Guest Mike Posted May 19, 2006 Share Posted May 19, 2006 One of the things that irks me is the poor modeling of the battle of the Atlantic. the hunt for the German subs at the start of the war is just plain silly, and KO'ing them all is about as unrealistic as it is possible to get. I wonder if there can't be a more abstract system for assessing the submarine war? Eg the Germans buy U-boat "points", the allies buy escort "points", they allocate them to areas of operation (Nth Atlantic, Arctic, Baltic, Sth Atlantic, Med, Black Sea, Nth Sea, US Coast) There's options for instituting convoys, wolfpacks and unrestricted sub warfare in various areas, perhaps as researchable tech, perhaps not. Escort strength is then assessed against a series of criteria - the number of escorts vs the number of convoys (or unconvoyed shipping if appropriate) to give its effectiveness. Sub effectiveness then depends upon the effectiveness of the escorts - if there are not enough escorts then the subs make a killing. If there are heaps then life gets difficult for the subs. The computer does all the "combat" on an abstract scale each turn. Areas such as the Black Sea & Baltic can be part of het submarine war by affecting the efficiency of the ports and supply status of the cities on those regions. the Nth Sea wouldn't have much effect as there isn't much shipping in teh area, so no-one would allocate many pts to it. It also would allow the flush-deck destroyers to be part of the game - the US gifts "x" number of escort points to the UK. Also the US escorting its own shipping prior to actually entering the war can be represented by some escort points. I think surface raiders can be represented by units as they are now, but there should be some effect on convoys if they are in the area - the Bismark & Tirpitz weer seen as masive threats to teh convoys after all!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted May 19, 2006 Share Posted May 19, 2006 Just make it easier for the subs to be made into more of a strategic weapon, no great feat with programming. Just go about making them poor combat ships that dive well. When they submerge or run silent the detection should be next to impossible, unless ASW is real high....that would reflect history. When they Raid they should be made vulnerable, having to move raiding locations from time to time... Even with Submarine research, it should only extend their operational time and kill ratio...Also Range that is about it... Not their combat ability toward Capitol Ships, they were not meant to kill Battleships, they were meant to raid Shipping... This would in all create a sort of strategic bombing fleet of Atlantic Supply. It would be nice if the convoy actually moved on the map German Bombers and Surface Raiders did account for some tonage and could've been more a little abstract but regardless still interesting.. Intel tech could be for spotting and deciphering Enemy codes, especially on U-Boats.. a Useful tool next to ASW, making the Battle of the Atlantic very real and as it was historically something one must devote resources to to conquest before the Land War may begin. You could be more historical in giving the USA more Assets to aide, making for a 3 front war now, Atlantic for D-Day...North Africa and USSR AND if you give the Allied fleets the ability to inflict similar damage, without Air and some Navy in Norway the Axis can be cut off from that resource and the Axis should be also similarly cut off from North Africa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Dozer Posted May 19, 2006 Share Posted May 19, 2006 what about reducing uboat coast as you can see tons o uboat names. Then give Uk more cruisers say from USA or something. That way the UK can still kill the subs and can use cruisers as a shield to stop sealion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desert Dave Posted May 19, 2006 Share Posted May 19, 2006 that is about it... Not their combat ability toward Capitol Ships, they were not meant to kill Battleships, they were meant to raid Shipping... Nope, Liam, the UnterWasser boots Were not intended to be such as you suggest, As was the case with IJN submarine force, But, As you will see, It's what happened. _____________________________________________ One small excerpt taken