Missing Naval Unit: Destroyer

[Liam]

Why no Destroyers? I hope that I am wrong when I look at the pre-Game release images. I mean these SC Lovers who say that it's too tactical a unit to add and they don't argue Divebombers or V-1 V-2 Rockets or even Jets. During WW2 Rockets and Jets were pretty much Rare and because the technology was still expensive and only researched by a few Majors of which few every employed them. V-1s and V2s never played a Major role in the outcome of the war and never would have no matter what. They're impossible to aim, they're far worse than SCUD Missiles of OP Desert Storm which were lacking precision to hit anything. So why bother to include them when something like a Destoyer was a staple unit that help end the Battle of the Atlantic, produced in massive # and is not just a support ship. They were what stopped U-Boats!! You have U-Boats but not Destroyers? A Majority of US/UK Convoys used them and not Battleships or Cruisers the Mainline Heavy Gunned Ships of the Majors. Those ships were reserved for special uses unless of course SC2 as in SC is a breakaway from Naval and more a focus on Air Warfare which was extremely Ahistorical. Air Was still not a decisive Weapon and never proved to be in on the Major Fronts during WW2. It was proven that Strategic Bombing did not Cripple German War Machine, in fact German War Production increased in the Major Bombing Years. The RAF FireBombing was only a Terror Weapon that yes made many homeless people but did not break Germany's Back.

[Retributar]

I Concur Liam

[Night]

I would Agree but for only one reason, it is already extremely easy to stop U-boats without destroyers in-game. In SC1 the "battle of the atlantic" was a joke.

Fundemental's have to be changed to make destroyers more useful and U-boats harder to stop so that you would have a reason for destroyers.

[Roosevelt45(the 2nd)]

During WW2 Rockets and Jets were pretty much Rare and because the technology was still expensive and only researched by a few Majors of which few every employed them. V-1s and V2s never played a Major role in the outcome of the war and never would have no matter what. I must disagree about the rockets-part.
after/at stalingrad rockets were used very often by both the red army and the Germans.
it's true that the US/UK rarely used them but it is very wrong to say that the V1 and the V2 didn't influence the war and never would have.
In 1944 the allies bombed a city(one of the many)and Hitler ordered to strike back at London with V2's.
From this moment on Churchill was constantly afraid of represailles and the UK has admitted that the V1 and the V2 probably slowed down the allied victory in europe for months.They didn't exactly win the war but at that point not even an A-bomb could win it for the Germans.

[Lars]

It's all an abstraction you know.

Just substitute "Destroyer" for "Cruiser" and you'll be fine...

[John DiFool the 2nd]

Battleship units would need a much lower attack
and detect % against subs (tho defense-i.e. when
attacked themselves-should be high). BBs
(understanding that a "BB" unit actually consists
of 1-2 battlewagons plus several DDs, maybe even
a CL/CA or two) weren't used much to police
convoy lanes against U-boats (tho they were used
that way when German surface raiders were out
there). That's one reason why U-boats tended to
not live very long in SC1...

"Cruiser" units, OTOH, should serve well as sub
hunter-killer units. However, reading the book
Black May (about the convoy battles c. 1943), it
is clear that airpower was the main reason why
the tide turned so viciously against the U-boats...

[Raven25]

Liam, while I do also think that Destroyers should be available, I must say that what you stated is mere opinion, and at that is VERY far from the truth.

Air superiority played a majorrole in WWII. If either Axis or Allies had air superiority than they could easily disrupt supply lines, intercept air transports, destroy tank columns, strafe concentrations of troops, and even bomb headquarters (like when Axis bombers bombed Patton's HQ in Africa). Both the Axis and the Allies faught very hard to take and maintain air superiority. If the Allies hadn't had air superiority for Operation Overlord, than Germany would've been able to easily strike back with their reserve tank units (but they were destroyed each time the tanks mobilized on roads, which were choke points, or fields, which were open areas and supsceptible to aircraft.

As for the V1 and V2 rockets, you are again mistaken. The V1 was experimental, and paved the way for the V2. While the V2 may not have seemed a ferocious weapon, it was infact the ability to "reach out and touch someone" without having to risk men or machines. And I might add that the V2 probably would've been equiped with an atomic warhead had it not been for the brave efforts of commando teams to destroy "heavy water" stockpiles and manufacturing equipment. Hitler never was able to use, or complete, his atomic weapons. Imagine if the Allies were unsuccessful in hindering the atomic developments, and Germany would've been able to easily launch V2 rockets at London and do MUCH MUCH more damage. These rockets would've played a major role in the outcome of the war had they been loaded with their intended warheads.

[Red Fleet]

I always understood the Naval units not as one ship but as a Task Force.
But I certainly agree that the BB groups should have much lower attack values against U-Boats. It would be nice if the naval units would have naval and strategic attack/defense values AND one extra against subs. That would make Cruiser Task Forces more important.

Or think about Hunter Groups...

