Subs, lets here it for them

[Tellu]

I have now read in many places comments like:"since some people think subs are too bad and some think they are too good then they must be about right."

Now could those of you who regard as subs good in they intented use please make they case here.

Why do you see the subs are good?

For I cant in my honest mind think of any reasons why German subs could do even remotely satisfacting job.

[Ron]

While I am less than satisfied with the way subs are portrayed in SC they can be effective when used to attrit/destroy the opposing British Navy. The German player will be 'ahead' of the MPP game by exchanging subs for surface fleets due to the high cost of rebuilding said fleets. If committed to strategic sub-warfare, the German can start pumping them out 'fairly' safely once France is conquered. Used wisely and in groups of 2-3, the British player will be hurting if he decides to fight for the Atlantic. At 358 MPPs for a sub versus 550-700 MPPs for a fleet and taking the respective incomes of Britain and Germany into account, you can see who will come out ahead in the end. The big question, during the full campaign, is how many resources will Germany be able to commit to subs while dealing with other pressing matters on the continent?

Ron

[Wolfpack]

Originally posted by Tellu:

I have now read in many places comments like:"since some people think subs are too bad and some think they are too good then they must be about right."

Now could those of you who regard as subs good in they intented use please make they case here.

Why do you see the subs are good?

For I cant in my honest mind think of any reasons why German subs could do even remotely satisfacting job.

Because if you concentrate on German sub production, and use the Italian fleet well, you can really screw up Britain's defenses. Too easy to kill subs? Perhaps, I think they need to be able to evade more until the Allies get higher levels in Sonar, but even so, they can be useful. I think a lot of the problem here is the time limit. Everyone is trying to do everything in just one year, so things get shortchanged. I've been trying to play the game like I would a full game lately, and it makes a difference. Take out France, then sit tight and prepare for my next move. I use the French bonus to build air fleets and use these to work on the British fleet in the North Sea. Or, if none are within range, bomb the RAF into submission. If I can work on the fleet fine, if I go after the RAF, I'll bring out my 2 cruisers to lure the RN closer to my shores. The North Sea Sub I run through the Channel once the English have been hurt or fled from my air fleets. By this time (especially if the yugos have gone allied and I can put them down) I can afford another sub or two. 4 Subs in the Atlantic can do a lot of MPP damage to England, and once you have a few out there, the dangers of a fleet attack lessen greatly. Just put them a hex or so apart so if one is blundered into, then the follow up ships will most likely hit the other hidden subs. England is given a choice. Repair damaged fleet (expensive) or continue their preparations for defeating Sea Lion. Whatever their choice is, they're in trouble, since either their big advantage (Naval power)is going to be destroyed, or they're going to leave themselves wide open to the Germans. Anyway, that's how I've used subs. They aren't perfect, but they're far from useless.

[rleete]

Originally posted by Wolfpack:

I think a lot of the problem here is the time limit. Everyone is trying to do everything in just one year, so things get shortchanged. I've been trying to play the game like I would a full game lately, and it makes a difference.

I think this is a huge part of it. I have been playing like it isn't going to end in a year, too. It does make a difference. Rushing too fast leads to impromptu attacks, instead of a concerted effort.

Great synopsis on the subs, as well. I'll have to try some of that in my next game.

[Tellu]

I have no problem with the effect of subs in strategic warfare. IMO thats about right.

I have problem with German subs being unable to get to the Atlantic. Use France as base you say. Ofcourse Im doing that. But that is not always an option and it was not option for Germany before the Fall of France. But still German used subs from their own harbours before they got France. This is the greatest problem here.

I can not get a sub from German harbour to Atlantic. period.

That is a flaw.

If I play against another human my one German sub in Atlantic WILL NOT SURVIVE for longer than 2 tunrs. In that time anyone with little cordination will hunt it down with superior surface fleet.

That is a flaw.

Im not saying subs were all powerfull. IMO German could have used it limited resources better than producing hundreds of subs especially 1942 onward. But Germany did use subs and some of them survived for some time at the sea. And in no account an entire fleet of subs(what I see the sub counters reflecting) was destroyed in 2 weeks which is the case in this(otherwise great) game.

And this is a flaw.