from a very lengthy reseach document I provided for Hubert about a year ago, RE: comprehensive ETO naval wars; these are UK Capital Ships sunk during all of WW-2. Those SUNK by U-boots are marked with *** _______________________________________________ CAPITAL SHIPS Battleships *** BARHAM (31,100t, 1915) Sank by U-boat, torpedoes, off Sollum, Egypt, 41/11/25 PRINCE OF WALES (35,000t, 31/3/41) Sunk by Japanese torpedo-aircraft, E coast of Malaya, 41/12/10 *** ROYAL OAK (29,150t, 1916) Sunk by U-boat torpedo, Scapa Flow, Orkneys, 39/10/14 Battlecruisers HOOD (42,000t, 1920) Sunk in action with Bismarck, N Atlantic, 41/05/24 REPULSE (33,250, 1916) Sunk by Japanese torpedo-aircraft, E coast of Malaya, 41/12/10 Monitor TERROR (7,200t, 1916) Bombed (22nd) and sunk off Derna, Libya, 41/02/23 AIRCRAFT CARRIERS Fleet carriers *** ARK ROYAL (22,000t, 1938) Torpedoed (13th) by U-boat and sunk, W Mediterranean, 41/11/14 *** COURAGEOUS (22,500t, 1917, ex-cruiser, carrier from 1928) Sunk by U-boat torpedo W of Ireland, 39/09/17 *** EAGLE (22,600t, 1924) Sunk by U-boat, torpedo, W Mediterranean, 42/08/11 GLORIOUS (22,500t,1917, ex-cruiser, carrier from 1930) Sunk by gunfire, "Scharnhorst" and "Gneisenau", latitude of Narvik, Norway, 40/06/08 HERMES (10,850t, 1924) Sunk by Japanese aircraft off Ceylon, 42/04/09 Escort carriers *** AUDACITY (ex-Hannover, German prize, 11,000t deep, 1939; as 9/41) Sunk by U-boat torpedo, N Atlantic, 41/12/21 *** AVENGER (13,785t deep, 2/3/42) Sunk by U-boat, torpedo, W of Gibraltar Straits, 42/11/15 DASHER (13,785t, 2/7/42) Sunk, probably due to petrol explosion, South of Cumbrae Island, W Scotland, 43/03/27 CRUISERS *** BONAVENTURE (5,450t, 24/5/40) Sunk by U-boat, torpedoes, S of Crete, 41/03/31 *** CAIRO (AA ship, 4,200t, 1919) Sunk by U-boat, torpedo, off Bizerta, Tunis, 42/08/12 CALCUTTA (AA ship, 4,200t, 1919) Sunk by aircraft, bombs, during evacuation of Crete, 41/06/01 *** CALYPSO (4,180t, 1917) Sunk by U-boat torpedo, S of Crete, 40/06/12 CHARYBDIS (5,450t, 3/12/41) Sunk by E-boat torpedoes, English Channel, 43/10/23 CORNWALL (10,000t, 1928) Sunk by Japanese dive bombers, Indian Ocean, 42/04/05 COVENTRY (AA ship, 4,290t, 1918) Sunk by dive bombers, E Mediterranean, 42/09/14 CURACOA (AA ship, 4,290t, 1918) Lost in collision, NW Approaches, 42/10/02 CURLEW (AA ship, 4,290t, 1917) Sunk by aircraft, bombs, off Ofotfiord, Norway, 40/05/26 DORSETSHIRE (9,975t, 1930) Sunk by Japanese dive bombers, Indian Ocean, 42/04/05 DRAGON (On loan to Polish Navy, 4,850t, 1918) Damaged by human torpedo, off Normandy Constructive total loss, 44/07/08 *** DUNEDIN (4,850t, 1919) Sunk by U-boat, torpedo, between W Africa and Brazil, 41/11/24 DURBAN (4,850t, 1919) Sunk as blockship for Mulberry Harbour, Normandy, N France, 44/06/09 *** EDINBURGH (10,000t, 6/7/39) Sunk by destroyer, torpedoes, after U-boat damage (30th Apr), Barent's Sea, Arctic, 42/05/02 EFFINGHAM (9,550t, 1925) Struck submerged rock and wrecked, Vestfiord, Norway, 40/05/18 EXETER (8,390t, 1931) Sunk in action with Japanese surface craft, Java Seas, 42/03/01 FIJI (8,000t, 17/5/40) Sunk by aircraft, bombs, during evacuation of Crete, 41/05/22 *** GALATEA (5,220t, 1935) Sunk by U-boat, torpedo, off Alexandria, 41/12/14 GLOUCESTER (9,600t, 31/1/39) Sunk by aircraft, bombs, during evacuation of Crete, 41/05/22 *** HERMIONE (5,450t, 25/3/41) Sunk by U-boat, torpedo, E Mediterranean, 42/06/16 MANCHESTER (9,400t, 1938) Sunk by E-boat, torpedo, off Kelibia Roads, Tunisia, 42/08/13 *** NAIAD (5,450t, 24/7/40) Sunk by U-boat, torpedo, E Mediterranean, 42/03/11 NEPTUNE (7,175t, 1934) Sunk by mine off Tripoli, Libya, 41/12/19 *** PENELOPE (5,270t, 1936) Sunk by U-boat, torpedeo, Anzio area, W Italy, 44/02/18 SOUTHAMPTON (9,100t, 1937) Sunk by dive bombers, E of Malta, 41/01/11 SPARTAN (5,770t, 10/8/43) Sunk by aircraft, glider-bomb, off Anzio, W Italy, 44/01/29 TRINIDAD (8,000t, 14/10/41) Sunk by own forces after damage by torpedo carrying aircraft, Barent's Sea, Arctic, 42/05/15 YORK (8,250, 1930) Lost at Suda Bay, Crete after damage on various dates by explosive motor boats and aircraft, 41/05/22 _____________________________________ Now, let' see... there seem to be An AWFUL LOT Of... *** U-boot sinkings Of RN Surface Ships, (... to include THREE A/C Carriers) Percentage