[Lars]

Umm, Raven, the V-1 and V-2 were two totally different technologies designed concurrently. The V-2 was far more "experimental" than the V-1 but not in any way a derivative design of the V-1.

Also, the Germans were never close to a atomic bomb so the V-2 was not designed with that in mind. Their best scientists weren't even sure it was possible. Even when they heard the announcement of the bombing of Japan while sitting in a prison camp in England they thought it was a hoax. Took them a couple of days to accept it as the truth.

[Roosevelt45(the 2nd)]

I agree with the fact that the V2's especially played a role in the war and that if the Germans would have had the chance to further develop them(the V3, a long-distance cannon, was found ,unused, by the allies in 1945) they would have played an even bigger part in the war.
But I don't think they would have been equipped with warheads though, German scientists weren't allowed to use 'Jewish science'(so Einstein was out of the question) so in 'their' science the atomic bomb indeed didn't exist.

[Retributar]

Roosevelt45...the Germans had the technology for a dirty-bomb...and could also have had the Atom-Bomb without Einsteins help...

BUT!!!... Scaled back the progect as it seemed it would not be necessary in view of how the war was going for them at the time. They felt that those resources could be better used elsewhere.

This is why also Jet-Technology was left in the doldrums as well...they felt that the war would be over before anything like Jets would become necessary.

Now...my assertions are based on what im sure i can remember of these situations...if necessary i can find them on the internet to prove these points!.

[Lars]

A fair enough summation, Retributar.

As I recall, they were planning on 1948 for their first working atomic pile.

But I'm not sure they could have made a dirty bomb. Or more to the point, why bother when you have all that nerve gas laying around?

[Retributar]

Well Lars i can't dispute your answer!.

I will however say that if sufficient resources were allocated to this project early enough in the game...i think they could have pulled it off.

For now i will post this information, then add to it as i have the time and can find it!.

-------------------
http://www.taivaansusi.net/historia/Bomb.htm
-------------------
Chit-Chat Discussion at a chat-site...'Third Reich Forum'.
http://www.thirdreich.net/German_A_Bomb.html

Main Page: http://www.thirdreich.net/index.html

In 1941 or 1942 the Nazis decided that they would win the war and no new super weapons were to be developed. The nuclear program was shifted from bombs to powerplants (of which 2 were operational by early 1945).

If the nazi's would have invested in bomb development instead of plant development from 1941 on, they might have had one or two bombs instead of plants in early 1945???.

Regardless of whether how one evaluates Heisenberg's inner thoughts and motivations on the subject, one thing can be defintely asserted - the Germans were not pursuing the subject very hard. Without much larger allocation of resources to the project, a German atomic bomb would never have come to fruition.

Funding it needed cuts would have had to be made that would have been felt at the front lines. Could Germany risk it ?

They had plenty of uranium, a few thousand tons of refined uranium oxide was on hand (more than the entire Manhattan Project consumed). The Vemork heavy water plant is often discussed, since it was Germany's only source during the war. But *why* was this their only source. Even at maximum output it was incapable of supplying D2O for more than one laboratory reactor. It was entirely inadequate for even a small weapons project.

Put yourself in Germany's shoes. An atomic bomb is a long range thing. It is something you plan and research and spend enormous sums of money on today in the hopes of having one 2-3 years later.

That assumes a long war of economic
attrition, precisely the kind of war Germany knew it could never win atom bomb or no atom bomb and precisely the kind of war the Allies knew they were going to fight.

A nation that chose not to build heavy bombers for the future because it needed ground support planes now would not have chosen to invest the
enormous sums needed for a Manhattan Projest as opposed to having tanks and planes right now.

What if the project was a bust ? Could Germany have afforded an unsuccessful Manhattan Project ? What Germany scientist could have afforded the cost of failure in a police state ? After all no one knew for certain whether the
bomb could actually be built.

[ June 28, 2004, 07:39 PM: Message edited by: Retributar ]

[Retributar]

Turning The Tide Against The U-Boats!.

As far as Submarines being more effective...i don't see how that can happen!.

The Allies used Radar/Sonar... and could see where the German Subs were in or on the water...the Sub's couldn't hide...and as well...the Americans were turning out large numbers of JEEP Escort Carriers.

These were small carriers designed at first to protect convoys crossing the Atlantic!.

http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/ships/carriers/cv-escrt.html

In the Atlantic, escort carriers originally stayed close to the convoys they were protecting. Over time, tactics evolved that enabled the Jeep carriers and their destroyer escorts to become independent "hunter-killer" groups. They could attack concentrations of U-boats at will and were no longer required to provide constant umbrella coverage for a convoy. This tactic was further refined by having the escort carrier groups concentrate their efforts in areas where U-boats met their supply submarines ("milch cows").

