The issue with subs attacking ships in ports.

[Blashy]

We've all see how subs and even ships can easily damage other ships in ports.

1) The port defenses vs. subs were extensive and subs would have incured serious casualties entering enemy port for attack (mines, nets, etc...)

2) Ships, ports had extensive defenses that would have made this a very risky and costly tactic.

Basically you did not see this used in WW2 as a tactic simply because of the obvious dangers.

A simple way to fix it.

Make port defense bonuses higher.

Subs is 2, raise it to 6. At 4 it is still not a deterent.

Ships is 2, raise it to 4, since they can avoid nets and some mines by firing from further away.

CVs, 2, raise it by 1.

I should have done sometime ago but I forgot.

Players actually attacking units in ports because the lack of counter damage is insignificant is totally unrealistic.

[ July 28, 2006, 10:34 PM: Message edited by: Blashy ]

[well-dressed gentleman]

1) The port defenses vs. subs were extensive and subs would have incured serious casualties entering enemy port for attack (mines etc...)

2) Ships, ports had extensive defenses that would have made this a very risky and costly tactic.

Looks like you made the same point twice.

What about the raid at Scapa Flow? The Royal Oak didn't fare so well

against Gunther Prien, skipper of the U47 "Snorting Bull".

Before and after photos of the HMS Royal Oak,

secured by impregnable British harbor defenses...

[ July 28, 2006, 10:29 PM: Message edited by: well-dressed gentleman ]

[Blashy]

Yes, and how many more of these occured during the war?

We all know of exceptions in war...

[Agamemnon]

CVs, 2, raise it by 1.

What about Pearl Harbor? That was a devastating

attack.

[Capt Andrew]

In my mind, ships were sitting ducks in port. I think the damage done is about right. When I think of port defenses, I think of coastal batteries that shelled the bejesus out of ships that got too close. Subs were immune to that, only having to tend with shore blackouts (making targetting difficult) and anti-sub nets. So I think the port defense for subs is about right.

As for defense against ships, I would not raise it at all. Shore bombardments against ports (coastal batteries) are already a crapshoot. Raising the port defense 100% against BB and CA's would (IMO) eliminate a game function for the naval units. They don't get enough play as it stands.

If someone brings a sub up to my port to attack a docked ship, they're gonna get nailed with air attacks and a cruiser moved to port (which is a devastating sub deterrent). I don't think I would mess the numbers here.

[Blashy]

Originally posted by Agamemnon:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> CVs, 2, raise it by 1.

What about Pearl Harbor? That was a devastating

attack. </font>

[Blashy]

Sub defenses were much more elaborate than a simple net.

Gibraltar is a good example, for a such a big area the Axis had a hard time getting through, so much so that they did not really make and effort of doing so.

Right now what do players do? They RAM a port with subs to sink the enemy ship in place while taking little damage in return, that's crazy, no way you could just slam into enemy ports and start sinking its navy. If it had been that easy, it would have been done.

Take note that damage done to ships in port will not be lessened, but it is damage received that will be increase.

[SeaMonkey]

I'll go along with the sub attack damages to ported vessels, way overblown, but a defense of 6?

Maybe 4, it should still be a viable attack option.

Ships? Leave them alone. CVs, the same, they were much more efficient at port attacks than any other mechanism.

CAGs come in usually undetected for the most part. They have the advantage of 3D maneuvering and an abundance of deliverable ordinance and are able to get very close for release.(the accuracy aspect)

They don't suffer a lot of damage. Think about it, 6 Japanese CAGs attack Pearl and lose only 29 aircraft.

I'll bring up another point, if Bombers are suppose to include naval type bombers (NA=4)(like we discussed) then I want to see a tech upgrade in Bombers applied to CV CAGs in the same manner.

CVs RA goes up and the ability to deal out damage to occupying defending units also.

Right now Bombers RA=4, CV RA=1.....go figure?

[ July 29, 2006, 01:02 PM: Message edited by: SeaMonkey ]

[Blashy]

I tried 4, the damage is not big at all.

Right now at 2 it is virtually nothing.

The damage dealt by the subs is still the same, so it is always a viable option if you REALLY want to sink that ship, but you know you will have casualties, right now that is not the case and at 4 not much either.

