Naval Balance - is it correct?

[BenWH]

I'm a bit under-inspired by the effectiveness of subs against the AI. I understand in head to head games, they are much harder to find, because of the playback rules, but vs the AI, a sub that makes any attack is a gonner. The balance seems to be wrong. Subs need some way to hide after attacks, since most ships can cover such a large area of the map in one move. Destroyers in particular are impossible to get rid off - it takes 4 subs to get rid of one, and Capital ships also really struggle to make much of an impression on Destroyers. It's also suicide to attack a convoy, as it leaves all the escorting or covering ships free to sink your sub, so you end up in an uneven slogging match against surface ships. There needs to be some way to make sneak attacks on convoys.

On the other hand, all surface ships will wipe out subs with ease, so the Allies only need to have 3-4 ships somewhere in the North Atlantic to put a submarine force in port. I'd like to see Subs much better in attack, because currently carriers and destroyers have an enormous advantage for their cost.

Overall though, the game is excellent and a lot of fun.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

I agree with most of what you say about the submarines vs the convoy escorts.

One way for the subs to be more efficient is to operat in wolfpacks. It means you keep the subs together and go after the same convoy. When the escorts come to retaliate it means one of the subs will get most hits. Hopefully this sub will survive and can then sail to port to be repaired. Usually the Allied player won't have more than 2 naval units in range of the attacking sub. That means you're not destroyed after you attacked the convoy.

I proposed earlier that subs should have a chance to evade each attack maybe something like this:
Battleship: 75% change to evade the attack
CV: 50% change to evade the attack
Destroyer: 25% chance to evade the attack

These percentage changes should be altered by tech levels in submarines and ASW. E. g. each tech level in submarines increase the chance to evade the attack by 5% and each tech level in ASW reduce the chance to evade by 5%.

That means the Allied player needs to buy destroyers and use them as convoy escorts. There is very little incentive now for the Allied player to buy destroyers. He uses his battleships for convoy escorts instead.

On the other hand I also believe the submarine attack upon destroyers, CVs and battleships should be less efficient. The subs are meant to attack convoys and transports. If you give them a chance to evade combat then they will become too powerful if they can inflict 2-4 step losses upon an enemy naval unit per attack. A wolfpack of subs can then sink a battleship easily. It's good if the subs can sting the battleships and destroyers a little (maybe 0-2 step losses per attack) is better.

I alsow would like to see the rule changed so naval units in port could only be attacked by air units or CVs using their naval air capability. Now it's too easy to use the battleships and destroyers to attack enemy ships in port. E. g. the French battleships are nice to use against the Italian naval units before France surrenders. Italy can't do anything to prevent this from happening. The French player sails his battleships and submarine close to one of the Italian ports with a battleship just before Italy enters the war (usually in June 1940). That blocks the way for the Italian battleship to sail somewhere. You just wait until Italy joins the war and then you start attacking till the battleship is dead. It can't escape. Then you move to the next Italian naval unit. You can even let the British naval units join the search for the remaining Italian fleet. Hopefully for the Allies it will be completely destroyed before France falls. Germany's naval ships can hide in Baltic ports outside Allied range because Copenhagen blocks the access to the Baltic.

This rule exploit can be avoided if naval units passive in ports can't be attacked by battleships or destroyers. It means the Italian navy waits in port until the French fleet is gone. Then there is parity between the Italians and British in the Mediterranean and it's possible to do something with the navy.

[stalins_organ]

Unfortunately this game has fallen into the trap of treating naval forces as if they were the same as land,...exceot for operating on water.

Have a look at "Guns of August" for a much better (IMO) system of naval forces - it's still got a few holes, but the naval combat system is, IMO, heaps better, although considerably more abstracted - it uses sea zones, and you allocate forces to a sea zone in a particular role (eg ASW, raider, anti-shipping, patrol, etc) - each role has characteristics as to what it will attack and how likely it is to attack. Combat is then resolved between forces that "encounter" each other.

The "convoy" system is also better than either this or "the competitor" IMO - you allocate a number of transports to "shipping" in a sea zone, and then forget about them...unless they need to be replaced 'cos of the u-boats... Surviving transports ship resources to your industries from "off-map", and allow you to move surplus resources around combattants (for hte Triple Entente - the Central powers use rail for this)

Ships are rarely sunk unless overwhelmed, combat is eratic, as you might expect given large sea zones and a finite number of ships - transports are sometimes sunk by u-boats or raiders, u-boats occasionally damaged by ASW destroyers, and even more rarely sunk.

It gives a superb "feel" without having to move individual ships, etc.

Doing anything with ships (or u-boats or transports) also uses up resources (in GoA you buy naval points that can build new ships, repair old ones, or allow them to sortie) - so if you want to sail out the Italian fleet to confront the Austro-Hungarians in hte Adriatic, it costs you....and you might not even meet!

Best system I've seen for strategic naval warfare ever.

[firepowerjohan]

This can be achieved in CEaW also. The current behaviour is a design decision, we want it to be possible to sink naval units.

Vypuero is working on a mod where I think he is changing naval warfare. But for example, some easy changes in unit script can change it

1) Sub +1 survivability
2) Subb -1 naval combat
3) Convoy -1 survivability

Do all 3 and you have a system where subs and ships dont hurt each others as much but that the Sub will still be able to infict alot on convoys. These changes make the game more realistic, but maybe less cunning and tricky. A matter ot taste, you should try these.

[vypuero]

subs are fantastic, actually. You need to play more and get clever with them. They work fine, I love them.

[JonM]

Just my thinking - I try hard to use subs in clusters - prefer 6 or more. One sub attacks convoy. The rest in a line. The key is that any isolated DDs or BBs (or hopefully CVs) get caught by the line. The wolfpack then surrounds and eats isolated surface vessel. Rinse and repeat.
The counter to that appears to be a combination of the hunting "garrison", the "sub versus sub" and the surface "clump". The clump is 7 surface vessel clumped together. CV at core. It follows either a garrison on a troop ship that roams about looking for subs or a sub to do same. The clump avoids isolated destruction. The garrison is cheap.
The counter to that appears to be breaking the wolfpack apart and attacking convoys in widely spaced areas.
I think you can all see the rock,paper etc nature of the problem.
I surely support anything that weakens SS versus surface vessels. Either changing SS surface attack values or having all units use shock value to attack convoys.
Thank you for taking time to read this. Jon M

[Happycat]

I agree with Jon M's comments, and would add that by the time the Allies can afford to send out "clumps" of 6 or 7 warships, the game will be well advanced (and therefore, for those who demand historical realism, it would be appropriate that life become miserable for U-boats). In 1939-1942, the British are largely fighting on their own. A clever Axis player will be putting lots of pressure on the British in the Mediterranean, if for no other reason than to deter the Brit from keeping all of his naval forces in the Atlantic.

I also agree with Vypuero's comment that subs are "fantastic". They work very well, if handled with craftiness and cunning.

[firepowerjohan]

HappyCat hasw figured it out, it is about pressuring UK and in the mid game UK can be bombed, get its convoys sunk and get Egypt attacked so most importingly do not screw up on bad odds instead try to find the places on map where Allies have not many units around.

Sometimes striking in remote areas like South Atlantic can get you gfree shots, no Allied ships around or maybe one BB but BB is weaker on Sub combat so Sub is actually able to cope.

[VonManteuffel]

I think subs are just fine. Anything more and they would be too powerful.