German U-boat: a joke

[Russ Bensing]

Originally posted by Ancient One:

Exactly right. I'm not sure I agree with you about subs being the most effective unit against surface ships -- the problem is that they do not inflict any damage when attacked -- but you're dead-on with this observation. SC utilizes subs in a role which is completely ahistorical -- offensively against battle fleets -- and doesn't really allow them to be utilized in the role of commerce raiders. In most cases, in order to make enough of them to affect commerce, you have to make enough of them to destroy the Allied fleets, a difficult task given the demands of the Eastern Front.

I think a solution is going to have to await SC2. There are a couple of potential fixes available: either abstract the entire thing (along with strat bombing, as in A3R), or change the dive rates (start at 50, then increase/decrease with advances in sub/sonar) and reduce the attack strengths of subs. Either would have to be heavily playtested to see how it affects the game, which is why I don't see it as coming soon to a theatre near you.

[Rouge]

remember 40000 saliors went out on U boats and 10000 came back, so lets not make them to powerful

[Zeres]

Funny this post came up. I've always thought that subs were not very effective either......until my last vicous hot seat game. I just didn't expect the axis player do do any thing with them. But he's gotten used to my usual strategy of bringing most of my Atlantic fleet down to the Med to detroy the italians when they enter the war. Anyway he was doing a good job of keeping those two starting subs out of the way and I was having a hard time cornering them with most of my fleet in the med turning the Italians into swiss cheese. While this was going on he conquered a few minors and I figured he was investing in Air or Heavy tanks. But no....He put two of his points in subs and low and behold just when France falls, the lucky bastard gets TWO SUB ADVANCES!!! and he parks four 13 strengh U-boats in the middle of the Atlantic and he's hitting me for 40 beans a turn.

Unbelieveable, kind of a freakish thing. But it just goes to show that a point or two in subs can pay dividends. My level one sonar couldn't do Sh*t to them. So I had to sit there researching Sonar before I could bring my fleet back up. Those subs we're just tearing everything I threw at them to pieces and diving 2 out of 3 air attacks.

It did hurt him in Russia though ( I think buying four of them was a little over board) Can't blame him though, he got a big kick out of doing that to me. What are the chances?

moral of the story is don't be surprised if your bunk ass level 1 subs are toast. You've gotta put some better boats in the water to do some damage. And it probably is worth it because it forces the Allies to divert research to things they really don't want to research.

[ October 28, 2002, 06:38 AM: Message edited by: Zeres ]

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by Zeres:

You've gotta put some better boats in the water to do some damage. And it probably is worth it because it forces the Allies to divert research to things they really don't want to research

Very true. I also have had more than a few games where U-boats have "turned the tide," so to speak, but it very much depends on research gains, as you have suggested.

And, a willingness to trust that subs will ultimately prove beneficial.

Which highlights one of the BEST aspects of SC, and that is -- your overall strategy can be dictated by WHAT tech advances you get, and WHEN.

I say "best" aspects, because this prevents every game from being too similar to any other. When you factor in the varied and unpredictable playing styles of each unique opponent in PBEM or TCP/IP, then you are realizing a dream that could rarely come true in most other games, either board or computer. Not only is the game itself extremely fun to play, but there are a tremendous number of possible, and variant outcomes.

Many times I have started with a certain strategy, but then (... maybe, just that one!! little chit in advanced subs, or LR Air or Strat Bombers) an unexpected tech advance has pointed me in a slightly different direction. :cool:

This would also argue for spreading your chits around, so that you are not LIMITING your own possible strategies by focusing too heavily on Air or Tanks, etc.

This does not mean that the Battle of the Atlantic could not be improved, and I think it will, perhaps even for this version of SC, but it does mean that there can be quite devastating uses for those lightly regarded U-boats.

Something similar happened when many were too quickly, it turns out, dismissing Strat Bombers. These units have specific and effective strengths, and have helped make all the difference in a couple PBEM games I have played.

So too with the subs -- at L3 or higher, the Allies MUST research sonar, else they will have tremendous difficulties in containing raids and wolfpack break-outs. I would agree with those who have said that the Sub is TOO OFFENSIVE against surface ships, and should primarily be capable of intercepting and setting fire to merchant convoys.

This might be alleviated by reducing their fire power against surface ships (with a corresponding increase in dive % and one less hex for spotting range for ALL units, naval or air), and somehow increasing their effectiveness against the Allied economy.

The German player, if he is intent on preventing any (... or reduced) landings in France, might also research long-range air, which would provide more than ample umbrella-protection for the subs, especially as they return to sub-pens with supply level zero.

