WW1 Royal Navy quality worse than the Hochseeflotte in wargames

[Boggit]

Just a thought. I understand that there weren't many major naval engagements in WW1, and I know that there were design flaws in some of the British Battlecruisers leading to catastrophic destruction, but for some reason German units seem to have a qualitative advantage to hit in a number of naval wargames.

Surely outside the battlecruisers this is unlikely to be an issue? The Battleships, Cruisers and Destroyers weren't all that different at the time. I'd suggest that in terms of crew quality both countries were broadly comparable. In terms of naval tradition Britain probably has the edge. I'm pretty sure I read something about the quality of Battlecruisers determing the quality of the entire Royal Navy in another post, but what do you guys think?

[Nefaro]

The rangefinding equipment on the British and German capital ships used different methods.  Supposedly the German ones were more effective at getting a good range faster, while the British ones were better at keeping the range on maneuvering targets, after it had been found.  I don't know why this translates into some universal German bonus all-around, so I'm as wary as you. 

I've always suspected that the disparity in fleet quantities has led game designers to go overboard with the universal crew quality bonuses for the German side, as some kind of gameplay balance.  While I don't think that's the proper way of doing so, it's also the fastest/easiest to just lay down a blanket bonus.  While the Germans had good training, they also weren't actually out sailing in force on the high seas as much as their British counterparts during the war years either.  I think crew bonuses should be left to experience/training ratings on a ship-by-ship basis and not given one big blanket bonus to a single side. 

The other issue I've had is the drastically high amount of magazine explosions on British Battlecruisers being turned into a nation-wide chance for the whole of the British navy.  There has been tons of speculation on the causes over the years, but the biggest and most obvious one is that safety precautions had been cut during the Battlecruiser force's training in order for them to increase their rate of fire, which was all the rage in the Brit navy at the time.   With powder bags lying everywhere, and safety measures to keep flash fires from reaching the magazine below being shirked, it's pretty obvious what would happen in a turret hit (and it did).  The excuse used for using a large enough chance to make it happen to every ship in the fleet on a regular basis, is that there was some flaw in the powder bag relay system leading up from the magazine.  While that may have created some remote freak happenstance of having all the protective doors opened at once right when the turret got hit, the rate given in these games is far too high to account for it that alone - except for the specific ships that trained to actively skirted such safety measures in order to move powder and ammo faster up the 'tube'.

I get pretty frustrated when I'm playing some scenario in one of these games and everything from my Armored Cruisers and up just explode with about a 1 in 4 rate in each scenario.  Sometimes within the first six or seven minutes of engagement.   Also - the German hit rate is a bit too high (at least in Steam & Iron) compared to the British one in large engagements.  The old numbers showed that things were fairly equal when you took the British battlecruisers' Spray & Pray rates out of the equation during Jutland.   They were even a bit better regarding a Dreadnaught vs Dreadnaught comparison IIRC.  This blanket crew quality bonus to the German side is a bit overboard and it also gives them noticeably faster repair times during the battle.  While German damage control was quite good, I think the survivability of their ships was due more to their shipbuilding doctrine of having heavier armor than the British, so they didn't take as many crippling hits in the first place. 

In other words, I'm all for taking out these Blanket Crew Modifiers and replacing them with a few modifiers that aren't quite so all-encompassing.  Solutions:

1) Remove the universal German Crew Bonus and the universal British Magazine Explosion chance.

2) Add an early fire bonus for the German fire control (that drops once the range has been found, and the 'Previous Hit' modifiers kick in).   Optional:  Give the Brits a slightly higher 'Previous Hit' bonus?  I don't think that's needed considering the bonus would be so small anyway (and the current tendency towards play balance).

3) Apply the current magazine explosion chance modifier only to British Battlecruisers.   Add a much smaller one to the rest, if need be, although I believe the dreadnaught magazine explosion rate was comparable to the German one so we probably don't even need this second one at all.

4) Leave the Poor Shell Quality for the Brits.  This seems to be done fairly well, from what I've experienced (in Jutland anyway) so no complaints there.

5) If the Germans just absolutely must have some kind of damage control bonus, then give them some slight advantage in fighting fires or something similar.  But not a overarching damage control bonus - it's too unbalanced when done that way IMO.


Thus far, I've had no luck pleading this case and I don't expect to.  But here it is - my problem & solution submission.

[MengJiao]

Just a thought. I understand that there weren't many major naval engagements in WW1, and I know that there were design flaws in some of the British Battlecruisers leading to catastrophic destruction, but for some reason German units seem to have a qualitative advantage to hit in a number of naval wargames.

Surely outside the battlecruisers this is unlikely to be an issue? The Battleships, Cruisers and Destroyers weren't all that different at the time. I'd suggest that in terms of crew quality both countries were broadly comparable. In terms of naval tradition Britain probably has the edge. I'm pretty sure I read something about the quality of Battlecruisers determing the quality of the entire Royal Navy in another post, but what do you guys think?

