The sub war

[Liam]

Stalin, I disagree. Historically in WW2 there is little BB-Sub interaction. Were there, I'm certain that the casualties on both sides would be fairly bad if the sub was used properly to sneak attack the BB. The Destroyer is supposed to hunt and destroy, the BB is supposed to provide fire Support on the beachhead, it's supposed to sink other Heavy Ships. Really, a Submarine sinking a BB is a chance encounter or a lucky one. There should be dozens of ships of the line screening her protecting this valuable asset. That is the way it worked then anyway. You have to consider only 2 major ships dying during the height of the War in the Atlantic that were BBs to Subs means likely that those ships may have been caught offguard only... and relatively in SC2, or WAW I'm certian that 5 or 6 BBs could die in 1 week due to Subs is a little bit of a stretch

[Sombra]

Persoannyl I think that the concept of naval battle in SC2 WAw works quite well. It only needs a little fine tuning.

@Liam I agree that the sub vs battleship in WAw would signify that 70% of all surface battleships would ahve been sunk by subs.

@Stalin Organist yes most important is the game aspect still I dont know any turn based strategy game which does a better job as SC2 in WaW

[jon_j_rambo]

My Uncle (who is still alive today!) was on a destroyer that got sunk, not many made it.

[Hubert Cater]

Sombra, thanks and just to add to the conversation of subs vs battleships I think it should be considered that it is difficult to debate what the game should allow or model without knowing the complete picture of how players are using their naval assets. I only mention this since as SO has pointed out BBs were sunk in WWII by subs as were several other significant ship types such as Carriers and so on. The number of these ships sunk may not have been significant and it may have been due to anti-submarine technological advances that made that type of attack risky but I would still argue that it was also largely due to a general naval doctrine by the Royal Navy and others to not use BBs, CVs, and CAs in active anti-submarine duty.

For example, in early September of 1939 Ark Royal was attacked by a submarine as was Courageous which was subsequently sunk. After that the RN shifted it's aggressive doctrine versus subs wrt at least its Carriers and relied more on its escort vessles such as Destroyers to get the job done.

Note, despite this, and if a juicy target was available to a sub it was still attacked and sunk, i.e. Ark Royal was eventually sunk in 41 etc.

With that being said I can still understand some of the issues present and I think the few tweaks that will be made for the first patch will hopefully address these.

[SeaMonkey]

This has been a good exchange and there are many valid points and opinions, much of those are from our conditioned thoughts and some of us think more abstractly than others, that can neither be construed as either good or bad, but educating.

Let's face it, the details of the SC naval model are perhaps lacking when addressing our historical indoctrinations, but the effects are there for us to produce a decently accurate interaction of the units on a grand scale.

That's important and it gives us a basis to expand upon. Personally an extra DD unit here are there only addresses the current balance which exists in its infancy.

More in depth evolution of the model would address surface and air raiding of convoy lines, in fact the air interaction probably needs the most attention as long range aircraft were adept at attacking surface and subsurface vessels, not to mention recon abilities.

I like the idea of providing Bombers with more UA CTV abilities to a certain extent, but this is a radical change and could introduce more problems than it solves as the balance is very delicate.

Then again we have TAC that have the ability to upgrade and provide some of that versatility, but since they are also very effective on land units and are limited by the build maxs....well...you see how complicated and confusing the decisions can be for the players.

That is a good thing, at least that's how I envision it. To my thoughts the ability to upgrade and provide different CTV emphasis actually can change the mission orientation of the receiving unit from its primary role.

My BB scenario could evolve into a sub hunting capacity(passive in scope) by the application of ASW to some degree. They actually perform that mission better than their designed mission, not because they have been physically altered, but their taskforce configuration has.

I rationalize that I have organized a naval force with astute ASW escorts around a BB core for warding off any encountered capital ships during its mission. This is what I mean about the SC model having the versatility to evolve itself during gameplay to counter ones opponent's actions.

Now I understand that since I only play human to human (Sombra) that yes indeed my perspective maybe skewed when applied to matches against the AI, but I trust in my fellow SCers to cover that lack on my part with their qualified guidance.

[Lars]

Currently playing a Allies game. A spotted sub is still a dead sub.

Perhaps the sudden encounter hit "might" need to be decreased, but I'd lean more towards the idea of increasing the spotting % for Bombers. Makes upgrading the Canadian and Icelandic Bomber with LR more important, and it's eminently historical.

