We need to fix this in 2.2: transports of iron!

[Peter Stauffenberg]

I would agree that if a battleship group came within short range of the actual troop carrier ships then they would easily sink them.

But naval battles in GS happens inside a hex. A hex is quite big with lots of room for evasion. Usually naval groups relied upon help from friendly air units to spot the enemy naval group. Even then it could often be a mouse and cat game. In many naval encounters you see that the weaker side could often get away with just some units sunk or damaged. Clouds, night, fog etc. meant the naval units had chances to flee the battle scene.

So in CeaW and many wargames the naval battles are designed for effect. My experience is that naval battles work pretty well. So what's the need to change anything? What's broken?

Think of the consequence of a transport being in contact with an enemy BB unit. Early in the game it will receive about 4 steps. Late game it will receive 7 steps. That means the corps unit you transport is heavily damaged. If you land the unit anyway it can more easily be eliminated by land units. Most often the transport will have to abort the mission and limp back to port. Isn't that quite realistic?

[rkr1958]

True and interesting story. My dad was transported in WW-2 from the US (San Francisco) to India on an unarmed ship. His ship traveled with a second transport that was armed with anti-aircraft guns and one 5 inch gun. One morning when he was below deck he heard a lot of commotion on deck and came up. The second ship that they were traveling with, and their only protection, was splitting off from them and leaving them to travel the rest of the way along and totally unprotected. The commotion was because there only means of protection was leaving them alone and unprotected in the Pacific. My dad's transport did arrive safely in India without any encounter with the Japanese. He and the rest of the men in his unit did later learned that that second ship, the one which had any armament, wasn't so lucky and had been sunk by a Japanese submarine.

[Kragdob]

I would agree that if a battleship group came within short range of the actual troop carrier ships then they would easily sink them.

But naval battles in GS happens inside a hex. A hex is quite big with lots of room for evasion. Usually naval groups relied upon help from friendly air units to spot the enemy naval group. Even then it could often be a mouse and cat game. In many naval encounters you see that the weaker side could often get away with just some units sunk or damaged. Clouds, night, fog etc. meant the naval units had chances to flee the battle scene.

So in CeaW and many wargames the naval battles are designed for effect. My experience is that naval battles work pretty well. So what's the need to change anything? What's broken?

In IIWW range of battleship cannons was way over 20 kilometers. This means a battleship in the middle of a game hex can cover the whole area. Where do you play 'cat and mouse' during 20 days? This already happened when you try to sneak your transport outside enemy spotting area. Once ships meet on one hex it's direct battle and you tell that a fleet of heavy vessels with several batteries of heavy guns, and many middle and light ones, having advantage of speed, armor and maneuver is unable to sink a convoy.

For me this is wrong.

[rkr1958]

I would agree that if a battleship group came within short range of the actual troop carrier ships then they would easily sink them.

But naval battles in GS happens inside a hex. A hex is quite big with lots of room for evasion. Usually naval groups relied upon help from friendly air units to spot the enemy naval group. Even then it could often be a mouse and cat game. In many naval encounters you see that the weaker side could often get away with just some units sunk or damaged. Clouds, night, fog etc. meant the naval units had chances to flee the battle scene.

So in CeaW and many wargames the naval battles are designed for effect. My experience is that naval battles work pretty well. So what's the need to change anything? What's broken?

In IIWW range of battleship cannons was way over 20 kilometers. This means a battleship in the middle of a game hex can cover the whole area. Where do you play 'cat and mouse' during 20 days? This already happened when you try to sneak your transport outside enemy spotting area. Once ships meet on one hex it's direct battle and you tell that a fleet of heavy vessels with several batteries of heavy guns, and many middle and light ones, having advantage of speed, armor and maneuver is unable to sink a convoy.

For me this is wrong.

A group of 50 transports would be spread out over a large area of the ocean. Don't you think the transports on the edges farthest away from the enemy when contact was made would run like crazy? By the way, the entire Italian navy had what, 6 battleships. The rest would be heavy and light cruisers, destroyers, etc. So I don't see a group of 50 allied transports staying put once the leading edge of their group came under fire from Italian battleships and allow those battleships and other ships (e.g., cruisers, destroyers) to close range and finish them off.

