German U-boat: a joke

[ArmenianBoy]

Alright, how long can the game continue to make a joke of the German U-boat fleet and the actual effect it had on the war. In any Human vs Human game, a decent Allied player should be able to destroy 2/3 subs that Germany starts with before the end of 1939 (Fall 39 Scenario). Here is what I think might help:

[Compassion]

um... ok... In the same vein, here's what I do:

Oh, odd... and sorry, Didn't realize you were going to make 2 posts... an announcement and then the actual post.

[ October 29, 2002, 08:00 PM: Message edited by: Compassion ]

[ArmenianBoy]

Ok, that was odd.. anyways my thought on subs.

- The % chance they should dive needs to be around 50-70% to start.

- Allies should be forced to research sonar and long range aircraft which were both used historically to combat the situation. Each sonar breakthrough would reduce the dive chance by 20% and each LRA breakthrough by 10%.

- Possibly reduce the damage a sub does, since they should now live longer.

- Spotting ranges need to be reduced by 1 hex for all units.

There may be a few other ways to more accurately portray subs, either way something is needed to be done.

[Henri]

Until later in the war, when long-range planes and radar became available, there was a "dead" area in the atlantic where German subs could stay in with almost comlete impunity. this should be modeled in the game. Right now, at least in the demo,if the Germans send their sub to block the sea lanes, the Brith ships in england make a beeline for the sub and kill it the next turn.

henri

[dgaad]

I'd really like to know from some of the players how the sub warfare pans out in the Historicity mod. In that mod, the Germans start off with L-2 subs and strength 12 sub fleets. If they stay in the NW corner of the board, any attempt by the British to find and engage them would be disastrous because of the low supply ratings the British ships would have at the point of contact. If of course the subs venture close to Britain the equation changes.

With these changes in that mod, it seems to me the Germans have a much better chance of conducting an effective sub warfare campaign, particularly after France is axis-occupied and Brest and Bordeaux become available for sub replenishment.

[dougman4]

I heartily agree, German U-boats are a joke in this game. I support any change that makes them stronger.

However, I'd prefer the designers address the ground combar system first. Reinforcements and buying new ones are too easy (especially with enemy units adjacent), you can't shoot and then move, you can't move then deselect and then shoot.

[JerseyJohn]

Agreed about U-Boats; it costs much more to build them than they ever return in shipping damage! They're good for screening battleships and aircraft carriers.

Britain's production level seems very low even without submarines successfully attacking it -- is this part of the game system? i.e., Britain's production has been reduced to reflect not only submarines, but other commerce raiders, such as the prowling merchant men and long range luftwaffe raiders?

In any case, if the U-Boats are made more effective then something should be done about the UK economy; as is it's too paultry to tolerate any further diminishing.

The thing that really puzzles me, though, is whatever happened to the idea of England starving to death if her ships didn't reach port? When I was a kid it was always phrased that way (this was a decade after the fact), that the British Isles couldn't feed it's own population and it's ships were literally it's lifeline. It was stated innumerable times that Britain would have been forced to sue for peace if her ships didn't reach port -- yet, I've never seen that reflected in any of these games.

[J Wagner]

I would like to know an effective strategy for the two U boats in the North Atlantic in the '39 campaign. I'm forever losing them to the British fleet after only a few turns. Do you keep them out of harms way for a period of time before using them to disrupt trade? It seems the earlier I use them, the quicker they are wiped out....any suggestions?

[dougman4]

JWagner, as the game now stands its pretty much if you use your subs - you lose them - thereby effectively ending any sub warfare in a war that was full of it.

[Esquire]

I have to disagree. Overall, I have had some very good results with Axis Subs. When used in numbers of 3 or 4 thay can be an effective offensive weapon.

[ArmenianBoy]

I have to disagree. Overall, I have had some very good results with Axis Subs. When used in numbers of 3 or 4 thay can be an effective offensive weapon.

Is this playing against the computer? Let me restate, that playing against a competent Human opponent, the following is normally the case in the 39 scenario:

1) Allied players are able to hunt and kill both Atlantic U-boats in a few turns with French and British ships. Whether the U-boats are used or not.

2) Building any more subs as the German player makes no sense (see 1).

Anybody that thinks different, we can play a game and you'll be a believer after we finish.

