A better model for the submarine war?

[Desert Dave]

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.

Not a bad idea, Rolend,

Not bad a'tall.

FYI, I have recently suggested a similar sort of thing elsewhere.

In any event,

You, or I, or anyone

CAN change the "combat target values"

As we see fit

For our own Mod of... "Battle of Atlantic."

Not to mention, some OTHER

Truly appropriate things can be

Self-implemented using... scripts.

[... all of you ain't no good at it, or,

just won't make effort, or don't have sufficient

time to learn, I swear!

it is so-o-o easy - once you examine

the thoroughly explanatory preface

to EACH & EVERY script... well,

you can bet the wind-diminished desert ranch

that somebody, JdF2 or

who else! IS ambi-dextrous, will do it for you :cool: ]

Well,

Ain't it - just! GRAND,

Yea, let's give the Man a hand!

Hubert I mean, who has provided for us

Very many! new-game-making opportunities!

Who else!

I must ask - in the last, oh, 20 years

Or so, has been so generous?

Trot them on out, yep,

I want to hear the NAMES of ALL those

Famous, and over-glorified game designers!

Who were, I now aver - so awfully

Keep-it-secret selfish!

[Rolend]

DD I would love to take credit for this idea as I think it is one of the better and simpler ideas I have seen posted to fix a problem in SC 2, but alas it is not my idea, most of mine are way to complex and not doable. This idea was first presented by Liam, or at least he was the first I saw present it.

[Lars]

Originally posted by dicedtomato:

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

You overestimate the speed of the warships. They didn't spend all their time zipping around at 30 knots, only when alerted. Which a sub would take care not to do until it's too late for the victim.

Type VII submerged speed - 8 knots.

Tribal class DD - 13 knots cruise.

Submariners call surface ships "targets" for a reason. Interesting to note that four of those original twleve DD's were torpedoed, albeit some by other destroyers. But again, German doctrine never made them a priority target.

[Lars]

Originally posted by Rolend:

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.

But it doesn't make it more historical. It just restricts you to Donitz's strategy.

I'd like to keep the option of going after the RN instead.

[John DiFool the 2nd]

Which is why I added the option of critical hits-

most of the time the sub counter can't get in

position to pop the big boys and maybe bags a DD

(1-2 points of damage). Once in awhile tho it might

manage to nail a BB or CV (5+ points of damage).

I'd also like to see ships repairable only at the

rate of 1 per turn, the miracle the USN pulled off

with the Yorktown's 3-day rush repair job non-

withstanding.

[dicedtomato]

And there's a reason why the U-boat arm had the highest death rate in the German armed forces. A sub going full speed while submerged is making so much noise that it might as well hang out a sign that says DEPTH CHARGE ME. The RN would be more than happy to oblige.

SC2 isn't designed to simulate WWII sub warfare (or much else that's historical). To properly simulate a sub vs. warship campaign is beyond the scope of the system. If Lars has visions of submarines sweeping the seas of surface ships, he needs to play Harpoon 3.

John DiFool's idea is a good one. Give subs a chance to achieve a critical hit, but otherwise limit their ability to damage warships.

DT

DT [/qb]

[Lars]

Originally posted by dicedtomato:

If Lars has visions of submarines sweeping the seas of surface ships, he needs to play Harpoon 3.

And you really need to crack a history book once in awhile.

"The submarine will prevent any fleet remaining at sea continuously....it is astounding to me how the very best amongst us fail to recognise the vast impending revolution in naval warfare and naval strategy that the submarine will accomplish." - Admiral John "Jackie" Fischer, 1904.

"As the motor vehicle has driven the horse from the road, so will the submarine drive the battleships from the sea." - Admiral Sir Percy Scott, 1914.

Seems some of the Brits were ahead of you in their thinking, even a hundred years ago.

[dicedtomato]

Right, Lars. That's what there were no battleships or aircraft carriers afloat in 1945. They were all sunk by subs. In fact, the Allies didn't need surface ships to invade Normandy. They used giant subs.

By the way, wasn't Jackie Fisher the genius who made the RN buy those inflammable battlecruisers at Jutland?

DT

[Lars]

With 7 UK carriers lost to subs (the entire pre-war strength) you could say they pretty much did sweep the seas clean. 56 warships down when you're not even trying is nothing to sneer at.

Of course, those dastardly Brits did build more.

[dicedtomato]

Seven UK carriers sunk by subs?? You have to be counting escort carriers, which were about one-quarter the size of fleet carriers. The RN and the USN built more than 100 CVEs (Combustible, Vulnerable, and Expendable), to hunt U-boats and escort convoys. Losing a few was not unexpected.