BBs should fear shore batteries, that is not the case in the game, look how easily the Axis can pass through Gibraltar with little casualties.

[Scook]

Raising vs sub attacks and naval attacks ok. A major tactic in the Pacific used exstensively by USA is port attacks using carriers. I would believe you would leave port defense the same or lower it vs. air attacks, making it more viable to buy AA defenses and keep land based air nearby to cover that port.

[well-dressed gentleman]

Well . . .

the nets could always be sliced open by frogmen launched through torpedo tubes.

*** These guys say, "If it floats, we'll sink it!" ***

When you're a U-Boat commander, blond chicks give you flowers and you get to wear a beard.

[ July 29, 2006, 10:16 PM: Message edited by: well-dressed gentleman ]

[jon_j_rambo]

I'm going to back WDG on this one. Lots of badass sub dudes can sneak in and do damage. I saw a movie about American subs hitting Toyko Bay, so it has to be true.

[Blashy]

The discussion is NOT about the subs dealing to much damage, it is about subs and warships not getting much damage back in return which would not be the case.

Gibraltar was just a simple rock and so was Malta (a little bigger) and the Axis did not sink or get by the fleet (for Gibraltar) because of the extensive casualties they would have incured.

[Liam]

all this maybe maybe maybe... yes, and brits got into the fjords in Norway and damaged the Tirpitz, how many attempts? How many failures... The plans were very careful and very difficult. Only the best of the best to carry them out in those suicidal minisubs. Should the Opponent have to sacrifice a whole sub for a good chance at a hit? I think so or at least the better part of it. The Japanese had success because our ships were to neatly placed and in perfect conditions, they trained for it for a long time, had they not, not 1 battleship would've went down without well placed Bomb, torpedoes wouldn't have been effective in such shallow water being dropped from Planes. The Italian Frogmen were Experts, best of their Navy likely... The Germans had to send a rocket that was remote controlled down a British Smokestack to get it... All these off possibilities were great, but in harbour, air defense, and big guns were powerful.. a sitting duck, but even the U-boat pens were not easy to bust without massive bombs meant to crush tons and tons of concrete... it took innovation to crack harbours so I put this forth, GLR and Advanced Subs should be researched to kill units in port.. I have seen how weak ports are now, really sad.. You just bypass them really.. however Might is Right, enough Power brought to aim will kill anything...

Some Ports are better than others, Port Defenses Tech? LOL, another tech I doubt HC will but certian ports were better than others no doubt

Originally posted by Blashy:

We've all see how subs and even ships can easily damage other ships in ports.

1) The port defenses vs. subs were extensive and subs would have incured serious casualties entering enemy port for attack (mines, nets, etc...)

2) Ships, ports had extensive defenses that would have made this a very risky and costly tactic.

Basically you did not see this used in WW2 as a tactic simply because of the obvious dangers.

A simple way to fix it.

Make port defense bonuses higher.

Subs is 2, raise it to 6. At 4 it is still not a deterent.

Ships is 2, raise it to 4, since they can avoid nets and some mines by firing from further away.

CVs, 2, raise it by 1.

I should have done sometime ago but I forgot.

Players actually attacking units in ports because the lack of counter damage is insignificant is totally unrealistic.

[ebitt]

The Japanese had success because our ships were to neatly placed and in perfect conditions, they trained for it for a long time, had they not, not 1 battleship would've went down without well placed Bomb, torpedoes wouldn't have been effective in such shallow water being dropped from Planes.

Count the torpedo hits. The Japanese had modified the torpedos (Simple wooden fin attachements, I think) to work in shallow water.

Ships sunk and damaged

[Konigs]

There were historical attacks in the harbors, a regular u-boat hit scapa-flow early in the war and escaped.

I think you should have a percentage chance involved in this attack. Say 10% total success, little damage to your sub, great damage to target. 70% chance no damage or little damage to both, ie an aborted attempt as you were discovered by guarding destroyers and turned back. 20% chance a complete failure where sub takes a lot of damage.

Risk and reward for these attacks were large, most of time ship attacked complete loss, if sub or midgets or frog men can get through. But most of time sub found ad sunk, on topof that most sub commanders decidd to live to fight another day and just did not go into ports.

As far as Pearl Harbor, all of the Jap midget subs were found an sunk, and a couple before the air attack even began.