This operational phase was so successful that three Jeeps — USS Core (CVE 13), USS Card (CVE 11) and USS Bogue (CVE 9) [left] — and their escorting destroyers sank a total of 16 U-boats and 8 milch cows in a period of 98 days. During this time, U-boats sank only one merchantman and shot down only three planes from the escort carriers. This loss of submarines, particularly the milch cows, was a severe blow to the German Navy. With diminished capability for refueling U-boats at sea, and with no friendly bases in the area, Admiral Karl Doenitz, commander of the German U-boat fleet, was forced to withdraw his remaining supply submarines and cancel all U-boat operations in the central Atlantic.

http://www.modelwarships.com/reviews/books-plans/squadron/cve-inaction/cve-front-cov.jpg

http://www.modelwarships.com/reviews/books-plans/squadron/cve-inaction/cve-back-cov.jpg

http://www.mariner.org/atlantic/photos/images/g09.jpg

[Liam]

Yes! See all these good points, as far as smaller Ships, Cruisers/Escort Carriers/Smaller Destroyer type ships to escort Convoys. Do you think you could afford the Prince of Wales for every US to UK Convoy? I think not! I say that most Heavy Cruisers of WW2 weren't used for Convoys, that's why I say use Destroyers. An Intermediate cheap unit that like a corps fits.

As far as V1-V2s effecting Months of the outcome of the War, I'm laughing. My Family lived in East Anglia, my GrandPa Went into House that a Buzzbomb had hit and it never went off to get his Wallet. It was a great terror weapon and Peedmunde deflected enough resources out of something that could actually have prolonged the War like Tanks/Fighters/Staple Infantry Equipment. Germany had fuel shortages, so launching thousands of V-Rockets definitely help the Ultimate Demise. I'd like any of you to show me a figure that shows that those Rockets did anything more than kill Civilians. I'll bet less than a few hundred actual Combatants Died from the use and MANY more German Technicians died<who're high valued> being bombed at the building and launching sites who could've been used to construct 100-200-300-400-500 more King Tigers that may have made the difference with the extra fuel at the Battle of the Bulge. The Rockets used at Stalingrad, the Tactical Type were not classified as V1s or V2s and were what you'd call Artillery. Yes, extremely effective, noisy, a morale breaker... But! Not what I meant in the discussion thread and not to be mistaken with Flying Bombs. That COULD never be equiped with A-BOMBs in WW2 era. Come on, it took us how long to make a flying Nuke without a Bomber to Carry it? We had much better technology than the Germans and they were years behind in their Atomic research.

AirPower in Europe was Ify... Ever Watch Band Of Brother, see the obvious lack of Air Cover? Europe is bad weather a lot, not like SC, where every day is a Clear July Day in Kansas. Most of those Bombs we dropped didn't hit their target. It was only the fact we had sooooooooo many of them that they did effect the War. They did not however effect the War in the way some feel. I've read the proffessionals and I'll find their quote and books if you'd like. The old argument that AirPower alone could Win is not true. That's what WW2 Showed us. I have read the productions figures, Strategic Bombing didn't work. Air Power over the Sea was different.

The Germans adapted to the Bombing. Norden was the best Bombsight and it wasn't that great. Germans manfactored parts all over a city so that if you bombed one spot, you didn't cripple the entire production of a Unit. A Engine in place, Wings in another, Fuselages in another. The German public did wonders in replacing what damage was done. They were very industrious, and the bombing furthered their resolve to fight on and harder and more fanatically as it did with Britian during BoB. Only now, in modern times with all the Billions spent on War can we make Airpower Precision weapon that can utterly decimate an enemy. Dirty Bombs would've made the Americans HATE Germany, talk about a rebuilding Plan? I doubt it, we'd of made them pay triple instead of the Marshal Plan

[ June 28, 2004, 10:22 PM: Message edited by: Liam ]

[Liam]

Final point:

Cruisers cost around 500 MPP. That's too expensive to use in a MultiRole, I'd never buy one. Noone ever buys them in SC, why bother. Decrease the cost and call them something different, more accurate. the Mainline German Cruisers were more like Battleships anyways, considering some of the British Battleships were outdated and didn't match the German Cruisers.

3-4 Destroyers roaming a region probing for Corps would stop a lot of unneccessary BS that little E-boats and other things would've taken care of. i.e. the massive Red Army Corp landings in Denmark and Sweden. The Massive Corp Drops that Germany or Italy does on Egypt-USA-or other locations. Something that hits subs hard and comes in Large Numbers... and can be used as a Raider as well, instead of a U-Boat. Much of German Shipping was crippled by Destroyers early on, cause The Allies had so many

[Retributar]

I Concur again Liam... ...and i dont say that lightly!.

Offhand without actual figures...i believe it cost the Germans 3 V-2 slave laborers lives for every life that the V-2 Rocket weapons claimed!.

The only time im convinced that the Rocket programme would have amounted to anything really useful is if and when they would have had the V-3 operational with a Dirty-Bomb or an A-Bomb and be able to hit New-York-City or Chicago!. Then...the Americans would have to seriously look at suing for peace!.