DT

[Rolend]

Lars sorry but I think you give way too much credit to the effectivness of subs and even more so WWII subs. 1st the only thing that keeps a fleet from remaining at sea all the time is the need for re-supply and the fact the humans need to see their wifes and lovers from time to time 2nd Scott was 100% wrong about subs driving Battleships from the sea, it was the aircraft carrier and the cost that did that, not to mention the fact that the US drags out its old battlewagons everytime they are needed and not one has been lost to a Sub since WWII, so they arn't truly gone, just for the nations that can't afford them.

EDIT ADDED:

By the way my Grandfather served on US Subs in WWI, even lost a toe when a torpedo they were loading sliped and landed on it Anyway he used to laugh about how they were NEVER worried about enemy action against them, the only thing they really worried about was actully being able to surface after each dive.

[ May 19, 2006, 02:02 PM: Message edited by: Rolend ]

[stoat]

Originally posted by Lars:

With 7 UK carriers lost to subs (the entire pre-war strength) you could say they pretty much did sweep the seas clean. 56 warships down when you're not even trying is nothing to sneer at.

Of course, those dastardly Brits did build more.

The British has 7 fleet type aircraft carriers that were commissioned before 5 September, 1939. Others had been laid down and launched by this time, but would not be commissioned until 1940. Of these 7, HMS Glorius, HMS Courageous, HMS Hermes, HMS Eagle, and HMS Ark Royal were sunk. HMS Argus and HMS Furious were NOT sunk. Of the five ships that were sunk, only three were sunk by U-boats. The other two were NOT sunk by submarines.

[stoat]

Originally posted by Rolend:

Scott was 100% wrong about subs driving Battleships from the sea, it was the aircraft carrier and the cost that did that, not to mention the fact that the US drags out its old battlewagons everytime they are needed and not one has been lost to a Sub since WWII, so they arn't truly gone, just for the nations that can't afford them.

Lebanon had a crack sub force, eh?

I would hate to see what even a diesel electric boat hiding in the shoals off of some remote shore could do to any current major warship. That is why the US Navy maintains constant ASW patrols around its battle groups and keeps SSNs attatched to those groups as well. While the aircraft carrier proved to be the new dominant ship of the seas, battleships proved surprisingly vulnerable to subs early in the war before sub hunting measures could be inproved.

I really don't think that the old BBs will have any use in the future. Besides costing a buttload to operate, they would require quite a bit of constant maintenance due to their age, and the ammunition they use is not entirely predictable, since there is no turnover in the stocks. I think shore bombardment will remain enough of an asset that guns will remain on ships for some time, but the days of the dreadnought are past.

[Rolend]

Stoat yes I agree about Battlewagons being something of the past but it certnely was not the sub that did them in, just trying to make a point. Also you mentioned Lebanon not having subs well if my memory serves me right both N Korea and N Viet Nam had subs and they never could do anything against the battlewagons or any of the US fleets for that matter beacuse as you stated by that time the US had very good ASW.

Now to correct myself wasn't the Brizelian heavy cruiser sunk by a Brit sub in the battle of the Falklands?

[stoat]

Originally posted by Rolend:

Now to correct myself wasn't the Brizelian heavy cruiser sunk by a Brit sub in the battle of the Falklands?

The Brits have one of the best, if not the best, sub fleets in the world, so that would not surprise me. Except that they fought the Argentines in the Falklands.

[Rolend]

Stoat LMAO yep you are correct once again, I just remembered the curiser and the 'out cry' from the anti west crowd at the time, some 800 sailors were lost if I remember right and it was the Falklands that much I do remember. I will have to go lookit up so I don't look like the fool once again

[Rolend]

Ok here is an quote from a good site I found about the lose of the cruiser.

Not used during "Operation Rosario", the "General Belgrano" put to sea from Ushuaia on Monday 26th April escorted by two Exocet-armed destroyers, and three days later was ordered to patrol south of the shallow Burdwood Bank. On Friday, nuclear submarine "Conqueror" made first contact at long range, and on Saturday closed in to shadow. Although just outside the TEZ, "GENERAL BELGRANO", as the southern arm of TF.79 was a potential threat to the carriers and her destruction was ordered. Attacked and hit at 4.00 pm on Sunday 2nd May by two conventional Mark 8 torpedoes she was soon abandoned, and went down with heavy casualties and her helicopter [a10]. A third torpedo hit "Hipolito Bouchard" without exploding but possibly caused some damage, and "Conqueror" was therefore presumably counter-attacked by "Piedra Bueno", which later returned with other Argentine ships to search for the cruiser's survivors. Shortly after the sinking, the main units of the Argentine Navy returned to port or stayed in coastal waters for the rest of the war.

