Some testing of subs-modders take note

[John DiFool the 2nd]

I just completed some testing of sub combat. Long

story short I lined up 15 uboats vs. a mixture of

British ships, and ran some trials.

Point #1: CAs do lots of damage vs. subs, even at

ASW level 0. Yeah we knew that-just pointing out

that on average, when they hit (absent subs diving)

even level 0 CAs did an average of 4 points of

damage on subs. So far all tests have been done

with a British ASW level of 0; later (have a

social engagement) I will do some more tests, but

I don't think I'll like what I see when I bump up

British ASW tech...

#2: Sub tech level has NO effect on the damage they

receive, other than diving percentage. This surprised

me, as advanced subs have other advantages,

other than "diving", which should minimize their

damage.

#3: In conjunction with #2, in some ways it is

worse for a sub to attack an enemy ship

than for the ship to attack it, as they will take

damage on every attack they perform, and

as stated above tech level will NOT minimize said

damage! Even at tech level 5 (vs. 0 level ASW),

they were taking 4 points per attack (on avg.),

even if they knocked the enemy ship down to one

point, while dive % if attacked would be 70%.

And since, even if the attack does lots of damage,

their presence will now be advertised in most cases,

the British/US will likely be able to "pile

on" the damaged sub and sink them.

#4: When attacked, sub tech also doesn't seem to

give the sub extra retaliatory power: they do 0-2

points of damage to an attacker no matter their

tech level. Think "acoustic homing torpedo",

among other things...

- - - - - -

I definitely am going to be doing some tweaks to

this. My feeling is that level 0 CAs should

probably do about 2 points of damage per sub

engagement, which will likely mean bumping their

sub attack down from the current 5, which IMHO is

much too high. Subs will also see their attack

rating vs. surface ships decline. Once I do some

more tests I'll let the modders here know; I'm not

looking for pie-in-the-sky stuff for now, just

some changes to the basics...

I'd also like to see from The Man a change in some

of the algorthims referred to above, and tech level

helpful in the ability of a sub to remain hidden

even when not silent (such as from patrols and

air power). I think it is better for the sub to

not be seen in the first place than it is to be

seen by all enemies and then piled on, even if it

dives 70% of the time...

[dispalor]

Yes, I'm missing a kind of hunt-and-hide with submarines. It's a loss not being able to play that way.

If you're going on to test this, please write your analysis about the tweaking possibities. I would be interestend in reading them.

[rclawson007]

Maybe HC will comment on his vision for the sub. But the way it is implemented encourages the player to use them for convoy interdiction instead of head to head combat against destoryers. That is not the way the Germans employed their sub fleet. The flee and hide tactic can work in SC2 but not the show down tactic...without sufficient surface and air fleet assistance anyway. At present the AI (or lack of naval plan script AI) allows the German player to gang up on the Brit fleet. I'm sure this will be fixed in a later patch. Yes subs did sink capital warships...but more than a few of those were in port or shuttling between repairs. The WW2 subs simply did not have the speed to match a warship. Don't get me wrong, I use them to take down the Brit fleet as well, but that is not their primary purpose in this game. And I expect HC is not going to change this design decision. But he did provide the editor for you to do so if you wish.

[John DiFool the 2nd]

Actually German doctrine for the most part was NOT

directed against escorts, and yes you could make a

good argument that they should have focused on

torping the escorts, as the RN was always short on

them, having to commander a bunch of ships ill-suited

to the role (corvettes, minesweepers, etc.).

Well given my testing (do some more tomorrow), I

think the CA anti-sub rating will be lowered

significantly, so that damage vs. subs is almost

entirely tech-driven (unlike the much argued IW

tech which I agree should have a relatively minor

impact). Sub damage vs. ships will also be

lowered, tho not as much-but then I have to see

what planes and CVs are capable of (I think bomber

tech improves damage vs. subs). Basically I want

to model it as the war of attrition it was, and

not the war of a few big set-piece battles we get

right now...

[Guest Mike]

I thought one of hte patched changes was that subs on "silent" were not supposed tobe attacked - but that certainly isn't teh case - the AI has no trouble finding and attacking mine.

[rclawson007]

JD - I agree that would be an improvement. A war af attrition is exactly what it was. I like the damage reduction of damage on both sides. Axis don't get battleship hunter-killers, but will still have motivation to build subs because a single sighting will not decimate your sub. I do not like the immediacy of current sub combat either...so I usually never build any. They just get crushed in a single turn as is. Think I'll add than to my list...

[rclawson007]

The silent mode just means that if you are in a shipping lane, the sub will not interdict the convoy. So no radio traffic...and no criusers heading your way. You have to shoot once, and move. Especially with the AI because it bee-lines for your position. Silent mode allows you to move along the convoy path without alerting AI. That's it. It does not mean you can not be attacked. If an Allied ship happens upon you...say good night.

[Guest Mike]

That's not what the 1.01 patch notes say:

- Subs were being attacked when running silent under FoW, fixed this

That says that subs will not now be ATTACKED - not that they will do no attacking!

