Invasions inside strait enclosures in latest WW2 wednesday

[Zaku]

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

I think it's the other way around, but think whatever if that makes you feel better.

And once again, not the same region. Mines were cleared on the northern side, not in the straits themselves. And some forts were silenced.

What's your point about the northern side? You can't cross a strait with ships on land. They have to go in the strait. And all the defenses in the strait was intact, even after a whole day of fighting they couldn't silence them. Quite the opposite, the battlesips were kicked out of the strait.

That's the reason for the whole Gallipoli land campaign, so they could move on against Istanbul. Because they couldn't cross without taking the forts from land(which also failed eventually, but that's an other matter)

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

An experience in what?
Game design? Balancing the gameplay?

Also, if you read his whole post @DazKaz who you quoted says the same thing what we say: Crossing the Rock with a hostile fleet was impossible without taking the fortress first.

So what's an easier way to make something impossible:
1. deny passage.
2. create a whole new and complex system for such a minor part of the game. (which also has the same effect on the game as the first option)

 

[Vukodav]

I think it's the other way around, but think whatever if that makes you feel better.

Same here, you can think what ever you want. But when someone uses one argument to justify his claim when it suits him while going against it in the very next sentence, I call that a contradiction.

if you read his whole the guy who you quoted says the same thing what we say: Crossing the Rock with a fleet was impossible.

Actually, if you read it he points out that coastal forts should engage fleets and be destructible. The very idea that started all this - game should have a realistic way to block a strait, or provide coastal support in other provinces, and not have a magic indestructible wall. He actually points out that with late war bunker busters you could do a number on those forts.

2. create a whole new and complex system for such a minor part of the game.

Yeah... that is an afternoon of programming work, tops. For one person. Out of 200. Maybe a single new unit if you add naval mines. Without them, it is just tweaking an existing building in game. Oh that so radical, whole new complex system. And stating it is a minor part of the game... I don't know what to say. I am baffled.

Game design? Balancing the gameplay?

Ah, the ultimate argument! Let's divide the Channel into 3 provinces... because gameplay. Does not matter it makes absolutely no sense. Let's destroy the whole logistic system and fuel system... because gameplay. Abstraction upon abstraction until we get an arcade mode for casual office pass time. How it's going, it might be brought down to a level where touch screen adaptation would work just fine. Fine, I guess some people like that. I, on the other hand, am against dumbing down of a game. Especially if it is not justified by anything except "new players". And that is how you destroy a franchise. Many companies have done it. You take a game that has a good fan base. Then you dumb it down in order to draw new audience, that actually never works. In the end you only get pissed off fans and no new players. Mass Effect is maybe the biggest and most recent example of that fail.

 

[TypicalRain]

I’m happy they got rid of the ‘No go zones’ and instead actually have provinces there with heavy attrition. I’m not a fan of telling the player NO you can’t do that but instead saying you can do something but with consequences. Yes it adds in a bit more complexity but having it the old way of just blocking off a select few has always brought problems in their own way. Why are only Gibraltar and the Dardanelles locked up? Why can’t Tangiers do the same? What about all these other straits in the world that are 30km or smaller.

Irbe strait, Strait of Bonifacio, Strait of Messina, Palk Strait, Cook Strait, Tartar Strait.

Not only that but many of the larger straits like the Korea Strait (200km) has many islands in between that can be made defensible and can have gun and torpedo emplacements.

And there is still the problem of the Dardanelles and Danish straits. PDX has recognised the demilitarisation of the Rhineland (you can’t put troops their at first). They should recognise the international treaties on these straits as well.

 

[Zaku]

Same here, you can think what ever you want. But when someone uses one argument to justify his claim when it suits him while going against it in the very next sentence, I call that a contradiction.



Actually, if you read it he points out that coastal forts should engage fleets and be destructible. The very idea that started all this - game should have a realistic way to block a strait, or provide coastal support in other provinces, and not have a magic indestructible wall. He actually points out that with late war bunker busters you could do a number on those forts.