If any are interested here is the site.

http://www.naval-history.net/NAVAL1982FALKLANDS.htm

[Guest Mike]

Which is all kind of interesting, but irelevant!

Subs targeted shipping - a torpedo doesnt' care whether it hits a merchant ship or a warship - it just explodes....or not!

Hougue, Aboukir and Cressy were what subs were conceived to do, but wolfpacks against convoys were what they were best at IMO

I like the idea that someone posted above of a pool of sub points that you can take units out of for tactical play or put them back into the pool for strategic play.

[Lars]

Got the numbers from here. Best I could do online on short notice.

British & Commonwealth Navy Losses

Look all the way down at the bottom.

Biggest killer was aircraft - 77, followed by other ships - 61, then subs - 56, and finally mines - 54. We'll ignore accidents (doh!) and shore batteries.

But again, note the biggest killer of carriers. Subs.

And if you strip out the UK's own sub losses the stats change dramatically towards the submarines favor.

It's also important to keep in mind the German's doctrine was pretty much to avoid warships, go for the merchants. They'd take the freebies, and did try to draw the Brits onto sub screens a few times, but in general, they went for the freighters.

Now try to open up your mind to the possibilities of going for the warships, and leaving the easy meat to later. The Brits would have been absolutely screaming for escorts. Might not even have had enough to do convoy protection at all.

btw, I pushed hard for the inclusion of mines. We're missing 20-25% of the ship killers and they really buggered up the merchant shipping. Sadly, it didn't make it in the game. Go read that thread.

[Desert Dave]

U-boots as Capital Killers,

Case stated,

Elaborated with actual fact,

Severally annotated,

Case completely closed.

Imagine IF... GErmany had opted

For Z-plan!

There wouldn't be hardly one

Single weld, Captain at the helm,

Or any tea-cups, scuppers or rivets

Left afloat, say,

By end of 1942?

Mines?

Well,

That there is not so necessary, IMO,

Since a shore-bombarding ship

That takes damage

(... mines would have been placed MOSTLY

in & around ports and easy-landing beaches)

Is presumed to have been knocked down

By shore-batteries AND mines, true?

It surely wasn't garrison Corps shooting

Their M-1's or Mausers, eh?

[Lars]

The Case For Mines

Think I'll have to sit down and re-read it now that the game is actually out.

But now, I have to go make the wife happy.

With patio furniture, ya bunch of pervs...

[xwormwood]

While regarding captial ship losses from subs we sholdn't forget that at least in the early war years many torpedos didn't worked / exploded when they hit their target. The above mentioned list of ship losses would be quite longer if this torpedo-problem had been discovered earlier.

---

Many capital ship losses occured in the Med Sea.

I wonder why it is not possible to smuggle german subs into into this Sea area. Maybe a certain percantage could be lost or damaged when going through the gibraltar bottleneck? But there should be a way to place a german sub into the Med.

[Desert Dave]

With patio furniture, ya bunch of pervs...

LOL, ah, ain't we though!

Good thing most are impervious

To such-like

High hard serves!

Speaking of which,

You shoulda seen Becker!

Tennis OR Soccer Euro-Dude,

In his prime! :cool:

LOL all over again, yeah,

My a'times perplexed wife is ALWAYS wondering

What the dickens! is a full grown man

(... really, an adolescent, just like

all the rest! LOL, it's old-schooled cool :cool: )

Doing - playing... war-games! :confused:

She continues, usually, sure:

"And you!

The very one!

Ever agitating for more "peace-full"

World, and earned serentities!

GEEZ!

I... JUST... don't get it."

[Desert Dave]

I wonder why it is not possible to smuggle german subs into into this Sea area. Maybe a certain percantage could be lost or damaged when going through the gibraltar bottleneck? But there should be a way to place a german sub into the Med.

CS Lewis,

"Pass-through straits" was indeed full debated

And well considered.

Who knows if it will re-surface, so to speak,

Again?

There IS a way to place U-boots

Such as that VERY feral

U-97 "Seahorse"

By having GErmany conquer Greece, and you can place new builds in port of Athens.

[xwormwood]

Wow. Greece, hum-hom, very good, veeery good.

Thank you for all your infos, and a "bravo" for your knowledge of good books.