[Liam]

Retributor:

By then, the Manhattan Project would've produced how many A-Bombs? It would've not been possible for Germany to stop the USA without having thought ahead in their war Planning. We could've built Dirty Bombs as well, Germany is one small target in comparison with the MASSIVE USA. We could move our People and Industry as the Russians did into the Interior where perhaps a Dirty Bomb couldn't reach. While Germany a Nation no bigger than a few American States would've been a wasteland...

The worst target for the Allies would've been poor Britian, so small and Population centers around cities Primarily... That would've hurt, but in retaliation the Russian #s alone by late '44 and into '45 would've killed off the entire German Nation by themselves without the USA or UK helping.

Dirty Bombs weren't the answer, unless they were owned solely by 1 Power, and could be employed in Massive #s and you also had the Land forces to protect your Other Massive Fronts. Germany had Thousands of Miles Fronts, the USA was but 1 Contributor to their demise. V-3s are a What If Weapon, and even if you Nuked Millions of Ruskies, no saying that would've stopped them, it didn't when it was 20-35 Million Dead.

[Blashy]

Ok for the sub discussion I'll clear this up.

I was a submariner and the only reason they won in the Atlantic was airplanes. Even at the end of the war, heck even TODAY. If a sub does not want to be found it will NOT be found, today they just go deeper and the layers in the ocean block everything EASILY.

Back then they just needed to be underwater, sonars were **** when a sub ran silent.

So ships did not find boats, planes did.

Oh and the best hunters in terms of ships in WW2, not destroyers... corvettes, good old canadian corvettes were the best sub killers... when they found them.

[Roosevelt45(the 2nd)]

Retributar,
Of course German scientists would have been able to create an A-bomb but not with Hitler proclaiming 'his, only correct, science' all the time and surly not in 1944/45 where they didn't even have enough recources for the battle of the Bulge anymore.
I read an interresting book about this subject:
Nazi Science: Myth, Truth, and the German Atomic Bomb (http://www.historyofmilitary.com/Nazi_Science_Myth_Truth_and_the_German_Atomic_Bomb _0738205850.html)

[Liam]

Blashy,
U-Boats had batteries they required to run above water most of the time. Why aircraft could see them so well.Aircraft is a good way to hunt U-Boats especially if launched by Sea for range. Modern Day Submarines as you say, are Uber... but they're Nuclear now.

http://www.naval-history.net/WW2CampaignRoyalNavy.htm

At the start of the War UK had 184 Destroyers and 45 escort ships. What was the primary role, supportive

Corvettes, Frigates could be classified same as Destroyers to simplify. escort Carriers could be classified uniquely.

but the 66 Cruisers at this juncture..mainly post-World War 1 with some older ships converted for AA duties. Including cruiser-minelayers, 23 new ones have been laid down.

[Liam]

Ahhh, I know this is sort of like a run on sentence but I thought I should add another very good point. When any Good SCer plans a Naval Armada, or any arrangement of Vessels, it wouldn't be complete without Corps Transport Blockers and Recon Vessels now would it? I know that the BEST SCers use this technique and if you don't offer a fair cost Boat I will and many other will not stop!

Why expend a 500-700MPP Ship when you can throw at 125MPP ship at them? Use a Minor and it's really even of lesser value. You see it takes 2 whacks usually for a Real MainLine ship to kill a transport no matter what it is, and can take more Air Hits to do the same and they go in places often people are afraid to send Carriers. They can block you in, they can cut you off, they can even inflict damage... Transport Corps is as valuable as subs in most of my games where there is Major Naval Warfare and Most of the time, cause I have a Fleet with them, I can pull them back before they're sunk and Hammer you're fleet to the bottom.


I have seen entire Naval engagements won this way in SC and anyone would like a demonstration smile.gif You're welcome to one tongue.gif

To Finalize:

This isn't just about a Unit, it's about a Tactical Missing Link

[SeaMonkey]

Am in agreement with Liam. How about a new SC naval unit, "Naval Escorts"? Cost? 325 MPP beginning level, same as Tank Group. Give it a NA value that has some range to represent the escort carriers and some increased spotting since we will have a larger Atlantic.

[Retributar]

Ohh about the Manhatten project...the US had only enough material to build those two bombs that dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima...for actual combat use.

Then they would have no more...not for a while...how long i dont know. I think the materials were coming from Uranium City in the Yukon in Canada or someplace like that.

[Liam]

SeaMonkey:

I think that is a bit expensive and I wouldn't mind it, don't get me wrong but we're stuck here. If Hubert is reading our topic and considering adding another unit or offering the ability to design units in the Editor it would be different. I'm looking for a lowcost Raider/Recon/Space Filler. A small TP Boat, an E-Boat, a Destroyer, a Corvette, an escort Carrier even.. Yes but the capibilities of the Escort Carrier make it quite powerful and it's true all the above ships usually ran in a taskforce. But a Destroyer type unit with all those capabilities would be far too uber and expensive. You need to downgrade the unit somewhat or people will buy no Cruisers/Battleships and only those units. BUT give it bonuses vs Subs for Game Balance IMO

More along the lines of a 200 MPP Destroyer, mobile, fast, Low Fire Power, good raider/match for a sub and a TOTAL Transport killer.