So, I'll state again that I think we've got the damage right; especially for how the whole naval warfare aspect is modeled. The only thing in this regard that I would recommend changing would be that the strength of the transport when formed be equal to the strength of the unit being loaded. That is, if you have a 3-step unit then the transport would be formed at 3-steps.

[Cybvep]

That is, if you have a 3-step unit then the transport would be formed at 3-steps.

I like it. It's simple and would prevent some exploits like using low-STR GARs as "escorts".

[pk867]

That would lift the fog of war if the transport matched the strength of the unit being carried. When the transport takes losses it also inflicts losses on the unit.

I said before the 3 strength air that loaded up and attacked having about 1to 3 steps left, the air unit would have been reduced to one strength point. It is definitely out of commission for at least 5 turns. 1 to dock, 1 to unload, then 2 turns to get near full strength then is ready for combat. The naval simulation in CEAW-GS currently is good. If you had a sub or CV in the area you could attack again once it got to port before unloading. The best asset you have to attacking transports are subs. They have the advantage of stealth and the bonuses. Unless it is an air attack with naval aviators surface ships will be seen way before they get close for the transports to scatter. The line of sight is about 25 miles and farther with radar. So the pickets would see the attackers long before they got to the transports. Also some cruisers had light spotter planes to see even further ahead. The game is on the strategic level.

So your guys were poor shots that turn.... It happens....my guys do it all the time..

[Kragdob]

A group of 50 transports would be spread out over a large area of the ocean. Don't you think the transports on the edges farthest away from the enemy when contact was made would run like crazy? By the way, the entire Italian navy had what, 6 battleships. The rest would be heavy and light cruisers, destroyers, etc. So I don't see a group of 50 allied transports staying put once the leading edge of their group came under fire from Italian battleships and allow those battleships and other ships (e.g., cruisers, destroyers) to close range and finish them off.

So, I'll state again that I think we've got the damage right; especially for how the whole naval warfare aspect is modeled. The only thing in this regard that I would recommend changing would be that the strength of the transport when formed be equal to the strength of the unit being loaded. That is, if you have a 3-step unit then the transport would be formed at 3-steps.

Assupmtion:
-> single allied transport meets 3 Italian BBs (in terms of game units) alomost all Italian fleet.

Destroyer alone has 6 120mm guns + 530mm torpedoes and moving with 36 knots on the opposite is unarmed not armored vessel with max 15 knot speed. In world of radars and with visibility 20-30 kilometers how do you escape?

Do you also think that whole fleet just swims in a pack, not they also make maneuvers and since you know where transport is all the above reasoning is just from different universe to me. I made a query among my colleagues who are a little bit in the topic. They say any commander sending an unarmed transport convoy against a single Battleship should be put under a wall as for the battleship crew such a 'battle' would be like shooting to the ducks.

PQ17 story:

In July 1942, the Arctic convoys suffered a significant defeat when Convoy PQ 17 lost 24 of its 35 merchant ships during a series of heavy enemy daylight attacks which lasted a week.[2] On 27 June, the ships sailed eastbound from Hvalfjord, Iceland for the port of Arkhangelsk, Russia. The convoy was located by German forces on 1 July, after which it was shadowed continuously and attacked. The convoy's progress was being observed by the British Admiralty, which ordered the ships to scatter because of information that German navy surface units were being refuelled to intercept the convoy.

When the order to scatter the convoy was received, it had covered more than half of its route with the loss of only three ships. The consequences for the merchantmen were dire. Now the ships were spread over a wide area, stripped of mutual protection as well as trained escort. The Germans took advantage of this situation. As the escort moved off to hunt for the suspected German surface force, messages on Merchant Navy wavelengths began to be received by the destroyers: "Am being bombed by a large number of planes", "On fire in the ice", "Abandoning ship", "Six U-boats approaching on the surface."

And this was done in rough waters, by several U-boats and planes.

A convoy attacked by single heavy cruiser. Even though its escort sacrificed itself the convoy lost ~20% of its ships within minutes. What if Germans had not single vessel but e.g. 6?