wise, wouldn't you say? Ummmm 16 out of 43= 37 % OK. Now we know. U-boots WERE - in fact, VERY deadly Capital Ships hunter-killers, In addition to customary Convoy attacks, yes? __________________________ Also VERY interesting... NINE (9) Of the 16 sinkings Occurred in the Mediterranean!! And who sez warn't nary no U-boot presence In the Med? LOL. [ May 18, 2006, 08:40 PM: Message edited by: Desert Dave ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John DiFool the 2nd Posted May 19, 2006 Share Posted May 19, 2006 Too late for all that, plus I've railed against the "abstract" sub war in the past. Whatever changes need to implemented need to work within the current system. The problem is that we didn't have "one" sub, operating in a 50x50 mile square, but either a wolfpack, spread out over several "squares", or individual subs scattered all over the Atlantic. My sugggestions: 1. "Not hunting" should be changed to "scattered", where instead of not sinking any enemy ships (and what sub would pass up targets of opportunity?), "scattered" would reflect individual subs doing their lone wolf thing, while "grouped" would be oriented towards wolfpacks. Scattered mode would be less risk, but also less reward (but liable to sink some convoy points even when somewhat removed from the convoy lanes), while grouped would be higher risk, but also higher reward, but not this silly "two hits and they are all dead" thing we currently have. 2. I'd cut down both damage subs do against on-map ships, and the damage CAs/CVs do against subs (with a small chance for a "critical hit" to reflect those times when subs nailed capital ships, but that may be outside the scope of the current combat algorithm). 3. Tech: Allied AS tech at level 0 would be pretty ineffective, as it was historically. Level 0 sub tech wouldn't sink very many MPPs either. As AS tech increases damage done would also increase (natch), but as the diving percentage for subs would also increase with tech I think there would be a nice dynamic there (with level 5 type XXIs mostly avoiding damage, but once in awhile getting walloped around a bit). 4. Starting forces. Without overhauling the system too much we can stick with the current ship lineup, but I would drop German subs down to two at start, and put some of the allied CAs into the heavy units (adding some more BBs to compensate). 5. I would agree with one idea of SO's: allied CA units could be placed onto convoy routes in a semi-abstract manner, where they could protect the convoys (in accordance with tech ,experience, etc.) and do some damage to subs on or near those convoys. There would a tradeoff, as there is with the subs in point #1 above: more MPPs saved, but fewer subs sunk than if the cruisers were on the map and found a wolfpack. We may not see anything like the above until SC3, but I don't think too much code would need to be overhauled. Right now I've been reluctant to mod this aspect of the game too much because I don't know what Hubert has in store, and there are limits to what I can do right now. Liam's idea isn't bad-for a tactical game. For a game in the strategic level, "submerged" doesn't mean too much (tho I would allow it for reasons stated above). [ May 18, 2006, 08:28 PM: Message edited by: John DiFool the 2nd ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desert Dave Posted May 19, 2006 Share Posted May 19, 2006 Too late for all that, plus I've railed against the "abstract" sub war in the past. Whatever changes need to implemented need to work within the current system. Right you are JdF2, And with VERY informed and insightful posts Such as the rest of what you Wrote out, Just above (... excepting point #5, which I don't get at all - irrelevant, IMO) We just may make it. Have no doubt, I make all sorts of "sub & naval" suggestions On the Beta Board. Sometimes I get inspiration from These sorts of posts. And, I always give credit where credit is due, Something a few Need to learn - for the very first time? To do. [ May 18, 2006, 09:59 PM: Message edited by: Desert Dave ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted May 19, 2006 Share Posted May 19, 2006 Originally posted by John DiFool the 2nd: Too late for all that, plus I've railed against the "abstract" sub war in the past. Yeah it's too