[Compassion]

I've said it before but no one thougth much of my idea, but I think it works. Convoys are abstracted and I think that strategic use of subs (and bombers too for that matter) shouldb e too. THere should be a force pool allocation for startegic weapons that happens off board. Subs that are assigned to surface fleet suppression work fine as they are. Wolfpacks that attack fleets directly do the proper amount of damage and are properly fragile. But those that are destined to hunt the convoys should be handled differently as should fleets given over specifically to convoy escort/ASW duty.

THis is similar tothe way that 3r handles things and it would make the game more 3r like, but it DOES make a kind of sense and would work well in that system.

[Wolfpack]

Originally posted by Tellu:

I have no problem with the effect of subs in strategic warfare. IMO thats about right.

I have problem with German subs being unable to get to the Atlantic. Use France as base you say. Ofcourse Im doing that. But that is not always an option and it was not option for Germany before the Fall of France. But still German used subs from their own harbours before they got France. This is the greatest problem here.

I can not get a sub from German harbour to Atlantic. period.

That is a flaw.

If I play against another human my one German sub in Atlantic WILL NOT SURVIVE for longer than 2 tunrs. In that time anyone with little cordination will hunt it down with superior surface fleet.

That is a flaw.

Im not saying subs were all powerfull. IMO German could have used it limited resources better than producing hundreds of subs especially 1942 onward. But Germany did use subs and some of them survived for some time at the sea. And in no account an entire fleet of subs(what I see the sub counters reflecting) was destroyed in 2 weeks which is the case in this(otherwise great) game.

And this is a flaw.

I don't have much problem getting them there, once I've prepared the way as you can see in my post above. I agree it is hard to do before you take out the RN, but I've managed to sneak one through there beforehand too.

[Lars]

Wolfpack, I tried your strategy tonight and it worked like a charm.

I usually go for long range fighters on the second turn. After getting Long Range Level 3 and five airfleets daring the Brits to come out fight I had no problem running the Channel. Destroyed the RAF if the navy didn’t want to play that turn, and if they did, so much the better. Three subs under aircover gave the Brits fits. Was really tempted to turn back from Yugoslavia and give Sealion a stab, but I wanted the points to build more subs.

I would totally agree it’s mostly a time issue. Now if only the demo went another turn…

[Wolfpack]

Originally posted by Lars:

Wolfpack, I tried your strategy tonight and it worked like a charm.

I usually go for long range fighters on the second turn. After getting Long Range Level 3 and five airfleets daring the Brits to come out fight I had no problem running the Channel. Destroyed the RAF if the navy didn’t want to play that turn, and if they did, so much the better. Three subs under aircover gave the Brits fits. Was really tempted to turn back from Yugoslavia and give Sealion a stab, but I wanted the points to build more subs.

I would totally agree it’s mostly a time issue. Now if only the demo went another turn…

Generally if Sea Lion is a go, I'll do it as quick as possible after taking France before the Brits have a chance to build up, but after the Subs are out would be a good time too. A lot less money coming in for repairs then. The real key to Sea Lion is getting London on the first or second turn, then you can keep funnelling troops across without having them sit in transports for a turn off the coast. Of course, if you've already taken out the RN and RAF, that is no longer a problem.

[BloodyBucket]

IIRC, Hubert said that subs were being tweaked. Anyone remember if he said how?

[Desert Dave]

One strategy for getting out into the Atlantic early -- soon after (or, if victory is immenent, before)the fall of France, send an air fleet up to the hex directly below Bergen.

On that same turn put the sub into port at Bergen, and if interested in extra fire-power (I use the CA to finish off half-damaged BBs that the more severely damaged sub cannot do itselft), put the CA in the hex above Bergen.

Every time the AI sends the carrier down about 5 or 6 hexes, and the 2 accompanying surface ships even further down the coast.

Next turn you can slip the sub (and CA if part of your strategy) out over the top of England.

This may seem unfair, but then again this is the game we must play if we enjoy winning now and again. :eek: In chess, we don't worry that the Bishop cannot go side to side since it is designed specifically for diagonal movement, yes?

[Tellu]

Wolfpack, You only account playing against the AI. Thats hardly a strong case for subs. Thats a case for you playing better than AI.

