Invasions inside strait enclosures in latest WW2 wednesday

[Zaku]

@Alex_brunius, I think that we could have a mechanic for that: for areas labelled as "straits", a "nautical fort"-esque thing. As hull increases (on a per-ship basis), the chance of attrition (and high attrition... for this example I'll start the bidding at say, automatic 50%) goes up. Thus, forcing a strait with a high-hull fleet is going to result in significant material casualties (which can result in a failed attempt at a crossing). However, one or two subs at a time might be able to sneak through.

Well subs could pass on wider straits, but surface fleets could never force their way through. The battle of Dardanelles showed that even several colums of battleships has no chance against mines and coastal batteries.
It is easier and better to deny passage then to develop a system, which gives you the chance to try it, but make it so that you would fail almost every time. Oh and don't forget that you would need to program an AI which wouldn't send it's entire fleet to the death because it tries to cross a strait all the time.

 

[Vukodav]

Well subs could pass on wider straits, but surface fleets could never force their way through. The battle of Dardanelles showed that even several colums of battleships has no chance against mines and coastal batteries.
It is easier and better to deny passage then to develop a system, which gives you the chance to try it, but make it so that you would fail almost every time. Oh and don't forget that you would need to program an AI which wouldn't send it's entire fleet to the death because it tries to cross a strait all the time.

Yes, and Turkey, together with Germany, invested a lot of resources in building those forts and laying down those mines... that stopped the traffic both ways. Now you do not have to invest a bloody thing. A single coastal fort was both expensive and time consuming thing in previous games.

Mining a strait, submarine net was always a two way thing. Your enemy could not pass, but neither could you. And naval war in WWII in European theatre of war was actually mostly about that - blocking your enemy. That is what Germans did in the Baltic for Soviet subs. That is what was done with mines all over Western Europe. There is nothing even remotely close trying to represent that in game.

And programmers job is to program things. If everyone talked like that "Oh this is complicated, let's abstract it", nothing would have been done. It is a poor excuse. And invisible magic wall is NEVER a good solution when you are making a game of any kind.

I am not a nitpicker when it comes to small flavored things, but this is a whole naval doctrine of European part of the war missing. It was basically submarine war combined with coastal artillery and mines for protection and blocking. We are missing a whole segment. A coast-to-sea war is not only about blockade. Coastal bombardment should do to forts the same thing as bombing run does - damages forts.

In the Pacific war, fleets would shell Japanese islands for several days before sending troops. It is not just some combat bonus while you fight. Actually the most intense shelling was done prior to the landing for obvious reasons. And it should be both ways. If I send a fleet of transports to a lvl 10 coastal fort province it should not only give me a penalty for the invasion, it should obliterate the fleet.

Does it require programming? Sure does, nothing falls from the sky (except rain, snow and occasional airplane). But it was an integral part of the naval war and I think it is about time it is represented in game.

Naval minefields could be done on day 1 of the release. It would be just another unit deployed and with this new naval mechanics even easier - you mine a naval region, as was the case. Sure, regions could be smaller or defined by players, but as I said, let's not nitpick. Though I think that asking for a good coastal fort and minefiled mechanics is not nitpicking... but what do I know, players obviously like invisible walls. If that is the case then ALL straits should be blocked and force you to go around them. And that is just dumb.

 

[Alex_brunius]

Yes, and Turkey, together with Germany, invested a lot of resources in building those forts and laying down those mines... that stopped the traffic both ways.

Except no, they really didn't...

The cost of a Typical WW2 naval mine is US$1000. The cost of the Battleship it can sink is is US$100 million, or you can afford 100 thousand mines per battleship.

To effectively mine a straight you need maybe 200 mines ( depending on size of straight ofcourse ), so the cost of the blockade is 0.2% of the cost of a single battleship, and it can seriously damage a whole fleet and sink several capital ships.

It's the same with guns. Land emplacement with the same firepower as Battleship guns are 10 times harder to knock out compared to the ship and can easily be camouflaged + they weight less then 10% of the battleship needed to carry them and cost less then 5%. But you don't actually need to match firepower since the ship your targeting will normally be at closer then maximum range, so again you can seriously threaten a whole fleet with guns for a fraction of a single ships cost.