[rclawson007]

Well...you can't have one without the other...

[Guest Mike]

Feel free to make some sense!! :confused: :confused:

[rclawson007]

Sorry. The only reason the subs are not attacked is because they make no attack. The game "assumes" that convoy raiding would be reported via radio and ASW cruisers dispatched to hunt them down. Silent mode - means you sit and watch the convoy pass by - as in no attack. Thus the convoy does not know you are there and does not radio for help. So no radio plee for help means no attack. Before the patch, if you turned on silent mode the sub would not interdict the convoy (i.e. no MPP loss) but the cruisers were sent you your location anyway. Thus the sub was targeted without making its own attack (in the form of a convoy raid) first.

[Guest Mike]

That sort of makes sense.....lol

But since hte AI keeps KO'ing my subs even when they're not making attacks on convoys it sort of fails at the hurdle of "does it actually hapen that way?"!

[rclawson007]

The only bit of combat I am not happy with in SC2 is subs. The Kriegsmarine commissioned 1154 U-boats before and during World War Two. Compared to other naval vessals, it was a staggering number. I like having the subs units, but would like the attack and defence numbers lowered so a sub can take 5 hits before its whacked instead of 3. Likewise, a sub unit would do minimal damage to a warship. This would encourage the player to use the subs for interdiction without it getting whacked the first time a cruise "pack" decends upon it. We have packs of subs hunting packs of cruisers. I would say that lowering the cost of subs would be ok...for the German player anyway...because right now they pack a mean hit to battleships and carriers. As a result, I never "waste" a sub on convoy duty unless I've already decimated the UK navy such that I don't have to worry about the cruisers. In every single game against the AI I clear the seas around Britian and then starve it to death with the same three subs. By the time the US enters I have 4-5 subs and I clean them out of the Atlantic as well.

[Rolend]

Well in other post about this subject I have stated my opinon but heck might as well again. Dive should be upped, when they lowered it in the patch I thought it was a mistake, it should of been upped not lowered. Also damage done to surface fleets (transports excluded) when attacked by U-Boats should be lowered, I just think it is so un-realistic to use U-boats as if they are serfuace fleets, I know some of you don't agree. Last U-boats should take damage when hitting convoys as the vast majority of U-Boats were sunk when envovled in convoy raiding.

[SeaMonkey]

The problem is not that subs give or take to much damage in an engagement. The fact of the matter is they have no chance to get away once they've been located.

Assuming the hunters are numerous, at least 4, they can keep the sub corralled with surprise contact, limiting the sub's movement until it is finally dispatched to Davy Jones Locker.

What is needed is a way for subs to evade this naval roundup. Perhaps if they go silent they should be able to move there alloted number of tiles irregardless of surprise contact and have a chance to escape.

This feature would definitely enhance the search and destroy, cat and mouse, sub vs CA scenario.

[John DiFool the 2nd]

After some more testing (as promised), I've come up

with the following solutions:

1. Sub attack for all ships should be drastically

reduced, and driven almost entirely by ASW tech

levels. Defenses however against subs should

increase by a little bit, with CAs being around a

3, and all other warships a 2 (which will protect

the CAs as they hunt while leaving BBs and CVs a

bit vulnerable. Right now I have CAs and CVs with

an initial (ASW 0) sub attack of 1, and BBs 0.

When/if a tech level of 5 is reached, the attack

rating of a cruiser will be 6.

2. Attack ratings for subs will likewise be

reduced, and be driven mainly by tech. Germany

will start with just one L1 sub, as the other two

were mainly represented by the short-legged Type IIs.

3. What I can't change is MPPs lost to subs on the

convoy routes: it is driven by tech but even a L0

sub can destroy ~50% of the points on any given

route. If the above figures are implemented then

this will have to be adjusted downwards somehow

for balance purposes, which is probably Hubert's

domain, unless you script wizards have a workaround.

For L0 I think 25% losses would probably work,

scaling up to 80-100% at L5.

I note that units have a "strategic attack"

rating, but for non-air units it is greyed out-

perhaps that would be a good place for a user-

defined raiding rating, which would also allow

surface ships to raid. Say the current level of

sub raiding is at level 3-but then we could adjust

that downwards to 1 or something, with the rating

affected of course by tech (gun-laying radar in

the case of surface raiders).

4. What I'm not sure about are bombers, since

their sub attacks are not affected by any tech.

I have given them 2's for now. Perhaps radar

tech could improve their sub attack, as was the

case historically?

Rationale: Early in the war both sides were beset

by technological problems: the Brits had poor means

of detecting subs, either by sonar or radar, while

the Germans had defective torps. What I envision

is an early war where both sides are feeling each

other out, unable to do significant damage to each

other, which is borne out by the historical record.

Later on the Allies will be able to do more damage

to subs while the subs had better have done some

research or they're dead as they were historically

by mid '43. I like the way the stakes escalate

like that. I'll be testing these settings

in Timskorn's mod.

[ June 23, 2006, 10:46 AM: Message edited by: John DiFool the 2nd ]

[Cary]

It's an interesting issue here because playing against an A/I opponent changes behavior significantly. It strikes me that the subs are best hidden away until after the fall of France, then it becomes a tough choice for the Brits whether to send their fleet chasing subs or keep it at home to drive off Amphibs.

Sealion's an awful nasty threat. On the other hand, it takes head to heading against yourself to get a sense of how much the sub hits on convoys actually hurt: Britain's MPP budget is a nasty shoestring.

[rclawson007]

Cary - I agree. I always hide the subs until after France falls. The French Navy is simply expendable and can be sent on virtual suicide missions to any U-boat sittings. As to Britain. Successful convoy raiding makes it nearly impossible for UK to repair damaged units, either during Sealion or in North Afrika. A coordinated MPP attack and Afrika offensive are very difficult to defend from mid '40 - '41.

[Cary]

Rclawson, not only that, it's interesting to note that pulling the fleet out into rough seas seems to net another 10-20 MPP loss on the Brits from the sea-damage. No sinkings, but even damage is expensive.

I'm interested to game through Sealion a couple times (I just did it once solitaire). My initial impression is that it's a high risk strategy that could pay off really well, but could also leave Russians in Berlin in 1942.

[John DiFool the 2nd]

Well after playtesting my settings, I have to

pronounce the experiment a rousing success.

I used Timskorn's AI mod, and changed the following

combat values:

Bombers: Sub Attack 3 (was 4)

BBs: SA 0 (1)

CAs: SA 1 (5)

CVs: SA 1 (3)

SSs: Naval Attack, Carrier Attack, and Naval

Defense all 1 (NA & CA were 5)

Results:

Now this is how I always envisioned the

Battle of the Atlantic playing out! My 3 subs

managed to survive to 1944, when the Allied fleets

finally took 2 of them out, with some help from

Allied bombers. In a typical encounter (no diving)

the CAs did 0-3 points of damage (usually 1 to 2),

while the subs did about the same to the CAs,

maybe a little bit less.

Soon the many allied CAs were running around with

6-8 strength points remaining. Tech BTW was subs

level 3, ASW level 1; if that was reversed I am

sure all 3 subs would have quickly been sunk.

Typically I would get into a sealane, sink some

MPPs, suffer an attack or 3, then boogie for

another convoy lane or return to base.

My worry that MPP damage would need to be lowered

proved irrelevant, as the subs were still not able

to hang around in the shipping lanes turn after

turn, so that's still balanced.

My only concern is attrition by the CAs may be too

high, but I would say the damage suffered equates

pretty well with the historical record-I even

managed a few licks on some CVs and BBs.

I like the damage that the bombers do-keeps the

u-boats away from the coasts like they should,

and indeed when I got too close I took some solid

damage.

So if any modder wants to use my settings feel

free. I would also appreciate some additional

playtesting (takes about 5 minutes to change the

data for all nations who have navies).

[Rolend]

Sounds good, I wonder what the chance is to get HC to add it in a patch.

[Desert Dave]

Various values are probably lower than I would have it, but,

Excellent!

Analysis and test-profile, JdF2. :cool:

[Timskorn]

Great work and testing John. This is the kind of stuff that can produce results, not the theory-craft some people like to proliferate on the forums.

I'm still working on my mod in terms of AI planning scripts, but I'm interested in adding your values into it soon and seeing how it turns out. The one thing I don't want to happen is make it any easier for the Axis to do a Sealion, which may be more of a probability if your subs can lure AI ships around the Atlantic.

[Desert Dave]

This is the kind of stuff that can produce results, not the theory-craft some people like to proliferate on the forums.

Ummm, TK, "theory-craft"

IS what ordinarily preceeds actual

Hard testing, yes?

When I first looked at Hubert's "design doc"

A couple years ago,

I thought to myself:

"Wow! Now,

THAT is really great theorizing!"

Yet, I appreciate yer over-arching bridge

Across these turbulent waters.

More reportage, in AAR's,

In ACTUAL testing out

Of personally conceived ideas,

Surely is a valuable short cut, like

Leaping from (... slippery) stone to stone,

Instead of peering down

From high on the bridge

Whereat you can't see the minnows,

Let alone enny Monsters of the Deep.

___________________________

Also, a reminder.

It has already been established, IMO,

That U-boots DID INDEED

Sink a fairly great percentage

Of Capital Ships,

Especially the very vulnerable CV's.

Therefore, I wouldn't lower Sub ratings

As much as JdF2 has recommended.

To each their own opinion,

And more and MORE "theorizing" please! :cool:

[Timskorn]

Dave, nice to have you back.

What I mean in 'theorycraft' are those that experienced something once, or even more than once, and deem it as fact, without truly testing it.

I agree, the more discussions we have on inbalances and whatnot the better, but it's more productive to the man who can change things to prove your point. Exclaiming something is overpowered, underpowered, broken or not working as well as it should be without real facts doesn't solve much.