[Liam]

Precisely, those Bombers get ignored once placed, they may strike once or twice in a game. The Original Atlantic War consisted of the Long Range combination of Air-Sea Power to close the net so small on U-boats they had a narrow strip of ocean that was not patrolled in the Atlantic. Once the USA came in, it was a matter of #s, and the losses were of no great significance anymore... Previous to that, Female Britishers were promoted to not smoke so that British Servicemen could

U-boats at least now have "some survivability" in most Strategic Games they're not direct Naval Pieces but rather delegated to purely Commerce raiding and only interact with Destroyers or Convoy Escorts. Now I do understand they were also used well against Fleets, the MiniSub Frogman attack on Port Alexandria... Very decisive, and the the near threat on Tirpitz far greater than the aerial Bombing on her that missed initially.

Considering the grand scope of SC2 we take into consideration that a Sub is all these things, that you can if you wish alter it's original use and tactical objective. U-boats are torpedo armed miniships though, and we should never forget that ultimately they had the worst casualties of the War. So the fact a Sub dies the minute it tries to break out is fact. It would if any effort went into it. The Bismark was no different. If you have the resources you can kill anything! Before their tech they had to run surface quite a bit and were extremely vulnerable. Even with Tech, the Counter Tech lead to their ultimate Destruction. Watch the Movies Engima-ASW-Air-More AntiSub Ships nothing could've saved the U-boat past the US entry into the War.

Originally posted by Lars:

Currently playing a Allies game. A spotted sub is still a dead sub.

Perhaps the sudden encounter hit "might" need to be decreased, but I'd lean more towards the idea of increasing the spotting % for Bombers. Makes upgrading the Canadian and Icelandic Bomber with LR more important, and it's eminently historical.

[ebitt]

If you can afford a bomber and the LR tech, and you are lucky enough to get the Azores then you can pretty well shut down the German subs operating out of the Biscay ports. Is spotting made on a percentage basis? I thought that any unit within range is spotted.

[Lars]

I believe it's a function of range and spotting percentage.

i.e. - better odds of being spotted the closer to the bomber you are.

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by Liam:

Stalin, I disagree. Historically in WW2 there is little BB-Sub interaction. Were there, I'm certain that the casualties on both sides would be fairly bad if the sub was used properly to sneak attack the BB. The Destroyer is supposed to hunt and destroy, the BB is supposed to provide fire Support on the beachhead, it's supposed to sink other Heavy Ships. Really, a Submarine sinking a BB is a chance encounter or a lucky one. There should be dozens of ships of the line screening her protecting this valuable asset. That is the way it worked then anyway. You have to consider only 2 major ships dying during the height of the War in the Atlantic that were BBs to Subs means likely that those ships may have been caught offguard only... and relatively in SC2, or WAW I'm certian that 5 or 6 BBs could die in 1 week due to Subs is a little bit of a stretch

Of course it is.....but my point is that BB's are not invulnerable as some people seem to want to make them.

IMO you're highly optimistic about the "dozens of ships" protecting that important asset in the Atlantic - the US might have had hundreds of destroyers by the end of the war, but the RN was desperately short of them......3 or 4 destroyers was about the norm for a BB or a CV in the earlier part of the war.

GOA does a vastly superior job of modelling a sea war as an adjunct to a land war in Europe than SC/WAW IMO....albeit for WW1.

[SeaMonkey]

Interesting SO about "Guns of August". What features of that game could you see being ported into the current SC model without too much recoding.

I know you're an advocate of sea areas and the patrol scheme, but given our maneuver scenario that now exists in SC, what could be customized features from GOA that would add to the real life effect of naval warfare other than what's been mentioned?

[Timskorn]

I'm glad to see Hubert applying small changes. I still think it's fairly early to be making any drastic decisions. I think most of us can agree that subs are much more viable now. I'd also say that a change in naval tactics and focusing on getting at least ASW 1 helps even the odds against them as the Allies.

In my current game, my opponent has moved a lot of his non-DD ships alone through the Atlantic, or kept them at sea too long and were low on supply. In either case, running into one of my subs became a rather nasty experience for him.

In SC2 the Allied player could get away with throwing ships around early. Now you need to travel in groups, or not at all. If you don't want those BB's and CA's sunk in a surprise encounter, lead with your DD's first and keep them screening the others as much as possible.

[Hubert Cater]

Lars, there is no percentage applied, rather it is as ebitt stated whatever is in range is spotted.

