A better model for the submarine war?

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!!

Liam · 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

Mr.Dozer · 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.

Desert Dave · 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 ]

John DiFool the 2nd · 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 ]

Desert Dave · 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 ]

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.

Liam · 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:
<blockquote>quote:<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