[ArmenianBoy]

FYI

Against human players my ratio of sub dives over being attacked is 0/8. Once again this seems insane as it was 1939 for all cases. It would be nice to see a 'Happy Time' against US shipping, if the Axis delcared war on the United States. The extra modifier of damage would be some formula of the current US tension %. Thus, the early Germany declares war on US the more damage their subs stationed around US coast do. Although, at this point no need to even think about this, as all but 1 German sub usually never last past 39 in most games.

[EB.]

I agree that subs should be made more powerful in the game to improve realism.

The combat power of subs is ok--do not change.

The amount of damage that subs do to production is ok--do not change.

The dive chance of subs is ok--do not change.

However, the key thing in my opinion is that subs should be harder to detect in the first place.

I am not a submarine warfare expert, but from what I do know, this would seem to fix things a bit in the game.

Also, I wonder why no British or Soviet sub units are shown. There were many British and Soviet subs in the real war--in fact, many more than the Germans had. I guess the problem is that these subs had almost no impact upon the course of the war because Germany (quite unlike Britain) was not an island nation with a worldwide maritime commercial network. Maybe this is why they are not in the game.

If you want to see how really to conduct submarine strategic warfare, you should see not the German effort against Britain (which ultimately failed) but its far more successful counterpart in the Pacific--the American subs just absolutely butchered the Japanese merchant lifelines. It is not the Germans but actually the Americans who were the true sub experts of the World War Two. Strange to me that this is not much publicized in the US, by the way. I mean, almost nobody I talked to there knew anything about this, though they know all about D-Day and the A-Bomb. If our Soviet subs had even 10% of the success that the American subs had, well, our propaganda would never cease glorifying it. But in America there is total silence. Maybe it is because subs have been treated in Western propaganda as a kind of cowardly method of warfare. The US sure blamed the Germans for "cowardly U-boats". Maybe they said this anti-sub propaganda so much that the US was unable to claim its proper credit later on with respect to its own sub warfare victories. Very strange and ironic, I must say. When we study how to do successful submarine strategic warfare, we study not the Germans in the Atlantic but the Americans in the Pacific.

[Ancient One]

Looks like you guys have thought this through...NOT. Try thinking outside of the box. Subs are currently the most cost efficient naval unit for the damage they can do to the enemy fleet. Any halfway competent Axis player can destroy the Allied fleet with subs. Do we really need another change to make battleships and cruisers even more useless?

[I/O Error]

Originally posted by EB.:

However, the key thing in my opinion is that subs should be harder to detect in the first place.

I am not a submarine warfare expert, but from what I do know, this would seem to fix things a bit in the game.

Absolutely, absolutely. I agree completely, subs are far too easily detected. SC robs subs of their most fundamental defensive and offensive advantage.

What I'd really like is a system where you could not see a sub unless you entered the hex it currently occupied. Wouldn't that be a lot better? Certainly the range should be reduced, I could also support a "can only spot from adjacent hex" system. Unfortunately, it wouldn't shock me to find out that a change like that would be very difficult to work into SC.

Edit: I think that would be quite interesting; players would have to, like the Allies, devote valuable naval resources to "scour" the oceans every turn. Niiiiice. (Of course the subs would be visible when they attacked, but I'm carefully sidestepping that problem for now)

Also, I wonder why no British or Soviet sub units are shown. There were many British and Soviet subs in the real war--in fact, many more than the Germans had. I guess the problem is that these subs had almost no impact upon the course of the war because Germany (quite unlike Britain) was not an island nation with a worldwide maritime commercial network. Maybe this is why they are not in the game.

There is precious little point in asking a question if you are only going to answer it yourself.

And as a slight dig, I would like to point out that the Soviet sub service was without question the most incompetent and poorly supplied submarine navy in the history of modern warfare. The stories cross the line from being merely "unfortunately tragic" to being "god damn hysterically funny".

If you want to see how really to conduct submarine strategic warfare, you should see not the German effort against Britain (which ultimately failed) but its far more successful counterpart in the Pacific--the American subs just absolutely butchered the Japanese merchant lifelines. It is not the Germans but actually the Americans who were the true sub experts of the World War Two. Strange to me that this is not much publicized in the US, by the way.