late, but I don't see that you railing against it is in any way relvant! my idea is that it should be abstracted "reality" - ie identify the areas that submarines operated, identify the tactics that were used for and against them, identify the factors that made them successful or otherwise - then model those factors into the "abstract" system. such an "abstract" system can be a lot more realistic than something like the current one - especially if it ha all the right labels and players don't see the background stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted May 19, 2006 Share Posted May 19, 2006 Yes, capable on a sneak attack, capable of destroying or badly damaging their foe. Though damaging and retreating ? How many of these were opportunistic? How many were a strategic gameplan with an Entire Navy on the prowl in a group. How many U-boats would survive 5 Bombardments from the Royal Navy's Largest more powerful Ships. http://uboat.net/fates/losses/ Go to this link and check '43 and see how many U-boats were lost to Warship. Then calculate yours vs my data and all of together. In general a Sub was capable with a hit but in General it's likely for every U-boat kill, they lost 30-40 of their own, and a Capitol ship is not a Mini escort Carrier, a Destroyer or any other smaller ship or outdated ship. Even though these were still very capable vs u-boats... The Big Momma's? Most of Huge Battleships sunk by U-Boats, Subs I know of were those used in Pearl, those the Italians used. Few cases of Germans using it not as many.. They were almost suicidal even the Brits themselves sent suicidal subs against Tirpitz, what happened? Italians and Japanese were most successful with these tactics I think a U-boat should damage but rarely kill a Capitol Ship... It is possible but all the Destroyers surround these Behemoths would of made it a suicide mission in most cases Originally posted by Desert Dave: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> that is about it... Not their combat ability toward Capitol Ships, they were not meant to kill Battleships, they were meant to raid Shipping... Nope, Liam, the UnterWasser boots Were not intended to be such as you suggest, As was the case with IJN submarine force, But, As you will see, It's what happened. _____________________________________________ One small excerpt taken from a very lengthy reseach document I provided for Hubert about a year ago, RE: comprehensive ETO naval wars; these are UK Capital Ships sunk during all of WW-2. Those SUNK by U-boots are marked with *** _______________________________________________ CAPITAL SHIPS Battleships *** BARHAM (31,100t, 1915) Sank by U-boat, torpedoes, off Sollum, Egypt, 41/11/25 PRINCE OF WALES (35,000t, 31/3/41) Sunk by Japanese torpedo-aircraft, E coast of Malaya, 41/12/10 *** ROYAL OAK (29,150t, 1916) Sunk by U-boat torpedo, Scapa Flow, Orkneys, 39/10/14 Battlecruisers HOOD (42,000t, 1920) Sunk in action with Bismarck, N Atlantic, 41/05/24 REPULSE (33,250, 1916) Sunk by Japanese torpedo-aircraft, E coast of Malaya, 41/12/10 Monitor TERROR (7,200t, 1916) Bombed (22nd) and sunk off Derna, Libya, 41/02/23 AIRCRAFT CARRIERS Fleet carriers *** ARK ROYAL (22,000t, 1938) Torpedoed (13th) by U-boat and sunk, W Mediterranean, 41/11/14 *** COURAGEOUS (22,500t, 1917, ex-cruiser, carrier from 1928) Sunk by U-boat torpedo W of Ireland, 39/09/17 *** EAGLE (22,600t, 1924) Sunk by U-boat, torpedo, W Mediterranean, 42/08/11 GLORIOUS (22,500t,1917, ex-cruiser, carrier from 1930) Sunk by gunfire, "Scharnhorst" and "Gneisenau", latitude of Narvik, Norway, 40/06/08 HERMES (10,850t, 1924) Sunk by Japanese aircraft off Ceylon, 42/04/09 Escort carriers *** AUDACITY (ex-Hannover, German prize, 11,000t deep, 1939; as 9/41) Sunk by U-boat torpedo, N Atlantic, 41/12/21 *** AVENGER (13,785t deep, 2/3/42) Sunk by U-boat, torpedo, W of Gibraltar Straits, 42/11/15 DASHER (13,785t, 2/7/42) Sunk, probably due to petrol explosion, South of Cumbrae Island, W Scotland, 43/03/27 CRUISERS *** BONAVENTURE (5,450t, 24/5/40) Sunk by U-boat, torpedoes, S of Crete, 41/03/31 *** CAIRO (AA ship, 4,200t, 1919) Sunk by U-boat, torpedo, off Bizerta, Tunis, 42/08/12 CALCUTTA (AA ship, 4,200t, 1919) Sunk by aircraft, bombs, during evacuation of Crete, 41/06/01 *** CALYPSO (4,180t, 