Coastal Forces - A Key Part of the Stategic War

[Axe99]

How much do we need the flotilla of torpedo boats? They sank a German auxiliary cruiser and a British cruiser and that's it. As far as patrol/area denial, I think it would be good to have that localized to the coastal fort with adjacent sea provinces having some effect based on the port size.

This is just quick googling/wikipediaing, so take broad brushes, not details, but losses due to torpedo boats were (quotes from Wiki, but not formatted as such or this post'll get ugly):

- For Germany: During World War II, E-boats sank 101 merchant ships totalling 214,728 tons.[6] In addition, they sank 12 destroyers, 11 minesweepers, eight landing ships, six MTBs, a torpedo boat, a minelayer, one submarine and a number of small merchant craft. They also damaged two cruisers, five destroyers, three landing ships, a repair ship, a naval tug and numerous merchant vessels. Sea mines laid by the E-boats were responsible for the loss of 37 merchant ships totalling 148,535 tons, a destroyer, two minesweepers and four landing ships.

- For the UK: they fought over 900 actions and sank around 400 enemy vessels, including 48 E-boats and 32 midget submarines. They fired 1169 torpedoes, shot down 32 enemy aircraft and carried out many mine laying operations.

- For the US: "The efficiency of the PT boats at sinking the Japanese supply barges was considered a key reason why the Japanese had severe food, ammunition, and replacement problems during the New Guinea and Solomon Island Campaigns, and made the PT boats prime targets for enemy aircraft." and "The PT boats at Guadalcanal were given credit for several sinkings and successes against the vaunted Tokyo Express."

- For the USSR: Mainly victories against other MTBs and minelayers, but knocked out a sub as well (http://www.wio.ru/fleet/mtb.htm) - looks like the USSR had around 500 torpedo boats over the course of the war, in the Black Sea, Baltics and Arctic (that would have been a fun posting :blink.

- For Italy - a couple of cruisers (one with an E-boat knock-off, one with an MAS boat), and a bunch of transports, including in the Black Sea. Not having torpedo boats for Italy would mean that it's easier for Malta to be resupplied than it was historically, unless we make the port/fortification level of the port in southern Sardinia strong enough to damage British convoys going through the med).

I'm no expert on these - I'll have missed stuff that I'm not aware of (UK MTBs knocking out supply/ships barges bound for North Africa, for example). Beyond the value of the losses, the 'supply interdiction' role of these vessels has a strategic impact (as per the OP), and one that's not currently modelled in HoI, and not adequately represented by making coastal forts more dangerous.

There's a range of units/battalions/aircraft that will be in HoI that didn't have near the material impact that 'small vessels' (torpedo boats, motor gunboats, mine layers and sweepers) did, and a wider range that didn't have the strategic impact (up to and potentially including paratroopers).

So, let's look at the best case, Singapore. Huge naval guns, well fortified, huge port. A 10 on port level and a 10 on fortification. That would have a huge effect on any naval forces next to Singapore proper and should have a half effect on anything adjacent to those sea zones provinces.

Essentially, fortification level determines the how damaging the sea zone would be to enemy shipping and port size would determine how far it could project the effect. (Though never more than one or two sea provinces away)

So, in effect, in abstracting away the smaller vessels, we'd give Singapore the capacity to inflict damage on every fleet passing through the Straits of Malacca? I'd prefer a player (Japanese, UK, or anyone else) to earn the right to shut down the straits of Malacca with implied torpedo boats and minelayers, rather than be granted it automatically by dint of ownership of the port. On the other hand, a player should have the capacity to station sufficient small naval forces at Singapore to pretty much completely shut down the strait, rather than some kind of arbitrary 'half effect' on ships passing through. In HoI3, even if the UK holds onto Singapore, Japanese naval vessels can travel through the straits with no trouble.

Don't get me wrong, it'd be a lot better than nothing, but if we tracked coastal fortifications and small vessels separately, it gives player choice, it adds depth to the naval, convoy and invasion game, and done right need not add a heap of micro. People wouldn't be moving individual MTBs and minesweepers about, they'd just be assigning them to various ports, where the effect would be automatic.

I think that we can safely conclude that even a simple system which I proposed would be much better than the lack of any representation of naval mines, MTBs etc. In fact, it seems that every poster here so far likes the proposal. Even Secret Master, who likes to argue with me just for kicks . Anyway, I hope that the devs will pay more attention to the naval war than in the previous HOI games. It seems that they are on the right track in case of the air war, so there is hope that the naval aspect of the game will get some love, too.

Oh aye, a simple system would be much better than nothing, but it wouldn't add a lot of complexity to have a system that could be so much deeper with very little extra work, hence why I keep rabbitting on . I'm trying not to say stuff twice though, promise .

I like to add, that with such a building and modifier, also Gibraltar could be represented much better. As we could drop the "closed provs" feature and just have hefty penalties crossing that area if you sail there.
AI need to know when to avoid such of course too then.

But overall you could break through with e.g. "heavy units"(BB or if that area gets no air/navy support etc.) and would not be forced to take Gibraltar first..