To be honest, a large part of that success was also because the Japanese could never get an effective convoy system working. They also had no real concept similiar to the German "wolfpack". The Wolfpack alone acted as a force multiplier for the Germans, the Japanese just couldn't match that.

I mean, almost nobody I talked to there knew anything about this, though they know all about D-Day and the A-Bomb. If our Soviet subs had even 10% of the success that the American subs had, well, our propaganda would never cease glorifying it. But in America there is total silence. Maybe it is because subs have been treated in Western propaganda as a kind of cowardly method of warfare.

I disagree! That's not true today among civilians, especially after all the media hoopla during the Gulf War and before about "SEAL team infiltrations" and "Tomahawk missile launches". Most Americans seem to think of the modern sub fleet as, quote, "Pretty cool".

And the military has since WWII groomed the submarine force as standing among the elite of the Navy, second only to Naval Aviation. All volunteer, highly trained, exacting standards, yada yada yada.

The US sure blamed the Germans for "cowardly U-boats".

Really only during the war, and even in WWII the tone seemed to be less obvious than during WWI. (at least, I don't recall propaganda campaigns similiar to the ones that followed the sinking of the Lusitania.

I think it really all depends on which histories you look at, EB. US school textbooks give the subject only a passing reference, but in fact that's actually true of the entire Pacific campaign. My suspicion is because it's easier to teach the European front to kids, which is chock-full of memorable dates and obvious watershed marks. In the Pacific it seems like most books just go, "Pearl Harbor... *pause* Midway... *pause* Atom Bombs, war over, we won!" (That's almost not an exaggeration.)

[ October 25, 2002, 08:43 PM: Message edited by: I/O Error ]

[waltero]

Yes we do need a new Change.

Subs SUCK! in every way!

Even on surprize enemy contact, thay SUCK! why is that?

[I/O Error]

Originally posted by Ancient One:

Looks like you guys have thought this through...NOT. Try thinking outside of the box. Subs are currently the most cost efficient naval unit for the damage they can do to the enemy fleet. Any halfway competent Axis player can destroy the Allied fleet with subs. Do we really need another change to make battleships and cruisers even more useless?

Okay, let me ask you this. Has your method EVER worked against a competent human player? We're not just talking about the AI here, that's easy.

Edit: And who the hell would use subs and leave them open to counterattack when you can basically rule the waves without a single ship, just with airpower? I mean once you get a few LR tech advances, it's all over for the RN! (At least, with the AI. Humans either retreat the ships or disband them)

[ October 25, 2002, 08:41 PM: Message edited by: I/O Error ]

[David Brown]

In one of my recent games against a competent human player -- or at least I thought so (Hi Bill!), I found Italian subs to be very useful. I built five or so in the Med, used them to help wipe out the Allied fleet there as well as do (small) damage to British production. Then, after my Italian surface fleet battered the Gibraltar port to 0 they did an excellent job of hitting British production, stopping American units being shipped across the Atlantic, and sinking the Allied navy. So subs weren't immediately useful to me, but with patience, and sufficient numbers, they became very useful. I could, at that point, have added German subs to the mix, but they weren't needed.

[ October 25, 2002, 09:00 PM: Message edited by: David Brown ]

[JerseyJohn]

The U-Boats are a good investment for fighting capital ships but are only good in commerce raiding if they keep moving and remain in packs. Single U-Boat units are easy prey.

If Germany builds a few carriers and posts airfleets in the Brest region, units of the Royal Navy can be lured south, out of Manchester chasing U-Boats, and sunk. I don't think that's overly far fetched and after a while the British become weak enough for Germany to make a successful landing on the channel coast.

If that's too unrealistic, then another plan is putting four of them together and always keeping them in support of each other. Groups like that aren't too expensive and, as they are rarely attacked by more than one or two capital ships they can serve well as a killer force.

The key seems to be keeping them in groups and well supplied and on the move. As in the actual war, aircraft carriers, air fleets and bombers are all very effective against subs. They're great for screening ahead of surface ships, though the fleet as a whole has to move at a reduced speed, which is realistic.

There's a mid-Atlantic hunting ground, as in the real war, where they can hurt the convoys and be out of range of land based aircraft. Naturally, you can't settle there very long unless you're willing to fight some surface ships.

I'm agreed with those who say the convoy/u-boat system should be changed -- dgaad and EB and a few others have all made suggestions I like.

