The sub war

[Sombra]

I would like to know if you like the new subs in WaW. Personally I have a slight problem with 2 ablities of the subs:

- 1st is that a sub is a great killer of surface ships like battleships etc. but that the battleships are more or less helpless against it.

- 2nd the new dive away abilty its fun but that afterwards after found one time the sub is able to do a surprise contact anew is really annyoing becauyse it can and from my expereince does screw up the battles in the Atlantik.

In my exp. the game follows now many many times the following sheme:

- Germany builds up its sub fleet... US and England its destroyers... GErman surface ships try to take out the destroyers and the subs go for the battleships. IF the subs dives good they take out most of the surface allied surface ships. Combine it with subs diving away and away again being able to do new surprise contacts the desteroyer groups getting hurt badly even finding the subs again and again... In SC" the german combined with the italian fleet can build uop an amazong presence in the Atlantik still teh best ships are the subs.

[Hyazinth von Strachwitz]

as far as I can remember, Hubert mentioned that this issue will be tweaked a bit with the first patch... the Subs will be a bit weaker after this I guess.. hope that helps.

[Sombra]

thx that helps a lot

[Liam]

Historically, Submarine Raiders weren't used against BBs. Now, some can correct me if they're Naval Historians or laymen. Though from what I understand Torpedo boats in mass would've been used for this function along with other Ships of the fleet to fire big guns. Along with Naval Bombs-Torpedoes. Most Sub-BB interaction would've been midget subs used on a more or less suicidal mission in harbour. You see BBs are big-well armored-fast and are usually carrying a ton of destroyers in tow with them. Which means a Sub will not challenge one, unless to finish off a crippled one left behind. I'm certian there was the occassional interaction here, but for the most part I'm guessing that the Sub Master over BB is completely wrong.

A better way to simulate a BB killer would be to increase Carrier strike capability on BBs, and Land based Bombers. Also, it could be possible if you could have a setting for Subs, Hunt-BB that if they do engage they have a probability of destroying it at a high cost of dying themselves, thus adding realism to it all.

As for Subs diving and hiding and what not, Subs would rarely be found all at once! In the War usually it took awhile for all the Allied Efforts to hunt down what we consider a Sub-Unit in the game. I know that it's hard to simulate but most subs with little difficulty could escape destruction, especially when they hear about their pals being sunk or that there is enemy ships in the vicinity. They'd lay low, keeping surfaced at night to charge up and breath then dive out during the Light when they could be spotted and destroyed, not engaging the enemy. In this Subs should be HIGHLY elusive. Though if actively seeking Enemies, and with high ASW they should be a lot easier to destroy...

[Hyazinth von Strachwitz]

Basically I agree with you both...

But I recommend to see what Hubert cooks in WaW 1.01, and then discuss on.. unless we know what`ll be changed, a discussion is more or less philosophic.

Concerning Subs attacking BBs: right, that didn`t happen on purpose normally. But the reason was more or less a matter of doctrinal thinking.. and in the early years most german Subs were hunting alone.. the wolf pack tactic was introduced later in the war. So the current model the games uses doesn`t recreate the reality in a proper way.. and wolf pack attacking a BB group might cause damage.. but the High Command had another strategy. A war of attrition Subs against the RN was not the right way.. at least they thought that.

[Minty]

The multiple dives / move / surprise gives the sub a chance of survival which it needs. Vs BB / Cruisers they are a litte too powerful but only if you aren't careful with your BBs.

Yes HvS has a point about doctrinal thinking, at the start of WW1 the U boats were very successful sinking Royal Navy BB and Heavy crusiers in Summer 1914 before switching to merchant raiders. But they had no choice as BB and HCs changed their tactics and stopped steaming around so slowly.

I think WaW is about right, yes subs are incredibly powerful and in WW2 it took enormous efforts intelligence/ship production/ASW technology/ long range aircraft to defeat them.

Only think i would change is to make Strategic bombers have an ASW upgrade so if the player chooses he can can upgrade the LR and ASW of his bombers.

Other than that it's spot on. subs were a huge threat and in SC2 they could be almost dismissed without effort. now they can't be.

[Edwin P.]

Good point Minty on giving SB the option of an ASW upgrade. This would recreate the tendency of German subs to avoid being inrange of land based aircraft.

I would also give air units a new mode called Naval Recon - Air units can spot only Naval Units including subs out to their full range; not their shorter naval spotting range, if they start the turn in Sub Recon mode, i.e. they are dedicated to naval spotting and can't spot land units.

[Tread Head]

Powerful Subs?

