Jutland

[Rhetor]

Amen to that! What were they thinking? What were they smoking? What did they expect would happen? And what would they do if the "Risk Fleet" failed to deter the RN? Geez, it boggles the mind.

The amazing thing to me is Germany's complete lack of strategic focus justs before and all during WW1. This at the height of Prussian military domination in all things. But they couldn't make up their minds as to what to concentrate on, how to pursue the war, and what to do if the prewar plans (both naval and army) failed. So much for the stereotypically precise Prussian military focus, eh?

Generally, in WWI nobody knew what to do when the prewar plans failed. The war itself greatly overwhelmed just about everybody in charge. The immense scope was simply too much for people who were men of a previous century.

As one historian rightly put it - "the 19th Century died on the fields of Belgium, France and Poland".

 

[Haida]

I consider the whole German huge navy programme as one of the most stupid mistakes ever made by any country. The fleet achieved completely nothing of value, save adding Britain to Germany's enemies, and giving some people a hundred years later a great topic for a computer simulation game :-D

Kaiser Wilhelm wanted Germany to have an overseas empire like Britain's. Germany needed a navy to obtain and police that empire. Germany also needed allies and it was reasoned that a powerful fleet would make Germany a desirable ally. Before the war the Kaiser was quoted as saying "the trident must be in our fist." Blind ambition combined with a national paranoia that Germany was surrounded by enemies who wished to destroy her was the reason for the pre-war expansion.

Britain felt that any overseas expansion by Germany would negatively affect their postition and so they were determined not to let it happen. France had already given up trying to beat the British so they joined them. Germany hadn't learned that lesson yet since they were late getting into the game. After the war Admiral Scheer determined that the surface fleet was a waste and that the best way to defeat Britian was to destroy her merchant shipping with an unrestricted U-boat campaign.

 

[Bullethead]

Generally, in WWI nobody knew what to do when the prewar plans failed. The war itself greatly overwhelmed just about everybody in charge. The immense scope was simply too much for people who were men of a previous century.

This is true, but I still think the Germans did the worst job on the strategic level. They never could stick with any strategy for more than a few months, whether on the land or the sea side of things. Of course, they had more choices than most of the other powers, with 2 land fronts (and a 3rd sea front) to consider. However, the ideal of their General Staff thing was for everybody to look at a problem and come up with the same, correct answer. The fact that the Germans were singularly unable to do this makes their failure more striking. If anybody should have been able to react to the post-1914 situation and come up with a new, decisive, and successful strategy, it should have been the Germans. But they just couldn't make up their minds.

 

[Brother Belcher]

I continue to read this forum with great interest. It's nice to know there are people with the same passion on the subject matter as myself. At one point I thought the comparing of the 5th BS of QE's and HSF BC'S was going to turn into a typical "Sherman v Tiger" or "Zero v Wildcat" type of thread Such dedication and attention to detail

Nevertheless, assuming a campaign game actually covers the entire war the HSF player will have to tackle this problem. Without refering to armour thicknesses, penetration figures and max speeds etc, it is not in the HSF players interests to engage in any protracted slugfest unless trapped or in a position of overwhelming strength. The early years of the war are the closest the HSF will ever be in terms of quality and quantity with the GF. Mid-war and onwards will see the gradual introduction of the QE class and later the R class. I appreciate the Baden's will eventually be comissioned but the RN still has a very comfortable margin.

If the HSF is determined to force a fleet action then my personal choice would be early war. Apart from the obvious game satisfaction of an enormous battle I would still be looking for isolated enemy squadrons to destroy piecemeal and quickly run for home. Minimise my loses and maximise the enemy's. Initial victory points would help offset the more difficult and leaner years to follow (rather like Japan in WW2 perhaps). Planning these "set pieces" and taking advantages of changes in the overall situation should be a large part of the HSF players strategy.

Athough primarily a RN fanboy I would certainly be wary and respectful of any QE battleships. However they are not uber weapons. It would be a mistake to risk them in any pursuit of HSF BC'S close to German waters for fear of mines and torpedoes and a critical unlucky hit could lead to loss or heavy damage far from the safety of home. Heavy damage and extensive time consuming repairs can be almost as bad as sunk.