If we had an editor I'd add in the Escort Carriers just for the Glorious Joy of more Combat. All sort of confusing, I know but, I think if you look at a Screenie and you see 5-6 Transports Blocking Waters. You see 15-20 Amphibious Units off UK, and think to yourself a moment what is missing, I feel there is something don't you? Air alone can't kill, The UK is missing the Historical/Neccessary ships to defend itself, The Germans likewise... They need air superiority during Battle of Britian to kill all the little nuisances swimming around the Channel and in SC Air Power during BOB is for killing Corps/Armies not for getting the fleet across in one piece which can easily be done

[SeaMonkey]

i understand where your coming from Liam, but remember the is SC and this is an abstracted escort taskforce including all your above mentioned vessels. If you take out the carriers then I think the cost could be reduced, but it would be somewhat ahistorical to not represent the carriers, although only UK and USA had them. Perhaps the best of both worlds, allow a low cost (250 MPPs) initially for the "escorts" and as ASW and possible other tech advances add to the features (advent of escort carriers) then the cost would rise appreciably.

[Liam]

SeaMonkey,

Escort Carriers weren't a neccessity for Axis forces, they didn't have TransAtlantic Convoys, they had to pretty much rely on what they could plunder and get locally. So they didn't need that Specialized unit, but the UK/USA did.

Axis were better off with a Surface Raider and Support ships.. They also made some pretty nasty Ones that did Hellish Damage before Combined Allied Surface Ships and Air Units responded to stop the Threat.

Perhaps Country Specific Units would suit more? Like now, it's rare the Allies buy subs, cause they cannot raid for the USA, UK, or USSR. Although if their taskforces had the ability with TECH to upgrade with increased SubSpotting, Increased Spotting range altogether, as Sea Launched Planes give great Range, and increased hitting Power VS Subs rather VS Other ships<more specialized> then I'm for it.

I'm also for reducing Corps to true SeaFodder, if one is intercepted by any Naval Ship without an Escort it sinks to the bottom no questions asked. That way, True Naval Superiority is required in order to win at Sea. That would stop that gamey tactic. Sort of like the Transport attack 100% Readiness Tactic

[ June 29, 2004, 04:13 PM: Message edited by: Liam ]

[pzgndr]

I always understood the Naval units not as one ship but as a Task Force. But I certainly agree that the BB groups should have much lower attack values against U-Boats. It would be nice if the naval units would have naval and strategic attack/defense values AND one extra against subs. That would make Cruiser Task Forces more important. That's the general idea. Cruisers were just junior BBs in SC1. SC2 will provide additional naval target types for carriers and subs, so we'll be able to create a better rock-paper-scissors effect for the naval war. BBs vs naval targets with better naval attack values. Cruisers vs subs as ASW units with better sub attack values. Carriers vs naval targets with better naval attack values than land-based AFs. Subs will have a new Run Silent option. That sort of thing.

And ... unit upgrades based on research advances will not be automatic, meaning players can customize their units. For example, give BBs gun-laying radar, give Cruisers ASW (sonar), etc. If you give everyone everything, then you'll be paying through the nose to upgrade and reinforce your high-tech units. So what types of naval units you buy, how many, and how you customize them will present some interesting challenges in the new SC2 naval war. :cool:

[John DiFool the 2nd]

Originally posted by Liam:
Blashy,
U-Boats had batteries they required to run above water most of the time. Why aircraft could see them so well.Aircraft is a good way to hunt U-Boats especially if launched by Sea for range. Modern Day Submarines as you say, are Uber... but they're Nuclear now. The type VII and type IX were submersibles, which
yes had to spend a lot of time at (or near, via
snorkel) recharging batteries. But the type XXI
was the first true submarine, and could spend
most of its time in the deeper layers. The Kilo
is basically a nth-generation offspring of the
XXI, and these electroboats are VERY quiet. The
kind of active sonar they had back then wasn't
very effective (and active pinging as a purely
preventative measure when not under attack just
advertises your position to the U-boats loud &
clear).

The VII and IX were obsolete, which is why they
got blown to heck from May 1943 onward (that, and
Doenitz's refusal to consider that RDF technology
let the Allies know where a U-Boat was-roughly-
every time one of them transmitted back to base).
Modern sub skippers know the importance of radio
silence.

The wolfpacks were a high-risk/high reward
strategy, but ultimately they ended up harming
themselves more than the convoys. I'm not sure
exactly how effective Type XXI's would have been
if they had gone into service in early '43 while
still being used in wolfpacks (and not as lone
wolves), because the Germans needed to sink a
certain amount of tonnage per month to outstrip
Allied merchant ship production, but they still
would have been a terror (until the Allies
invented the airdropped sonobuoy, and even
then...).