Destroying British Home Fleet before using subs? Whats the point then? You dont need the subs after that. You just can start sea lion and get done with the Brits for once and for all. You dont need to starve them with your subs anymore.

The subs were Germans weapon of attrition agains the UK. They cant be used as that in this game.

[Lars]

Originally posted by Tellu:

Wolfpack, You only account playing against the AI. Thats hardly a strong case for subs. Thats a case for you playing better than AI.

Destroying British Home Fleet before using subs? Whats the point then? You dont need the subs after that. You just can start sea lion and get done with the Brits for once and for all. You dont need to starve them with your subs anymore.

The subs were Germans weapon of attrition agains the UK. They cant be used as that in this game.

The point is then you could ignore England, keep them weak, and go after Russia sooner instead.

[grimlord]

i dont agree with the idea that subs are usless far from it...in my experience the germans can build subs quicker and cheaper than britan and in doing so can deny the english the atlantic...if anything subs are too powerfull against surface ships...

i run my starting sub off to the top of the map..it will usually survive...then i build 3-4 subs after the fall of britian....

once they are ready i sortie to the atlantic and promptly sink the entire british fleet that is sent after them...this is wether or not it is the AI or a human player controlling them....

after that it is bye bye to 10-30 resource points for britian every turn...

i dont see sealion as an option against human players...if a person is smart he runs the french airfleet and a few corps to england to bolster the english defense and abandons the french to their own fate...the french under human control and oppossed by a human germany cannot and will not survive (at least the one year scenario)...

i do all this in preperation for my russian invasion and i try and play the game as if it did not end in 41....

as to the idea that the german subs cannot "escape" the norh sea...so what...in reality the german sub warfare of 39-40 was pathetic...the english actually outnumbered the KM in subs in commission...the sub war for the atlantic did not start until 40-41 and effectively ended by 43...the seizing of brest and nancy as sub harbors really opened the atlantic to the germans....as it does in this game...

the only flaw that i find with the strat warfare as to subs is that they do too much surface damage and too little economic damage...in effect they are too hard to kill and do not inflict enough resource loss to england...it is far easier for england to abandon the atlantic to the germans than to fight for it.

[NightGaunt]

the key to all the people supporting the current sub state is they are playing the AI.

Against a human opponent, subs get smashed pretty quickly.

There are a couple of problems with subs:

1. Too strong against surface fleets, just too much damage. When people can put out a list of capital ships subs sank and it is only 8-10 names long, it tells me subs were NOT effective against capital ships.

2. unable to move thru enemy units. This prevents subs from basing in Norway/Germany, where they actually based in the war.

3. to easy to destroy because they are easily located, then surrounded and destroyed.

I have no problem with the mmp damage they do, in fact I think it is perfect, the problem is a human opponent will easily hunt down and destroy subs. I want to use them as a strategic weapon they were intended to be, that can not be done effectively right now.

[Tellu]

NightGaunt, my points exactly.

People cant see anyone can whoopass the AI. Its diffrent world when played agains someone who truely thinks.

Grimlord, try to grasp this: You should be able to use subs BEFORE you take out Britain, their fleet and stuff sauerdraut down their throats. The strategic stagnation of Britain with subs is quite irrelevant if you own the Isles. Now aint it so?

[grimlord]

Originally posted by NightGaunt:

the key to all the people supporting the current sub state is they are playing the AI.

Against a human opponent, subs get smashed pretty quickly.

There are a couple of problems with subs:

1. Too strong against surface fleets, just too much damage. When people can put out a list of capital ships subs sank and it is only 8-10 names long, it tells me subs were NOT effective against capital ships.

2. unable to move thru enemy units. This prevents subs from basing in Norway/Germany, where they actually based in the war.

3. to easy to destroy because they are easily located, then surrounded and destroyed.

I have no problem with the mmp damage they do, in fact I think it is perfect, the problem is a human opponent will easily hunt down and destroy subs. I want to use them as a strategic weapon they were intended to be, that can not be done effectively right now.

i disagree the i dont feel that the subs get hunted down that easily..in fact i feel that the english do not have enough of a chance against subs as it is...i agree with the cap ship part though...they were very ineffective against surface vessels the germans managed to sink two cap ships and one was at port!

the mmp da is not high enough to reflect the strangling of the brit econ as was the case in 41...as to norway

the map should be larger and then the subs could get out...also remeber the amount of air cover the germans put in norway to help the subs escape adn to interdict the russian convoys...