Yeah... that is an afternoon of programming work, tops. For one person. Out of 200. Maybe a single new unit if you add naval mines. Without them, it is just tweaking an existing building in game. Oh that so radical, whole new complex system. And stating it is a minor part of the game... I don't know what to say. I am baffled.



Ah, the ultimate argument! Let's divide the Channel into 3 provinces... because gameplay. Does not matter it makes absolutely no sense. Let's destroy the whole logistic system and fuel system... because gameplay. Abstraction upon abstraction until we get an arcade mode for casual office pass time. How it's going, it might be brought down to a level where touch screen adaptation would work just fine. Fine, I guess some people like that. I, on the other hand, am against dumbing down of a game. Especially if it is not justified by anything except "new players". And that is how you destroy a franchise. Many companies have done it. You take a game that has a good fan base. Then you dumb it down in order to draw new audience, that actually never works. In the end you only get pissed off fans and no new players. Mass Effect is maybe the biggest and most recent example of that fail.

200 people working on hoi4?
1 afternoon work for 1 guy for designing, programming and implementing a new feature?
Dumbing down the game?
WTF has mass effect have to do with unpassable straits?

First, I think about explaining or arguing those points, but to be honest this is only an internet forum and it doesn't worth the effort. I already wrote my opinion on unpassable straits, just as several other people did. I also made a historical example about how impossible it was.

I guess in the final build anyone can mod their game however they want. Modding out or inserting an unpassable strait is definitely possible in HOI3.

 

[Vukodav]

200 people working on hoi4?
1 afternoon work for 1 guy for designing, programming and implementing a new feature?
Dumbing down the game?
WTF has mass effect have to do with unpassable straits?

First, I think about explaining or arguing those points, but to be honest this is only an internet forum and it doesn't worth the effort. I already wrote my opinion on unpassable straits, just as several other people did. I also made a historical example about how impossible it was.

I guess in the final build anyone can mod their game however they want. Modding out or inserting an unpassable strait is definitely possible in HOI3.

Yes, 1 afternoon for 1 guy - as all that he needs to do is alter a part of a code. Add a feature for already existing building in the game.
Yes, the game is dumbed down, it is clear as day. In every aspect.
Straits? Nothing. It was an example of what dumbing down of a game for a sake of new players does to your game. Ruins it.

And people have made historical examples of how possible it was. At least for some naval units.

No, things like this (coastal forts doing damage to naval units) cannot be modded as easy after the game release. It requires defining in the code - something that moder cannot do. He can erase blockers for straits, and that is it. Well, depends how they program it. If it is hard coded in the game then that too will be unmodable and that is why it is important to talk before hand.

When you send bombers to bomb a province with AA in it, they get damaged and in turn they do damage to AA. Yet for some reason it is out of the question, how dare I point out that it would be nice to have the SAME mechanics for fleet and coastal fort. At least that during shore bombardment of a province with coastal fort a fleet gets damaged? No? THAT is unrealistic and not a big deal?

Yet destroying a whole supply system and getting free boosts by just waiting a while (national focus tree, that is basically just another research tree), that is FINE? Sorry, I thought HOI was a grand strategy game, not a rainbow abstraction to pass your time.

 

[ConjurerDragon]

Something I found out recently when reading a book on the Overlord campaign was that no RN capital ships traversed the straits of Dover between the evacuation of France and some days or weeks after D-Day - more than 4 years. With such a narrow body of water at that point (although it is 3 sea spaces wide in game) heavy German guns emplaced on the French side combined with mines and bombers made it an unacceptable risk.

Yes, something like that is really impossible and noone could do it. Ever.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_Dash

 

[SchwarzKatze]

Yes, 1 afternoon for 1 guy - as all that he needs to do is alter a part of a code. Add a feature for already existing building in the game.
Yes, the game is dumbed down, it is clear as day. In every aspect.
Straits? Nothing. It was an example of what dumbing down of a game for a sake of new players does to your game. Ruins it.