1917) Sunk by U-boat torpedo, S of Crete, 40/06/12 CHARYBDIS (5,450t, 3/12/41) Sunk by E-boat torpedoes, English Channel, 43/10/23 CORNWALL (10,000t, 1928) Sunk by Japanese dive bombers, Indian Ocean, 42/04/05 COVENTRY (AA ship, 4,290t, 1918) Sunk by dive bombers, E Mediterranean, 42/09/14 CURACOA (AA ship, 4,290t, 1918) Lost in collision, NW Approaches, 42/10/02 CURLEW (AA ship, 4,290t, 1917) Sunk by aircraft, bombs, off Ofotfiord, Norway, 40/05/26 DORSETSHIRE (9,975t, 1930) Sunk by Japanese dive bombers, Indian Ocean, 42/04/05 DRAGON (On loan to Polish Navy, 4,850t, 1918) Damaged by human torpedo, off Normandy Constructive total loss, 44/07/08 *** DUNEDIN (4,850t, 1919) Sunk by U-boat, torpedo, between W Africa and Brazil, 41/11/24 DURBAN (4,850t, 1919) Sunk as blockship for Mulberry Harbour, Normandy, N France, 44/06/09 *** EDINBURGH (10,000t, 6/7/39) Sunk by destroyer, torpedoes, after U-boat damage (30th Apr), Barent's Sea, Arctic, 42/05/02 EFFINGHAM (9,550t, 1925) Struck submerged rock and wrecked, Vestfiord, Norway, 40/05/18 EXETER (8,390t, 1931) Sunk in action with Japanese surface craft, Java Seas, 42/03/01 FIJI (8,000t, 17/5/40) Sunk by aircraft, bombs, during evacuation of Crete, 41/05/22 *** GALATEA (5,220t, 1935) Sunk by U-boat, torpedo, off Alexandria, 41/12/14 GLOUCESTER (9,600t, 31/1/39) Sunk by aircraft, bombs, during evacuation of Crete, 41/05/22 *** HERMIONE (5,450t, 25/3/41) Sunk by U-boat, torpedo, E Mediterranean, 42/06/16 MANCHESTER (9,400t, 1938) Sunk by E-boat, torpedo, off Kelibia Roads, Tunisia, 42/08/13 *** NAIAD (5,450t, 24/7/40) Sunk by U-boat, torpedo, E Mediterranean, 42/03/11 NEPTUNE (7,175t, 1934) Sunk by mine off Tripoli, Libya, 41/12/19 *** PENELOPE (5,270t, 1936) Sunk by U-boat, torpedeo, Anzio area, W Italy, 44/02/18 SOUTHAMPTON (9,100t, 1937) Sunk by dive bombers, E of Malta, 41/01/11 SPARTAN (5,770t, 10/8/43) Sunk by aircraft, glider-bomb, off Anzio, W Italy, 44/01/29 TRINIDAD (8,000t, 14/10/41) Sunk by own forces after damage by torpedo carrying aircraft, Barent's Sea, Arctic, 42/05/15 YORK (8,250, 1930) Lost at Suda Bay, Crete after damage on various dates by explosive motor boats and aircraft, 41/05/22 _____________________________________ Now, let' see... there seem to be An AWFUL LOT Of... *** U-boot sinkings Of RN Surface Ships, (... to include THREE A/C Carriers) Percentage wise, wouldn't you say? Ummmm 16 out of 43= 37 % OK. Now we know. U-boots WERE - in fact, VERY deadly Capital Ships hunter-killers, In addition to customary Convoy attacks, yes? </font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desert Dave Posted May 19, 2006 Share Posted May 19, 2006 ... my idea is that it should be abstracted "reality" And it's a pretty good idea SO. Several well-known WW-2 GS games Do indeed have such a system As you prefer. SC-2 does not, And it's hardly likely it's gonna change Any time soon. Personally, I MUCH prefer operating individual ship groups Whether that be subs or small Task forces with individual And historical ship names. To each their own, But what we got here is superior, Or, rather, Soon enough will be, To enny a' them other game schematics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desert Dave Posted May 19, 2006 Share Posted May 19, 2006 Most of Huge Battleships sunk by U-Boats, Subs I know of were those used in Pearl RN Barham, and Royal Oak Weren't battleships Liam? :confused: What then? How about the 3 Carriers? I had said "surface ships" sunk, There toward the end, Not merely "Capital Ships." Still, 2 BB's and 3 CV's ain't no bad pickings. Yep, plenty of smaller ships in there, But, Given that these were usually deployed As "convoy escorts" I would give credit where it's due: The U-boots sunk plenty a' them CE's As well. Sure, They took lots of losses, In the course of "raiding" convoys. We know that. Not surprising. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted May 19, 2006 Share Posted May 19, 2006 Originally posted by Liam: Most of Huge Battleships sunk by U-Boats, Subs I know of were those used in Pearl, those the Italians used. Perhaps you mean sunk by torpedoes, rather than sunk by U-boats? the torpedoes were, of course, delivered by a/c at Pearl Harbour and Taranto tho....not by Submarines! Dd versed: SC-2 does not, And it's hardly likely it's gonna change Any time soon. Indeed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dicedtomato Posted May 19, 2006 Share Posted May 19, 2006 Authors such as Clay Blair have shown that Churchill exaggerated the impact of the U-boat campaign. Only a relatively small percentage of Allied ships were sunk, and British imports were not seriously threatened. So an abstract system would work best. The present chase-the-sub system feels totally gamey. What needs to be fixed is subs vs. warships. DT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maverik Posted May 19, 2006 Share Posted May 19, 2006 I used to play the computer version of Third Reich and I found the abstact way in which the battle for the atlantic was handled was very good. You simply assigned Subs (for the German) and escorts (for the Allies) and the computer worked out what got through. If that could be added you could still buy subs/ships for normal game operations. That would add to the game, without taking something out. The same could be done for the strategic air war, although Airfleets at present represent fighters/tactical bombers, I would like to see them seperated. This could be done with an absract strategic system. Then again, perhaps I just want to have stukas to play with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lars Posted May 19, 2006 Share Posted May 19, 2006 Liam, I've got to agree with Desert Dave here. You're out to lunch, sub were always meant to be capital ship killers from their very inception. Pre-war, the idea was they were to be scouts for the fleet, trading on their greatest asset, stealth. And if they could take out a BB along the way, what admiral is going to complain about that? Just because they were relegated to mostly a commerce raider role due to circumstances, doesn't mean that's how they were originally designed or intended to be used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John DiFool the 2nd Posted May 19, 2006 Share Posted May 19, 2006 Well, for the ground grogs here (Rambo et al) they would probably feel the same way I do if, instead of corps and army groups moving around on a grid, they had a series of map zones (Moscow Zone, Stalingrad Zone, etc.) where units are placed and the random number thingie decides the outcome/ownership of that zone (think HoI or the old Storm Across Europe or even Axis and Allies). All subtleties and nuances are lost (manuever, supply, etc.) while the numbers are crunched. "The computer worked out what got through" indeed. I will admit that trying to handle both the tactical, operational, and strategic side of things all at once is awkward. HC just needs to decide (or has already decided) what features for the sub war belong in a strategic simulation, and which ones don't. I think the current system could probably be tweaked to be more satisfying, and this is the only way it will happen-those wishing for sea zones aren't going to get their wish, so it is pointless to argue for them (unless you want to start a SC3 wish list thread :cool: ). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dicedtomato Posted May 19, 2006 Share Posted May 19, 2006 Those who think of subs as warship killers should look at Japanese example. Their subs ignored mechantmen. Only capital ships were worth the attention of a samurai. For all the time and effort expended, they bagged a carrier, a cruiser and damaged a battleship. Roughly the equivalent of a single counter in SC2. The U.S. had more success (once they fixed their torpedoes) against Japanese warships, but not that much more. Try reading about the sub war, and how difficult it was for subs to stalk fast, zig-zagging warships. And unlike the Japanese and their primitive ASW, the British had a lot of experience fighting subs. Their capital ships were well-screened. The RN lost a few ships to U-boats, but nothing like the carnage they suffer in SC2. DT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lars Posted May 19, 2006 Share Posted May 19, 2006 I'd say they did pretty damn well. This is from Admiral King's final report. ATTACKS ON NAVAL VESSELS While United States submarines were effectively eliminating the Japanese merchant fleet, they were also carrying out damaging attacks on Japanese naval units. During the course of