I think the events of Jutland get over-interpreted since there's not much else to go on and the games tend to over-emphasize gunnery over signals and command control.

In terms of gunnery, the Hocheseeflotte did okay at Jutland.  In terms of everything else (which the games can't simulate without a lot of really complex signal and command rules) they sailed right into a trap and barely got out after making nearly every possible mistake they could have.

In terms of signals and control, the BCF did fine -- spotted the HSF main body and led it into a trap.  Gunnery was not so good, but the 5th BS did well.

The critical problem seems to have been the cordite charges themselves and not how they were handled.  The RN charges burned catastrophically after a turret penetration and that caused the loss of 3 battlecruisers (though only one of those was of the latest design).

So, due to that last factor (the cordite charges) and the lack of gunnery training in the BCF, the whole RN gets pretty heavily penalized in games and due to the factors that current games simulate (ie gunnery and damage) the effects are even worse given what current games don't simulate (signals and command control).

So there's only so much you can do to get the real effect of the Grand Fleet versus the HSF.

To get more flavorful games for that period of intense experimentation in naval design, I would think you would need to allow players to invest their limited resources in different kinds of training (with a variable range of uncertain results), different kinds of guns and fire control, different kinds of ships etc. etc.

So that players could have the VA BCF experience and say, "There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today."  But still carry on and get a win via means other than gunnery.

[panzerde]

I watched a documentary last week about Jutland.  It was one of those deals where they went diving to wrecks to learn more about the battle, though I don't believe it was Battlefield Detectives.  They ended up diving on HMS Invincible.  The conclusion of their resident expert was that it had to be the cordite, since all of the evidence pointed toward a slow burn explosion.  I dont know how far to trust their expert, but his explanation sounded credible.

I have to agree though the the game results, at least in SAI and Jutland seem skewed toward the Hocheseeflotte over the RN.  Of course, when I didn't know much about the subject I didn't really see this, but the more I've studied it the more obvious its become.  Granted, it may be that I'm just a crap admiral, but if that was all of it I'd expect to consistently lose when commanding German ships, and I don't - I usually win.  In fact, I'm going to try the Falklands from the German side this week, just to see if I can get a better than historical result.

All in all, it's kind of annoying.  I like Nefaro's suggestions, particularly about removing the blanket magazine explosion chance modifier.  I know Stormeagle argues that if the cordite handling procedures on the BCs were that bad they must have been equally bad on every other ship class, but history doesn't seem to bear that out.

[Nefaro]

I watched a documentary last week about Jutland.  It was one of those deals where they went diving to wrecks to learn more about the battle, though I don't believe it was Battlefield Detectives.  They ended up diving on HMS Invincible.  The conclusion of their resident expert was that it had to be the cordite, since all of the evidence pointed toward a slow burn explosion.  I dont know how far to trust their expert, but his explanation sounded credible.

I have to agree though the the game results, at least in SAI and Jutland seem skewed toward the Hocheseeflotte over the RN.  Of course, when I didn't know much about the subject I didn't really see this, but the more I've studied it the more obvious its become.  Granted, it may be that I'm just a crap admiral, but if that was all of it I'd expect to consistently lose when commanding German ships, and I don't - I usually win.  In fact, I'm going to try the Falklands from the German side this week, just to see if I can get a better than historical result.

All in all, it's kind of annoying.  I like Nefaro's suggestions, particularly about removing the blanket magazine explosion chance modifier.  I know Stormeagle argues that if the cordite handling procedures on the BCs were that bad they must have been equally bad on every other ship class, but history doesn't seem to bear that out.

The Battlefield Detectives version posited the BC commander's emphasis on rapid fire over safety. 

I just watched it again on Netflix last week.

[Boggit]

Wow! I'm impressed with you guys. You've really given it some thought. :)

I hope the naval game designers sit up and take note of what Nefaro, Mengjiao and Panzerde are saying. IT'S GOOD STUFF - L I S T E N TO THEM! 8) :D

I thought perhaps it was me getting too "Groggy", but I'm glad I'm in such learned company. 8)

[jomni]

Great info.  But is it not done due to game balance?   Quantity vs quality.  If the British had both quantity and quality, then would it not be one-sided?

[Bismarck]

The discussion seems geared toward the battlecruiser action; sexy but only one part of the story. The Grand Fleet's  quality was as good as the Hochseeflottes.  Remember, it was the Germans who turned and ran.

[MengJiao]

Great info.  But is it not done due to game balance?   Quantity vs quality.  If the British had both quantity and quality, then would it not be one-sided?

Historically, it was pretty one-sided.  The HSF met the whole Grand Fleet on just one occasion and the HSF was extremely lucky to get out relatively intact.

In reality things were even more crazily stacked against the HSF, since after 1915, the RN could read and radio locate all of their radio signals.

Sadly, this reduces games to a focus on areas where the HSF did okay:  gunnery and taking hits and staying afloat.