And then we get to torpedo boats, they weighted around 50 tons, and carried 2-4 torpedoes capable of sinking or seriously damaging a 50-thousand ton Battleship. They would dash out from their hiding positions in a straight or littoral waters. If the fleet tries to pass the straight in night time hoping to not get detected these ships will be impossible to detect from the distances they can launch their torpedoes. Again the weapon that sinks or threatens the Battleship is at least 1000 times cheaper.


As I tried to write, the cost of protecting a straight is so disproportionately cheap that it on a HoI scale game pretty much would be for free, even if it was represented ( which it isn't since for example a 50 ton torpedo boat is 40 times smaller then a 2000 ton destroyer which is the smallest naval surface unit ).

Mining a strait, submarine net was always a two way thing. Your enemy could not pass, but neither could you.

No it's not a two way thing... Where did you read that?

Your own forces keep track of where the minefields are laid out and can guide both friendly warships, submarines and merchant ships through them, or can leave a narrow passage near the coast open ( where it would be even suicide for enemy warships to pass with the added risk of running aground as they try to dash past the point blank guns ).

 

[Vukodav]

Except no, they really didn't...

The cost of a Typical WW2 naval mine is US$1000. The cost of the Battleship it can sink is is US$100 million, or you can afford 100 thousand mines per battleship.

To effectively mine a straight you need maybe 200 mines ( depending on size of straight ofcourse ), so the cost of the blockade is 0.2% of the cost of a single battleship, and it can seriously damage a whole fleet and sink several capital ships.

It's the same with guns. Land emplacement with the same firepower as Battleship guns are 10 times harder to knock out compared to the ship and can easily be camouflaged + they weight less then 10% of the battleship needed to carry them and cost less then 5%. But you don't actually need to match firepower since the ship your targeting will normally be at closer then maximum range, so again you can seriously threaten a whole fleet with guns for a fraction of a single ships cost.

And then we get to torpedo boats, they weighted around 50 tons, and carried 2-4 torpedoes capable of sinking or seriously damaging a 50-thousand ton Battleship. They would dash out from their hiding positions in a straight or littoral waters. If the fleet tries to pass the straight in night time hoping to not get detected these ships will be impossible to detect from the distances they can launch their torpedoes. Again the weapon that sinks or threatens the Battleship is at least 1000 times cheaper.


As I tried to write, the cost of protecting a straight is so disproportionately cheap that it on a HoI scale game pretty much would be for free, even if it was represented ( which it isn't since for example a 50 ton torpedo boat is 40 times smaller then a 2000 ton destroyer which is the smallest naval surface unit ).




No it's not a two way thing... Where did you read that?

Your own forces keep track of where the minefields are laid out and can guide both friendly warships, submarines and merchant ships through them, or can leave a narrow passage near the coast open ( where it would be even suicide for enemy warships to pass with the added risk of running aground as they try to dash past the point blank guns ).

I do not know why are comparing a cost of a ship to the cost of a coastal fort. What, so it is cheap so it should not be in the game? I do not know what are you trying to prove here. Panzerfaust was way cheaper than a tank (your mine-battleship analogy), yet we have it in the game. And those forts were constructed over several years.

And again, you miss the bigger picture - its is not just the straits - we are missing a whole darn naval war mechanism here. But you skipped that part in argument as it does not go well for your explanations.

And yes, it was a two way thing. Minefields do not care about the flag you have. Ships could guide other through a safe path... just as enemy can find it. And with the near the coast dash and forts - here we go again. FORTS! For some reason you jump from game mechanics to history all the time and contradict yourself.

Let's go back to straits - Gibraltar for instance. Owner mines it and has forts to guide the near the coast clear passage. And... what? If I gather a fleet of 4 carriers, 10 battleships and numerous smaller ships I cannot go through? Bullshit. Airplanes alone would make a short work of coastal forts and any small ships hiding in ports and then the whole fleet would be able to pass through that safe near the coast corridor.

