The Shipping War

[Hubert Cater]

PanzerMike subs can increase their dive percentage via research.

[Lars]

Ah, I see.

I assumed surface ships would get the same benefit.

[Ludi1867]

Hubert, in one of the earlier replies you noted that you could not comment on DD damage caused by ‘surprise’ without more details. In a recent PBEM game I again encountered what I really believe is a flaw in naval warfare in the WaW system with regards to U-boats. This was fairly early in the game, so my DD were not improved from the standard provided in the 1939 full war campaign. I suspect my opponent had not improved his U-boats, either, although I did not confirm.

I found a U-boat on the Egypt convoy route the ‘traditional’ way, by running into it with a DD. The full strength U-boat lost one point in damage – and inflicted 8 points of damage on the DD. The DD was at supply level 8, readiness 58 and morale 96. While the readiness was a bit low, everything else was not bad. I next moved a not quite full strength carrier up to attack the U-boat. The U-boat dived and moved out of sight. A second full strength DD (same supply and essentially same readiness and morale) conducted a search routine and was ambushed again (this is still the same turn, still the same U-boat). The U-boat lost another single point of damage, and inflicted yet 8 more points of damage on a second DD. A second carrier – again less than full strength moved up and attacked successfully, a third DD unit moved up and inflicted more damage, leaving the U-boat with one point remaining. A cruiser group moved up and the U-boat dove and vanished. I cannot easily determine the supply, readiness, etc of the U-boat as it was out of contact at the end of the turn, but it had been raiding for a couple of turns previous, so probably supply level 8, pretty good morale and readiness.

In one turn the Royal Navy used a significant proportion of its strength to attack one U-boat. Two of its full strength U-boat hunting specialized groups were crippled – suffered 8 points damge out of their full strength 10 points. In return the U-boat was crippled (9 points damage out of 10), but survived and is again undetected. The U-boat’s survival is understandable, but the massive damage suffered by units designed to hunt U-boat’s seems quite ridiculous.

[Lars]

A bit harsh of a turn for you, but not necessarily that unrealistic.

http://www.naval-history.net/WW2RN29-WarshiplossesBritish.htm

[Ludi1867]

Lars

I can assure you that the losses I experienced are totally unrealistic. British and Commonwealth escorts (destroyers, frigates and corvettes) were lost to U-boat attack – but far more U-boats were destroyed in return. In the early part of the war it was in fact rather unusual for U-boats to attack escorts. This was logical, as escorts are small, usually moving at a good rate of speed, and maneuver evasively as a matter of course. In addition, an attack on an escort all too often led to a fatal counterattack. In late summer 1943 the U-boats introduced acoustic homing torpedoes and – for the first time in the war – deliberately targeted escorts as a matter of tactical policy. In one battle a minor tactical success was achieved, where three Allied escorts were sunk and one badly damaged. In return the escorts only definitely killed one U-boat (credit for a second U-boat kill is undetermined to this day, while a third fell victim to a VLR Liberator). After this one success the Allies introduced countermeasures that again significantly reduced the chance of a successful U-boat attack on escorts.

This is not to suggest that escorts did not suffer losses, as they certainly did, but the majority of these losses were not at the hands of U-boats, and in almost all circumstances – the battle of ON 202/ONS 18 noted above being one unusual exception – U-boats suffered significant losses when they attempted to engage concentrations of escorts. Using the figures from your website, German U-boats destroyed 33 RN destroyers (just over 21% of all DD losses). In return Allied naval forces (this is not broken out further on the website you indicate) destroyed 275 U-boats. In short, DD losses were about 12% of that they inflicted on U-boats.

I do not really like statistics – there is lots of wiggle room in the stat I use above – but the overall point will remain valid even if a lot more research was done and much more detail introduced: many, many more U-boats were sunk by escorts than vice versa.

This is currently not reflected in SC2 WaW. U-boats can – and do – inflict more damage on escorts (ie the DD unit) than is anywhere near realistic in WaW at present.

[Lars]

As you say, stats give a lot of wiggle room.

So look at them with an open mind. If you add in the mines (not in game, I pushed ) and aircraft losses (nobody competent loses ships in the game to aircraft in the Atlantic) to the losses for DD to U-Boats alone, it comes out about right. Roughly 30% casualties for the type.

So yeah, U-Boats are overpowered when a DD bumps into them. I agree. But broadly speaking, the MPP cost on both sides is about right. And DD is cheap.

You had a bad day. That sub should have gone to the bottom. If it did go down, the cost to Germany is far higher. And I think you'd be a lot happier about the situation to boot.

[Ludi1867]

Even with an open mind I disagree with the 'ambush' advantage that U-boats have against DDs. I can accept the ambush advantage for U-boats against all other vessels, but it does not make sense to me for DDs. A well placed U-boat cannot (or should not) be found in one turn. This U-boat inflicted two turns of 20 MPP losses per turn. Then it diverted a major proportion of the RN, inflicted heavy losses on the hunting forces (very close to the cost of a U-boat) and survived. And it ambushed DDs TWICE in the same turn...I guess I am not as broadminded as you.

[Lars]

Cuz you got the short end of the stick.

Still playing with U-boats. They are a lot stronger than they used to be. In SC and SC2, they were usually wiped off the map by the end of 40. So far, I think it's an improvement, but maybe I'll come around to your way of thinking. We'll see.

Think it might be wise to not even go actively looking til you're at Anti-Sub 1 and Long Range 1. Set up a blockade and wait till the Americans join. Let them bump into you.

[John DiFool the 2nd]

I am of the opinion that the Battle of the Atlantic should certainly be more of a battle of attrition, vs. a quick series of high-damage battles-i.e. damage done, both ways, should be lower.

Subs, when given the proper training and doctrine, most certainly could inflict losses on escorts. Witness the success of the USS Harder (can't get link to Wikipedia to work here) in the Pacific taking on escorts. Yeah, one of them finally sunk her, but that's the risk you have to take. Keep that up over a year or so and eventually the convoys will be stripped of sufficient cover, and THEN you can go to town on the merchants.

[Ludi1867]

It is quite erroneous to compare US submarine activity in the Pacific with U-boat activity in the Atlantic. This is easily seen if the ASW doctrine and equipment of the IJN is compared with the RN (or USN or pick a major Allied Navy in the battle of the Atlantic). US submarines had significant successes against Japanese escorts because of their flawed ASW doctrine and relatively poor equipment. This significantly aided the US attack on shipping in the Pacific, which would have been truly devastating early in the war if the torpedoes had worked. ASW was not even seen as an important role for Japanese escorts, and relatively few Japanese escorts were produced for this role, even well into the war. This flaw may seem astonishing in light of Japanese aims and the vital importance of shipping resources to Japan, and war resources to the front, but that indeed was the case. The Allied navies had generally effective ASW doctrine (if the very brief phase of sending out carriers in hunting groups is overlooked), and paid remarkable attention to improving and adapting this doctrine throughout the war. Allied equipment was reasonable at the beginning, and became extremely good by mid-1943. The reason you will not find a U-boat equivalent of the HARDER is NOT because German submariners were less aggressive (although BdU policy recommended avoiding engagement with escorts until the deliberate adoption of an anti-escort first policy briefly in September 1943), but simply because they could not have succeeded with such a tactic in the Atlantic.

[SeaMonkey]

Alright time for my 2. I'm into summer 42 modelling the sub vs surface Atlantic combat scene and I have to say, its beautiful.

Really ...really well done Hubert and betas.

Yes you can get caught and hurt big time with whole task forces sunk in a meeting engagement, just depends on who runs into who.

Your naval forces out there on active patrol, maybe getting a little to aggressive, just a wee bit overstepping a competent plan......

Well..... KABOOM!!! Your dead! I might add as it should be. Now those high tech subs are dreadfully efficient....all the better to get yourself some ASW...or bare the consequences(refer to caps above).

But if your a smart RN admiral and you figure where those subs are cycling to for supply or raiding (like you don't get some clues) .....well lets just say the wolves become the sheep, even if your a tech level behind or so.

Ha! First to shoot gets to apply the boot, squashing your Kriegsmarine uboats like cockroaches, with vary nearly a damaged hull here or there.

Yepper ....them DDs applied like a swarm of wasps puts some mighty nasty welts on those poor uboat mariners, but then again.....?

Yes sir turnabout is fair play and they are sneaky and if you didn't bring enough naval assets, well them sharks can bite back and steal away baby.....steal away!

Talk about stealing...poor UK gets ravished, I'm talking down to a mere 40 MPPs per turn...OUCH! Axis on their way, those knobbyhealed boots stomping all over continental Europe.....

But payback is hell......and competently driven, the Allies will be back....and hell is coming with them.

Once again...HC and the gang...great job...

It just feels right!

[ November 12, 2007, 08:38 PM: Message edited by: SeaMonkey ]

[Hubert Cater]

Ludi1867,

If you still have the original EMAIL turn please feel free to send it to me so I can take a look. Otherwise it is still difficult to comment as your opponent may have upgraded his subs if he achieved a higher research level or he may have also had a higher experience than you expected. Not saying that there may not be a bug but there are many variables that can affect the outcome of surprise combat and without seeing it first hand it really is difficult for me to conclude one way or the other.

[Retributar]

"Magnificient Retooling Work on Submarines" & "Naval Warfare!"... being done here!.

Im no 'Naval-Buff',...'never-the-less' i am still greatly encouraged by this naval aspect retrofit as well as by the other improvement-development's in this game!.

'SC2-WaW', or it's variant, will very-likely become a 'Flag-Ship-Game' for many of us!.

Someday, a 'War in the Pacific' game will hopefully surface!. "Pacific Theatre" Naval Mechanic's will need to be properly reflected there, as they would not be exactly the same as in the "European Theatre".

[Lars]

Originally posted by Ludi1867:

The reason you will not find a U-boat equivalent of the HARDER is NOT because German submariners were less aggressive (although BdU policy recommended avoiding engagement with escorts until the deliberate adoption of an anti-escort first policy briefly in September 1943), but simply because they could not have succeeded with such a tactic in the Atlantic.

Not so.

They considered doing it from the start, but decided to go raiding instead.

[Hubert Cater]

Just a follow up on what Ludi reported and it was indeed a case where his opponent had Level-2 subs to his 0-Level ASW destroyers.

In this case it will produce a skewed surprise contact result but one thing I can experiment with for the next patch is to simply have the Hidden Attacker Bonus reduce the attacker losses for the sub but not necessarily increase the defender losses. This and matching experience and research levels on the part of the player should help normalize this type of situation a little bit more.

This would of course be a generic change and essentially the idea is that the surprised encounter would benefit the hidden unit in terms of potential losses (lowered losses via a higher readiness) but the surprised unit would suffer normal damages from a regular attack/defense combat calculation.

[Lars]

But does it really need to be fixed?

Seems to me he blundered into the trap twice, with weak destroyers, and just got what was coming. And as is, he still almost sank the thing.

[Hubert Cater]

It might not as there will also be changes to how and when subs dive and move away (which was part of his bad luck) with the next patch, i.e. the new sub mode proposals, but I'll experiment with this with the testers and see how it goes before we release the official patch.

As mentioned the *fix* is simply to reduce the extra bonus applied to suprise combat, in Ludi's case the surprised Destroyers, but you are correct that the player is still responsible for the proper state of his units, i.e. applicable research levels etc. otherwise he will still suffer from skewed results as he logically should.

[SeaMonkey]

Hubert, I have had good results with this naval model, its just a matter of who gets surprised. I ran a short engagement off Casablanca between two level 3 subs with 2 ribbons, going against 4 destroyers, 2 CVs, and 1 BB and 1 Ca all with level 2 ASW and not any experience.

When the RN and RCN ran into the subs they received anywhere from 4 to 8 strength losses depending on the type, DDs suffering least. I ran into the subs with transports and amphibs and they died.

When the subs ran into the DDs a whole different pattern emerged as they took anywhere from 3 to 6 damage diving mostly when follow up attacks by the CVs. The DDs took maybe 2 or 3 strength hits at the most.

It was even possible for the Ca and BB to finish them off when down to 1 or 2 strength points.

The subs never resurfaced more than 2 tiles from the emergency dive tile and many times the DDs picked them up when they surfaced as they(DDs) were arrayed in echelons.

Needless to say if their dive wasn't successful in evasion they sunk quickly.

My main question would be, how far can WW2 subs run submerged in terms of SC tiles? Reason being if they could move a 100 miles and SC tile=50 then the model is accurate. If they can run 200 miles underwater then they need to resurface 4 tiles away or less depending on a % experience or maybe tech level driven or perhaps damage dependent.

Now level 5 subs with schnorkels may get a half a dozen tiles in the perimeter resurfacing zone. I haven't researched it yet, but a larger perimeter would undermine the "corral" technique as it is still kind of in play with the two tile max.

But needless to say this new model is a quantum leap forward.

[ November 13, 2007, 07:16 PM: Message edited by: SeaMonkey ]

[Ludi1867]

This naval model is a significant improvement. In game terms there is no real reason to change the model, as changing tactics from hunting with DDs to blockades can achieve reasonable kills on U-boats eventually. This is a game solution, however, which does not really reflect how things actually went in the Battle of the Atlantic (I really think discussion of the Pacific War is not worthwhile here, as it was a very different conflict).

Accepting that things could be left as they are, however, does leave open the question of what might be done to perhaps give the Allied player more pro-active options, as opposed to the much more passive set up a blockade and wait (hope) the U-boats will run into it. Part of the problem is that the convoy lines themselves are a ‘fudge’. This change has both advantages and disadvantages for U-boats in the game. A U-boat now only has to sit on the lines to do damage and gain experience. DDs can only gain experience through combat with other units. This will often mean that DDs will have an experience disadvantage against U-boats. Improving readiness is best done in harbour, but – even given the substantial and welcome increase in the number of harbours – this can be a problem for the Allied player. So perhaps leaving DDs in a convoy ‘box’ linked to a specific convoy line could reduce the MPP damage done if a U-boat pack starts attacking(by 10% per DD unit? 20%?), and would allow a DD to gain experience? This is a ‘passive’ option in one sense, although arguably it is somewhat like the commitment of escorts groups to convoy routes. Maybe there would also be the possibility of a DD inflicting a point or two of damage on a U-boat in this circumstance? This actually starts to set up an attritional situational somewhat similar to many parts of the Battle of the Atlantic.

Another option might be to give DD units a two hex spotting range against U-boats. This would allow active searches to be undertaken, but any search would be slow if an ambush were to be avoided. This is gamey, but so is the two hex evasion rule. (Type VIIC U-boats, by far the most common type in the campaign, had submerged ranges of 80 to 130 miles. This rarely meant in a straight line, and few U-boats ever went anywhere near that distance when trying to evade. In short a one hex evasion is perhaps historical, but the whole discussion is rather detached from historical reality).

The starting level of DDs might also be adjusted up – the RN and USN both started with basically effective antisubmarine sensors and weapons. It’s not until three years into the war that much improvement in equipment occurs for Allied ASW, so DDs arguably should start at level 1 ASW.

These are just points to ponder – as SeaMonkey argues you can effectively work around the game constraints to achieve results.

[arado234]

The VIIC uboat(the work horse)17.6 knots surface

7.6 knots submerged(to evade escorts)It could travel 80 miles submerged at 4 knots on a full charge.It could travel about 8500 miles surfaced at about 10 knots.I guess it would be a tech.level 2 or 3.

The XXI(Real nasty)could travel 15.6 surface and 17.2 submerged(short distance to evade escorts).It could travel submerged 340 miles at 5 knots.It could travlel about 15000 miles at 10.5 knots surfaced.Tech level 4 or5.?Practically undetectable by all of the latest Allied sonar.

Type XXI uboat #2511 in the begining of may 1945 got within 500 meters of the crusier H.M.S.Norfolk undetected.Destroyer escort Sonar couldnt hear it.

[SeaMonkey]

You know Ludi, I like that suggestion, perhaps Uboats should take a possible 1 point damage on raiding convoy lines if......and only if the nations on either end have ASW tech. Percentage chance goes up the higher the ASW tech level.

And Ludi, CVs can spot and damage subs in ports and on the open ocean, don't need DDs to divulge them, it just takes the proper force mix.

[SeaMonkey]

Nice a234.

[Lars]

Originally posted by SeaMonkey:

You know Ludi, I like that suggestion, perhaps Uboats should take a possible 1 point damage on raiding convoy lines if......and only if the nations on either end have ASW tech. Percentage chance goes up the higher the ASW tech level.

And Ludi, CVs can spot and damage subs in ports and on the open ocean, don't need DDs to divulge them, it just takes the proper force mix.

So I sit out there and raid till at strength 5 and then you show up and send me straight to the bottom? Nah, forget it.

I fear we're going to change it back to what we had, which we didn't like. In short, the massive Allied advantage at sea sweeping it clean early.

Let's give it awhile before changing anything. And Ludi, you have some good points, but run a game and dump some chits in ASW and LR first, then report back.

[pzgndr]

Part of the problem is that the convoy lines themselves are a ‘fudge’. This change has both advantages and disadvantages for U-boats in the game. A U-boat now only has to sit on the lines to do damage and gain experience.

It's not totally a 'fudge' since there were only a few major convoy lines. It would be great if the game would allow multiple lines from one country to another and players could swap back and forth, but we have what we have. Given that, Allied player does have the option to adjust convoy MPPs. So U-boats will do MPP damage only if Allied player allows.

Hubert has made some minor adjustments regarding subs which still need playtesting. WaW provides a much better naval game now and players should give it some more time before proposing other changes. U-boats should be tough to find/kill during the mid-game and Allies should be challenged to win the Battle of the Atlantic by 1943/44, and WaW does a pretty good job of simulating that now.

[Baron]

I kinda like the new model (although I still think surface units on a convoy route should be allowed to raid).

I don't like the idea of subs taking losses on a convoy route just because they raid though. They already take losses from weather and if the game made them take hits for raiding then why even have units? Create a tech called subs - the more resources go into it the more damage they do - the allies would have a box called escorts that would work the same way. I wouldn't want to see that much abstraction.

I'm not sure what the answer to DD experience would be though. Spending time on a convoy route seems like it would be excellent training, however to get good at killing subs they would have to be attacking them ... alot. I don't know what the figures would be but I doubt every escort in the Atlantic attacked a contact much less destroyed one.

As far as just leaving the subs on the convoy routes - I had an opponent point out to me that leaving a sub on the same route for more than 2 raids courts destruction - he was right.