[MengJiao]

Wow! I'm impressed with you guys. You've really given it some thought. :)

I hope the naval game designers sit up and take note of what Nefaro, Mengjiao and Panzerde are saying. IT'S GOOD STUFF - L I S T E N TO THEM! 8) :D

I thought perhaps it was me getting too "Groggy", but I'm glad I'm in such learned company. 8)

  A lot of typical gamey problems come together when dealing with Jutland:

   1) a preference (amoung game designers apparently) for simple old stories or stereotypes along the lines of "German efficiency and British Blundering"
   2) the fact that games tend to simulate what there is a lot of hard data about
   3) the fact that players don't like AI routines that make coming to grips with the enemy highly problematic (at Jutland this would include amazing amounts of crap for poor Jellico to wade through -- if you look at the signals he was getting, it was pretty amazing that he managed
a perfect crossing of the T )
   4) the fact that games focus on big-name events rather than the decades-long processes (eg. Fisher rebuilding the RN) that almost completely determined the outcomes of the big-name events
   

   As a grogg...I know what I'd like to see, but I realize it might be hard to program, puzzling for players and unlikel to sell...though of course all 4x space games are based on the naval tech races of say 1880 to 1990.

[Bismarck]

@MengJiao

+1  You said it, brother!

[MengJiao]

@MengJiao

+1  You said it, brother!

    I was just explaining the evolution of boardgames last night: as the narrative understanding of past events has gotten more complex (eg Glantz on the East front, lots of revision on WWI technology, Clay Blair on U-boats) games have had to choose more carefully what they want to represent and how by using such things as command points and card draws to cover the more difficult to quantify but very crucial aspects of C(3) I and so on.  So in Elusive Victory, you can put more aircraft up, but then your ability to get them to track and engage the enemy goes down because you are overloading your control system.

    Computer games have a lot more trouble with that sort of thing it seems to me partly because they do have the option of tracking every shell and so on (but not every signal and not every instance of command overload on the bridge or targetting from a destroyer etc. etc.) .  the combat mission games come closest to combining command and control factors and tracking every bullet, which for a nautical battle would get them to the level of simulating good pirates, but not even the most primitive of fleets because of the interlocking decisions that even a bunch of pentconters would have to manage -- there's just a whole other level of design that has yet to be even well-imagined when it comes to naval battles.

   BUT you can do such things in board games oddly enough (since they have to make a choice
about how to summarize the effects of C(3)I and ice and storms and ship design.  So to celebrate your +1, i have purchased GMT games' PQ-17.

   AND its on sale for 40.00!

   I thought it was the groggiest thing I could do at the time.

[Bismarck]

Thanks but my spasticty is getting worse with age and there's so few serious wargamers here. I can no longer play wargames. I sold mt magnificent collection about  five years ago.

[Boggit]

@MengJiao

+1  You said it, brother!

    I was just explaining the evolution of boardgames last night: as the narrative understanding of past events has gotten more complex (eg Glantz on the East front, lots of revision on WWI technology, Clay Blair on U-boats) games have had to choose more carefully what they want to represent and how by using such things as command points and card draws to cover the more difficult to quantify but very crucial aspects of C(3) I and so on.  So in Elusive Victory, you can put more aircraft up, but then your ability to get them to track and engage the enemy goes down because you are overloading your control system.

    Computer games have a lot more trouble with that sort of thing it seems to me partly because they do have the option of tracking every shell and so on (but not every signal and not every instance of command overload on the bridge or targetting from a destroyer etc. etc.) .  the combat mission games come closest to combining command and control factors and tracking every bullet, which for a nautical battle would get them to the level of simulating good pirates, but not even the most primitive of fleets because of the interlocking decisions that even a bunch of pentconters would have to manage -- there's just a whole other level of design that has yet to be even well-imagined when it comes to naval battles.

   BUT you can do such things in board games oddly enough (since they have to make a choice
about how to summarize the effects of C(3)I and ice and storms and ship design.  So to celebrate your +1, i have purchased GMT games' PQ-17.

   AND its on sale for 40.00!

   I thought it was the groggiest thing I could do at the time.

+1 to that.
I can understand where you're coming from on the C3I games. I really enjoy games that use it - like you said Combat Mission, but I also like those that build up a profile of what you're up against like Harpoon, or back in the day the C64 Red Storm Rising where you had to build up and confirm sonar signatures to form a plan to deal with the enemy. I realise that doesn't deal with the orders aspect, but it does make it more challenging and interesting.

[Nefaro]

The discussion seems geared toward the battlecruiser action; sexy but only one part of the story. The Grand Fleet's  quality was as good as the Hochseeflottes.  Remember, it was the Germans who turned and ran.

Indeed.  Agree completely.

That's why the blanket modifiers are too much in many cases (notably the quick magazine explosions) - because they were primarily limited to a relatively small and very specific part of the British Fleet, yet the rates are being applied to the whole fleet in a skewed manner. 

My point about the blanket damage control bonus for the Hochsee Fleet is also not the best way to go, although for the different reason I previously posted (heavier German armor and poor British Ammunition provided fewer critical hits in the first place!)