[grimlord]

Originally posted by Tellu:

NightGaunt, my points exactly.

People cant see anyone can whoopass the AI. Its diffrent world when played agains someone who truely thinks.

Grimlord, try to grasp this: You should be able to use subs BEFORE you take out Britain, their fleet and stuff sauerdraut down their throats. The strategic stagnation of Britain with subs is quite irrelevant if you own the Isles. Now aint it so?

i agree completely that is why i feel that they do not do enough econ damage...i do feel that they do too much surface da however....

[Tellu]

Originally posted by grimlord:

i disagree the i dont feel that the subs get hunted down that easily..in fact i feel that the english do not have enough of a chance against subs as it is...i agree with the cap ship part though...they were very ineffective against surface vessels the germans managed to sink two cap ships and one was at port!

Grimlord, Pley for the Allies once. Try to see how fast you can catch that lone German sub in the Atlantic!

I assure you it wont last for long.

Then play agains a human opponent as Allies. You can do the same in no time. The lone sub is dog food!

Tell me exactly how is it going to survive there against both French and British fleets? :confused:

I have no idea how it could be done since the "ocean" is so small the fleets can comb through it in 2 turns. If incredibly lucky the sub can survive 3 turns!! :eek:

[Compassion]

Originally posted by NightGaunt:

the key to all the people supporting the current sub state is they are playing the AI.

You may be right. I thikn that you needto be caredful on a couple points, though...

1. Too strong against surface fleets, just too much damage. When people can put out a list of capital ships subs sank and it is only 8-10 names long, it tells me subs were NOT effective against capital ships.

Is this becasue of relative combat prowess or becasue of doctrine on both sides? I tend to think of the latter rather then the former.

3. to easy to destroy because they are easily located, then surrounded and destroyed.

Again, this is becasue of he enforced use of subs as an extension of the surface fleet (with a couple nifty special attributes)... a use that runs counter to doctrine.... as well as cap ship task forces doing ASW duty.

I have no problem with the mmp damage they do, in fact I think it is perfect, the problem is a human opponent will easily hunt down and destroy subs. I want to use them as a strategic weapon they were intended to be, that can not be done effectively right now.

Agreed in spades.

[grimlord]

Originally posted by Tellu:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by grimlord:

i disagree the i dont feel that the subs get hunted down that easily..in fact i feel that the english do not have enough of a chance against subs as it is...i agree with the cap ship part though...they were very ineffective against surface vessels the germans managed to sink two cap ships and one was at port!

Grimlord, Pley for the Allies once. Try to see how fast you can catch that lone German sub in the Atlantic!

I assure you it wont last for long.

Then play agains a human opponent as Allies. You can do the same in no time. The lone sub is dog food!

Tell me exactly how is it going to survive there against both French and British fleets? :confused:

I have no idea how it could be done since the "ocean" is so small the fleets can comb through it in 2 turns. If incredibly lucky the sub can survive 3 turns!! :eek: </font>

[grimlord]

now to sum it all up:

i feel that as the game is now the subs are far too powerful as surface warships and not powerful enough as commerce raiders....

that being said i dont think radical change is needed...

simply reduce their attack and up the amount of mmp da and increase their submerge ability

i also like the idea of them being able not to be suprised and to move through enemy ships

the sub of wwii was a slow moving and noisy ship that had to stay surfaced for far to long to be really effective outside of a commerce roll...but in a wolfpack role in the commerce field they preformed admirably

another thought would be to reduce their cost

this would go along with huberts idea that subs should and did die...i believe by wars end they had over 90% casualties...

[Wolfpack]

Originally posted by NightGaunt:

the key to all the people supporting the current sub state is they are playing the AI.

Against a human opponent, subs get smashed pretty quickly.

There are a couple of problems with subs:

1. Too strong against surface fleets, just too much damage. When people can put out a list of capital ships subs sank and it is only 8-10 names long, it tells me subs were NOT effective against capital ships.