I have a problem just getting them out to sea without getting sunk?

[Edwin P.]

Try moving the subs in Silent Mode

[Sombra]

Originally posted by Tread Head:

Powerful Subs?

I have a problem just getting them out to sea without getting sunk?

- "Never walk alone"

- "In a pack we are strong"

- Silent is our way to move

- A big brother on our tail to surprise sub hunting destroyers is our life insurance.

-Having a technological edge helps a lot

[Hubert Cater]

With WaW and with the introduction of Destroyers we were finally able to separate the roles of each naval type closer to how they were used historically.

So in this respect BBs, CVs, CAs are naturally going to be much more vulnerable to subs than they were in previous SC versions but it is still difficult for me to gauge further drawbacks to the current system without better understanding how players are using their units in game.

For example, if let's say the UK player is hunting subs with his capital ships it will make sense that a good portion of them will be sunk (or not fair that well) as they are not the same type of sub hunter that a Destroyer now is. Additionally if the UK player does not invest in ASW and apply it appropriately then they will also suffer in the Battle of the Atlantic. Also, and for the same reasons described, using non Destroyer units for Sub screens can also be a potential problem.

There will be modest change with the first patch that will reduce the amount of surprise damage for all surprise contact but even here it may just be a matter of rethinking the typical approach to the Battle of the Atlantic.

What I mean by this is that up to now players generally used all ships at their disposal to challenge Axis subs and for the most part never really invested in ASW. This approach can still be applied but with WaW the consequences are apparently more grave so the UK player generally has more difficult choices to make. For example they can accept initial losses on the convoy routes due to the lack of Destroyers and ASW levels and wait until they can properly respond, or they can risk their more vulnerable ship types in an earlier and immediate attack on Axis submarine activity.

I'm not saying the current model is necessarily perfect but at least it does do one thing that the earlier versions of SC never were really able to do, i.e. force players to take Subs, ASW and Sub hunting much more seriously than ever before which for an initial assessment is a step in the right direction.

I think the change in surprise contact will help (and may be enough) and if it still needs tweaking after the first patch I will gladly consider further adjustments.

[SeaMonkey]

I've already addressed this, subs are not too powerful unless you, as the allies, do not take the appropriate steps.

TH has given you all a clue, I'm not going to explain again how to neutralize the axis sub threat. Part of the fun of the game is figuring out how to adapt to different schemes your opponent hatches.

Now go......and have fun!

[Sombra]

Well a good axis player will hunt the destroyer with its surface ships and use its subs to sink any surface vessel to threaten his battleships...

[ November 22, 2007, 11:03 AM: Message edited by: Sombra ]

[SeaMonkey]

Yeah, you're right Sombra....all the while the UK just leaves their CVs & BBs in port.

[Sombra]

do you play only against the aI or sometimes against other humans SEamonkey?

[Hubert Cater]

Sombra, I think I can understand a bit more of what you are saying here... I could try giving the UK player an extra Destroyer and that might help a bit but I still want to make sure that I don't give the UK player too much help as it may hinder initial Axis successes in the Atlantic. Very tricky to get the balance just right but I am open to other suggestions and/or feedback, pro or con, to the current discussion.

[Sombra]

thx hubert. very much

[ November 22, 2007, 11:56 AM: Message edited by: Sombra ]

[John DiFool the 2nd]

I'd add a free DD unit or two (with 0 ASW tech) in Sept. 40 to represent the sale of the USN flushdecker DDs to the RN in the "Destroyers for Bases Agreement" they had.

[Minty]

If you want to help the UK then the ASW for the Strat bombers is a fun option. fits the whole multi layered combined arms feel of WaW. UK has enough ships.

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by Liam:

Historically, Submarine Raiders weren't used against BBs.

HMS Barham:

HMS Royal Oak

also Kongo, Shinano (well it was almost a battleship once!!).

North Carolina was hit but able to continue ops

[Liam]

Yes indeed, some Major BBs were sunk by Subs, but I refer to some info I picked up on a site: WellsBrothers ATT

1.

Submarines vs Battleship in WWI

Submarines proved to be a significant threat to battleships during World War I. Submarines torpedoed and sank at least seven British and French pre-dreadnought battleships, while an eighth (the Russian Peresviet) was sunk in a minefield layed by a submarine. The faster and more heavily protected dreadnoughts fared considerably better. The only dreadnought sunk by a submarine was the British Audacious, which foundered after striking a mine that had been laid by a submarine. None were sunk by torpedoes, though several were hit.