And that brings us to another idiotic thing - Spain, who controls the other half of the straits cannot block the straits while UK can. How's that for your realistic blockade?

And here is little something:

"A period of bad weather slowed the initial phase but by 25 February the outer forts had been reduced and the entrance cleared of mines."

That is from the Gallipoli campaign. Forces actually put some effort in destroying those things in order to pass. It was not an invisible indestructible wall but a wall that you could destroy if you wanted to.

In game there is no such option... except if you land your forces and take one half of the straits that is designated in game as blocker.

And as a guy here said, German forts, heavy artillery and mines were the reason why RN did not send big ships in the straits until the end... when ships and aircraft destroyed them. And Dover straits are 33km while Gibraltar is 15km. Not a big difference yet Gibraltar is blockable so that nothing could pass (even though subs did pass) even if you have nothing in the province and you only control one half - while Dover straits are not blockable at all and have 3 "provinces".

Instead of finding excuses and focusing only in straits, an effort should be placed to create a more detailed coast-to-sea warfare. Not just for straits but for every coastal province. And then you would not need any invisible walls and poor excuses, the game would grow in an important aspect, be more realistic and actually more fun. Right now it is in the stage "Oh hell, more work. You know what, those things are hard to do. Does not matter if you have a whole combined fleet of Japan and Germany, you ain't gonna go through Gibraltar. Just wall it off."

How is that fine to pass is beyond me. I, for once, am not a big fan of sloppy and lazy work.

 

[Alex_brunius]

And Dover straits are 33km while Gibraltar is 15km. Not a big difference yet Gibraltar is blockable so that nothing could pass

On dover straits the other side was controlled by the Axis though, not a neutral power, which means you can't mine nor patrol the full length of it undisturbed, a very important difference.

That's the actual reason it wasn't even attempted to blockade it as seriously as Gibraltar, nor did the German Battlecruisers run into any problems when they made the "Channel Dash".

And yes, it was a two way thing. Minefields do not care about the flag you have.

So let's just ignore the small historical fact that the British and allies sent thousands of warships and merchant ships through the blockaded and heavily mined Gibraltar straits unharmed during the span of the war, but the Axis didn't send a single one, shall we? Yeah that makes alot of sense!

we are missing a whole darn naval war mechanism here

Actually raids from scuba divers sank more Capital warships then straights/coastal guns/minefields did historically in WW2. That's how good of a deterrent they were.

So why are you not complaining about the even more extremely important naval war mechanism of scuba divers missing from the game???

Or what about the Naval war mechanism of raising stricken capital ships which allowed the US navy to re-float alot of their Battleships lost at Pearl harbor? It also impacted the naval war greater then losses from these coastal guns.

And while we are at it what happened to being able to convert ships to another type, for example Cruisers into Carriers? Again had an actual bigger impact in change of balance of forces then coastal guns had.

And that brings us to another idiotic thing - Spain, who controls the other half of the straits cannot block the straits while UK can. How's that for your realistic blockade?

Ofcourse they can. As soon as Spain joins the war & Axis Gibraltar is impossible to defend, so it quickly falls and Spain is now blockading the straight...

How is that fine to pass is beyond me. I, for once, am not a big fan of sloppy and lazy work.

Its quite funny how you repeatedly call Paradox games, probably one of the most deep and complex type of computer games in existence for "sloppy and lazy" work. I know alot of game developers personally ( not as many working at Paradox as Id like ) and let me tell you most of them work 10-14 hour days and weekends without extra pay just to bring you these games as quickly as humanly possible.

Compared to other types of software games are some of the most complex things you can code and produce, and the delays show it.


I really have nothing left to add to this. If you demand the game should be able to model thousands of torpedo ships of 50 ton, every minefield and coastal gun, just so you can try to force through one of the maybe 3-4 straits that exist globally on the HoI map with massive casualties ( something that was never even considered historically due to it being crazy mind you ), then you need to rethink your priorities of what adds value to the game and what doesn't IMO.

