|
|
Post by ushakov1799 on Jan 21, 2021 11:46:52 GMT -6
Hello,
I've been following this game for some time and watched several let's plays and I did not lick the blockade mechanics. Realistically, a blockaded force can try to remove the blockade at any time by steaming into the sea and facing the blockading for there. If blockading force retreats then there is no blockade anymore. Even more, a smaller force can blockade a bigger but less active force by performing unapposed blockade actions - and if the opponent responds, then you can force an engagement. Therefore you can get blockaded only if you allow it. In the game, however, big battle events do not appear every month, and when they do, they can end quickly without enough time to finish off the enemy for example. So you need several such events with waiting time potentialy exceeding 1 year when the war could be over already. None of this makes sens to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 21, 2021 16:01:05 GMT -6
Hello, I've been following this game for some time and watched several let's plays and I did not lick the blockade mechanics. Realistically, a blockaded force can try to remove the blockade at any time by steaming into the sea and facing the blockading for there. If blockading force retreats then there is no blockade anymore. Even more, a smaller force can blockade a bigger but less active force by performing unapposed blockade actions - and if the opponent responds, then you can force an engagement. Therefore you can get blockaded only if you allow it. In the game, however, big battle events do not appear every month, and when they do, they can end quickly without enough time to finish off the enemy for example. So you need several such events with waiting time potentialy exceeding 1 year when the war could be over already. None of this makes sens to me. A blockade is a complex strategy. It is an effort to cut off supplies, war material and some communications from one area or nation to another, by force. There is a close blockade and there are distant blockades such as the one the British adopted in WW1. There is also a loose blockade where blockading ships will leave the area and stay out of sight but that is as far as they go. Knowledge of the geography of the routes the opponent might take is vital and it is a long term strategy. In the 20th century, submarines are probably the best blockaders and the most successful. The blockaded nation should be prepared for such a blockade and if not , then they are in trouble. Developing, executing and furthering a blockade of any type is complex and made more complex by aviation with heavy transports etc. Geography is the key as it is in any strategy. Look at your maps, the answers are there. |
|
|
|
Post by noshurviverse on Jan 21, 2021 18:35:59 GMT -6
Realistically, a blockaded force can try to remove the blockade at any time by steaming into the sea and facing the blockading for there. If blockading force retreats then there is no blockade anymore. I'm not entirely sure I agree with this. A blockading force retreating may temporarily open sea lanes for a period of days, but for merchant shipping a much larger window is required for the movement of large quantities of goods. If the British had not engaged at Jutland, I don't think the blockade on Germany would meaningfully have been "broken". |
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Jan 21, 2021 21:46:42 GMT -6
Hello, I've been following this game for some time and watched several let's plays and I did not lick the blockade mechanics. Realistically, a blockaded force can try to remove the blockade at any time by steaming into the sea and facing the blockading for there. If blockading force retreats then there is no blockade anymore. It sounds logical at first glance, but it doesn't match up with how things actually happened in WWI. The German fleet made a number of sorties that the British did not oppose (or failed to make contact with), but this had no effect on the blockade because the ships actually doing the legwork to enforce the blockade were spread out over a wide area and had to be hunted down individually (and even then could only be sunk if German force that made contact had faster ships). |
|
|
|
Post by ushakov1799 on Jan 22, 2021 19:44:24 GMT -6
"I'm not entirely sure I agree with this. A blockading force retreating may temporarily open sea lanes for a period of days, but for merchant shipping a much larger window is required for the movement of large quantities of goods. If the British had not engaged at Jutland, I don't think the blockade on Germany would meaningfully have been "broken". "
I meant a strategic retreat into home ports, being unwilling to risk an engagement. In WW1 this would've meant actions of the German navy and the lack of response from the British thus ensuring German control of the Northern sea and breaking of a "close blockade" (if there was any, as mentioned above) while allowing to threaten Britain with a "close blockade".
Anyway, this post is about game mechanics and there is only 1 type of blockade which resembles a "close blockade" as BBs contribute to it heavily. Blockades and engagement rules in the game are dubious. Germany always had the option to force an engagement almost at any time - even if the British did not want this (they would've probably prefered to just wait the German army defeat), by shelling British land installations or conducting an agressive mine warfare around Scapa Flow or even landing at Shetland Islands, for example. The British had the same choice and they prefered the save option as the war was going well for them anyway. In the game you have to randomly wait for a ridiculous amount of time. Blockade rules would not have bothered me if there was an option to force a "decisive battle" every month and thus eliminating enemy BBs (or pinning them to their ports) and forcing a "close blockade" on an opponent.