No, it adds about as much realism as having to click the portrait of your minister of arms to acquire a stamp for every unit you order to build, having to click on your chief of staff for a stamp for every assignment change, or your MoFA for conducting diplomacy. Realism? Yes. Meaningful? Nope. Fun? Nope. No-brainer? Yup. A clickfest annoying as hell after the 10th time? Absolutely.

And do you enjoy belittling programmers? 1 afternoon 1 guy my...

And people have made historical examples of how possible it was. At least for some naval units.

Yeah,

1. Lift the restriction for subs
2. Not restricting straits far too wide, e.g. the Channel

And that's it. No need for separate mine laying.

No, things like this (coastal forts doing damage to naval units) cannot be modded as easy after the game release. It requires defining in the code - something that moder cannot do. He can erase blockers for straits, and that is it. Well, depends how they program it. If it is hard coded in the game then that too will be unmodable and that is why it is important to talk before hand.

Yeah, ok, but still much ado for nothing.

When you send bombers to bomb a province with AA in it, they get damaged and in turn they do damage to AA. Yet for some reason it is out of the question, how dare I point out that it would be nice to have the SAME mechanics for fleet and coastal fort. At least that during shore bombardment of a province with coastal fort a fleet gets damaged? No? THAT is unrealistic and not a big deal?

To use the same mechanic requires ships be located in the same province as the Rock of Gibraltar, or a controllable sea province for the Strait of Gibraltar, since HoI's AA only shoots planes in the same province.

Yet destroying a whole supply system and getting free boosts by just waiting a while (national focus tree, that is basically just another research tree), that is FINE? Sorry, I thought HOI was a grand strategy game, not a rainbow abstraction to pass your time.

Yeah, because that's totally relevant to naval mines.

 

[DazKaz]

I think the reason that costal forts being not able to engage naval units directly, is because different conditions would be needed for provinces bordering straits and other provinces built on open ocean.

Most coastal sea zones are huge and naval units passing though them would be well out of range of coastal artillery.

Likewise invasions from these huge sea zones would allow the transfer of troops to small raiding craft leaving the main fleet and transports out of range from the coastal batteries.
Therefore during an invasion it would only be the troops conducting the attack that would be attacked during the assault phase and any warship that needed to get wthin the range of the costal batteries in order to provide naval bombardment.

Provence's that border on straits need to have different rules, for coastal fortifications built on them, as ships entering the sea zone that represents the strait, forces all naval units to come within range of their guns and therefore should automatically be forced into an engagement with the coastal fortifications.

In the timeframe of this game, there is probably no way that the Gibraltar gun batteries would be able to be destroyed from the sea, that's because I would rate it as a level 10 coastal fort.
An amphibious invasion would also in my opinion be impossible or at the least extremely costly.
Only later in the war with the correct research for heavy bombers and large bombs do I think there would be any impact from aerial bombardment, although Port Strike, and airfield bombardment may produce good results on the port and airfield, if the provincial AA has not been upgraded.

I think because this is so unlikely to happen (which it is) they decided to just close the straits off to hostile forces completely so as not to overcomplicate matters.

The only way to take Gibraltar, in my opinion, is from Spain and for that to happen you need to get Spain into your faction, or invade them.

I still think that coastal batteries on any coastal province should be able to be engaged by, and take damage from, any ships attempting shore bombardment.
During an amphibious landing these onshore targets would be spotted and adjusted by observers, so the larger bombarding ships could probably withdraw outside of the coastal guns range once an invasion has started and still provide shore bombardment. Especially if the coastal guns were not equipped with radar.

There are not that many locations in the world with straits, but as they are such important strategic locations and possibly vital to some plans, it would be nice if a bit more thought and effort went into closing them off other than the "Magic Wall", with a little research going into their different characteristics and the bordering provinces being coded to give coastal forts built and upgraded or attacked on them, unique characteristics in order to engage subs/ships/convoys trying to pass through them.