2. unable to move thru enemy units. This prevents subs from basing in Norway/Germany, where they actually based in the war.

3. to easy to destroy because they are easily located, then surrounded and destroyed.

I have no problem with the mmp damage they do, in fact I think it is perfect, the problem is a human opponent will easily hunt down and destroy subs. I want to use them as a strategic weapon they were intended to be, that can not be done effectively right now.

Not true at all. I've played quite a few PBEM battles, and done well with subs. So the first sub will get hunted down quickly...not necessarily, if you immediately move it down to do commerce raiding it will yes, that's why you hold off for a bit. Take France, get the Atlantic ports, build up your air force. Get at least 1 more (Preferably 2 more) subs. Now the British player is faced with a choice.

1. Use the fleet to hunt down and take out your subs? Okay, the door is wide open for Sea Lion, and the MPP loss will cripple the defense.

2. Leave the subs alone and defend the British Isle? Well, now he's got to face your air power and if I'm not going to do Sea Lion, he's losing MPPs for nothing.

3. Split the fleet and try to do both? Worst choice. With a decent number of subs, properly spaced, the half that goes to hunt subs will get hurt. And the half that stays home is probably going to be torn up by my air force.

In response to your #2...what do you guys think that a capital ship counter is just a huge mass of BBs and carriers running around? Those counters represent perhaps 2-4 capital ships and a much larger number of cruisers, destroyers, supply ships, ect. How often does the sub kill the entire fleet? only if he's already down a good bit. Therefore, consider the hit the counter takes as the fleet losing it's smaller ships. Anyone who knows the navy knows how much your effectiveness will be reduced by just losing a few of those precious supply ships.

To sum up, the subs are a good strategic weapon in that they cause your opponent (AI or Human) to react to your plans. You cause damage to his support inrastructure. And, you can make him pay for any mistakes he makes. As I stated above, they aren't perfect, but they are far from useless as you seem to suggest.

[ May 31, 2002, 05:27 PM: Message edited by: Wolfpack ]

[Lars]

1. Too strong against surface fleets, just too much damage. When people can put out a list of capital ships subs sank and it is only 8-10 names long, it tells me subs were NOT effective against capital ships.

Perhaps because people are not looking at the whole picture. Cruisers and Destroyers don't get counted as Capital ships.

"During the war the Germans sank 5,150 allied ships displacing 21.57 million tons. Of this, the U-boats were responsible for 2828 ships of 14.69 million tons. To place this in perspective, the Germans sank the equivalent of the entire British merchant fleet at the start of the war. Additionally, submarines destroyed 187 warships, including 6 aircraft carriers and 2 battleships."

Or looking in the wrong ocean.

"The Japanese Merchant Marine lost 8.1 million tons of vessels during the war, with submarines accounting for 4.9 million tons (60%) of the losses. Additionally, U.S. submarines sank 700,000 tons of naval ships (about 30% of the total lost) including 8 aircraft carriers, 1 battleship and 11 cruisers."

2. unable to move thru enemy units. This prevents subs from basing in Norway/Germany, where they actually based in the war.

I agree with you here, but at this map size and hex scale what can you do?

Besides, the Germans put an air fleet in Norway. You should try the same.

3. to easy to destroy because they are easily located, then surrounded and destroyed.

"However, this tremendous destruction came at a heavy price: the Germans lost 785 submarines of 1,158 constructed."

"Of the total 288 U.S. submarines deployed throughout the war (including in the Atlantic), 52 submarines were lost with 48 destroyed in the war zones of the Pacific. American submariners suffered the highest loss rate in the U.S. Armed Forces, with 22% killed. Of note, the personnel of the U.S. Submarine Force comprised only 1.6% of the American Navy."

The doctrine wasn't to go for Capital ships anyway. It was to go for the Transports. I'm going to wait for the full version to see how it all balances out.

The quotes were taken from here. Interesting reading.

RESULTS OF THE GERMAN AND AMERICAN SUBMARINE CAMPAIGNS OF WORLD WAR II

[ May 31, 2002, 05:34 PM: Message edited by: Lars ]

[Lars]

TGIF

[ May 31, 2002, 05:32 PM: Message edited by: Lars ]