Features like having units consume fuel when moving are probably being cut from the game, and you consider things like this (more) important???


It's already mentioned this ability would also cripple the AI and new players alike as well, that don't want to lose their entire fleet but don't realize the threat of going through a strait.

 

[Midden]

@Alex_brunius I was going to chirp in and reply, but don't need to as your posts above were excellently considered.

 

[Wraith11B]

but the Axis didn't send a single one, shall we? Yeah that makes alot of sense!

But the Germans sent 60 submarines through the strait for the loss of 9 sunk and 10 additional damaged. That's not easily dismissed. The success of those Uboats included two aircraft carriers (HMS Eagle and HMS Ark Royal), the battleship HMS Barham, and three other light cruisers that I can identify. Significant numbers of merchants and auxiliaries were also sunk.

So, perhaps a class restriction that submarines can get through straits, but not surface ships? Not trying to say that the above concerns aren't valid (I mean, seriously, no fuel? Come on), but this should eventually be considered, possibly.

 

[Vukodav]

On dover straits the other side was controlled by the Axis though, not a neutral power, which means you can't mine nor patrol the full length of it undisturbed, a very important difference.

Yet it is impossible to block it even before Axis take the other half of the Dover straits. Your argument is null here.

So let's just ignore the small historical fact that the British and allies sent thousands of warships and merchant ships through the blockaded and heavily mined Gibraltar straits unharmed during the span of the war, but the Axis didn't send a single one, shall we?

Why would we? Again your argument is null as those ships passed next to coast line where there were no mines. The same region where Italian and Germans subs went through. So we again go back to the importance of having a good coastal fort mechanics.

Actually raids from scuba divers sank more Capital warships then straights/coastal guns/minefields did historically in WW2. That's how good of a deterrent they were.

Actually not true - coastal artillery did way more damage. And ships actually got sunk, while frogmen could only disable the ship for a period of time.

And while we are at it what happened to being able to convert ships to another type, for example Cruisers into Carriers? Again had an actual bigger impact in change of balance of forces then coastal guns had.

No argument there - it should be in the game. It is in many mods. But we are talking about coastal artillery and minefields. This is not a general naval war talk. For that, a new thread is to be made. But yes, there are a ton of things wrong with naval warfare. The difference is, I am not accepting it. I fix it where I can, like in HOI3, and speak up about it.

Ofcourse they can. As soon as Spain joins the war & Axis Gibraltar is impossible to defend, so it quickly falls and Spain is now blockading the straight...

I think that my English is good enough for you to understand what I was saying. What is the logic of UK blocking the Gibraltar from its half while Spain cannot block it from its half. Say, you are in a war with Spain and not UK. Gibraltar is completely free for you to pass, because blocker province is only the European part of the straits. I actually do not understand what is your point here, what are you trying to defend.

And you actually contradict yourself, once again. In the start you speak about UK not being able to block the Dover straits as it does not control the both sides, yet here it is OK.

let me tell you most of them work 10-14 hour days and weekends without extra pay just to bring you these games as quickly as humanly possible.

This is actually very sad. For a development of a game that already has its engine, they do a slow job. There have been high quality games done with new engines within 2 years. I have no problem in the lack of skill, or lack of time for that matter - just do not mask it with made up excuses. Be fair and honest.

If you demand the game should be able to model thousands of torpedo ships of 50 ton, every minefield and coastal gun, just so you can try to force through one of the maybe 3-4 straits that exist globally on the HoI map with massive casualties

And once again you stubbornly go back to talking about straits exclusively while forgetting that coastal forts and minefields were used everywhere. Reductio ad absurdum is not gonna work here, but nice try. And I will repeat for the third time the thing other posters have said - RN did not send its big ships in the channel because of guns and mines. The fact that few ships were lost only proves that it is an effective way of defense as one would not dare to send a single ship against all that. So by your logic, the straits of Dover should be closed. Yet at the end of the war when it was all in, ships were indeed sent into the channel in order to clear the mines and overpower the coastal guns. So make up your mind.

Features like having units consume fuel when moving are probably being cut from the game, and you consider things like this (more) important???