the war, the following principal Japanese combatant types were sent to the bottom as a result of these attacks: Battleship 1 Carriers 4 Escort Carriers 4 Heavy Cruisers 3 Light Cruisers 9 Destroyers 43 Submarines 23 Minor combatant vessels and naval auxiliaries (including 60 escort vessels) 189 Details of these sinkings will be found in Appendix A. While the loss of the heavier naval units was critical to the Japanese, especially as the strength of our surface fleet increased, the surprisingly high losses of enemy destroyers and escort vessels to submarine attack are particularly noteworthy. Our submarines, refusing to accept the role of the hunted, even after their presence was known, frequently attacked their archenemies under circumstances of such great risk that the failure of their attack on the enemy antisubmarine vessel placed the submarine in extreme danger of loss. So successful, however, were these attacks that the Japanese developed a dangerous deficiency of destroyer screening units in their naval task forces, and their merchant shipping was often inadequately escorted. 276 to 52 losses. I'll take that all day long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dicedtomato Posted May 19, 2006 Share Posted May 19, 2006 Let's look at the numbers, Lars. The U.S. sank one carrier (one CV counter in SC2), four escort carrier (not represented in the game), four heavy cruisers and nine destroyers (probably two CA counters in SC2). And that was against a stupid foe who stubbornly refused to devote any resources to ASW. SC2 U-boats can do a lot more damage against an RN that paid LOTS of attention to fighting subs. DT Originally posted by Lars: I'd say they did pretty damn well. This is from Admiral King's final report. </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> ATTACKS ON NAVAL VESSELS While United States submarines were effectively eliminating the Japanese merchant fleet, they were also carrying out damaging attacks on Japanese naval units. During the course of the war, the following principal Japanese combatant types were sent to the bottom as a result of these attacks: Battleship 1 Carriers 4 Escort Carriers 4 Heavy Cruisers 3 Light Cruisers 9 Destroyers 43 Submarines 23 Minor combatant vessels and naval auxiliaries (including 60 escort vessels) 189 Details of these sinkings will be found in Appendix A. While the loss of the heavier naval units was critical to the Japanese, especially as the strength of our surface fleet increased, the surprisingly high losses of enemy destroyers and escort vessels to submarine attack are particularly noteworthy. Our submarines, refusing to accept the role of the hunted, even after their presence was known, frequently attacked their archenemies under circumstances of such great risk that the failure of their attack on the enemy antisubmarine vessel placed the submarine in extreme danger of loss. So successful, however, were these attacks that the Japanese developed a dangerous deficiency of destroyer screening units in their naval task forces, and their merchant shipping was often inadequately escorted. 276 to 52 losses. I'll take that all day long. </font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lars Posted May 19, 2006 Share Posted May 19, 2006 Umm, not really. And not till later, when they had to. An arguement has been made that Donitz was wrong to pursue a commerce raiding role for the U-boat. Go for the UK fleet early and often (after all most of the German U-boats at the start were short range models, so you might as well) and drive them from the seas. After that, the merchants either fall in your lap or refuse to sail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lars Posted May 19, 2006 Share Posted May 19, 2006 Here. Look at what they did in WWI and the effect they had when warships were more of a preferred target. The significance of U-boats to these vast and almost unique surface operations is however the key to understanding them and the war at sea. The strategic paralysis that mines and the submarine torpedo imposed upon major warships led to the maintenance of two vast fleets unable to come into contact save on three occasions during the Great War, Jutland being the most massive. The risks of losing capital ships to the enemy, with all the