[Roosevelt45(the 2nd)]

Didn't the Germans invent some kind of sub that supplied the U-boats on sea?
I don't remember where I read this or what it was exactly, does anyone know what I'm talking about?

[ev]

Originally posted by Roosevelt45(the 2nd):
Didn't the Germans invent some kind of sub that supplied the U-boats on sea?
I don't remember where I read this or what it was exactly, does anyone know what I'm talking about? Yes, I have read about this too.

Perhaps SC2 could model this by having some sort of supply uboat unit ...similar to a uBoat HQ that moves out ot sea. But this uBoat HQ only provides supply, it does not have a leadership modifier (or the leadership modifier is set to 0).

[Retributar]

Supply U-Boat or Milch Cows(Milk Cows). See previous posting on page1... Turning The Tide Against The U-Boats!.

This loss of submarines, particularly the milch cows, was a severe blow to the German Navy. With diminished capability for refueling U-boats at sea, and with no friendly bases in the area, Admiral Karl Doenitz, commander of the German U-boat fleet, was forced to withdraw his remaining supply submarines and cancel all U-boat operations in the central Atlantic.

[Liam]

Originally posted by pzgndr:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> I always understood the Naval units not as one ship but as a Task Force. But I certainly agree that the BB groups should have much lower attack values against U-Boats. It would be nice if the naval units would have naval and strategic attack/defense values AND one extra against subs. That would make Cruiser Task Forces more important. That's the general idea. Cruisers were just junior BBs in SC1. SC2 will provide additional naval target types for carriers and subs, so we'll be able to create a better rock-paper-scissors effect for the naval war. BBs vs naval targets with better naval attack values. Cruisers vs subs as ASW units with better sub attack values. Carriers vs naval targets with better naval attack values than land-based AFs. Subs will have a new Run Silent option. That sort of thing.

And ... unit upgrades based on research advances will not be automatic, meaning players can customize their units. For example, give BBs gun-laying radar, give Cruisers ASW (sonar), etc. If you give everyone everything, then you'll be paying through the nose to upgrade and reinforce your high-tech units. So what types of naval units you buy, how many, and how you customize them will present some interesting challenges in the new SC2 naval war. :cool: </font>[/QUOTE]PanzerGrenadier

I am still feeling bit like there is a missing link. Even if Cruisers have these upgraded abilities they're still Mini-Battleships and mark my words that's how SC2 Proffessionals will use them, maybe not the Majority of guys who play 5-10 games in a lifetime. But us diehards will know a units weakness and advantages and exploit the hell outta them. The Carrier became such an UberUnit I never fully Learned Rambos techniques but it had the value of 5-10 Subs with a little tweaking in combat. Why buy Subs any more is the valid, why buy Cruisers or Battleships. Noone who got good really bothered. I met a few who tried it against me, and YES occassionaly they won, but rarely. I beat them 90% of the time. So the point is my strategy was better. Power/Affordable/What wins... LR, Jet, Carriers... Even for Axis.

The Destroyer or Taskforce Idea was a concept to protect the Sealanes and go against the Gamey Transport/0 Naval coverage that happens due to a lack of an affordable and more prolific unit. Call it a land Corps. Cruisers are Never going to be Land Corps, Subs could be the closing if you lowered the price but then again they lose their uniqueness and become very appetizing to buy in mass quantity as Fodder if you do that. So I'll bet you my bottom Dollar you'll see 10 Transports after the Royal Navy is Sacrificed in SC2 Protecting the Carriers without tweaking. A Strategy I've used and others have used. that's 1250 MPPs worth of Naval Protection, vs what 2 Cruisers and not even a Sub?

Likewise in the Med vs the Allies, throw 5-10 Italian Transports in with German Air and you've got an effective Line to block retreat and actually spot and assault that doesn't cost you much. This game is about Position, It's Hex Warfare and right now as is Carriers/Battleships/Cruisers and Subs will not fill that void. I will most definitely tweak Cruisers IMO to be a cheaper weaker unit for this purpose and do away with it's other Newly Assigned Roles.

Believe me I've played probably more SC Games personally than any player in the Game I know, next to Maybe Terif.

[SeaMonkey]

See Liam, that's just it, this will not be old SC, the Atlantic will be bigger, subs can run "silent". What Bill is saying is that by applying the tech levels you've acquired descriminately, you can produce the Naval escort class from the cruiser unit. Example: take a bare bones cruiser unit, get a little experience bombarding, apply "Intel", "Sonar"/ASW and whatever else to enhance it's find and destroy abilities and "Presto" = subkiller/escort. Simple, yet effective....the SC way. smile.gif

[pzgndr]

