR is really great. In fact, it's always the case with Supermax's AARs :).
Thx man!

It should be a very interesting game there remains one cool trick i want yo try made possible with the new rules

supermax
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Posts: 1286
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 7:05 pm

Re: AAR: Supermax VS Vokt (No Vokt pls) Version 4.0

Post by supermax » Thu Oct 27, 2016 12:23 am

Image

Image

Image

supermax
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Posts: 1286
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 7:05 pm

Re: AAR: Supermax VS Vokt (No Vokt pls) Version 4.0

Post by supermax » Fri Oct 28, 2016 11:52 pm

Sorry for delay in AAR. Having some weird issues with photobucket

supermax
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Posts: 1286
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 7:05 pm

Re: AAR: Supermax VS Vokt (No Vokt pls) Version 4.0

Post by supermax » Sat Oct 29, 2016 1:45 am

Image

Image

Image

supermax
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Posts: 1286
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 7:05 pm

Re: AAR: Supermax VS Vokt (No Vokt pls) Version 4.0

Post by supermax » Sat Oct 29, 2016 1:47 am

Image

Image

Image

supermax
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Posts: 1286
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 7:05 pm

Re: AAR: Supermax VS Vokt (No Vokt pls) Version 4.0

Post by supermax » Sat Oct 29, 2016 1:49 am

Image

Image

supermax
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Posts: 1286
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 7:05 pm

Re: AAR: Supermax VS Vokt (No Vokt pls) Version 4.0

Post by supermax » Sat Oct 29, 2016 1:50 am

Image

supermax
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Posts: 1286
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 7:05 pm

Re: AAR: Supermax VS Vokt (No Vokt pls) Version 4.0

Post by supermax » Sat Oct 29, 2016 1:54 am

Image

Image

Image

Cybvep
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Posts: 1259
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2011 1:38 pm

Re: AAR: Supermax VS Vokt (No Vokt pls) Version 4.0

Post by Cybvep » Sat Oct 29, 2016 4:39 am

Considering the concentration of Allied naval forces in the Atlantic, I don't think that Vokt will do anything important in the Med soon. Your fleet is intact there, so he cannot afford to make only a half-hearted effort.

Post Reply

Return to “Commander Europe at War : AAR's”