Subs, lets here it for them

[grimlord]

Originally posted by Wolfpack:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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.</font>

[NightGaunt]

Originally posted by Wolfpack:

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.[/QB]

So, you basically tell me that for subs to be effective you destroy the British fleet with them? That is not even close to realistic or believable.

I don't believe subs are useless, I do believe they are poorly modeled.

They are way to powerful vs surface ships, with a full strength sub you can do 6 points of damage easily against a surface fleet. If the surface fleet is 5-7 capital ships and another 15-20 smaller ships, you have just sunk 12 out of 20-25 vessels, a bit high i think. Especially considering it was usually a solo combat vessel sunk, not a fleet of combat vessels attacked by submarines.

that enables them to be used as you suggest, which is as surface combat vessels, you are challenging your opponent to destroy them, not using them as strategic weapons. Big difference.

subs were strategic weapons, not head on combat vessels, and as they are modelled now, cannot be used that way.

[ May 31, 2002, 08:17 PM: Message edited by: NightGaunt ]