Even if Cruisers have these upgraded abilities they're still Mini-Battleships I did mention something about Cruisers being juniors BBs and meant this as a recognition of the issue. Hopefully SC2 will present more of a difference between the two, with BBs having a greater surface role and Cruisers having a greater ASW role. Tech would allow you to give BBs more ASW capability or Cruisers more GLR capability, or you could focus these techs to create very distinct units. For instance, Cruisers with very high ASW but no additional emphasis on GLR. It would be up to players to decide how to customize their fleets. I hear what you're saying Liam, but short of calling Cruisers some new unit such as Destroyers or ASW TF, I don't understand what more you would want here. You can rename these units to reflect their customized abilities. Does this help? :confused:

[Liam]

SeaMonkey and Panzer,

I get it..I see how the Cruisers could be used for sub hunting. Tech gives you a different approach but you still are left with the fact that Sea Zones are likely still to be patrolled by Corps rather than Cruisers. Unless of course LR Aircraft and More & cheaper subs are available, I assume that costs will go down with a bigger map and more units will be available?

You see when you conduct a Naval battle now you do it like this. I.E. You come into the Baltic to kill my Kriegsmarine. If my Airfleets are busy killing France I am pretty stuck. You've got the #s so what do I do. I weigh my options here. If I have the time to waste I'll finish off France, then rush couple corps to the Rear block off Denmark-Swedish Passage and with 2-3-4 German or Italian Corps 5-6 Royal Navy Ships are locked. Place 1 or 2 subs in the picture all my air transfers over and there goes the War.

Don't care to lose 400-500 MMPs in corps and your 3000 MPP fleet is dead, great trade off. This is repeated then in half a dozen more Theatres... Reason being, no way around it, it's effective but really would 3-4 corps block a passage in real life or in a wargame realisticly? No!

Trying to make sure that in SC2 this isn't the case. I don't know if the designers are familiar with the way that Naval Combat works in SC but it's much like the above. For instance if you want to attack Egypt, even with spare parts you can do it with enough Corps and a few well places armies, there is a method... I suppose my insisting on a Cheaper Naval unit is to fill the Gaps so instead of getting this say at Gibraltar which is extremely common..

Battleship over Gibraltar Port, Corps hex to the south, Bang German ship hits it Indentified. Another Cruiser above the Port with a Corps above it, Italian ships hits the Transport, Bang, identified. Counter attack, Bang, bring in the Rear Fleet from Gibraltar you've got a killing Zone... Even keep the Corps in rear and surround the Remaining pounded Italian/German Navy and Lock it up.. Enemy Air can't free it, due to distance or lack of #s and you've got a seriously flawed system of combat...

Which as you can see if you attack messes you up. The Heavier more expensive units can Counter you and the worthless units can retreat or be destroyed doesn't matter few thousand men get sunk it's a transport with no combat ability anyways.

I think this looks better:

Destroyer or another Unit, like a cheaper Cruiser takes the place of the Fodder unit. Lower the price somewhat of the Battleship and make the Capitol Battleships have more experience. Maybe that would make for some more realistic Naval combat without another unit. Carriers weren't as prolific in the Atlantic and are still very limited and expensive


One is impossible. Allied Transports nor German Axis ones never played Cannon Fodder as far as I know or Recon Vehicles. The Other makes sense... however I may be off, the way SC2 Combat, Naval Maps, etc.. will turn out, I'm not certian they'll be much different in this aspect as far as I hear and can see in the previews.

[ July 01, 2004, 01:28 AM: Message edited by: Liam ]

[Sombra]

@Liam with "force pool" limits applied, it could be that you will need the corps elsewhere then guarding the sea. Just my two cents.

On the other hand you still need the backup for the corps spot units to create effective killing zones

[pzgndr]

you still are left with the fact that Sea Zones are likely still to be patrolled by Corps Maybe. With new force pool limits and other changes, hopefully some of these gamey strategies will be reduced.

Another thing I'll emphasize again is the addition of new naval combat types. In SC1 all we have are generic naval attack/defense. SC2 will add carrier and sub attack/defense values. This will allow us to better create a rock-paper-scissors effect. Naval combat will still be an abstraction with individual unit movement and combats, unlike some other game systems with sea zones and TF actions, but hopefully things will be better balanced in the long run.

If battleships, cruisers, carriers, and subs are all better modeled with appropriate strengths and weaknesses, the overall naval game should be much improved. This should translate into more realistic strategies. That's the plan anyway. I suppose there may still be opportunities for expoiting some weakness in the SC2 game system, but let's hope for the best, yes? ;)

[Lars]

Liam, you could just put the Transport defence value down as low as it will go. Bye bye gamey tactics.

[Liam]

Sombra: Yes Agreed! Limitations on #s is an important factor I suppose. It's always easy though to abandon something, this in the past can hurt. You have divert a Taskforce of Land Armies to retake a City if there is a missing corps. Ultimately I suppose better Recon Technologies will make more inexperienced players want to assualt undefended cities more? Hopefully.