If things are going fairly well, I have even built the Kreigsmarine into a formidable force, with carrier Graf Zeppelin and dreadnaught Bismark. Along with Air support, this effectively ends any early -- and, again, depending on tech advances, even -- later invasions of Fortress Europa.

If the Allied player is just a little careless, you can also augment the Axis fleet in the Atlantic with those ships from the Baltic, which usually have no difficulty in obliterating the hapless Russian fleet.

Britain cannot do both -- supplement RN fleet in the Med -- in order to deal a death blow to Italian fleet, AND protect her own very vulnerable shores. It is only to discover where Britain will risk her limited forces. Strat bombers, carefully placed, can help determine this.

All in all, SC allows so many what-if possibilities, that most, if not ALL of the pet strategies CAN be overcome, and I do mean ALL supposed -- invincible strategies.

[Zeres]

Immer- All your comments are right on. I think when people start playing they don't realize all the amazing outcomes that can take place if you are crafty with your research. It probably is a mistake to put all your eggs in one or two baskets.

[Jollyguy]

I have played two games where I was both able to dish out heavy losses to my opponents Royal Navy, and get graced with good industrial production advances. Combining those two variables presented the opportunity to build up an Axis sub fleet. In one instance I got up to level 2 subs, declared war on America and sunk his two battleships, and siezed control of the Atlantic. In the other I exacted heavy losses on Allied transports attempting to land in France, making him abort his landings, buying time to finish off Russia.

In another game I was the Allies, and my opponent invested in sub research for the Italians, and hit me with three level 2 subs. Let me tell you, those things are powerful on the offense, and hard to hit back against, because they dive more frequently. He chased my out of the Med, took Vichy France, Cairo and then Irag, and eventually won the game.

[ev]

Originally posted by I/O Error: ...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.[/QB]

I agree, subs should be harder to spot. And, I really like your idea.

I guess, this would not apply to Airfleets, Bombers and Cariers ...only to Cruisers and Battleships. Right?

If I may suggest another idea: Once a sub is attacked by a Cruiser or Battleship, the sub should be allowed to retreat to another hex and regain hidden status.

Remember the sub marker represents a dozen or so subs. In real life A surface fleet may detect and destroy one or two subs, but the rest will immediately retreat and hide.

Of course, airpower is a different story. I am suggesting this only for subs being attacked by Cruisers and Battleships.

[JerseyJohn]

How about toggling between screens in a similar manner to Clash of Steel? Only without a seperate sea war system.

The present map would be the main screen, with the central land mass expanded till only a single column of eastern hexes/half hexes represent the Atlantic.

Toggling an ocean key would enable the Atlantic screen to pop-up.

That screen would be primarily the North Atlantic with parts of Iceland and southern Greenland, only the western-most column of hexes/half hexes would indicate North America.

This would enable naval strategy, for those who enjoy it, and make possible operations involving Iceland and Greenland an option.

It's probably impossible to have more room on the main map, especially to the North to encompass all of Norway, so -- failing that, a system where German naval units skirt the fiords and move along the Artic Sea en route to the Denmark Strait, as was done frequently in the actual war (most famously by Scharnhorst & Gneisenau during '40 and Bismark & Prinz Eugen in '41) would be highly desireable.

An added bonus of all this would be the possibility of land campaigns for Iceland and Greenland; something that is not far-fetched.

If Germany had long term naval plans in 1940 they'd have gone for Iceland while taking Denmark and Norway.

Each of those locations could be abstracted as a city/port hex with two or three adjoining shore hexes -- that would allow for a defensive garrison and make a landing possible against it, the size of such operations should be difficult logistically to keep things under control (a few brigade sized units would have been likely historicall. Representing this action in corps or army sized units in the game might not be authentic but can certainly be lived with.

Bases in those locations would be of inestimable importance in North Atlantic warfare.

The Western edge would only be for U.S. and Canadian units to enter the game. I don't think a North American campaign via the North Atlantic would have been possible, not even in 1950 with the projected Axis Blue Water navy discussed at some legnth courtesy primarily of dgaad in an earlier forum concerning Canada.

If the map is changed and a trade off is involved, I'd prefer more coverage of the European & North African landmass without the Atlantic; if not a seperate ocean screen, then abstracted sea warfare similar to COS, with off map operations like an Axis invasion of Iceland & South Greenland.