While battleships were never intended for anti-submarine warfare, curiously enough, one submarine was actually sunk by a battleship! HMS Dreadnought rammed and sank the German U-29 on 18 March 1915 off Morray Firth.

2.The Inter-War Era (1919-1938)

It should not be surprising that battleships did not see any combat in the Inter-War era. It is therefore hard to judge their effectiveness or their vulnerability given the lack of actual combat data. Nevertheless, political authorities considered them enough of a threat to feel that their numbers should be limited by treaty.

Technology advanced in this era, as it usually does, and naval weapons technology was no exception. Aircraft carriers were actually developed during World War I, but between the wars they started to become more of a threat to surface ships. Additionally, submarines and torpedos continued to advance.

Battleships of course responded to these technological threats. Antiaircaft guns were developed, and older battleships were fitted with anti-torpedo bulges. Most new battleships built between the wars had anti-torpedo protection included in their hull designs.

3.

Submarines vs. Battleships in World War II

Submarines had less success against battleships than they did in World War I. While submarines and torpedes improved between the wars, anti-submarine sensors, weapons, and tactics improved even more rapidly. As a result, HMS Royal Oak and HMS Barham were the only battleships sunk by submarines during World War II. The Japanese battlecruiser Kongo was also sunk by a submarine near the end of the war.

Perhaps as notable as these submarine successes were the failures. For example, the Japanese submarine I-19 torpedoed the American battleship USS North Carolina (BB-55) in September 1942, yet she not only remained afloat, but was able to continue operations. The same attack sank the carrier USS Wasp (CV-7). There were numerous other instances where submarines fired torpedoes against battleships, and missed completely. History books seldom record such unremarkable failures, but we've found numerous instances.

Doesn't Seem accurate that a Sub is a BB Killer does it? Of the dozens if not nearly 100plus BBs of WW2? That'd be somewhere like a 1 or 2% death rate to Subs

My Resource: http://home.att.net/~wellsbrothers/Battleships/obsolete.html

Since only what 2 BBs so many, and so many were obsolete WW1, Battlecruisers, etc.. I think my point is proven

[ November 22, 2007, 10:26 PM: Message edited by: Liam ]

[Hyazinth von Strachwitz]

@ Hubert: I would love another british destroyer.. you know my opinion from various other threads

[Guest Mike]

Doesn't Seem accurate that a Sub is a BB Killer does it? Of the dozens if not nearly 100plus BBs of WW2? That'd be somewhere like a 1 or 2% death rate to Subs

alternatively of the 4 battleships attacked (Kongo had been reclassed as a battleship in the 30's by the Japs) 3 of them were sunk, for a 75% success rate.

There were many fewer battleships on the seas in WW2 than in WW1 - in WW1 the British had or completed 43 dreadnought battleships and battlecruisers.

Germany completed 26, the USA 16, Japan 8 (plus some so-called "Semi-dreadnoughts"), Russia 7/8 (depending on whether you count the Imperator Nikolai as completed or not) France 7, Italy 6, Austria 4.

total = 117/118

In WW2 the worlds battleship/battlecruiser fleet maxed was:

US: 25 (plus 2 Alaska's finished a bit late)

UK: 20 (15 built pre-war and 5 KGV's completed during the war)

Germany: 2

Japan: 12, including the 2 BBV "Battleship carriers"

France 3

Italy 7

69 - plus the Soviet survivors of WW1 if you want to count them

World Battleships

But in WW1 no dreadnought battleships were sunk by submarine torpedo at all - 1 Austro-Hungarian one was sunk by torpedoes from an Italian MTB.

Major warships sunk in WW1

So on that evidence it seems to me that WW2 subs were infinitely better at hunting BB's than WW1 subs were.

[Liam]

Stalin,

It's a point. Though 2 or 3 Battleships is hardly much to consider, when Carrier born aircraft, land based Anti-Shipping Units sunk/damaged dozens of BBs, CVs, etc... Who really needs subs for this job when they're much better commerce hunters.

The Most Mighty Western BB of the War was destroyed by a biplane off a Carrier! That and thousands of BB CV shells

[Guest Mike]

It's not a matter of "needing" them...it's what they do.......your point is like saying artillery does 90% of the killing so let's not bother with rifles.

But the whole naval system doesn't work anyway.......ships and subs are not just land units that move on water - they have fundamentally different modes of operation, vulnerabilities and requirements that can't be modelled accurately with the 10-pt even attrition and hex movement system in SC.......so you're only ever going to get sub-optimal results from them if you try to compare them to actual history.

Best to ignore what they could do "in real life" and just do what you can with them in the game regardless.