Whilst used successfully at Jutland in the BC action where their speed was useful, remember they were in actual fact a fast independant wing of the GF and intended to cross the T of two lines of opposing battleships. Their presence at the Jutland BC action was due to a temporary attachment in exchange for the 3 BCS. Furthermore, in any stern chase at maximum speed I would expect a very low hit chance before the HSF BC'S drew out of range or received support. A competent HSF player should also have a screen of light ships giving ample warning of any threat thus allowing safe withdrawal.

Use them as a kind of fast scouting group and they risk being unsupported and overwhelmed. A few lucky hits is all it takes. Remember Warspite and her involuntary turns bringing her within lethal distance of Scheer's leading ships ? Leave them with the GF and they are tied to the speed of the slowest squardon. With excellent visibility they could outrange all opponents and still withdraw safely in the face of high odds. Unfortunately blundering into a minefield or submarine trap close to the Jade, the rapid deterioration in visibility or damage far from home were all risks Commanders of the time were reluctant to take. Would you ? Will the game punish you if you take these outrageous risks ?

The HSF BC'S are the ideal choice for taking the fight to the RN. Fight when it is in your favour to do so. Draw out the GF. Run away using your speed when in doubt. Hopefully in the latter case you will have a good enough head start on the "Big Cats" and you left Blucher behind in port

 

[Hinchinbrooke]

Use them as a kind of fast scouting group and they risk being unsupported and overwhelmed. A few lucky hits is all it takes.

True, but wouldn't that apply to any ship............ lucky hits I mean? Whenever Jutland comes out (assuming some sort of editor), I wouldn't mind combining the 5 QE's with the 13.5" BC's (along with escorts) as a strike/scouting group (the 12 inchers can go and do their thing with the GF)................ just to enjoy a "what-if" situation. Of course, the Big Cats would be under strict orders not to rush off and do something silly, losing the cover and advantage of the 15 inchers.

 

[Brother Belcher]

True, but wouldn't that apply to any ship............ lucky hits I mean? Whenever Jutland comes out (assuming some sort of editor), I wouldn't mind combining the 5 QE's with the 13.5" BC's (along with escorts) as a strike/scouting group (the 12 inchers can go and do their thing with the GF)................ just to enjoy a "what-if" situation. Of course, the Big Cats would be under strict orders not to rush off and do something silly, losing the cover and advantage of the 15 inchers.

Your right. Any ship is vulnerable to a lucky hit. However the risk of an imobilized QE (or any ship for that matter) far from home is a great one and not to be taken lightly. These ships were extremely valuable. Remember the RN lead in dreadnoughts was quite slim in the early years. If a campaign also simulates breakdowns, maintainance and repair time then any losses could make this margin dangerously small.

Combining the QE's and BC's would certainly produce a potent force. Could the game simulate this cooperation. At Jutland signaling errors were nearly disasterous. As a HSF player confronted with this force I would not hesitate to retire from battle. I might try and draw you into a Jutland style ambush or trap. Perhaps a night destroyer attack. But as long as your concentrated you can't be everywhere at once. Feints might draw you away leaving parts of the North Sea exposed to raids. I certainly wouldn't venture far without adequate screening and intelligance.

Many players, especially with hindsight may play this game very aggressively. Most wargamers do. But the leaders at the time were very worried about the mine and torpedo/submarine threat. Their actual effectiveness was quite low due to the technology, doctrine and training of the times but they certainly impacted greatly on the tactics and thought processes of the commanders. The game player might take the risk but no real life commander would. I would like to see the central North Sea as a kind of "No Mans Land" with dangers and risks hightened the closer you are to the enemy coast and bases. Even your impressive strike/scouting force would not venture too close to the German coast or for too long. Especially if Jellicoe was in command

 

[Hinchinbrooke]

Your right. Any ship is vulnerable to a lucky hit. However the risk of an imobilized QE (or any ship for that matter) far from home is a great one and not to be taken lightly. These ships were extremely valuable. Remember the RN lead in dreadnoughts was quite slim in the early years. If a campaign also simulates breakdowns, maintainance and repair time then any losses could make this margin dangerously small.

Combining the QE's and BC's would certainly produce a potent force. Could the game simulate this cooperation. At Jutland signaling errors were nearly disasterous. As a HSF player confronted with this force I would not hesitate to retire from battle. I might try and draw you into a Jutland style ambush or trap. Perhaps a night destroyer attack. But as long as your concentrated you can't be everywhere at once. Feints might draw you away leaving parts of the North Sea exposed to raids. I certainly wouldn't venture far without adequate screening and intelligance.