Note, spotting is not available during bad weather as your air units are grounded until the weather clears... perhaps this was the confusion?

[Liam]

Stalin, it is true that it would be hard for the Royal navy to fully counter the U-boat threat with all the other threats at sea to her Empire. Though she managed just barely to survive. U-boat UnterseeBoat, which must translate into UnderSeaBoat? But I have bad understanding of German.

From WIKI I've heard their casualty rate was 28,000, 75%. I think that I would volunteer to be a Forward Observer Instead and surrender! That is almost like serving on the Eastern Front!

SO the cost of killing whatever the Germans killed, was not free. I'm certian unrestricted U-boat warfare on Capitol ships would've faired no better than on Convoys. Of course many of their casualties happened long after their cover was blown and they should've been retired. When the Allies had Proper Escorts, Airpower with Range to spot,ASW the U-boat was dead end weapon. A deathtrap for the Kriegsmarine. They needed to totally rethink their strategies and doctrine, it just didn't happen in time.

As for U-boat vs BB, CV or Destroyer. to Make it more realistic to cut down the damage inflicted upon the BB, perhaps we'd simulate history a bit better. Though perhaps adding a percentage chance of a torpedo hitting a vital portion of the Ship? Like 1 in 5 chance that a BB is totally sunk by 1 Sub contact and reduce the damage a Sub can inflict to 1 that to me is history

From what I understand Japan, USA, Italy, UK and France all had Subs too, all not represented in the game as they were. All effecting various Theatres. IN SC2 many of these are Abstractions, like Malta Effect.

P.S. U-47 that sank the Royal Oak would disappear March 7 1941 for good and 45 of her crew

P.S.S. 28,000 men, what did the average BB hold 2,000, 3,000 men. Naval Men are hard to train and replace. That is almost equal to 10 German BBs in manpower

[xwormwood]

Originally posted by 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.

Maybe a level below 0 could be introduced?

(-1 or -2 ?)

[xwormwood]

Originally posted by Stalin's Organist:

Shouldn't there be a "4" instead of a "2" for Germany?

Btw.: your link supressed under the Topic "Bismarck" the sinking of the Hood

[SeaMonkey]

xwood, there were only 2 over 40k ton displacements, Tirpitz and Bismark, considered true BBs. Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were thought of as BC staus at 32k.

[Guest Mike]

With 11" guns the Scharnhorst & Gneisenau were never going to rate as battleships.....like the Alaska & Guam with 12" guns built by the US late in the war their role was more like that of heavy cruisers rather than battleships.

I also didn't count the odd-ball "large light cruisers" built for the RN in WW1 - Courageous, Glorious and Furious armed with 15" and 18" guns.

The Link gives a perfectly accurate comment about the sinking of the Hood:

Sunk by Prinz Eugen and Bismarck 24 May 1941 off Iceland.

What's wrong with that?

[Fred19]

Originally posted by Hubert Cater:

Lars, there is no percentage applied, rather it is as ebitt stated whatever is in range is spotted.

Hmm, so what's the difference between "Hunt" and "Silent" mode then? :confused:

[U8led]

Originally posted by 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.

Just like to mention another suggestion could be to start Brits and US with a couple chits in ASW.

[xwormwood]

Originally posted by SeaMonkey:

xwood, there were only 2 over 40k ton displacements, Tirpitz and Bismark, considered true BBs. Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were thought of as BC staus at 32k.

Originally posted by Stalin's Organist:

With 11" guns the Scharnhorst & Gneisenau were never going to rate as battleships.....like the Alaska & Guam with 12" guns built by the US late in the war their role was more like that of heavy cruisers rather than battleships.

I also didn't count the odd-ball "large light cruisers" built for the RN in WW1 - Courageous, Glorious and Furious armed with 15" and 18" guns.

The Link gives a perfectly accurate comment about the sinking of the Hood:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Sunk by Prinz Eugen and Bismarck 24 May 1941 off Iceland.

What's wrong with that? </font>

[SeaMonkey]

Touche' Monsier Xwood!

[xwormwood]

I feel already sorry for my snippy lines, Grandmaster SeaMonkey, so no hard feelings, please.

[SeaMonkey]

The thought never crossed my mind. :cool:

[Liam]

Considering the Bismark sunk an obsolete WW1 era ship the Hood and itself was a High Tech Modern WW2 ship the exchange was worthwhile for RN