Port Raids during a war.

[attemptingsuccess]

In the port raids did happen a number of times during wars, and not just at the start of them, (The British attack on Toronto comes to mind, as well as the start of the battle of the Falklands islands) so I propose that a mission type should be added that is a port raid. this mission should become much more likely if you or the enemy keep denying battles for a large number of turns.
To differentiate it from the Surprise Attack, the mission would be much more difficult. For example, the airbases are going to send out search planes, torpedo nets will be very common, destroyers and some cruisers are going to patrol outside of the harbor, etc. This makes it so that you can't just waltz in there and sink all their ships, also it will make it feel more like a war.

[seawolf]

Feb 5, 2022 15:34:05 GMT -6 attemptingsuccess said:

In the port raids did happen a number of times during wars, and not just at the start of them, (The British attack on Toronto comes to mind, as well as the start of the battle of the Falklands islands) so I propose that a mission type should be added that is a port raid. this mission should become much more likely if you or the enemy keep denying battles for a large number of turns.
To differentiate it from the Surprise Attack, the mission would be much more difficult. For example, the airbases are going to send out search planes, torpedo nets will be very common, destroyers and some cruisers are going to patrol outside of the harbor, etc. This makes it so that you can't just waltz in there and sink all their ships, also it will make it feel more like a war.

Very much support this idea, and you could use the same mechanics for planning/triggering invasions to do it.  IE, need a moderate force superiority/blockade, plan for a few turns and then it executes.

[JagdFlanker]

could be a good idea for supporting an ongoing invasion as well - have the 'bombardment target' inland (it could be called 'Close Air Support target' or 'enemy land fortification' instead), and the invasion progress is affected (a little) by it's success or failure

if the invasion is being held up due to fortifications this might be a way to help 'break through'

[charliezulu]

Feb 5, 2022 15:34:05 GMT -6 attemptingsuccess said:

The British attack on Toronto comes to mind

For some reason they glossed over this in my canadian history textbooks :'D


Also, strongly agreed, and there's been prior threads to that effect.  The vast majority of port strikes or analogous actions weren't conducted by Japan, nor were they done at the opening of wars.  The biggest issue though, IMO, is that port defences are FAR weaker in-game than they IRL.  Fight against Japan in the mid- or late-game and you'll almost certainly lose a few ships in the opening attack, and there isn't a lot of counterplay against that because CAP off carriers takes so long to launch and land-based AA and fighters aren't really a thing.  Meanwhile, look at how many raids the British tried to conduct against Tirpitz (which would be the rough IRL analogue) and how long it took for them to succeed.  Coastal batteries and MTB squadrons also not being where you want them tends to make attacks on ports more effective as well.

[wlbjork]

Feb 6, 2022 14:35:18 GMT -6 charliezulu said:

Feb 5, 2022 15:34:05 GMT -6 attemptingsuccess said:

The British attack on Toronto comes to mind

For some reason they glossed over this in my canadian history textbooks :'D


Also, strongly agreed, and there's been prior threads to that effect.  The vast majority of port strikes or analogous actions weren't conducted by Japan, nor were they done at the opening of wars.  The biggest issue though, IMO, is that port defences are FAR weaker in-game than they IRL.  Fight against Japan in the mid- or late-game and you'll almost certainly lose a few ships in the opening attack, and there isn't a lot of counterplay against that because CAP off carriers takes so long to launch and land-based AA and fighters aren't really a thing.  Meanwhile, look at how many raids the British tried to conduct against Tirpitz (which would be the rough IRL analogue) and how long it took for them to succeed.  Coastal batteries and MTB squadrons also not being where you want them tends to make attacks on ports more effective as well.

The two most famous from the modern era though are Japan's 2 pre-emptive strikes, firstly against the Russians and secondly against the USA.

[charliezulu]

Feb 6, 2022 22:14:09 GMT -6 wlbjork said:

Feb 6, 2022 14:35:18 GMT -6 charliezulu said:

For some reason they glossed over this in my canadian history textbooks :'D


Also, strongly agreed, and there's been prior threads to that effect.  The vast majority of port strikes or analogous actions weren't conducted by Japan, nor were they done at the opening of wars.  The biggest issue though, IMO, is that port defences are FAR weaker in-game than they IRL.  Fight against Japan in the mid- or late-game and you'll almost certainly lose a few ships in the opening attack, and there isn't a lot of counterplay against that because CAP off carriers takes so long to launch and land-based AA and fighters aren't really a thing.  Meanwhile, look at how many raids the British tried to conduct against Tirpitz (which would be the rough IRL analogue) and how long it took for them to succeed.  Coastal batteries and MTB squadrons also not being where you want them tends to make attacks on ports more effective as well.

The two most famous from the modern era though are Japan's 2 pre-emptive strikes, firstly against the Russians and secondly against the USA.

I'd agree that the most famous one is Pearl Harbour, but I would disagree for second place. Mers El Kebir, the sinking of Tirpitz, the Taranto raid, etc. are all more "famous" than Port Arthur.

[attemptingsuccess]

I am against taking away Japan's preemptive strike ability, I do however believe that port strikes during wartime should be able to be done by anyone. I'm thinking that port defenses (Minefields, Torpedo nets, AA, CAP, search aircraft) should be a lot more effective and common, making the port strike amount to less of an advantage than surprising the ships at peacetime like Japan can. Also, ships should be able to raise steam more quickly.