Many players, especially with hindsight may play this game very aggressively. Most wargamers do. But the leaders at the time were very worried about the mine and torpedo/submarine threat. Their actual effectiveness was quite low due to the technology, doctrine and training of the times but they certainly impacted greatly on the tactics and thought processes of the commanders. The game player might take the risk but no real life commander would. I would like to see the central North Sea as a kind of "No Mans Land" with dangers and risks hightened the closer you are to the enemy coast and bases. Even your impressive strike/scouting force would not venture too close to the German coast or for too long. Especially if Jellicoe was in command

Well, I'd hope that mines and subs are part of the mixture, otherwise it won't be much of a simulation, given that such threats were a constant part of the picture and influenced planning. You'd have to be a bit of a numbskull to go charging around close to the German shore. Maintenance and damage/reconstruction are also important factors.

As I say, it was just a "what-if" thought, and would depend on how flexible the game is............ allowing the virtual admiral to tinker with the resources at hand, shifting squadrons, etc. I'd hope to catch the 1st Scouting Group and engage them over long distance with the 15" and 13.5"............. assuming the BC's had worked on their gunnery. Perhaps the remaining 12" BC's could be used as a reserve force to counter other raiding feints?

Looking forward to the game!

 

[Brother Belcher]

Will the game support online multiplayer ? Obviously for a single battle scenario and not a grand campaign. I would be great with each side having a BCF commander and a main fleet commander ( or as many subordinates as possible ) to control battle squadrons and flotillas. Relying on signals and messages between players for sighting and situation reports would go a very long way to providing the fog of war and uncertainty of coordinating large fleets at sea. I believe Jutland by HPS has this feature although I've never played it. Imagine playing the role of Jellicoe or Scheer and waiting anxiously for garbled, confusing or even erroneous information and then having to make tactical decisions based on these reports !. Even better, as a Beatty or Hipper trying to lure your opponent into the jaws of your main fleet. Would there be interest for this type of game from the community. I'd be up for it.

 

[Hinchinbrooke]

For multiplayer, with so many ships and squadrons, you'd have to have some practice missions/fleet manoeuvres to stave off disaster....................

 

[Lempereur1]

A few Jutland Notes

hi Guys.

A couple of notes about the Jutland Campaign.

It will only cover 1916.

There are just too many ships to model to cover the entire war in one game.

There will be mine fields.

More later...

SES

 

[Rhetor]

hi Guys.

A couple of notes about the Jutland Campaign.

It will only cover 1916.

Hopefully that means that the battles of 1914-1915 (e.g. Coronel, the Falklands, Dogger Bank, a hypothetical engagement between the Hochseeflotte and Warrender's squadron) will be covered as scenarios.

 

[HMSWarspite]

Seconded (or at least a scenario editor so we can do them ourselves). Of course Dogger Bank misses Blucher if 1916 ships only!.

On the other things I think need improving (Besides those mentioned elsewhere like targetting and formations, firing through other ships etc, as well as eye candy like turret rotation etc) is the strategic map really needs a shadow command. I would suggest that contact creates a scenario as DG, but on disengagement, the faster force gets asked whether it wants to shadow the enemy (both forces if within a knot or two of parity). Then the shadowing force follows the target, with a chance of losing it every hour or something as a function of visabilty, range, speed difference etc. The range is relevant because it must be assumed that they shadow out of target's main armament range otherwise we have a scenario! Then other forces can be ordered to intercept etc. However, to reproduce the appalling signalling of RN, the shadow force should only send tracking reports infrequently (depending on the commanders stats maybe). Otherwise following a force is a bit like rock paper scissors (guess a direction, and see if both forces end up in that 'hex', then repeat, as DG today).

Also, some way of having huge maps (well over 50 miles - not a good idea I think), or issuing orders to the strategic map once a tactical battle is under way, to arrange a concentration is neccessary. Full Jutland is very difficult to arrange otherwise (either the entire GF and HSF needs to 'on map' as soon as light forces make first contact, or have to be caused to head torwards the action and appear as reinforcements. The former option means the entire GF end up as one task force I think (covering huge amounts of ocean). The latter allows mutiple TF. However then a 'followTF x at range [insert distance in miles etc]' strategic map command is necessary. It would be nice if the BCs + escort can be one TF, and the GF + escort a second, with the GF always 20 miles astern of the BCs etc (or whatever the player orders). Rather better than a single formation c25 miles by 10 or something I think. Also the 'single formation option' gives the player almost god like power over his fleet engagements, rather than a 'crossed fingers that the idiot Admiral turns up in the correct place and in time' approach (which is Jutland to a T!)