 

[Starisc]

So what's an easier way to make something impossible:
1. deny passage.
2. create a whole new and complex system for such a minor part of the game. (which also has the same effect on the game as the first option)

Agreed. Game development is always a balancing of limited resources to maximize value for the user. For really minor parts of the game taking the low effort solution is usually preferable and focusing resources on major mechanics instead generates higher value for the majority of users. Creating a complex system, while cool, has a lot of risks besides the usual costs to upset balancing of more important mechanics. In this case I could imagine it would totally mess up the AI (either with wrong investment choices to build them up or gamey player tactics to lure innocent AI fleets to their doom). Hence, it is a high risk for a low reward of satisfying hardcore fans insisting on more realism.

Yeah... that is an afternoon of programming work, tops. For one person. Out of 200. Maybe a single new unit if you add naval mines. Without them, it is just tweaking an existing building in game. Oh that so radical, whole new complex system. And stating it is a minor part of the game... I don't know what to say. I am baffled.

Ahh, game forums. If just developers got a dollar for every claim of forum users, how little effort their (sometimes hilariously game breaking) feature proposals would cost...we would indeed have much better games due to exploding dev budgets.

I wouldn't mind seeing something like this in the game, but I would expect this to come from a mod team like in HOI3 or as a very late expansion, as it is a rather niche feature.

 

[Wraith11B]

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?

The fact that they had an impact and killed major fleet units (which, I've got to say is something that was lacking in HoI3 anyways) and were a threat to supplies trying to get to North Africa or Malta (recall they nearly sank an entire convoy going to Malta, without which Malta would likely have fallen given adequate generalship and an actual plan) is important. Also, it's not like they had 60 subs go through at once. They sent reinforcements as needed.

Regardless, we can argue all day about it. Eventually, it should be something that coastal regions should allow for defenses in order to make things more challenging.

 

[DazKaz]

Another very important use of coastal forts, that is ignored in game at the moment, is in the straits of Dover.

If a player can sufficiently upgrade the coastal forts at Cap Gris Nez they could potentially protect cross channel supply routes to England to aid in Operation Sea Lion thus helping out the Axis player by not needing a large naval fleet to conduct the operation.

It would be unfair to block the strait completely as the guns were not that effective, but they should be given a firing chance to engage enemy ships within the strait.

This in my opinion is a very significant example of why coastal forts should get an engagement chance, with the fort becoming more effective with upgrades and radar developments as well as being tailored for the sea province it is adjacent to.

 

[Vukodav]

To use the same mechanic requires ships be located in the same province as the Rock of Gibraltar, or a controllable sea province for the Strait of Gibraltar, since HoI's AA only shoots planes in the same province.

You do understand that all that is required here is a single tweak to the already existing building in game?

What click fest? What new complex mechanics? Does the fact that AA shoots at aircrafts make the game a click fest? Then how a new effect of the already existing building would make a game a click fest?

And of course it will require a ship to be in the sea province next to coastal fort. Guns at Gibraltar would not shoot at ships around Malta, that much is certain.

• Lift the restriction for subs

• Not restricting straits far too wide, e.g. the Channel

And yet, even that is too much to ask, let alone a tweak in the coastal fortification effects. Is the same amount of work as required for coastal forts - requires defining in the code, yet solves the problem much better.

 

[SchwarzKatze]

You do understand that all that is required here is a single tweak to the already existing building in game?

Assuming the existing mechanic was built to be able to potentially accommodate that in the first place. You are making a big claim about how the mechanic was coded without access to the source code. If software development is that easy.

What click fest? What new complex mechanics? Does the fact that AA shoots at aircrafts make the game a click fest? Then how a new effect of the already existing building would make a game a click fest?

Mines, remember? The thing you're eagerly arguing for 12 hours ago?

And of course it will require a ship to be in the sea province next to coastal fort. Guns at Gibraltar would not shoot at ships around Malta, that much is certain.

And there's no mechanic for passive/automatic unit interaction across province boundaries, previous AA mechanics require the AA and the planes to be in the very same province, while land attack requires one side to be actively moving into the target.

And yet, even that is too much to ask, let alone a tweak in the coastal fortification effects.

The Channel was never blocked in HoI unless I have amnesia.