Panzer: I suppose that the set is already on what is there. If the Combat abilities of the units as you pointed out are altered it could be entirely different than I an picturing. Bigger Maps too! I'd like to see a few Naval combats and experiment with the game engine smile.gif I had a game once with Terif when I was still a fledgling. He had no Royal Navy Ships left but his 3 Carriers after about May Fall of France. I thought, it's over but that was not the case. He blocked my Cruisers and Subs with the Transport. He even blocked my transports with Transports so that I couldn't invade England. He moved them tactically in way that England didn't need Land Defense and in the end he he won.

Lars:

The thought is a good one, Minus Tanks-Armies-HQs. Make everything else, Partisans-etc.. 0 Defense

[Terif]

Transport wars in the good old days...hihi :D

I think too that to make more realistic naval warfare possible it should be easier for combat ships to destroy transports and also that airfleets should not be able to destroy ships so easily - or at least only when they are really close to the coast (1-2 hexes) and not in the open ocean. This would ships make much more important and valuable.

A defence of 0 wouldnt help, cause this only influences the damage for the attacker (=enemy ship) and not for the transport.

So if possible we need another attack/defence naval combat type against corps (similar to the planed carrier and sub attack/defense values). If a transport can be sunk with a single strike of an enemy combat task force, then they could not be used as cheap cannon fodder for reconnaissance and cutting of enemy fleets. Additionally Sealion would only be possible when axis has enough combat ships to protect its invasion fleet or they could loose all of them in the attempt (much more realistic and Sealion would not be that easy as it is now, but still possible).

[Lars]

Originally posted by Terif:
A defence of 0 wouldnt help, cause this only influences the damage for the attacker (=enemy ship) and not for the transport.
Sorry, what I meant was make the strength of a transport 1.

[ev]

Originally posted by Terif:
A defence of 0 wouldnt help, cause this only influences the damage for the attacker (=enemy ship) and not for the transport. ...well defense should be 0. I cannot imagine a transport group caussing much damage to a squadron of Battleships...

[Liam]

Originally posted by ev:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Terif:
A defence of 0 wouldnt help, cause this only influences the damage for the attacker (=enemy ship) and not for the transport. ...well defense should be 0. I cannot imagine a transport group caussing much damage to a squadron of Battleships... </font>[/QUOTE]Naval transport vessels are very poor cause they're overstuffed with supplies,men and equipment. They should have 0 Defense cause I've never heard of a Transport with anything more than a MG on it, but how hard you make them to kill is the obvious question. Too hard they can still be used as Fodder and Naval Blockade Units. Terif's ideas on Killing off Amphibious units a bit easier is good. Plus bonuses to hitting Naval units closer to a Coastline.. IF the SC2 team doesn't alter these values I think the SC2 Players will.

[Liam]

Originally posted by Terif:
Transport wars in the good old days...hihi :D

I think too that to make more realistic naval warfare possible it should be easier for combat ships to destroy transports and also that airfleets should not be able to destroy ships so easily - or at least only when they are really close to the coast (1-2 hexes) and not in the open ocean. This would ships make much more important and valuable.

A defence of 0 wouldnt help, cause this only influences the damage for the attacker (=enemy ship) and not for the transport.

So if possible we need another attack/defence naval combat type against corps (similar to the planed carrier and sub attack/defense values). If a transport can be sunk with a single strike of an enemy combat task force, then they could not be used as cheap cannon fodder for reconnaissance and cutting of enemy fleets. Additionally Sealion would only be possible when axis has enough combat ships to protect its invasion fleet or they could loose all of them in the attempt (much more realistic and Sealion would not be that easy as it is now, but still possible). agreed almost on all points.. Thanks for adding your 2 cents Terif

[Lars]

Originally posted by Liam:
Naval transport vessels are very poor cause they're overstuffed with supplies,men and equipment. They should have 0 Defense cause I've never heard of a Transport with anything more than a MG on it, but how hard you make them to kill is the obvious question. Too hard they can still be used as Fodder and Naval Blockade Units. Terif's ideas on Killing off Amphibious units a bit easier is good. Plus bonuses to hitting Naval units closer to a Coastline.. IF the SC2 team doesn't alter these values I think the SC2 Players will. Some had 5" guns mounted for defense against surfaced submarines.

Not recommended for use against BB's ;)

(although, read about the battle off of Samar for what 5" guns can do to capital ships, it's not entirely negligible.)

[Liam]

Heh, probably had some of those Transports with pompoms too but not many. The poor stuff you put on a transport the less troops, plus a Vast Majority of Transports if we'd look it up, likely 90% were defenseless...That or unable to do amphibious OPs.

Tank, HQ, maybe Army too, should have reinforced Steel but the rest should go down to the bottom IMO. That way the gamey tactic is eliminated. The valuable units are too expensive to risk in some foolish action like attacking the Bismark. I assure you in half an hour, that puppy could sink several corps... No matter what they had on their decks... The lack of Salvos would be the limit


Not recommended for use against BB's ;)

(although, read about the battle off of Samar for what 5" guns can do to capital ships, it's not entirely negligible.) [/QB][/QUOTE]