Here's hoping...

 

[Rhetor]

In my opinion the campaign mode in DG is the weak point of the whole game. While the tactical mode is flawless (save for some AI imperfections), the campaign game is difficult to manage, and often produces annoying results.

Shadowing, patrolling - all this is missing from otherwise great game.

Hopefully SES won't forget about DG after the release of Jutland, and the patches, or major improvements will be implemented back to the older game.

Oh, and we need a scenario editor. Not only in Jutland!

 

[HMSWarspite]

In my opinion the campaign mode in DG is the weak point of the whole game. While the tactical mode is flawless (save for some AI imperfections), the campaign game is difficult to manage, and often produces annoying results.

I wouldn't go as far as flawless! The T crossing error, and the difficulty in keeping divisions in anything other than line astern annoy me!

 

[Rhetor]

I wouldn't go as far as flawless! The T crossing error, and the difficulty in keeping divisions in anything other than line astern annoy me!

After some thought I think you are right. The T crossing error is probably the cause of the AI completely ignoring the broadsides of my ships, closing distance at right angles, and closing too much. Usually only the best armored enemy ships survive such a charge in fighting condition. Most simply get smashed in the process. I had to finish one battle only because my Vladivostok cruisers ran out of 203 and 152 mm shells.

 

[asheshouse]

Fog of war in both the tactical and strategic sense would be a huge element in making a Jutland scenario seem real. Even with when scouting ships bother to radio in reports, which often they didn't, there would still be doubt due to errors in the estimated positions of the scouting groups and errors in their reports regarding distance, range speed and composition of enemy sighted. The battle preliminaries when light vessels are pushed forward, probably under fire, in order to locate the enemy may be the most exciting part of the game, before the slogging really starts. It would also be great to see a scenario editor in order to expand the scope of the game but this might be limited unless it was possible to add new ship models, --- perhaps for submission to stormeagle for addition in later patches.

 

[Mobeer]

ammo low

I had to finish one battle only because my Vladivostok cruisers ran out of 203 and 152 mm shells.

I managed to get protected cruiser Novik down to:
6 120mm Guns, ammo 2 (1200 max) rounds
6 47mm Guns, ammo 9 (2100 max) rounds
2 37mm Guns, ammo 6 (1000 max) rounds
5 whitehead Torpedos, ammo 0 (10 max) rounds

Novik sank 19 of 29 torpedo boats, then had to run. Fortunately an island appeared ahead, Novik skirted the south coast then turned slightly north. The remaining torpedo boats got confused by the land and fell far enough behind that the battle ended.

 

[Rhetor]

I managed to get protected cruiser Novik down to:
6 120mm Guns, ammo 2 (1200 max) rounds
6 47mm Guns, ammo 9 (2100 max) rounds
2 37mm Guns, ammo 6 (1000 max) rounds
5 whitehead Torpedos, ammo 0 (10 max) rounds

Novik sank 19 of 29 torpedo boats, then had to run. Fortunately an island appeared ahead, Novik skirted the south coast then turned slightly north. The remaining torpedo boats got confused by the land and fell far enough behind that the battle ended.

That happens because the AI commands its torpedo boats and destroyers as if they were battleships. There is no difference - they close the distance in battle lines, and get smashed.
However, it may be impossible for the designers to apply a different approach for the AI for different types of ships.

After fifteenth torpedo boat sunk it just gets boring.

 

[NimitsTexan]

I wouldn't go as far as flawless! The T crossing error, and the difficulty in keeping divisions in anything other than line astern annoy me!

What is the "T crossing error"?

 

[Rhetor]

What is the "T crossing error"?

The leading ship in formation doesn't seem to block the view for the following ships. Entire battle lines have been seen shooting over the leading ships. This nullifies the main disadvantage of being in the positon of the vertical line in "T" - inability to use the guns against the enemy due to limited visibility.

In reality, the ship itself or the smoke coming from it should make it impossible to see the enemy.

I don't remember if the secondary artillery arcs in the Japanese ships have been fixed. If not, there we have another flaw in the tactical game - ability to fire the guns in boardside casemates on a target located dead ahead.