This would be awesome, and make it more 'in-game' than . Give coastal forts the capacity to actually fire on naval vessels in range (with coastal provinces in-game, this hopefully wouldn't be too hard to model) and add a 'small vessel' effect, then ships can take their chances.

 

[Secret Master]

I like Axe99's list, but I think the impact of E-boats and other shore defenses can be summed up much better by reviewing the results of Exercise Tiger, a dress rehearsal for Overlord.

During the rehearsal for Overlord, 9 German E-boats sank 2 LSTs and damaged 2 more, killing 946 troops. Imagine for a moment if this had been Overlord, and the Channel was full of, say, 60 E-boats that had not been suppressed properly.

10 of the dead men had BIGOT level clearance, meaning they knew vital information on the plans for Overlord. Operation Overlord was nearly called off until they found the bodies of all 10 of these guys.

Now, someone is going to say, "USN and RN screwed up the protection of LSTs. Had they not done so, this wouldn't have happened." But that's the point of including it in the first place. Proper counter-measures could stop these shore defenses from being effective, but such countermeasures were not instant nor foolproof.

I will also point out that, thanks to ULTRA, the Allies had maps for the German minefields off the coast of France. Without that information, it would have taken more time and resources to clear that stuff to enable a landing in the first place. Again, countermeasures exist, but were not instant or foolproof.

 

[D Inqu]

I would also add that small coastal craft were used widely by the soviets inland for river crossing operations, as well as in amphibious assaults. Small 45 ton boats could be easily redeployed, and they we certainly very important.

River monitors could perhaps also be abstracted into the same mechanic.

 

[parnis]

Coastal forces were NOT a "Key Part of the Strategic War", IMO. Who on earth was going to win or lose the war based on coastal forces? What major battle was decided by them? They were one of the routine functions that had to be performed, like minelaying and minesweeping, that both inflicted and prevented some attrition. Coastal forces in the usual sense of the term - MTBs, patrol boats, subchasers, trawlers, and so on - were never going to stop a major enemy effort.

Coastal defenses were different. They were of two very different types: 1) harbor defenses, meant to protect ports and the ships in them from bombardment by enemy ships, and 2) beach defenses, like the Atlantic Wall, which were very much like land fortifications. But even the most powerful coastal artillery defenses could usually only attack warships that deliberately engaged them. Otherwise, in games the scale of HOI 2-3-4, they could easily be avoided. The only exceptions are a few narrow straits, like Messina, Oslo, and the English Channel at Dover/Pas de Calais.

 

[Dr Hiram Temple]

Coastal forces were NOT a "Key Part of the Strategic War", IMO. Who on earth was going to win or lose the war based on coastal forces? What major battle was decided by them? They were one of the routine functions that had to be performed, like minelaying and minesweeping, that both inflicted and prevented some attrition. Coastal forces in the usual sense of the term - MTBs, patrol boats, subchasers, trawlers, and so on - were never going to stop a major enemy effort.

As noted above by Axe99, American PT boats played a major role in preventing supplies from reaching Japanese troops during various island campaigns. That alone seems like a sizable contribution to the war.

Also, I don't think anyone's expecting these type of ships to prevent a major enemy effort. Where they would be most useful is in deterring those annoying sneak attack invasions that are all too easy in HOI3. As Secret Master pointed out, these coastal craft could be devastating to unescorted transports, so any invasion force in a region with coastal craft would require significant air/naval support to prevent unacceptable losses. This in turn creates a) a more predictible and detectable invasion force, and b) a significant opportunity cost, as the invader cannot use those planes/ships elsewhere until the surrounding ports are secured.

As far as I can see, coastal forces were significant historically, and have a practical gameplay niche. with both of those factors covered, I think they would make an excellent addition to HOI4's naval game.

 

[parnis]

Dr. Hiram Temple, I don't want to argue just for the sake of arguing, but the Pacific war really shows the difference between a strategically significant force and one that is not. The US and Allied submarine force? A war winning strategic force. The Japanese submarine force? A wasted opportunity to be the same. The US PT boat force? Useful, but not in the same category, and it never could be. No one ever claimed that for it. It was valuable, as you point out, but NOT a game changer, like the submarine forces. Winston Churchill did not lay awake nights worrying about the German E-boat threat, after all.

 

[Axe99]

Dr. Hiram Temple, I don't want to argue just for the sake of arguing, but the Pacific war really shows the difference between a strategically significant force and one that is not. The US and Allied submarine force? A war winning strategic force. The Japanese submarine force? A wasted opportunity to be the same. The US PT boat force? Useful, but not in the same category, and it never could be. No one ever claimed that for it. It was valuable, as you point out, but NOT a game changer, like the submarine forces. Winston Churchill did not lay awake nights worrying about the German E-boat threat, after all.

Aye, but it doesn't need to be a 'game changer' to warrant representation in a strategic-level WW2 game, just something that had a strategic impact. Hell, HoI4 has jet fighters and super heavy tanks, something that did not in any way make a strategic impact. Similarly, a decent case could be made for torpedo boats/MGBs/minelayers and sweepers have a stronger strategic (rather than tactical) impact than paratroopers. If we're only putting stuff in/out on the strength of its strategic impact, then we should be either putting the smaller vessels in, or taking a whole lot more out of the game.