dangers of balance and prestige, governed everyone's actions, but more so the Royal Navy's. Jellicoe refused to put his only sea-plane carrier, HMS Campania, and thus all his air cover (such as it was) in harm’s way. He "would not send her through the U-Boat lines alone." One wonders what the escort of Campania by a few destroyers spared from the many screening Jellicoe's battleships would have made to the strategic and tactical situation. It may have made the difference, if the funnel and cordite smoke, and the growingSea Denial, it ain't just a river in Egypt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolend Posted May 19, 2006 Share Posted May 19, 2006 How many of those ships sunk by U-boats were part of a convoy? At least 2 of the carriers. How many of the total U-boats sunk were done in or near convoys? The part I find just so out of place is how German surface and U-boats work together to hunt RN surface fleets and also the other way around. When in reality the VAST majority of U-boat actions both offensive and defensive were around convoys. With WWII tecnology it was darn near impossible to find a loan U-baot in the vastness of the Atlantic, you found them hunting the shipping lanes. I side with Liam on this one, I think it would be a fairly easy change to make. Make the attack power of U-boats lower and their dive ability higher. I would also make the U-boats take damage when they raid convoys, the damge they do to MPP and the damage they take can be based on the sub tech and the ASW tech. I would also allow the allies to asign ships to convoy duty, which would raise the damage the U-boats take when hitting convoys and lessen the hit on MPP based of course on ASW and Sub tech. Also those ships asigned to convoy duty would be taken off map, you could make asignment changes at the begining of every turn. [ May 19, 2006, 08:49 AM: Message edited by: Rolend ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dicedtomato Posted May 19, 2006 Share Posted May 19, 2006 Lars, you're underestimating the difficulty of attacking fast warships that zig-zagged frequently, that had sonar and radar, that had lookout atop high masts, etc. 1940s subs were not nuke boats. They moved very slowly when submerged, and I don't think surface attack would have worked real well against a carrier task force. The British would have been more than happy to pit their destroyers against U-boats. But your point about sea denial is a good one. Capital ships were wary of operating in sub-infested waters. That's hard to simulate in a game like SC2. Perhaps the solution is to give subs a limited ability to damage warships, but also give warships a limited abiilty to damage subs. Wiping out whole U-boat flotillas in a single weekly turn doesn't make sense. DT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolend Posted May 19, 2006 Share Posted May 19, 2006 Originally posted by dicedtomato: But your point about sea denial is a good one. Capital ships were wary of operating in sub-infested waters. That's hard to simulate in a game like SC2. Perhaps the solution is to give subs a limited ability to damage warships, but also give warships a limited abiilty to damage subs. Wiping out whole U-boat flotillas in a single weekly turn doesn't make sense. DT EXACTLY the point! Lower a U-boats attack power and raise it's ability to dive, that alone would change how sub warfare is played out in SC2. I also think that U-boats taking damage when raiding convoys should be added, more realistic and forces the U-boats back to port for repairs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lars Posted May 19, 2006 Share Posted May 19, 2006 On what historical basis? Torpedoes were devasting weapons, which is why even surface ships carried them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolend Posted May 19, 2006 Share Posted May 19, 2006 Lars I am not saying it is technically correct but if the change makes sub warfare a little more historical, and makes ASW and sub tech more important then it serves the purpose. Besides what we are arguing here is really tactical not strategic and it is always very hard to make a strategic based game accurate on the tactical side, compromises have to be made sometimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts