Is the sub war viable now? (MP only)

[hellraiser]

I haven't got the chance to play a 1.05 H2H game yet, but while checking stuff in the new patch, I noticed the sub costs were lowered (germany can get them for 190 cash at zero tech). I wonder if any of you guys managed to do well using more subs as Axis (well, xcept for Rambo who is a well known sub freak ).

Do the mass building of subs hamper severely the deployment vs Russia? Do they pay off ? Or coupled with bombers ?

In fact the question may be put more straightforward - prioritizing the western front has more meaning now?

[Bromley]

I suppose that the counter is that all other ships are a lot cheaper now (100 MMP each). So CA and CV are more likely to be repaired.

Not sure whether the slightly cheaper bombers will have an effect on the sea war.

[Blashy]

Subs are still too expensive to consider a sub war strategy. I know Rambo has done it a few times, I have as well but that is when the game was new or versus inexperienced players.

In my testing a sub cost of 125 for the default campaign works good for both sides. Germany can build all its subs, but the Russians will breath a little more... if Germany plays it right it can severely delay Western invasions via, they will spend mpps on ASW, LR, keep their ships reinforced. Alot of mpps

[Epaulard]

I don't think subs can give sea superiority to axis by themselves.

But they can be a real MPP pain for allied player by just existing and roaming atlantic

And when you see that UK needs only 2 fleets to lock the path to atlantic for germany, axis must battle to open a way to their sub...

[Blashy]

And that is why the sub option is not an option at this time.

200mpps for 6 subs that is 1200mpps with no tech. It will simply drain Germany much too heavily.

And there should be that "free zone" near Norway, if allied ships are within two tiles of Norway, Norway should start increasing towards Axis. That is one of the way subs managed to get out, Allies were staying clear of the Norwegian coast to avoid provoking Norway. Another reason landing in Norway was an Allied planned underway but cut short due to Axis intervention.

[John DiFool the 2nd]

So there's no script for a "Allied Naval Activity

worries Norway" pro-Axis boost?

[SeaMonkey]

Subs need the ability to truly run silent, just like IRL. That is how they made it into the Atlantic and elsewhere.

Until the "surprise contact" phenomenon can be neutralized by selecting "silent" then the sub strategy is likely to be unproductive.

[Blashy]

Not so Seamonkey. It helped, but submerged subs in WW2 stood out EASILY when submerged. They could not dive deep enough to hide their silhouette.

So Planes and Long range bombers did find them.

2 reasons they managed to get out in the open waters before the fall of france and Norway.

1- They went along the Norwegian coast, they knew the Allies were staying away in fear of provoking Norway to slide towards to Axis.

2- Long range technology was not that great so they had a lot of extra mobility.

Right now the simplest solution is to have them cost 100mpps, it changes the game for both sides... changing it for the better.

[Capt Andrew]

Not so Seamonkey. It helped, but submerged subs in WW2 stood out EASILY when submerged. They could not dive deep enough to hide their silhouette.

Blashy - I respect your WW2 and personal knowledge (weren't you a submariner?), but I kinda would be interested in knowing what your source is for that statement. You've made the statement several times, and every time I see it, it makes me wonder. I know that sub spotting was "easier" when subs were in the Gulf of Mexico or the Med due to the shallower depths and gin clear waters. Not to mention that the WW2 era subs were vulnerable due to having to regularly recharge batteries and air supplies on the surface - which was typically done at night.

But as far as I know, you can't see 50 feet down into the deep water ocean sea lanes that were often patrolled. I don't have hard number stats on me, but I'm pretty sure that even the early U-boat models were capable of diving several hundred feet down.

If sub-spotting was as "simple" as putting a recon/combat air patrol in the air to spot subs, then it seems that the extensive anti-sub warfare technologies were a waste of time... LINK

According to NASA: How deep is the water at the beach before you can’t see the bottom any more? Visibility is limited to about a meter (3 feet) on the typical beach, ten meters (33 feet) in the clear waters such as the Caribbean. In fact, only half of one percent of the visible light that hits the surface of the ocean penetrates to 100 meters.

I guess they should have coined the phrase, "Run Silent, Run Really Really Deep But They Can Still See You". Haha!

[ November 29, 2006, 12:42 PM: Message edited by: Capt Andrew ]

[arado234]

Blashy the type7 which was germanys main uboat used had a maximum operational depth of 120 meters & a crush depth of 250 meters(type vIIc/41).I dont see how you could look down into the north atlantic and hope to even see half that depth.

[ChrisND]

Perhaps the subs leave a tell-tail signiture of some sort?

[SeaMonkey]

Come on Blashy, give me a break, you've got to be kidding.

Perhaps in ideal conditions when a plane from a surface vessel happened to fly directly overhead and the few spotters happen to look in the right place and weren't distracted and the sun was directly overhead, no deflected mirroring, and the birds didn't crap on the windshield and the engine wasn't leaking oil and the rivers had stopped flowing so the water was perfectly clear and no cloud shadows or fish schools or sea currents, plankton, whales, oil slicks, rain, fog, mirages...shall I go on?

Are we talking my backyard pool or the Atlantic ocean?

But everytime in SC2 a sub comes within 50 miles of an opposing warship, they are discovered.

Sounds logical to me, I'm sure it happened all the time.

Oh yeah, I wanted to come back an edit with a particular emphasis on the word(s),

"EVERYTIME", add "ALWAYS" do you get it yet Blashy? Maybe I should consult my Thesaurus for additional synonyms if not.

[ November 29, 2006, 03:59 PM: Message edited by: SeaMonkey ]

[Blashy]

I have seen the photos firsthand of air recon during WW2. It stood out.

You see this kind of stuff when you operate in a submarine squadron for one year...

All I`m saying is that if you have clear weather and air patrol, submerged or not, he was found.

The problem is the size of the Atlantic is too small.

[hellraiser]

or maybe ships move too many tiles?

[Epaulard]

Maybe try to improve/modify the silent option on subs?

It's useful only when you have a sub on/near a convoi route, so i almost never use it; it's way too risky with cruisers roaming on them, better be out of the way when you are not raiding those routes

[SeaMonkey]

Game experience for SC and SC2 dictates it is about a 5% chance you get that initial Atlantic deployed sub back to a friendly base.

This is for me and my usual opponents. I would be interested if someone else could elaborate on their experiences.

My SC conclusion is sending out subs is near a suicidal mission which precludes one of the most attractive features/strategies of playing this type of game.

[John DiFool the 2nd]

Originally posted by Blashy:

Not so Seamonkey. It helped, but submerged subs in WW2 stood out EASILY when submerged. They could not dive deep enough to hide their silhouette.

So Planes and Long range bombers did find them.

When SC2 first came out I suggested that "silent"

be interpreted as "spread out", while "active" would

equate to "wolfpack mode". It's nonsensical to talk

about "silent" sub units when said unit actually

represents 20 or so subs.

"Spread" formation then would mean smaller chance

of detection (~20 subs all spread out remember over

hundreds of square miles of ocean, so an Allied

ship could sail RIGHT OVER a sub and not see it),

less damage taken upon enemy attack, but also less

damage in terms of convoy MPPs and Allied ship

damage. You could even have a sort of uncertaintly

about the exact location of the sub when finding

it-a lone B24 spots and depth charges (1 point

damage) a lone U-boat in square (10,13), and the

Allied player sees a sub counter at that location,

but the actual sub counter from the Axis perspective

is at (8,11).

Flip them to "Wolfpack" mode and now they are in a

more concentrated area, they will both do and take

more damage and be easier to spot. Operationally

that would make perfect sense-this isn't a tactical

game at all and tactics like "silent" or "submerged"

don't make sense at this scale. Plus before the

Type XXI underwater range was the limiting factor

not visibility.

[jon_j_rambo]

Personally, I love Naval wars, just ask any of my opponents. In a current game against Liam, I have Subs+4 against Liam.

Quit crying...build a bunch, get some tech, and ambush the Allies.

[Lars]

Originally posted by Blashy:

I have seen the photos firsthand of air recon during WW2. It stood out.

You see this kind of stuff when you operate in a submarine squadron for one year...

All I`m saying is that if you have clear weather and air patrol, submerged or not, he was found.

The problem is the size of the Atlantic is too small.

Have you considered selection bias?

You're incorrect btw, and I have pointed that out before. Below 100 feet, your chances of being visually spotted by air are nil.

[Liam]

Visibility? LOL It's a massive ocean, weather would have a lot to do with it, though as ASW became more powerful and the many untold number of British and American ships possessed detection and deterent capabilities vs Subs it was a very hard fought war. Air coverage and well in the end, Numbers... The Germans couldn't build enough subs nor lose the # of subs they were losing and continue to fight the war of the Atlantic. Not with all their losses combined, what was the survival rate of the U-boat men of WW2, LOL, highest death toll I believe??? in the entire German Military Service. There Codes were cracked and that cost them, also they never had sufficient number of U-boats when it counted. Early!

Fact is that it's not historical to win a U-boat war late in the game if the Allies have counter measures. There is no rocket science to this, they have the FirePower to kill all the Axis subs later. The problem is in SC the Sub vs Surface ship issue. Which well, I suppose for specific missions did count. Many subs damaged or destroyed UK ships in Port. Though really, even a level 3 or 4 sub, which now is quite unstoppable would not do diddly against several Destroyers ramming it! I still think that Sub warfare should focus on hitting the Economy, be harder to detect and easier to kill.. That makes them more like Bombers an abstract sort of weapon. Perhaps giving them a special first strike capability they lose after their first few engagements... Their ability to retain Supply so far away is also a hinderance. Unrealistic, the milkcows for them weren't really employed to late and not to the effectiveness this game reflects.

Personally I would have subs powerful for 1 hit, then must retreat.. Every time they're detected the next turn the detection becomes greater so they must hit and run. Not be used as MainLine Battleship type weapons. a Level 4 or 5 sub is several times more powerful than any Surface ship... I'd replace every Axis ship with them personally! At least Subs can dive from enemy bombers...

Regardless it does add some interest, as Axis be certian that you do not miss ASW! At least a couple of chits. Preserve your Navy also! In case you suspect your Opponent of this strategy. I have now lost to it Twice, won't happen a third...

[Blashy]

The thing with this below 100 feet is that they rarely went that deep... rarely.

I agree with alot of what you say btw.

Just that anyone who says they should be able to hide easily in clear weather from air patrol is where I differ.

As for subs hiting ships in ports, that has been an issue I've been bringing up for some time. A sub attacking ships in ports should expect to come out with heavy losses, mines and nets made it extremely difficult, yes it did happen but throughout the whole war it was only a handfull of times.

[Liam]

I had one of Rambo's subs dive 10-12Xs!!! Lordy, what is that thing on Steriods? I believe out of his initial squadron of 6 subs, I killed 1 or 2... Though you know how hard it was to kill the rest. I had ASW 2 initially, then upgraded to 3... Didn't make a difference. It is better as Allies not to engage subs at level4. Let them dwindle raiding tons and tons of convoys and pray to catch them in open sea alone! In retrospect, all the Convoys that the USSR/USA and Canada sends to UK is not worth the cost to interdict those types of subs. I'd just be cautious about sea lanes. It would be cheaper to kill these subs in Port with Land units then attempt to kill them at sea! Air or Naval Power just cannot perform the task!

Originally posted by Blashy:

The thing with this below 100 feet is that they rarely went that deep... rarely.

I agree with alot of what you say btw.

Just that anyone who says they should be able to hide easily in clear weather from air patrol is where I differ.

As for subs hiting ships in ports, that has been an issue I've been bringing up for some time. A sub attacking ships in ports should expect to come out with heavy losses, mines and nets made it extremely difficult, yes it did happen but throughout the whole war it was only a handfull of times.

[Lars]

Originally posted by Blashy:

The thing with this below 100 feet is that they rarely went that deep... rarely.

I agree with alot of what you say btw.

Just that anyone who says they should be able to hide easily in clear weather from air patrol is where I differ.

As for subs hiting ships in ports, that has been an issue I've been bringing up for some time. A sub attacking ships in ports should expect to come out with heavy losses, mines and nets made it extremely difficult, yes it did happen but throughout the whole war it was only a handfull of times.

Well, I'd disagree with you there too. Nobody builds a sub that goes down 600 ft without planning to spend a little time down there. Most of the sub yarns I've read they usually regularly dived to 200-300 ft just to cruise about. Gets you well out of the surface swell, if nothing else.

Air patrol really came into its own when they finally got a radar set that would fit in a plane. Perhaps Bomber 2, AF 2 should really nail them.

But let's not forget, submarines are the capital ships of our day. A Stirling engine sub is a bugger, even now.

[John DiFool the 2nd]

My mod severely cut down on the attack ratings for

both subs and cruisers, which meant you weren't out

there in the middle of the Atlantic decimating each

others' fleets in a series of decisive encounters,

but doing some slow attrition instead, which is how

it was.

Is this thing on?

[Capt Andrew]

I don't think modifying the attack ratings of subs is necessary at all. I can understand increasing a port's defense against naval units though.

Making subs harder to locate and utilizing the "silent" mode is an issue. It IS too easy right now. But I believe that a sub's combat effectiveness should decrease faster than other naval units. By increasing the rate at which a sub unit's morale/readiness decreases, the amount of damage inflicted and damage taken is greatly affected - while the convoy MPP raiding can remain constant. I think that would solve alot of those issues!

As for spotting and silent mode: U-boats made NUMEROUS trips to sea, and back again. For example, U-47 "The Bull of Scapa Flow" made 10 separate patrols to sea. LINK As it stands right now, having a uboat make it from the Atlantic to a German port is impossible, and sneaking out only slightly less so. That needs to be adjusted. Just my $.02.