HX-84 was a North Atlantic convoy of the HX series during the battle of the Atlantic in World War II. It consisted of 38 merchant ships which sailed eastbound from Halifax, Nova Scotia, for Liverpool, England, on 28 October 1940 and was escorted by the armed merchant cruiser HMS Jervis Bay

On 5 November 1940, the German heavy cruiser Admiral Scheer found the convoy at 50°30′N 32°00′W and attacked immediately. Captain E.S.F. Fegen of the Jervis Bay attacked the raider so as to delay Admiral Scheer and to allow the convoy to escape. The Jervis Bay was quickly sunk with the loss of 190 of her crew. Nevertheless, their sacrifice gave the convoy time to scatter, allowing all but six of the merchantmen to escape.

[Diplomaticus]

Thanks, Krag, for a fascinating historical note.

Does anybody have historical data on *unescorted* transports sinking/seriously damaging either attacking major surface ship units (e.g my DD which suffered a 1:1 result against the lone transport) or attacking planes? As one poster above pointed out, some troop transports were equipped with anti-aircraft guns. Would they also have torpedoes or other weaponry that could sink, say, a destroyer?

[gsmart04]

True and interesting story. My dad was transported in WW-2 from the US (San Francisco) to India on an unarmed ship. His ship traveled with a second transport that was armed with anti-aircraft guns and one 5 inch gun. One morning when he was below deck he heard a lot of commotion on deck and came up. The second ship that they were traveling with, and their only protection, was splitting off from them and leaving them to travel the rest of the way along and totally unprotected. The commotion was because there only means of protection was leaving them alone and unprotected in the Pacific. My dad's transport did arrive safely in India without any encounter with the Japanese. He and the rest of the men in his unit did later learned that that second ship, the one which had any armament, wasn't so lucky and had been sunk by a Japanese submarine.

Great story! Thanks for sharing and glad you're Dad made it.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

How often do we see 1:1 combat results between transport and BB/DD? I think we have examples from the real war where the outcome of a battle were quite different from the strength of each side. One was the battle off Samar as part of the battle for Leyte Gulf in October 1944.

I think this reading is interesting in understanding how naval battles were handled in WW2:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Leyte_Gulf

You see that inferior forces can often escape and even inflict heavy losses on superior forces. The superior forces can sometimes be lured into wrong positions and not be part of the main action etc.

It doesn't help a BB to have main guns that can fire 20 km unless they know if there is a target to fire at. Naval battles often took place over some time and ships could try to evade and escape being sunk. Some ships were hit, but were only damaged. The US navy were experts in repairing damage on the ship during the battle and immediately after the battle, particularly stopping big fires.

The main weakness in GS regarding naval battle is that there is actually no real fog of war during the battle. You have a spotting range around the unit and if you spot the enemy naval unit you can send all you have against it. In many games you have rules for naval evasion even if you know which hex or sea area a naval group is in. We don't in GS.

So I therefore think it's good that you need repeated attacks to annihilate a full strength naval unit.

Take for example the OOB of the British Naval units in Scapa Flow:
2nd Battle Squadron: It consisted of 5 BB's (Royal Oak, Royal Sovereign, Ramillies, Nelson, Rodney).
Battlecruiser Squadron: Hood, Repulse, Renown
Carrier Squadron: Ark Royal, Furious and CVS Pegasus
18th Cruiser Squadron: CA Norfolk + 5 CL
1st Minesweeper flotilla: 7 AM
6th Destroyer Flotilla: 8 DD
8th Destroyer Flotilla: 8 DD
2nd Submarine Flotilla: 16 SS
6th Submarine Flotilla: 6 SS

This force is represented in GS as 2 BB and 1 CV unit. So we can say that 1 BB unit is 4 battleships + support vessels. 1 CV unit is 3 carriers + support vessels.

So if you sink a full strength BB unit you sink 4 battleships and more cruisers, destroyers etc. If you look at the naval battles in the real war you see that casualties after the battles were often less than that. So it's nothing bad with seeing numerous attackers going after a naval unit and see that it survives with a few steps. Still the naval unit is seriously damaged and will need quite some time to be repaired and back in action.

