Another (Possibly Useless) Idea for submarine warfare

[Ludi1867]

Submarine warfare remains one of the less optimal aspects of the SC engine. The current mixture of evasions and modes does provide somewhat reasonable results, but historical is a word that hardly springs to mind. The addition of one more mode (I know, another complication) might, however, offer some advantages to the game, and perhaps improve the approximation of historical results. Or not.

Currently a submarine can only choose to hunt or go silent. When hunting it is hunting everything – merchant ships and surface warships (although NOT other submarines). It might be worth considering splitting the hunt mode into two different types of hunting – convoy hunting and warship hunting.

Splitting the hunting nature of submarines is a little artificial – the strength of submarines is their ability to (in most circumstances) transition swiftly between attacking warships and merchant ships. Nonetheless, depending on its primary missions, wartime submarines did tend toward different actions and this provides a starting point for suggesting different modes.

Convoy hunting submarines tended to focus on destroying merchant ships, while only engaging warships (most of the time) if a favourable situation arose. Submarines hunting warships tended to ignore merchant ships, as sinking those vessels tended to alert their opponent to their presence, and use up relatively scarce weapons that might be better used on a capital vessel. (The actual course of the war is a little complex to summarize here, but IJN doctrine for submarines actually resulted in comparatively few attacks on Allied merchant ships but a number of attacks on Allied warships. U-boat doctrine changed at different times and in different theatres, so is probably impossible to generalize, but most U-boats in the mid-Atlantic for the first half of the war were instructed to focus on merchant ships.)

OK, so how would this work in game terms?

Hunt Merchant Ship Mode – Submarine on or adjacent to a convoy line does full damage (depending on technology level) to opposing player MPPs to simulate merchant ship attacks. Submarines in this mode can be attacked, will evade (that bloody hyperspace jump thingee) as currently BUT cannot be reduced to a strength below 1. Once at strength 1 this submarine unit CANNOT inflict damage on any convoy line NOR on enemy warships while it remains in hunt merchant ship mode. It would also be reduced to half speed. The submarine unit could be re-built after it returns to port. Submarines in hunt merchant ship mode do HALF damage to warships (when their unit strength starts an engagement at greater than 1), and CANNOT attack other submarines.

Hunt Warship Mode – submarines in this mode attack warships and do FULL damage AND can attack opposing submarines. Submarines in this mode CAN be completely destroyed (although they would also be able to do the hyperspace jump). Submarines in this mode would do HALF damage when in this mode and on or adjacent to convoy lines.

This approach would provide clear advantages to the different modes. Hunting convoys would remain an effective mission for submarines, but completely destroying submarines engaged in this activity would be impossible. Yet strong counter-attacks would make submarine attacks focused on convoys expensive. There is clearly a good likelihood of the attritional nature of this struggle being emulated.

Switching to warship hunting makes submarines significantly more effective against warships, but also more vulnerable. It would also provide a way of attacking enemy submarines, something currently impossible and which did take place a number of times during the Second World War.

Anyway, some more food for thought in this very difficult to game aspect of the Second World War.

[CSS]

Submarines really did not hunt Sbmarines in either the First or Second World War, the simply did not have the technology. Although in both wars a few Subs were sunk by Subs.

Subs were very good VS Battleship which is shown in the game a BB without proper escort is dead meat. Aircraft and Carriers defeated subs plain and simple as in real WWII time also..

A human player who shrewdly moves and levels his subs, can cause great angst and destruction to his foe. The game gives you the oppertunity to have to be very clever, but you can, with out a lot of inginuity succeed with the current system.

[Ludi1867]

Submarines did not have the technology to hunt submerged submarines in the First or Second World War (although one submerged submarine did successfully engage another submerged submarine in the last months of the second war). However, submarines in the First and Second World War are better described as submersibles, as (until later in the war for the Germans) they operated on the surface the majority of the time. Operating on the surface meant that submarines could indeed be hunted by other submarines, and this in fact did happen a number of times during the Second World War. 22 U-boats, 5 RN and 2 USN submarines were lost to submarine attack. Now, these are not huge numbers, but the complete inability of submarines to attack other submarines is, in fact, problematic in SC, and leads to such gamey tactics as using submarines to find subs (Allied subs looking for U-boats are quite useful for this) while being effectively invulnerable.

[Baron]

Didn't an IJN I-boat sink a Soviet sub in WW2?

[Hubert Cater]

Ludi, I recently saw a program on the History Channel covering the sinking of U-864. An incredible sinking and a video can be found online for anyone interested in it.