---

To me, the drawback of the current ocean movement situation is (1) the U-Boats are distorted from their true role (2) it lends itself to unimaginable variants, such as an Axis invasion of Canada and even the United States. These are major flaws and, if a revised map and naval system is called for I think then that's the path that should be taken.

Failing that, the game is fun in it's present form, but at the expense of historical authenticity. I think it can easily achieve more of both.

[ October 30, 2002, 02:33 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Zeres]

Jersey John, your right the actual size of the atlantic is not currently represented.

[JerseyJohn]

Also, Zeres, as discussed at great legnth in the earlier North American forum, it has unintended and more than a bit ridiculous options like an Axis invasion of Canada after taking France and building a few escort units! I picture a Mountie watching from a hill and calmly saying, "We're being invaded, hey."

It's probably possible to invade the U. S. as well, in fact I'm certain it would be, but I can't bring myself to do it. An uncle of mine would have seen it from the long defunct Brooklyn Navy Yard, "Who the hell are dey, Joimans? Jeez'n crackers, this is serious!"

[ October 30, 2002, 04:03 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[SeaMonkey]

What a great idea JerseyJ. That's exactly what we need to produce a true "Battle of the Atlantic". Since we can't have a larger map, why not toggle to other independent maps of the areas that need expanding, which are connected to the overall strategic map. Can you imagine the possabilities, battle resolution within area campaigns. North Africa is opened up as well as the "North" (are you listening CVM). The scale could be down to operational? Wait! Tactical? OMG the ultimate war game CM with SC connection. Oh that's right the designer's can't handle it. WOW! What a dream. Sorry forum didn't mean to fall asleep.

[JerseyJohn]

Sea Monkey --

Naturally this version couldn't handle those suggestions and much of it is a different approach to the game, which I stated.

SC is fine as a game, but can never, with all the scenario edititing anyone can come up with, satisfy the suggestions that are being posted on virtually every forum that gets created.

The only answer I can see is -- instead of imposing impossible corrections on SC and distorting it beyond recognition -- to leave it as is and apply the current ideas to a more advanced game on the same subject.

My suggestions -- and at least they were suggestions and not just submental sarcasm -- were not to start on a strategic map and keep toggling and zooming till everything's focussed on a fox hole. That you saw it that way is unfortunate.

I wrote a method for greater realism and immediately said I thought it was impractical and suggested alternatives, but apparently you aren't interested in examing ideas and suggesting any of your own, flinging sarcasms like an annoying child is easier and makes the child feel he's saying something brilliant.

[ October 31, 2002, 01:13 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[urgrue]

Originally posted by SeaMonkey:

OMG the ultimate war game CM with SC connection. Oh that's right the designer's can't handle it. WOW! What a dream. Sorry forum didn't mean to fall asleep.

I dream of this too, sometimes even literally.

Even better, larger SC battles open up CM, smaller ones open up a ww2-modded Operation Flashpoint!

(i risk being flamed for mentioning an "action" game in this forum...but there is quite a bit of strategy in that game after all...)

anyway ever since Microprose promised us the EBS (electronic battlefield simulator), i've been dreaming about a grand, on-line war game, where thousands of players fight it out, and you can rise in rank and gain more players under your command, etc.

its a dream...which ww2 online is sorta-kinda trying to do but i dont think the time is ripe for this yet...too many bugs, internet connections too slow, and worst of all, much too action-oriented...

how about any SC battle automatically spawns a CM (or SPWaW) pre-generated battle to load up.

hehe...not likely to happen but probably not actually that hard to do, at least not if SC and SPWaw/CM were open source....

[JerseyJohn]

Bravo, urgrue!

[ October 31, 2002, 06:15 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[hans-micael]

*Deja Vu*Without arguing against any of the previous arguments in this thread. We have heard them all but that's not the point. What really would be an enormous help in making the subwarfare realistic were to have an invisibility factor - to give you ypou an option to hide below the sonar reach in the depths at a cost you can't spot enemy convoys.

This would keep the Royal Navy busy and when you have reseached - the subs could raid 1 turn and híde the other. And the surface battle between Capital ships and subs is farfetched. No sane skipper nor a group - wolfpack or not - would engage in combat against a group of destroyers, cruisers and battleships

Hans-Micael

[Zeres]

The reason the game is so addictive and fun is the amazing intuitive interface. You can tell that it was a labor of love for Hubert. There are so many games out there that focus on actual battlefield combat, it great that this one is different. What I'm really curious about is, if this one is called SC : European Theatre, does that mean there is a possibility we might see SC: Pacific Theatre somewhere down the road? I wonder how this engine would work simulating that?

