Sub movement through enemy occupied tiles

[Sharkman]

I have noticed during enemy turns that subs seem to slip through tiles occupied by my ships, sometimes destroyers stop them sometimes not. I have also noticed that my subs can move through completly blocked tiles as long as I cannot see the ships, once I see the ships the subs can not longer pass. Shouldn't it be possible for subs to try to move through enemy occupied tiles even if they can see the ships, I would think it would be even easier if they know the sips are there.

[Hubert Cater]

The latest game engines (WWI and GOLD) allow for subs to pass through Destroyers, usually the only enemy unit that can stop a sub when the sub is running in Silent mode, 50% of the time.

This was just to help enhance the cat and mouse game at sea.

For the idea of slipping by a ship that is visible I can definitely see the argument whereby the ship is visible to you but the sub is not visible to the ship, i.e. if it is spotted by other naval units or by recon air etc.

But if the ship also sees your sub then I think the current rules are more valid.

Interesting idea though and definitely something to think about

[SeaMonkey]

Really Hubert, this would stop the "corral" technique which if the sub is surrounded it can't dive out of harm's way. Still, if a player positions enough of his naval assets in intervals where they're not revealed the diving sub appears when it transfers to a tile next to an enemy naval unit(except subs).

I believe this would be an improvement over the present model, i.e. subs cannot dive away from a surrounded condition.

[Hubert Cater]

I don't disagree but I would defer to the resident naval experts on this one as I definitely wouldn't want to introduce a feature change in error... if anyone else has some feedback on this, one way or the other, now is the time

[lettowvorbeck]

The corralling doesn't bother me too much in that it makes subs think twice about entering restricted waterways. With minefields not modeled in the game, it is something that represents the increased risk. Also, it sort of compensates for the times when the 'dive before combat feature' is overdone. None of these are strictly historical arguments, just things to think of in game terms.

[Sapare]

I think the corraling itself is not much of a problem(at least in WW1 map) becuase it is really not very efficent at any case(on high sea you need 8 ships to do it) and if you use anything but destroyers you are just asking for an rather strong sub hit on your ship next turn. So I think it is a fair strat as it is a trade off, it can allow you to sink subs that otherwhise would constantl dive away, but it is not very cost efficent at any rate.(I had someone use it against me in the current tournement match, it was way to slow(as each sub tied down 8 ships for about 3 turns) and I ended up ruining British Economy anyway.)

But on the note of a ship moving past an enemy ship when it can't see it, but can't do so when it can see it, I think that might need a slight edit there.

[SeaMonkey]

Actually, I'm not emphatic that a change needs to be made, it just seems that the corral technique is somewhat gamey. On the other hand, I guess if you deploy that many naval assets into the ASW maneuver you should reap the benefits of a destroyed sub. Then again, the vast sea surface areas represented by a SC tile kind of makes you believe a sub should escape now and then.

Mike had an interesting suggestion in one of the other threads with the cheap rebuilds for DDs and subs. I just want to make sure that the feature wouldn't be abused by the many astute SC players with the liberal recon and suicide attacks those assets might represent.

[Ludi1867]

Sub movement through occupied tiles is a frequent challenge in SC. I can see a 'reasonable' argument in game terms for subs being unable to travel unchallenged through squares occupied by ASW capable units. As long as a sub is surrounded by ASW capable units then I think the swamp method of surrounding a sub is arguably reasonable, although it might be possible to allow a sub to ATTEMPT to escape at the risk of suffering a double attack (ie it might suffer double damage IF it is NOT successful in an evasion roll – and that roll would be similar to an attack roll by the ASW unit attacking the sub.) However, the ability of a sub to attempt to pass through an ASW capable unit would be a 'nice to have'. The status quo is probably OK in this respect.

What I find very wrong is the fact that subs, especially discovered subs, can stop movement of subs in stealth mode trying to pass through their square. In SC subs have no ASW capability. While that can be argued (it is a dubious proposition, as although subs were not primarily expected to kill other subs, they most certainly could and did do so whenever possible, and succeeded a number of times) the use of subs to block sub movement in SC is really wrong, and can be especially successful and irritating off Otranto. The placement of an Entente sub in this key location can make Central Power U-boat transit in and out of the Adriatic extremely problematic, and really demonstrates WHY it is wrong to allow subs, especially visible subs, to block the transit of a sub, especially when the transiting sub is in stealth mode.

I would argue that subs should either be given an ASW capability – which would be a little challenging – or that subs, especially visible subs, should NOT block subs moving past them in stealth mode, which would probably be an easier fix. But whatever fix is chosen, SOMETHING about using subs to block movement should be done.

[Bill101]

Hi Ludi

My understanding is that the only thing that should stop a sub in silent mode, is a Destroyer (with a 50% chance of doing so).

However, if the sub in silent mode would end its move adjacent to an enemy vessel, or would have been spotted by a Destroyer behind a friendly naval unit (including a sub) then the sub in silent mode will stop at the first enemy unit.

Could this be the case here?

Thanks

Bill

[Ludi1867]

Hi Bill

No, that is not the case here. The big problem is that IF a sub is visible, it WILL stop an opposing sub from passing through the square, whether the opposing sub is in silent or normal mode.

I just ran a test in hotseat, Call to Arms Campaign, patch 1.05 using the Austrian sub in the Adriatic and the French and British subs in the Med. If the French and British subs are NOT visible, then the Austrian sub is able to pass through the Otranto area easily (that is the narrow neck in the Adriatic adjacent to the Italian port of Brindisi). However, if the French and British subs ARE visible (I put an Austrian warship adjacent to them to make them visible) then it didn't matter what mode the Austrian sub was in – it could NOT pass from the Adriatic into the Med. It didn't matter whether there was a whole lot of Entente ships south of the British and French subs or if there was nothing but empty squares – all that seems to matter is whether the Entente subs are visible or not. And if they are visible, they completely stop any movement into the Med for the Austrian sub, no matter what mode it is in. This is the essence of the problem, and it clearly represents something that is not correct. If the British and French subs are NOT visible (ie the Austrian warship is moved away) then the Austrian sub CAN move into the Med.

The whole point is that whether the Entente subs are visible or not should really not be relevant to the passage of the CP sub. Arguably, if the Entente subs are visible it should be easier for the CP sub to move through them, as opposed to impossible. There really does seem to be a problem here.

[Catacol Highlander]

Agreed. Subs blocking other subs, whether visible or not, is not desirable and the current use of subs as blocks is a problem.

While I'm at it I would lend a vote to Ludi's suggestion of a sub being able to at least TRY and break out of an encirclement. I think currently encirclement is tactic that is widely used and actually duscourages sub use at all, becuase once spotted most subs are toast. Historically (Ludi will know more than me) this was probably often the case. However the impact of tech should surely have an effect here. If top level sub tech represents the advent of the schnorkel at least then air and sea radar becomes useless and darkness is all a captain would have needed to be able to try and slip the net.

In general I think sub tech and ASW tech should have more of an impact on the spotting and ability to surround subs. If a sub has 2 more levels of tech than the ASW of its chasers should it not almost be free to roam at will?

Just thoughts....