Again, bringing off topic question into the discussion. We already had a talk about fuel and how idiotic new logistic system is. Or did you miss the week long rage on the forum while it was discussed? So what is the point of bringing that back in this discussion? I actually think that it way worse than this (this is at least fixable to some extent), but about fuel system I talk in threads about fuel and logistics, not here.

It's already mentioned this ability would also cripple the AI and new players alike as well, that don't want to lose their entire fleet but don't realize the threat of going through a strait.

And as a cherry on top, here we come. Instead of making a decent AI for once in all these years, again the developers cut corners. And about new players - even if they do not know the threat (again, it is not just straits, for 100th time), how many times do you think they will make the same mistake? You think very poorly about new players - they might indeed make a mistake once, but I doubt they will do it over and over. Just as they will not send bombers without escort over and over again. That is not a reason to erase a whole mechanic of the game.

In the end, not only is the game not fixing the mistakes of previous iterations of the game, they end up making new ones. Like mentioned fuel and logistics system. And on top of that, the game is hard coded enough that you cannot fix things like that. In HoI3 it was easier - you could erase blockade provinces for straits (I hope it could be done here as well) and create mines as a unit usable in only coastal provinces. This did not fix the problem completely and it did not add the reasonable coastal fort mechanics (impossible to do, among many other things without the source code manipulation) but it did help a lot.

On top of that, there are things in game, like V1 and V2 that had even less impact on the war (they had after the war, but during the war their combat usage was next to none) than minefileds and coastal artillery. So once again your "it was a minor thing" argument against them is void.

And if gaming community needs to start fixing mistakes from the day one, then I am free to say "sloppy work". You don't have to agree, but I have standards when it comes to programming.

 

[SchwarzKatze]

But what's the point? Even if you add the trawlers and mine production into the game, any half-decent player or AI would use them, and they're cheap enough that the entire mine laying would be a no brainer and the opposition would stay clear if they're at least half-decent. If such province is captured, the new owner would also know to sweep the old mines and lay new mines that they can keep track of, which is, again, a no brainer that half decent player and AI would do. Actually implementing them would be nothing more than a no brainer micromanaging fest, and would serve to screw newbies and people who forget to renew their minesweeping/minelaying operation.

For unmanned blockades, just drop a single division to take over it. I know that there's some adjacency issues in HoI3 but that's an easy one, and no one in their right mind would leave them undefended anyway.

For Gib vs Channel, that's double the width. At 15km, gun emplacements and underwater torpedo launchers can reliably devastate any surface vessels, but not so much at 30 km.

 

[Vukodav]

But what's the point? Even if you add the trawlers and mine production into the game, any half-decent player or AI would use them, and they're cheap enough that the entire mine laying would be a no brainer and the opposition would stay clear if they're at least half-decent. If such province is captured, the new owner would also know to sweep the old mines and lay new mines that they can keep track of, which is, again, a no brainer that half decent player and AI would do. Actually implementing them would be nothing more than a no brainer micromanaging fest, and would serve to screw newbies and people who forget to renew their minesweeping/minelaying operation.

As far as mines are concerned, as that is the only thing out of many here, what is the problem in creating a unit like it was in HoI3 Downfall mod? And we can forget about straits entirely here - a WWII strategy game that has no way of even simulating naval mines? And everyone is fine with that? I do not know what disturbs me more.

For unmanned blockades, just drop a single division to take over it. I know that there's some adjacency issues in HoI3 but that's an easy one, and no one in their right mind would leave them undefended anyway.

And here is the problem. If a province is unmanned, I should not have to bother to send any divisions to take it at all. That is just bending your spine and accepting lazy work. If you can't even be bothered to make a strait blocked only when there is a unit in it - what level of programming are we talking about here? I am not even satisfied with that because a garrison division could do nothing unless you invest in coastal forts (and those took quite a while to build - so in game terms it is important to plan ahead), but even that would be better than empty province blocking the straits. And Gibraltar does block, Tangier does not... why? Where is the logic in that?