[wlbjork]

Feb 7, 2022 7:47:37 GMT -6 charliezulu said:

Feb 6, 2022 22:14:09 GMT -6 wlbjork said:

The two most famous from the modern era though are Japan's 2 pre-emptive strikes, firstly against the Russians and secondly against the USA.

I'd agree that the most famous one is Pearl Harbour, but I would disagree for second place. Mers El Kebir, the sinking of Tirpitz, the Taranto raid, etc. are all more "famous" than Port Arthur.

Probably depends who you talk to.

For me, I learned about Port Arthur first, Taranto second and Mers El Kebir barely registers. The relative effect of the first two is also wildly different - the Japanese attack basically knocked Russia out of the war, the British attack had a much smaller effect.

Tirpitz doesn't count - they were in an anchorage but not in a port.

[akd]

IMO, if the opponent has significant forces in a region, AND you have not otherwise engaged these forces, AND you want to conduct an invasion against a possession, setting the invasion target should first generate a strike on that possession’s port to eliminate naval forces (some part of the regional forces, but less than a pre-war surprise attack), air fields and batteries able to defend against invasion fleet. If you decline the generated battle, then invasion is a surprise attack that would not allow opponent to attempt to move more naval forces into region in response to the strike.

EDIT: could even allow for some operational choices, e.g. daytime bombardment, nighttime bombardment or carrier strike (dependent on doctrine development).

[TheOtherPoster]

We shouldn't forget we always complain when we the AI is positioning our fleet near the enemy coast, filled with air bases, and when we are given as target to attack a land target in those conditions. But here we are asking to be able to bombard an enemy fleet anchoraded at port in the mid of a war. Well, I also think it'd be very cool! In my opinion the more realistic options would be:

1. A night air attack, hence only after we have unlocked night flying operations. Of course I'm thinking of Taranto. This scenario should run for a few hours after daybreak with our fleet maybe subjected to some enemy air attacks (they would have to locate us first and then send an air strike).

2. A daylight air attack to a port only if they don't have too many land based aircraft nearby and we have a strong air fleet ourselves. Like the bombardment of Darwin by the Japanese.

[attemptingsuccess]

Feb 8, 2022 1:42:28 GMT -6 TheOtherPoster said:

I think our complains are still valid our when the AI is positioning our fleet near the enemy coast, filled with air bases, and when we think suicidal to attack a land target in those condition. But now we're asking for bombardment of an enemy fleet anchoraded at port in the mid of a war. I also think it'd be very cool. In my opinion the only possible options would be:
1. A night air attack, hence only after we have unlocked night flying operations. Of course I'm thinking of Taranto. This scenario should run for a few hours after daybreak with our fleet maybe subjected to some enemy air attacks (they would have to locate us first and then send an air strike).
2. Day air attack to a port only if there are not too many land based aircraft nearby and we have a strong air fleet ourselves. Like the bombardment of Darwin by the Japanese.

I think before 1930/35 or if you don't have carriers it should be a submarine strike which pops up a message after a few turns. Think the junior naval officers event, but in the middle of the war.

[attemptingsuccess]

I'm also thinking there would be 3 options in this event
1. No, That's a sucicide mission!
2. That sounds like a good idea (attack by submarines)
3. Perhaps a more ambitious plan is in order (fleet/carrier attack)

[seawolf]

There's a lot of battles that could be described through this framework- Narvik, Mers el Kebir, Savo Island, Casablanca, as well as the carrier attacks at Taranto, Colombo, Rabaul, Truk, most certainly the final destruction of the Japanese fleet at Yokosuka and Kure.
Tirpitz, the Scharnhorst, and the Japanese light carriers during the Doolittle raid were hit by level bombers but that could be an event under the same framework.
The sub attack on Royal Oak was also quite similar, hence:
Maybe it could be split into "special" port attacks that aim on targeting a capital ship or two using bombers or submarines, with a lot of planning and high chances of failure, "strike" port attacks that use a carrier force to attack the entire fleet in harbor and then run, and "fleet" port attacks where a fleet engagement catches the enemy fleet in port, leading to surface engagement. Maybe make a special rule for attacks like Narvik, Savo, Malaya(Repulse and PoW), and Samar(attempted), where a surface fleet launches a surprise attack on an anchored invasion fleet in the following turn

With the extended timeline even operation Trident(destruction of the Pakistani fleet at Karachi) would qualify as one of these port attacks

[attemptingsuccess]

I agree, I was personally thinking that events along those lines are a great idea!

[laplace420]

Feb 6, 2022 5:30:06 GMT -6 JagdFlanker said:

could be a good idea for supporting an ongoing invasion as well - have the 'bombardment target' inland (it could be called 'Close Air Support target' or 'enemy land fortification' instead), and the invasion progress is affected (a little) by it's success or failure

if the invasion is being held up due to fortifications this might be a way to help 'break through'

I think this is a great idea. Too often, invasions can drag on for many months even when you have naval superiority in the region. This could give players a chance to use their naval superiority to make a difference in the land battle.