Here is the Wiki entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_submarine_U-864

One thing I worry about extra modes is in the added complexity and just how much we'll gain, i.e. for veteran players of the series this might be a welcome addition but for the casual or new player even the existing two modes still offer considerable confusion (on my end at least via tech support emails) but I do like the idea of at least allowing subs to attack each other to prevent gamey tactics.

Even here I suspect I'll have to think about this carefully as this type of change would likely only apply to subs that are both in Hunt mode etc.

[Ludi1867]

Hi Hubert

As always, your comments are appreciated. I have seen much of the History Channel program on U-864, and found it fascinating as well. Your link is a good example that sometimes wiki is worth looking at!

The concern regarding complexity and too many modes is certainly a valid one. That is probably the main reason for my very cautious thread title. I decided it was worth putting the idea out there, even though I am hardly convinced it is the ‘right’ solution. However, it may perhaps spark an improvement somewhere down the line. One option might be a ‘basic’ (no modes) game, and an advanced game with a number of modes? Carrier warfare is certainly far from straightforward now as well, but the three modes for air operations do (once you get used to them!) seem to ‘work’.

The naval game is certainly significantly improved in Global, and now often has a real cat and mouse aspect to it which can be quite good (and, in a sense, mirrors the cat and mouse nature of many naval operations). I am not sure that ‘gamey’ aspects can ever be completely avoided, for the simple reason that gamers are far too creative in finding innovative ways to improve their odds of winning. But it is always nice to be as close to historical reality as possible!

[SeaMonkey]

Yeah gamey indeed, anyone check out the use of amphibs for shore bombardment?:eek: They don't take any losses and they can just sail around getting new supply from any friendly ports and continue the the massacre of enemy shore units.

Along with the all powerful double strike CVs, I might add. Thanks for finally getting the double intercepts for fighters, at least one tooth was removed.

[Snowstorm]

Great point, Sea Monkey. As long as they get decent naval escort, they could do a great job better at shore bombardment than the rest of the navy.

[Hubert Cater]

Hi Hubert

As always, your comments are appreciated. I have seen much of the History Channel program on U-864, and found it fascinating as well. Your link is a good example that sometimes wiki is worth looking at!

The concern regarding complexity and too many modes is certainly a valid one. That is probably the main reason for my very cautious thread title. I decided it was worth putting the idea out there, even though I am hardly convinced it is the ‘right’ solution. However, it may perhaps spark an improvement somewhere down the line. One option might be a ‘basic’ (no modes) game, and an advanced game with a number of modes? Carrier warfare is certainly far from straightforward now as well, but the three modes for air operations do (once you get used to them!) seem to ‘work’.

The naval game is certainly significantly improved in Global, and now often has a real cat and mouse aspect to it which can be quite good (and, in a sense, mirrors the cat and mouse nature of many naval operations). I am not sure that ‘gamey’ aspects can ever be completely avoided, for the simple reason that gamers are far too creative in finding innovative ways to improve their odds of winning. But it is always nice to be as close to historical reality as possible!

Glad to hear you are enjoying the improvements to the naval aspect and you are right about the Carrier modes, that is one that I get the most support emails for!

I like the suggestions and it is true that once players get used to the ideas the game seems to flow well from there so we'll see what we can do to make things even more interesting without over complicating the game play.

[Hubert Cater]

Yeah gamey indeed, anyone check out the use of amphibs for shore bombardment?:eek: They don't take any losses and they can just sail around getting new supply from any friendly ports and continue the the massacre of enemy shore units.

Along with the all powerful double strike CVs, I might add. Thanks for finally getting the double intercepts for fighters, at least one tooth was removed.

Good find and we've made some adjustments here even though this is a tricky one as we didn't want to limit the new feature either.

I've enabled counter damage to attacking Amphibs and they will no longer be able to shore bombard once their supply equals 0. Regarding the resupply, this doesn't seem possible on my end as Amphibs do not regain supply by moving near a friendly port, can you confirm?

[SeaMonkey]

Your right Hubert, my mistake, amphibs do not regain supply, I assumed they functioned like other naval units.

What I really would like to see, not necessarily for SCG, is amphibs portrayed the way they were in real life. The troops were transported to just off the beaches and then transfered to landing craft, so in SC they would need to transit from transport mode into amphib mode. To keep amphibs from being used in a gamey way they should lose all supply and readiness in two turns(turn of creation and one turn of APs). This way they can be created in a friendly port or transit from transport to amphib, but only have a one turn distance to disembark otherwise they lose all effectiveness. Simulates the need for close island bases for efficient amphibious operations and makes islands more valuable, as they were.

Also, to accomodate a more lifelike use of transports, I would like to see them lose 1 supply/10% efficiency per turn they are at sea slowly degrading until they reach a minimum of.....??....say 2/20%, something like that?