For Gib vs Channel, that's double the width. At 15km, gun emplacements and underwater torpedo launchers can reliably devastate any surface vessels, but not so much at 30 km.

If only you were there to tell UK that in 1939-1940. Then maybe they would not be afraid to send big ships in the Channel during the war.

 

[Zaku]

@Alex_brunius made a very good case about the straits, I don't think any further explanation why they should be closed in the game is necessary.

I think this is the main reason for it:

I really have nothing left to add to this. If you demand the game should be able to model thousands of torpedo ships of 50 ton, every minefield and coastal gun, just so you can try to force through one of the maybe 3-4 straits that exist globally on the HoI map with massive casualties ( something that was never even considered historically due to it being crazy mind you ), then you need to rethink your priorities of what adds value to the game and what doesn't IMO.

even if we ignore the fact that nobody ever could force their way through a strait when it was controlled by a hostile nation.

 

[Vukodav]

even if we ignore the fact that nobody ever could force their way through a strait when it was controlled by a hostile nation

Yet several people have pointed out that straits actually were forced successfully during the WWII. Do people just forget what other people say and continue repeating the thing that is proven wrong?

And someone has yet to explain how Gibraltar is blocked by Gibraltar province and not by Tangier province. Straits have two coasts, just to point out for those who did not know. If one part is able to block it, the other one should be too.

Now, if Spain is in war with someone, Gibraltar stays open - no matter that Spain has as much if not more control over the straits than UK. But I guess people will find some ridiculous excuse for that as well.

 

[Zaku]

Yet several people have pointed out that straits actually were forced successfully during the WWII. Do people just forget what other people say and continue repeating the thing that is proven wrong?

Which strait?

You mean the Dover run? Dover is not a strait in game so you can do that already. Read Alex's post if you want to hear further arguements about the difference between Gib, and Dover.
Or you mean the uboats crossing the Gibraltar, which are not a surface fleet trying to force their way through, so then what's your point? I thought we were talking about battlefleets. Read my previous post about this.

 

[Alex_brunius]

But the Germans sent 60 submarines through the strait for the loss of 9 sunk and 10 additional damaged. That's not easily dismissed. The success of those Uboats included two aircraft carriers (HMS Eagle and HMS Ark Royal), the battleship HMS Barham, and three other light cruisers that I can identify. Significant numbers of merchants and auxiliaries were also sunk.

The question is what and how many ships would the same 60 working subs in the Atlantic have sunk compared to the 40 working inside the Med?

UK don't produce anything in Gibraltar so maybe it's a fine abstraction that 50% more subs can sink the same Allied Ships on the Atlantic approaches to Gibraltar instead of those inside the Med?

 

[DazKaz]

I was an Artillery and Naval Gunfire Observer and have also spent quite a lot of time on Gibraltar, admittedly many years ago now.

Its highly unlikely that the 12 X 9.2 inch gun batteries dug into the rock there could be neutralized from the sea, even by a fleet of battleships that would have to move within range of the Rocks batteries in order to engage them.
The 9.2 inch guns on the Rock had a max range of about 27km. The guns range can easily cover the strait as well as the bay.
As an example of a possible engagement by a hostile fleet, the 8 X 38cm main battery guns on the Bismarck had a range of about 35km but would have to remain on station outside of the range of Gibraltar's 9.2 inch guns and rely on observed fire from spotters overlooking Gibraltar in order to destroy its coastal batteries at least until radar had been sufficiently developed.
You would almost certainly need air and naval supremacy in order to pull this off, a hell of a lot of ammunition and a tremendous amount of time.

There were also 2 X 6 inch guns in turrets partly dug into the rock at the Devil's Gap Battery,
and numerous 4 inch guns on various mounting, as well as numerous ant aircraft guns.

Bombardment from fleet carriers would have negligible effect on the well emplaced guns and inside the Rock itself has been built a virtual city for the garrison to shelter in.
An airfield was also built at the beginning of the war and more than likely there would have been warships in the harbour.

There is no way in the world you would get the bulk of an enemy battle fleet through the strait without invading the Rock itself or neutralizing its gun batteries and certainly not a merchant convoy.