|
|
|
|
Post by rodentnavy on Jan 26, 2021 2:00:46 GMT -6
Realistically, a blockaded force can try to remove the blockade at any time by steaming into the sea and facing the blockading for there. If blockading force retreats then there is no blockade anymore. I'm not entirely sure I agree with this. A blockading force retreating may temporarily open sea lanes for a period of days, but for merchant shipping a much larger window is required for the movement of large quantities of goods. If the British had not engaged at Jutland, I don't think the blockade on Germany would meaningfully have been "broken". The issue here is that blockade is a legal concept in international law while what is described as a blockade in game seems to more an aspect of commerce warfare in general. Legally a blockade is a notification to neutrals that informs them of the target port(s) or coast(s) being blockaded, a start date for the blockade and a list of contraband. Neutral shipping passing through the blockade are liable to search and if carrying said contraband to seizure. To be legal a blockade must be effective, which traditionally meant being able to station at least two warships off each targeted port however distant blockades and paper blockades (first practised by the Union in the American Civil War) complicated this. In international law commerce warfare should follow prize rules also known as cruiser rules which require hostile shipping to warned, stopped and seized if they comply, the crew made safe and then the ship in question can either be taken as a prize or sunk by its captor. Ships that resist such as running away can be sunk without further warning. This aspect in game is represented by the choices for submarine doctrine. The game does seem to model something that is an awkward halfway house between close and distant blockade but also complicated by the fact the game does not have a good model for neutrals. That said if you think of it not as a legal blockade but the threat of commerce warfare being sufficient to stop merchants ships from sailing then it becomes more understandable as a mechanic. |
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Jan 26, 2021 9:08:25 GMT -6
Blockades and engagement rules in the game are dubious. Germany always had the option to force an engagement almost at any time - even if the British did not want this (they would've probably prefered to just wait the German army defeat), by shelling British land installations or conducting an agressive mine warfare around Scapa Flow or even landing at Shetland Islands, for example. The British had the same choice and they prefered the save option as the war was going well for them anyway. In the game you have to randomly wait for a ridiculous amount of time. Blockade rules would not have bothered me if there was an option to force a "decisive battle" every month and thus eliminating enemy BBs (or pinning them to their ports) and forcing a "close blockade" on an opponent. None of the German coastal raids that actually happened resulted in a fleet engagement. Even if both sides wanted to engage each other, it was not guaranteed that they would actually meet if at least one side didn't have intelligence on the other's plans in order to be in the right place at the right time. And bombarding the enemy coast was hazardous: Seydlitz struck a mine during the bombardment of Yarmouth and Lowestoft, and repairs from this delayed the Jutland operation. If anything, battle line actions are too common in the game. |
|
|
|
Post by ushakov1799 on Jan 26, 2021 21:15:29 GMT -6
Blockades and engagement rules in the game are dubious. Germany always had the option to force an engagement almost at any time - even if the British did not want this (they would've probably prefered to just wait the German army defeat), by shelling British land installations or conducting an agressive mine warfare around Scapa Flow or even landing at Shetland Islands, for example. The British had the same choice and they prefered the save option as the war was going well for them anyway. In the game you have to randomly wait for a ridiculous amount of time. Blockade rules would not have bothered me if there was an option to force a "decisive battle" every month and thus eliminating enemy BBs (or pinning them to their ports) and forcing a "close blockade" on an opponent. None of the German coastal raids that actually happened resulted in a fleet engagement. Even if both sides wanted to engage each other, it was not guaranteed that they would actually meet if at least one side didn't have intelligence on the other's plans in order to be in the right place at the right time. And bombarding the enemy coast was hazardous: Seydlitz struck a mine during the bombardment of Yarmouth and Lowestoft, and repairs from this delayed the Jutland operation. If anything, battle line actions are too common in the game. Do you really think that a landing at Shetland islands for example would have been ignored by the British? I offered these examples as an illustration that it is definetely possible to force an enemy to either become much less active or engage you. This is common sense to me. So there should be decisions to trigger battle line actions each month (maybe with some probabilities to stuck a mine or fail to find anything). If the enemy refuses to face you then blockade should be other. And if the enemy refuses to face you the second time they become blockaded themselves. With current relatively low levels of detail regarding blockade mechanics I think that this is a good option. |
|
|
|
Post by itrefel on Jan 27, 2021 6:21:28 GMT -6
If the enemy refuses to face you then blockade should be other. And if the enemy refuses to face you the second time they become blockaded themselves. Why? - The blockade isn't enforced by the battlefleet, but by the cruisers, gunboats, patrol craft, converted trawlers.. etc stopping the merchantmen. and they are still there, regardeless of whether the battlefleet fights you or not.
Ok so if the grand fleet holds off then the high seas fleet can go and drive these small boys off, some are sunk, some back to port - maybe a few merchant ships get through, but the high seas fleet can't disperse (to do this properly, in enough locations to truly remove the blockade) or the grand fleet defeats it in detail, and it can't stay on station forever -and then the blockade returns. The only way is to break the grand fleet so it can't interfere - which the game effectively models through the existing mechanics. This is the whole point of what Scheer was trying to do at Jutland, - he wasn't chasing patrol boats.