 

[Vukodav]

Mines, remember? The thing you're eagerly arguing for 12 hours ago?

Actually, new naval mechanics makes it painless with regions and designating units to them.

And there's no mechanic for passive/automatic unit interaction across province boundaries, previous AA mechanics require the AA and the planes to be in the very same province, while land attack requires one side to be actively moving into the target.

You already have the shore bombardment that gives bonus to an attacking force so you HAVE unit interaction across province boundaries made possible in the game. All it takes is adding another feature to the already existing building and make them mutually damageable. And that is also an answer to your first sentence.

The Channel was never blocked in HoI unless I have amnesia.

And what has this to do with anything? Who said anything about Channel being blocked? You replied to submarine exemption in the blocked straits with "Channel was never blocked". Dover question arose when it was pointed out that Gibraltar WAS blocked with UK controlling one side of it, while Dover was not, even though UK and France controlled both sides. It is double the width, yet allies control both sides. So if Gibraltar is blockable so should be the Dover, or if Dover is not, Gibraltar should not be as well. But again I do not know what any of that has to do with the submarine exemption that you quoted.

 

[Premu]

You all talk in terms of a single ship going through. I am speaking in terms of fleets - you are telling me that RN could not go through Gibraltar if Spain takes it? Not bloody likely. They would force their way through. Let's say you have a fleet of 100 ships, and they cannot by any means go through straits that you control. Not even if they take damage. Simply - no go zone, magic wall.

Nope, I am not willing to buy that - that is just lazy.

Could get some ships through? Yes.

Would the costs be in any way acceptable or reasonable for such a breakthrough? Not at all.

So in almost every situation such a breakthrough would be completely out of the question, and only in very desperate situations this would be an option.

On the other hand in other straits not even such a desperate breakthrough is possible - there is no way that a fleet can force itself through the Bosporus or the Panama-Canal.

So adding some highly specific mechanic for a situation which will probably never occur in most games, and which is valid for only one single strait, would be quite a waste of development resources. Furthermore, imagine someone accidently sends a large fleet through Gribaltar and losing half of it completely while the rest is severely damaged. Now that would be a very good reason to be really enraged about the stupidity of the admirals.

 

[Vukodav]

Could get some ships through? Yes.

Would the costs be in any way acceptable or reasonable for such a breakthrough? Not at all.

So in almost every situation such a breakthrough would be completely out of the question, and only in very desperate situations this would be an option.

On the other hand in other straits not even such a desperate breakthrough is possible - there is no way that a fleet can force itself through the Bosporus or the Panama-Canal.

So adding some highly specific mechanic for a situation which will probably never occur in most games, and which is valid for only one single strait, would be quite a waste of development resources. Furthermore, imagine someone accidently sends a large fleet through Gribaltar and losing half of it completely while the rest is severely damaged. Now that would be a very good reason to be really enraged about the stupidity of the admirals.

And for some reason you fixate only on straits. Btw, Panama is not a strait and I have said in the first comment that things like Panama, Suez and Kiel should be blockable.

The point here was adding a feature on the coastal forts so they could engage nearby fleets (and vice versa), and a possibility of mining an area. It is not straits specific but for any coastal province. You have your whole Atlantic Wall, and Pacific campaign, Singapore...

As there is already a cross border interaction (via shore bombardment) AND closing in mechanics for the fleet engagements, it is not hard to make it that ships that engage in such a manner, any coastal province (not only straits) you could have a shoot off.

And with that, there would be no point in making magic walls. Solving this for straits gives it global usage. And you will not accidentally send fleet through Gibraltar (or any other straits) because of the area mechanics in the game. If you do end up sending a fleet somewhere, it will be intentional. The AI control does not work like it did in HoI3, naval mechanics have changed.

 

[ConjurerDragon]

Could get some ships through? Yes.

Would the costs be in any way acceptable or reasonable for such a breakthrough? Not at all.

So in almost every situation such a breakthrough would be completely out of the question, and only in very desperate situations this would be an option.