[JerseyJohn]

A Pacific version would seem reasonable in the game system, but the required map, presumably stretching from Inia in the west to -- what? In the East should it end with Hawaii or the West Coast U.S.? North to South, should it go from the Aleutions and Kamchatka to New Zealand and the Tasmania? That map would make this one seem like child's play; and there's a lot of griping about this map -- the western edge abstraction or Canada and the U. S.. In a Pacific version they might be the eastern edge abstractions.

Despite which, I'd also like to see this thing adapted to the Pacific and the title implies it will happen. The only Pacific strategy treatments I know of were both DOS -- Gary Grisby's game and the Grandest Fleet (?) Pacific War (?) -- both of which were good, but this system is more fun.

[SeaMonkey]

JJ take it easy, the only sarcasm was directed at would be designers for my version of an "Ultimate WG" as a challenge. It was also a prompt to see whether fellow gamers had any interest in this concept. I really did believe your suggestion is valid. It is not in my nature to belittle my fellow humans for their ideas/opinions, on the contrary I embrace different perspectives as I accumulate life's knowledge.

[JerseyJohn]

SeaMonkey --

My apologies, went too far in a cranky mood and meant none of it.

Toward the end of that earlier entry I even put myself to sleep, which was good as I needed it.

It's those damn depth charges and a leaky hull, that's why my nerves are frayed.

[ October 31, 2002, 03:15 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Zeres]

(JJ) Despite which, I'd also like to see this thing adapted to the Pacific and the title implies it will happen. The only Pacific strategy treatments I know of were both DOS -- Gary Grisby's game and the Grandest Fleet (?) Pacific War (?) -- both of which were good, but this system is more fun.

--------------------------------------------------

I like the mad, genius of gary Grisby...But dare I say its too "gronard" for my taste. I find the Hubert's interface and scale much more appealing and much more fun for hot-seat games. I mean games should be fun right?

[JerseyJohn]

Agreed on Grisby's approach, at the end of a turn I'd look for a time-clock, too much like work.

[Genghis]

Ok after some prodding by another member *cough cough*

here are some good points to bring up again regarding Uboat effectiveness and the battles in the North Atlantic in SC.

I do have some suggestions to add for SC2:

1)German Q - Ships (Atlantis, Pinguin, Komet etc) to act like HQ units but only for subs by keeping them supplied.

Didn't these ships have a big impact in re-supplying Uboats out at sea so they wouldn't have to return to Kiel or Brest etc?

Also they were armed with 5 in naval guns (though obsolete) but they were able to sink quite a few merchant ships including a cruiser!

The Australian CA "Sydney" that was caught off guard and sunk near Australia in 1941 by the HSK Kormoran. Both ships actually sunk each other. Unfortunately no Australian survivors were found....but there were German survivors and their stories are surrounded by controversy.

Anyways, for SC2, it would be nice to give a chance for Germany to resupply her subs at sea using these Q-Ships. Not sure about the Graf Spee..I think she had to be resuppied in a real port.

Q-Ships then can be resupplied back up to full str when they captured other Allied merchant ships.

Again I'd like to see SC2 abstract the Uboat/Q ships war but enough depth (sorry for the pun hehe) to make a noticeable impact in the game.

[ January 03, 2003, 06:00 AM: Message edited by: Genghis ]

[JerseyJohn]

Genghis

Great point about the Q-ships and other surface raiders. There's also supply ships and milk cows and pro-Axis neutral ports where supplies were gotten from. Subs and raiders at sea should never go down to zero supplies. I think 4 would be reasonable. And a surface raider rating, as Genghis states, would also be an improvement.

Another Golden Oldie!

As anyone who reads the postings here will soon discover, I've already expressed my views on the subject and they haven't changed much since then.

Instead I have to say . . .

It's a resurrection which unfortunately uncovers the one and only clash I've had with my friend the SeaMonkey . I was thin too skinned that day and probably not feeling well, so disregard that prudish posting of mine.

He's a great guy and a lot of fun in the forums and keeps things loose when they get too serious. Had I realized that at the time my entry would have been a lot different. Reading his entry now, the one that got me started, gives me a laugh -- as it should have done back then.

[ January 03, 2003, 02:11 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[SeaMonkey]

Never taken as such JJ (clash), and Hey! go easy on yourself (prudish?),and the feeling is mutual (friend).

[Liam]

Subs are meant to be strategic only. Sometimes they have the duel role of covert action and can defend themselves in certian cases. A block on UK ability to hunt subs<increased dive rate, decreased attack as others have said>till they develop higher tech would help and US.