Geography’s effect on raiders operations is too simplified

[TheOtherPoster]

Geography’s effect on raiders operations is too simplified and should be overhauled. 

Geography should have obvious effects both on

1. the chances raiders have of intercepting enemy merchant ships and

2. the chances raiders will be intercepted by the enemy.

For example, in a war against Britain, it seems the chances of raiders intercepting British merchants in the Atlantic are the same regardless if you are, for example, Spain or Germany. But Germany’s raiders need to cross the well guarded and defended North Sea before they can reach their far away hunting grounds, west and south of the British Isles (in fact the Germans never tried that in WWI and only a couple of times in WWII). While on the other hand Spain is in a much better position to strike at will from her many northern ports or further south from Cadiz and the Canary islands, including at the shipping coming from South America and Africa, making the job of intercepting these raiders much more difficult for the Royal Navy. So all things equal, Germany’s raiders should have a higher chance of being intercepted by the Royal Navy while Spain’s raiders should have a greater chance of intercepting British merchant ships. Which I think it’s not the case.

Another example of geography’s effects on raiders being ignored is that Italy can send raiders to the Atlantic passing Gibraltar!!! and that they seem to be as deadly there as any raider from a country with an Atlantic coast. If the nation does not have a naval base in the sea area where her raiders are operating, that should have a detrimental effect of their effectiveness.

Also the effectiveness of raiders should take into account not only the home base ports and possessions at the beginning of the game, but any possession acquired or lost throughout the game: for example, if we have invaded Ireland and now are fighting the British, that surely must have the effect of our raiders intercepting many more British merchant ships (that now are so numerous and so close to our own bases in Ireland) and also of encounters with the more numerous Royal Navy, maybe decimating our raider force much faster unless we start using more powerful ships...

Taking the effort to make geography matter would open new ways to play raiding operations and who knows what else in the future!

[oldpop2000]

Sept 14, 2023 5:06:20 GMT -6 TheOtherPoster said:

Geography’s effect on raiders operations is too simplified and should be overhauled. 

Geography should have obvious effects both on

1. the chances raiders have of intercepting enemy merchant ships and

2. the chances raiders will be intercepted by the enemy.

For example, in a war against Britain, it seems the chances of raiders intercepting British merchants in the Atlantic are the same regardless if you are, for example, Spain or Germany. But German’s raiders need to cross the well guarded and defended North Sea before they can reach their far away hunting grounds, west and south of the British Isles (in fact the Germans never tried that in WWI and only a couple of times in WWII). While on the other hand Spain is in a much better position to strike at will from her many northern ports or further south from Cadiz and the Canary islands, including at the shipping coming from South America and Africa, making the job of intercepting these raiders much more difficult for the Royal Navy. So all things equal, German’s raiders should have a higher chance of being intercepted by the Royal Navy while Spain’s raiders should have a greater chance of intercepting British merchant ships. Which I think it’s not the case.

Another example of geography’s effects on raiders being ignored is that Italy can send raiders to the Atlantic passing Gibraltar!!! and that they seem to be as deadly there as any raider from a country with an Atlantic coast. If the nation does not have a naval base in the sea area where her raiders are operating, that should have a detrimental effect of their effectiveness.

Also the effectiveness of raiders should take into account not only the home base ports and possessions at the beginning of the game, but any possession acquired or lost throughout the game: for example, if we have invaded Ireland and now are fighting the British, that surely must have the effect of our raiders intercepting many more British merchant ships (that now are so numerous and so close to our own bases in Ireland) and also of encounters with the more numerous Royal Navy, maybe decimating our raider force much faster unless we start using more powerful ships...

Taking the effort to make geography matter would open new ways to play raiding operations and who knows what else in the future!

I believe  you are correct. I was a geography major in college and have done extensive research  in the area of its effect on naval warfare throughout history. The issue in the game is how to quantify the effects of location in the world on the issue of raiders..

[brygun]

Add in though the assumption the Germany has to cross the Atlantic isn't true in all games. What? Well the player may have gotten colonies.

In another thread I started on subs scoring low someone argued about the short range of early subs. Here I am with subs based out out >St. John's< easily in range of St Lawrence like on a day trip and back... and New York city.

Yes, geography can matter more though the need to integrate the >current colony< control would have to be part of that.