 

[parnis]

I would suggest that jet fighters are an technological evolution of an existing force, and not a new type of force, which coastal forces would seem to be (perhaps I have misunderstood that point). An analogy would be a request to include tactical reconnaissance or artillery spotter type air units in the game. They existed, they had tactical impact, but they were not important on the level which I assume this game attempts to model. (Or perhaps that is the point on which I am wrong.)

I guess I should say I understand the desire to add such units to the game. It is just that I feel the developers, and the game, have enough to do modeling existing aspects properly, especially the U-Boat war and the Pacific submarine campaign, both of which could be a full, complex game in themselves.

 

[Axe99]

I would suggest that jet fighters are an technological evolution of an existing force, and not a new type of force, which coastal forces would seem to be (perhaps I have misunderstood that point). An analogy would be a request to include tactical reconnaissance or artillery spotter type air units in the game. They existed, they had tactical impact, but they were not important on the level which I assume this game attempts to model. (Or perhaps that is the point on which I am wrong.)

I guess I should say I understand the desire to add such units to the game. It is just that I feel the developers, and the game, have enough to do modeling existing aspects properly, especially the U-Boat war and the Pacific submarine campaign, both of which could be a full, complex game in themselves.

Oh aye - I'm not saying these should be in the base game (that'll be locked down feature-wise now, unless Podcat, DarkRenown and co have decided that they don't want need sleep!), more that if there was an expansion that fleshed out the naval aspect more, it's the kind of thing that might be worth considering going into it, along with enhancements to things like the U-boat war and Pacific sub campaign.

From my perspective, the biggest impact of smaller coastal vessels is twofold:

- In terms of the HoI that we know and love, on supply mechanics - helping cut the supply of the Afrika Corps (imagine how Rommel could have fared if a painfully large proportion of his supplies didn't end up at the bottom of the Med?), making it difficult for the Germans to run ships through the English channel, or cutting off supplies to the Japanese defenders on Guadalcanal (or similar). This isn't just the torpedo and motor gun boats, but the minefields that are laid.

- In terms of mechanics that haven't existed in the past, but were they implemented in the future, on the difficulties in invading a position with a force of 'small vessels'in defence, and Secret Master's said this better than me. The threat posed by minefields and torpedo boats meant that you couldn't just rock up with a few transports and a handful of destroyers unless there was an enemy very close by, and because in HoI1-3 the smallest unit was a flotilla of destroyers, it was even harder providing a proxy for the kind of broader coastal defence of most nations.

In both cases, the mechanic would add depth and interesting decisions for players without a lot of micro (although I fully concede every extra element is one more thing for the player to handle, and if small vessels are too far, then so be it), and make the game a tad more historic to boot.

 

[Cybvep]

Also, I don't think anyone's expecting these type of ships to prevent a major enemy effort. Where they would be most useful is in deterring those annoying sneak attack invasions that are all too easy in HOI3.

Indeed. This is basically one of the ways of curtailing gamey strategies. I think that it would be very beneficial for gameplay.

 

[parnis]

Thanks for explaining that to me, Axe99 and Cyvep. It makes a lot more sense now.

 

[Porkman]

We know from the Air DD that air superiority has some sort of passive effect on the way that ground forces and naval forces and such fight in that strategic region.

It would be good if something similar could be done with respect to small craft and sea regions.

You build "squadron of small craft," assign them to a port (where they are confined) and they exert a passive effect around the port has a chance of sinking enemy convoys and damaging enemy ships. They would suffer attrition from doing this and you could set their stance to say how aggressive you wanted them to be and how far out to range from the port. You could even use a similar mechanic to represent the bigger coastal defense ships that Sweden and Norway used.

 

[Axe99]

Thanks for explaining that to me, Axe99 and Cyvep. It makes a lot more sense now.

No worries . We're just throwing ideas around, and always good to discuss them .

You build "squadron of small craft," assign them to a port (where they are confined) and they exert a passive effect around the port has a chance of sinking enemy convoys and damaging enemy ships. They would suffer attrition from doing this and you could set their stance to say how aggressive you wanted them to be and how far out to range from the port. You could even use a similar mechanic to represent the bigger coastal defense ships that Sweden and Norway used.

Aye, this is exactly what I was trying to suggest (I likely garbled it though) - wouldn't add a whole lot of micro, but would add the depth that the actual vessels did to the naval conflict in WW2. I'm in two minds about it, but you could potentially have larger vessels being attacked by small vessels when passing through their port zone played out in the naval combat window (as then you could have other larger ships and aircraft join in as appropriate), or just have it as an attrition and %age chance of getting sunk when larger vessels (including convoys) pass through the zone, depending on the stance (aggressiveness, range and number of flotillas) at the port in question. I'd definitely be in favour of keeping any conflict between overlapping port zones as an attrition-based system.