Edit - I think in the end this is a frustration arising from the limited strategic control on the part of the player - you can't really try to force a descisive battle to break the blockade because you have no input into mission planning.
|
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Jan 27, 2021 6:42:38 GMT -6
Do you really think that a landing at Shetland islands for example would have been ignored by the British? A landing on the Shetlands would not have been ignored by the British, but it also would have been at least as suicidal as the abortive "Last Ride of the High Seas Fleet", which is the action that never happened because it triggered a mutiny that became a revolution that brought down German government. And now you're not only having the fleet go on a suicide mission, but you're adding ground troops to the mix as well. And with the army engaged on two fronts, one of which is an attritional grind, where are you even going to get the troops for this operation. Normandy was hard enough for the US and UK in WWII, with both countries having experience in expeditionary and amphibious warfare, with the invasion beaches close to the point of departure, with WWII landing craft, LSTs, amphibious tanks, etc, with paratroopers dropped behind the invasion beaches the night before the landings, and with the allies having complete naval and air superiority. The Germans would have none of these advantages landing in the Shetlands during WWI. Your bid to force the enemy to action has to be something you can actually *win*, otherwise it does no more good than operation Ten-Go. And yet somehow what is common sense to you now, over 100 years later, was not common sense to Jellicoe or Ingenohl or Scheer, who had built their careers around naval warfare and actually experienced WWI. |
|
|
|
Post by itrefel on Jan 27, 2021 9:00:34 GMT -6
Do you really think that a landing at Shetland islands for example would have been ignored by the British? A landing on the Shetlands would not have been ignored by the British, but it also would have been at least as suicidal as the abortive "Last Ride of the High Seas Fleet", which is the action that never happened because it triggered a mutiny that became a revolution that brought down German government. And now you're not only having the fleet go on a suicide mission, but you're adding ground troops to the mix as well. And with the army engaged on two fronts, one of which is an attritional grind, where are you even going to get the troops for this operation. Well yeah.. but Ushakov1799 might be right in that it would probably force a fleet engagement, which is what he/she is wanting.
Agree with you after that though.. the reason it would probably result in a fleet engagement is that such a battle would be so heavily on British terms (especially that far north) they would be mad not to, rather than because they were forced; thus not a great idea if your objective is a fleet battle you can win.
Along with all the other reasons its a bad idea, of course.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 27, 2021 10:01:17 GMT -6
My issue with the blockade system is that for some countries it is impossible to blockade another in certain situations. Japan cannot blockade the UK, that is well nigh impossible yet I have done it many times. Same goes for Italy and Russia, and the UK. Russia is an almost impossible country to blockade as she sits in the center of the Eurasian continent.
England and France can blockade Germany. England can blockade France and vice versa. It is again, almost impossible for Japan to blockade the USA.
Now with sufficient submarines and raiders, you can cut their trade routes and that can be considered possible but that takes a very very long time and lots of submarines and light cruisers with long range and colonial checked.
I think the team needs to review this. Yes this is a game and its operations are virtual but geography still rules, no matter what. This is not criticism, just a suggestion to gain more realism. I would also add the ability to develop long range submarines. Something like the French Redoutable, German Type IX, XX, and the US Gato class. All these had ranges over 10,000 miles.
Update: Comparison of two light cruiser design in 1905 for the IJN: the first is with medium range and no colonial service. The second had long range and colonial service.
Light cruiser without mods for raider - 16863
Light cruiser with long range and colonial - 17817 - Note: to build this I had to reduce the belt and deck armor to maintain the speed.
These changes have added almost 1000 to the cost. If I changed the range to extreme, it would really increase the cost.
|
|
|
|
Post by wlbjork on Jan 27, 2021 13:12:56 GMT -6
oldpop, I didn't think Colonial enhanced raiding capabilities?
Intelligence (spying), Range and Speed seem to be the most important factors, along with (recon) floatplanes and/or Radar (once available).
|
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 27, 2021 13:28:50 GMT -6
oldpop, I didn't think Colonial enhanced raiding capabilities? Intelligence (spying), Range and Speed seem to be the most important factors, along with (recon) floatplanes and/or Radar (once available). Well, I included it because it adds to living conditions in the ship which is vital for ship efficiency in raiding environments. Range is vital, speed isn't that important because your targets are generally merchant vessels. Floatplanes are ok and radar is critical once available. It works in phases over the years. So, a question: Can we consider raiding, a distant blockade? Think about it. What kind of ships do we need besides long range submarine? |
|
|
|
Post by dohboy on Jan 27, 2021 14:18:35 GMT -6
The calculation for blockade being weighted so heavily towards the quantity of capital ships is what makes it so irritating. I will often be outnumbered in battleships, but be quantitatively superior enough to be seeking a major fleet engagement. I will have a numerical superiority in cruisers, yet I am blockaded while the enemy refuses battle.
It would be nice if there was a bit more balance in the blockade calculation, reduce the weight of battleships and possibly take quality into account somehow. Your tension with neutral nations should also increase when you are blockading, more so if it's a paper blockade.
|
|