Inflicting e. g. 5 steps on a transport sailing a mech corps means that you have actually killed something like 30.000 troops and hundreds or armored vehicles, artillery etc. That is a major blow to the side losing the unit. That half the corps escaped and got to port doesn't exclude the fact that the loss was major.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

I don't think people realize the consequences of making transport units even more vulnerable to attacks. In the beginning of the war you don't have enough naval units to completely surround transports. E. g. the Canadian units sailing to England will be attacked by subs for sure. Even with 3 escorts around the Canadian fighter being transported it can be attacked from 3 sides by subs. If one hit would almost destroy the transport then players would become too afraid sending anything across the Atlantic.

The same situation occurs in the Mediterranean. Allied subs could lurk near Libyan ports and strike at German land units being sent to aid the Italians. Now the subs inflict 1-2 steps per attack. That's a nuisance, but the bulk of the soldiers got ashore.

If we would make transports weaker then we need first of all to reduce the spotting range of naval and air units you can could manage to sail past enemy units. Even if detected it should be possible for evasion.

Again I ask the question. What is broken here? Don't we see pretty historical results from naval battles. I can't recall reading about transports being sent across the sea and being completely annihilated by enemy units. Usually the losses for the units being transported actually took place when they made the invasion.

Also remember that many soldiers were actually transported across the Atlantic, Pacific or whatever onboard warships. Even big passenger liners were used to transport soldiers. Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth are good examples:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Queen_ ... rld_War_II

[ncali]

I think it works pretty well as it is, for the reasons given above by the modders. Given the great number of transports at work, it makes sense that damage would be somewhat limited (but you can still do significant damage to transports). Garrisons at sea are now less survivable, so that's one problem solved. And it seems to me to be somewhat infrequent that a transport actually inflicts any damage in return.

[rkr1958]

And it seems to me to be somewhat infrequent that a transport actually inflicts any damage in return.

Tell me about it. I was moving a garrison from the Persian Gulf to garrison Adair. Joe had two u-boats lurking there and sunk the transport as soon as it exited the loop. So from this recent experience I can't see how anyone can complain that transports are too strong.

[zechi]

I agree with Ronnie and Stauffenberg that the transport system is balanced if you consider the normal role of transports. It can be assumed that transports would scatter if attacked by warships. I think it can be argued that at least some transports would survive such an encounter, either because they would escape somehow or would not be detected.

Nevertheless, this assumption does not work if transports are used in an offensive role, such as blocking warships. In several of my recent games my opponents used Axis transport in an offensive role. For example in one game they blocked the entry of the western MED with GAR transports and prevented Allied warships entering the Med from this direction for 1-2 turns. This is completely unrealistic.

In another game, Italians used two transports to block any naval attacks from a third transport which was preparing to land on Crete. The RN attacked and expected results against the transports were 11:0, but I got 6:0 or 7:0. SO with two BB I could sink a transport. At least I had a CV in range for hitting the "protected" transport.

I think using transports in such a way is cheesy and unrealistic. In such a scenario the transports would not scatter as they try to block warships would then not be possible. Furthermore, it does not make sense that a whole unit (Corps or Division) is first loaded on transport ships and then used to block warships. If transport ships would be used to block/stop warships they would probably not be fully loaded, but only have a skeleton crew.

However, I also do not know how to fix this. Perhaps if transports could simply bypassed by any other units?

[Kragdob]

I don't think people realize the consequences of making transport units even more vulnerable to attacks. In the beginning of the war you don't have enough naval units to completely surround transports. E. g. the Canadian units sailing to England will be attacked by subs for sure. Even with 3 escorts around the Canadian fighter being transported it can be attacked from 3 sides by subs. If one hit would almost destroy the transport then players would become too afraid sending anything across the Atlantic.

The same situation occurs in the Mediterranean. Allied subs could lurk near Libyan ports and strike at German land units being sent to aid the Italians. Now the subs inflict 1-2 steps per attack. That's a nuisance, but the bulk of the soldiers got ashore.

If we would make transports weaker then we need first of all to reduce the spotting range of naval and air units you can could manage to sail past enemy units. Even if detected it should be possible for evasion.

Again I ask the question. What is broken here?

Unrealistic strength of unprotected transport is broken. I'm not speaking about battles of naval units which I agree works very well. The only flaw I find is that unescorted transport has very high survivability which can be used offensively to e.g. block crucial spot during some important turn.