So instead of having low infrastructure we should have invisible walls in deserts too which no army crossed in WW2?

On the other hand in other straits not even such a desperate breakthrough is possible - there is no way that a fleet can force itself through the Bosporus or the Panama-Canal.

Well a canal is something different then even a narrow strait. After all the largest japanese Battleships don´t need to be hindered by mines or marines to steam through the Panamacanal - they just don´t fit through the WW2 canal.

But we can´t even try for roleplaying purposes to act as courageously stupid as the first lord of the Admirality Winston Churchill and try to force our navy through the fortified Dardanelles?

So adding some highly specific mechanic for a situation which will probably never occur in most games, and which is valid for only one single strait, would be quite a waste of development resources. Furthermore, imagine someone accidently sends a large fleet through Gribaltar and losing half of it completely while the rest is severely damaged. Now that would be a very good reason to be really enraged about the stupidity of the admirals.

You mean that having a warning ("selected route leads through defended strait and is likely to cause high losses Sir!") is impossible?
Or that once ships are getting shelled there is no time to retreat the fleet?

 

[Zaku]

So instead of having low infrastructure we should have invisible walls in deserts too which no army crossed in WW2?

I may be wrong, but isn't that's how no infra provinces worked in hoi3? You can't enter most of the sahara, or the himalayas IIRC.

 

[Premu]

So instead of having low infrastructure we should have invisible walls in deserts too which no army crossed in WW2?

You mean like in HOI III? For some areas - yes, you can add invisible walls. There areas there you simply can't send in any division without killing most of the men. Invisible walls have some advantages: They make pathfinding easier (there's no need to search for a path through the Sahara), and will prevent unintended moves into these "death zones" (e.g. in case of a chaotic retreat).

Well a canal is something different then even a narrow strait. After all the largest japanese Battleships don´t need to be hindered by mines or marines to steam through the Panamacanal - they just don´t fit through the WW2 canal.

But we can´t even try for roleplaying purposes to act as courageously stupid as the first lord of the Admirality Winston Churchill and try to force our navy through the fortified Dardanelles?

If you mean by that - landing troops in the area to conquer it to allow the fleet a safe passage - that should be possible. But simply sending the fleet through the Bosporus directly to Istanbul or even further to the Black Sea - well, that is simply impossible. The Bosporus is quite a treacherous straight even for an unopposed ship due to the currents there. Now try to send a fleet through which can be shelled from both sides, attacked by torpedo boats and run into lots of mines. The losses would be devastating.

Of course, if you want to roleplay suicidal behavior of your troops - well, I'm sure you will have enough opportunities to do so.

 

[Vukodav]

You mean like in HOI III? For some areas - yes, you can add invisible walls. There areas there you simply can't send in any division without killing most of the men. Invisible walls have some advantages: They make pathfinding easier (there's no need to search for a path through the Sahara), and will prevent unintended moves into these "death zones" (e.g. in case of a chaotic retreat).

Yet you could build up infrastructure and move where ever you wanted. It gave you an option. Here, you have no option.

If you mean by that - landing troops in the area to conquer it to allow the fleet a safe passage - that should be possible. But simply sending the fleet through the Bosporus directly to Istanbul or even further to the Black Sea - well, that is simply impossible. The Bosporus is quite a treacherous straight even for an unopposed ship due to the currents there. Now try to send a fleet through which can be shelled from both sides, attacked by torpedo boats and run into lots of mines. The losses would be devastating.

Yes, it would be... because of the mines, coastal guns, enemy fleet. If you do not have them, then it would be a cake walk. And those things take time to prepare. It should not be an automatic thing that you have impenetrable defense in some area - that is just dumb. Let's also have a wall around the UK because it was impossible for Germany to invade it with the sate of preparation that took place. And at what point it all starts to be absurd?

Think of Iwo Jima. The fortifications were bombarded for 3 days. A couple of big ships were damaged by coastal forts while several smaller ones were sunk.

Yet we have no way of damaging fortifications inland with fleets, nor do fortification have the ability to harm the fleet.