The Italians are also helped by another

sub. It increases the Med' damage to ten instead of five and the two subs make a big difference if you go after the British fleet off Egypt.

Italy did good work with midget subs and frogmen, blowing the bottoms out of two British BBs anchored in Alexandria. The ships dropped to the bottom in shallow water but didn't go under. In a typical turn of events, the British raised and lowered the flags every day and pretended nothing had happened. Observers in the Italian embassy, who saw the crews on deck, reported the vessels as being seaworthy. Amazing how the Royal Navy wins even when it's sunk!

[ October 26, 2002, 03:07 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Edwin]

The early axis subs will be wiped out by an experienced player who hunts them down. However, if you invest 5 points in sub research as soon as possible, and fortune smiles on you, you could be purcasing level 3 subs in early 41. Save enough MPP to buy 3 at once and they are not easy to defeat. I have used this on a couple of PBEM games and managed to shut the US down at their point of entry - all allied surface ships having been sunk. I have also introduced them piecemeal. At other times this has failed.

[ArmenianBoy]

Here is some more insantity from one call the Acient One:

Try thinking outside of the box. Subs are currently the most cost efficient naval unit for the damage they can do to the enemy fleet. Any halfway competent Axis player can destroy the Allied fleet with subs.

Ok, how about you just try thinking first before such a remark? Better yet lets play and you can show me how subs the most efficient naval unit. Email me please, I love to play an axis player who builds and researches subs. Because while your doing that, Russia will be handing you your ass on the east front. So maybe if you go all out on subs you can 'shut the US down' when they enter the war and have killed all the allied naval units. The problem will be that in 1942 Russian units will be occupying Berlin!

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by I/O Error:

What I'd really like is a system where you could not see a sub unless you entered the hex it currently occupied. Wouldn't that be a lot better? Certainly the range should be reduced, I could also support a "can only spot from adjacent hex" system.

I would go for the adjacent hex spotting. Or at least, spotting reduced by one across the board. This seems like a very good idea that could be implemented sooner rather than later.

Until we get a larger map, this is a very problematical area. Many excellent suggestions along the way, and I have long campaigned for a more detailed Battle of the Atlantic, since this was vital -- CRITICAL to Britain's war effort.

So. Reduce spotting range, and I would also argue for less damage to subs by Air Fleets and Strat Bombers. It just wasn't that easy to spot and search out and destroy U-boats, given the typically wild North Atlantic weather and the extremely weak Allied ASW in the early years.

[I/O Error]

Originally posted by Immer Etwas:

And Russia's, too! Yeah, sub warfare is critically flawed in this game, and that's a real shame. I figure (like you said) the ocean size must be increased. Also, does it make sense that a sub should not be visible when it attacks? If they were seen on the attack, it would be trivial to find them. If they stay hidden, at least the other player has to work a LITTLE bit to find the sub in the hexes adjacent to the target that went down. I don't even know if that would work, just throwing out an idea.

[Ancient One]

Originally posted by ArmenianBoy:

Ok, how about you just try thinking first before such a remark? Better yet lets play and you can show me how subs the most efficient naval unit. Email me please, I love to play an axis player who builds and researches subs. Because while your doing that, Russia will be handing you your ass on the east front. So maybe if you go all out on subs you can 'shut the US down' when they enter the war and have killed all the allied naval units. The problem will be that in 1942 Russian units will be occupying Berlin!

My, such a rude child you are.

So tell me, if subs are not the most cost efficient naval unit, what is? Sorry, but I have trouble believing that subs are overpriced and underpowered compared to carriers, battleships, or cruisers.

For the record, I think it would be great if the subs had a greater dive % and were more difficult to spot. However, the subs then MUST have their naval attack rating reduced *substantially* to maintain any sort of balance. Hubert is going to have to decide what role he wants subs to play in SC. They should either be purely offensive naval attack ships (which they already are), or extremely elusive commerce raiding stealth ships, but NOT both.

Does that sound reasonable to you? If not, I'm sorry you had to sit through another one of my insane rants.

[ArmenianBoy]

Nothing to do with childish, I meany exactly what I said. It would be easier for me to show you how ineffective subs really are compared with say a 'carrier' or 'battleship'. The Germans building either in mass makes little sense considering the land war that they will face with Russia.