Building an enemy battery in Spanish Morocco to interdict the strait would also be problematic as the 9.2 inch guns had a range of 27km and the strait at its narrowest point is 14 km.
This effectively means that whoever controls Gibraltar controls the strait, although I admit that if heavy artillery was dug into the African side out of range of the fortified guns in Gibraltar, it would certainly make passage though the strait difficult.

The most fanciful thing about HOI3 was the ability to do an amphibious invasion of Gibraltar and that was possible in game, primarily because coastal batteries don't directly engage naval fleets.

This is where the game mechanics are wrong in my opinion, as coastal batteries should engage fleets in nearby sea zones and they should also be destructible and upgradable themselves no matter how difficult it is to do it.
Gibraltar would have a coastal fortification of 10/10 and would almost be indestructible.
I don't have first hand knowledge of other fortifications overlooking the other straits of the world, but maybe they wouldn't be as strong as Gibraltar and therefore require far less bombardment to gradually take them down and do less damage to enemy fleets and aircraft attempting to force passage?
Strategic bombing especially after the development of the Tallboy and the Grand Slam should certainly be able to make an impact on even the strongest of fortifications.

 

[Zaku]

"A period of bad weather slowed the initial phase but by 25 February the outer forts had been reduced and the entrance cleared of mines."

And after they tried to actually force their way through they realised that the mines were not cleared at all and the land batteries still worked. They lost 3 battleships and 3 were heavily damaged in the battle during march 18.

 

[Vukodav]

Which strait?

You mean the Dover run? Dover is not a strait in game so you can do that already. Read Alex's post if you want to hear further arguements about the difference between Gib, and Dover.
Or you mean the uboats crossing the Gibraltar, which are not a surface fleet trying to force their way through, so then what's your point? I thought we were talking about battlefleets. Read my previous post about this.

I know it is not a strait in game. Even it is only 30km wide, it has 3 provinces and is not a strait.

We were talking about general idea that straits should have a magic wall by owning one side of the straits. Right now even subs cannot go through a magic wall. And tell me, what is to stop a large fleet from going through? The ships could pass in the corridor close to shore where there are no mines but only coastal forts and patrol boats. A carrier or two would make a short work of them anyway so you could just go through the pass.

And for I don't know how many times - what is the logic of Gibraltar straits be blocked by owning a Gibraltar rock and not by owning a Tangier? It should be either both or none of those.

And I have read carefully all of your comments and I have debunked Alex's ones sentence by sentence. It is full of contradictions.

And after they tried to actually force their way through they realised that the mines were not cleared at all and the land batteries still worked. They lost 3 battleships and 3 were heavily damaged in the battle during march 18.

Not the same region.

 

[Zaku]

Not the same region.

Yes, it was the same region.
Here is the map:

As you see all the sinking took place in the enterance of the strait.

 

[SchwarzKatze]

Oddness in strait control mechanics does not lead to the need of implementing mines. Gibraltar is narrow and there's no way to force through on surface short of taking the Rock, but submarines could sneak through. The Channel is too wide for coastal batteries to control, as proven by the lack of success. German batteries sunk a grand total of 2 merchantmen throughout the war and the Channel Dash was completed without taking a single shell from the batteries.

Installations are always assumed to be manned in HoI, as they would 99% of the time, there's no need for extra micro here. In the same manner, there's no truly undefended provinces in HoI, only underdefended ones where the people manning the facilities would retreat as soon as enemy engages them if unsupported by regular troops.

 

[Vukodav]

Yes, it was the same region.
Here is the map:

As you see all the sinking took place in the enterance of the strait.

And once again, not the same region. Mines were cleared on the northern side, not in the straits themselves. Some were cleared by the very entrance and the first ship hit mine inside the straits, well past the first line and outer forts. And some forts were silenced.

After all:

This is where the game mechanics are wrong in my opinion, as coastal batteries should engage fleets in nearby sea zones and they should also be destructible and upgradable themselves no matter how difficult it is to do it.

We have an opinion from someone who actually has some real experience.