What I am advocating is transport having minimal survivability that is increased by adjacent escort vessels which makes players actually protect convoys and increases the cost of gamey using it.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

I've seen Axis subs blocking entry to the Med for Torch invaders. The counter to such moves would be to send DD's ahead of the Torch invading force to clear the path. Then the Axis subs will be destroyed in vain.

The problems you describe is a result of just one unit per hex limitation of the CeaW game engine. That is not something we can easily solve.

Late game you will see that garrisons onboard transports will receive on average 14 damage per BB hit. So it's rather expensive to waste such units turn after turn. If time is critical then then Allied player should send surface naval units ahead to scout the invasion hexes before the actual invaders come. E. g. when I make Operation Husky I send DD's and BB's to the Sicilian coast hexes to clear it for Italian subs before I launch the transports.

I also wonder how the Axis can get transports to the Mediterranean without the Allied player knowing about it. They have to come from French ports and sail unescorted to the area. Those transports should be easy to detect and destroyed. Just station a BB or DD in Gibraltar as a scout.

I agree that it's a bit cheesy to use garrisons as stumbling blocks, but it's nothing unique. We see player exploits in many areas that we feel isn't historical. But what can be do about player creativity? They will always find ways to exploit the limitations of the game engine.

Our question should be if such exploits and disrupt the game balance. So far I don't see anything indicating this is so. OK, it's annoying being forced to clear the entry to the Med for garrisons or subs. You lose a turn or two, but it should not affect your strategic plan much if you planned properly. You could even see the garrison transports as mines you have to clear up before your valuable ships sail through the area.

[Diplomaticus]

And consider this: What if somebody had invented 'kamikazee' transports. After all, fireships were used in the Napoleonic era, turning ordinary merchant ships into deadly torches directed at Men of War. So, in our alternate reality, when you see transports blocking warships, maybe they're packed to the deck with TNT!

[Clark]

And consider this: What if somebody had invented 'kamikazee' transports. After all, fireships were used in the Napoleonic era, turning ordinary merchant ships into deadly torches directed at Men of War. So, in our alternate reality, when you see transports blocking warships, maybe they're packed to the deck with TNT!

Heh. I'm guessing that WWII-era warship would be able to blow a TNT-laden transport to kingdom come long before said transport could ram into anything.

I've always thought that when a transport unit manages to take a step off a BB or DD, it represented the transports' escorts managing to destroy a few smaller ships in the battleship task force. And if the result was 1:0 in favor of the transports, which is super-rare, it represented an extremely poor performance for the BB coupled with bad luck and maybe some superior tactics on the part of the transports' escorts.

[zechi]

I also wonder how the Axis can get transports to the Mediterranean without the Allied player knowing about it. They have to come from French ports and sail unescorted to the area. Those transports should be easy to detect and destroyed. Just station a BB or DD in Gibraltar as a scout.

They came from Vichy ports and were in position after one turn of movements.

Our question should be if such exploits and disrupt the game balance. So far I don't see anything indicating this is so. OK, it's annoying being forced to clear the entry to the Med for garrisons or subs. You lose a turn or two, but it should not affect your strategic plan much if you planned properly. You could even see the garrison transports as mines you have to clear up before your valuable ships sail through the area.

I think it is an exploit which should be fixed, if there is an elegant solution. As you rightfully pointed out, it is costly to exhange a GAR +transport costs for blocking purposes. According to my experience this is only done if the player feels that it is really important to block/protect something. In my example with blocking the western MED, there was some heavy fighting on Sicily going on. Both sides were exhausted and it was very important to get some reinforcements to the battlefield, i.e. blocking the western Med for only one turn was a big advantage in the situation. I think most player encountered similar situations, were it was worth to take the investment of losing a transport with a GAR for more time or to make sure an important unit will be able to land with full strength.

[richardsd]

whilst it may seem very gamey on the surface, if you abstract it enough you can easily rationalise it

take for instance GAR blocking for a turn in the med, this could be a strategic level outcome from a 'special' investment in something like:

mini sub, or human torpedo or some other strategic type unit not represented in our normal game level (SAS etc...)

so it really depends on how you look at it