Why Aren’t submarines treated more like submarines in SC?

[Ludi1867]

Submarine warfare remains one of the problem aspects of the SC engine. The current mixture of evasions and modes does provide somewhat reasonable results, especially with respect to convoy raiding, but historical is hardly the word that springs to mind. However, what really seems to be wrong with the current submarine model is how, effectively, submarines can be used as almost a standard naval warship in surface combat, something that is REALLY wrong historically.

Now, before Rambo gets all excited and starts explaining that submarines sank major surface warships, etc, let me state that I am NOT suggesting that submarines NOT be capable of inflicting major damage on surface warships. However, I strongly argue that the current methods used to allow submarines to attack are far too permissive and allow submarines to be casually used in ahistorical ways, resulting in real irritation at times (especially to me, obviously, but I would suggest that the overall concern with naval warfare in SC, which has been commented on by many and certainly not just myself, arises from a general problem with the naval warfare engine).

I will summarize the changes I am suggesting here (for those with shorter attention spans) and then explain why below.

1. Cut the damage caused (to an enemy warship) by a submarine that MOVES before shooting in a turn by AT LEAST half, and DOUBLE the damage caused to the attacking submarine in that combat.

2. Leave the current damage caused by and to a submarine that SHOOTS before moving in a turn the same as it is now.

3. Increase the variability of the damage caused during an ambush attack involving a submarine (an attack that occurs as a result of an enemy warship accidentally encountering a submarine) so that there is a good possibility that the moving warship is SUNK, as well as a small possibility that the encountered submarine is SUNK (yes, it did work both ways – surprised submarines were occasionally run over – rammed – and sunk when they were completely surprised. HMS DREADNOUGHT sank U-29 in just this way. In yet another irony, U-29 was commanded by Otto Weddigen, who had earlier commanded U-9, the boat that sank the ABOUKIR, HOGUE and CRESSEY, demonstrating for once and for all the naval futility of stopping a ship to assist drowning men when a U-boat was in the vicinity).

OK, with the recommendations out of the way, now I will explain the why.

First, submarines really are DIFFERENT than surface warships. Surface warships operate very well in groups – in fact, historically and certainly during the Great War, surface warships worked hard to increase their ability to work effectively in groups in naval combat. The engagement of very large groups was the ultimate goal of surface warriors, and Jutland stands as a very good example of all the benefits of having the entire group together, as well as the disadvantages of part of a fleet being caught and engaged in isolation. Submarines, conversely, work very poorly on the surface, and are most effective when working loosely with others, or even all by themselves.

How is this related to SC? Well, surface warfare is actually reasonably well replicated in SC in that the most effective way to engage an opposing naval warship (or warships) is to swarm that ship with, preferably, more powerful (or at least as powerful) warships. Multiple attacks in one turn are often best, as each attack reduces the readiness and supply (and hopefully the strength) of the opponent. With surface warships this makes eminent sense, both in game terms and historically. With submarines it works very effectively in SC currently, but it is complete nonsense historically.

The second way submarines are different than surface warships (and this is related to the first) is that submarines are much more effective when operating stealthily and INDEPENDENTLY than surface warships. A stealthy submarine that succeeds in ambushing its opponent is more often going to succeed tactically against a surface warship than in any other situation. And the damage a submarine attack can inflict can be very serious, and often fatal – which is why there are a number of capital ships that went to the bottom after a submarine attack. But very few of these capital ships went to the bottom because the submarine came to them (moved first and then shot): most of them came to the submarine and were THEN attacked. Yet submarines operating independently are also occasionally vulnerable and therefore susceptible to terrible damage themselves.

OK, if that explains why submarines should do more damage from ambush or if they attack before they move, why should submarines suffer more damage if they move before they attack? Well, there are again very good and simple reasons for this. Moving to attack an enemy in a known location usually requires rapid transit speed. (And the known location of an enemy warship almost always requires rapid speed, as most naval warships move from place to place rapidly). However, rapid movement requires a submarine to move on the surface. A submarine on the surface, especially at high speed, is much more vulnerable than a submerged submarine. As a result, submarines in the First AND Second World War tended to work independent of surface forces, as coordination between these two types of warships just did not work well. (Naval planners were very aware of the problem, and tried some pretty ridiculous – in hindsight – things to try and overcome the speed problem of submarines, including putting the most powerful engines available into submarines. However, the problem with steam powered submarines proved darned awkward, as those unfortunate to serve in RN K class submarines learned all too often. It is only with the introduction of nuclear power and satellite communications that true surface and subsurface combatant coordination became a possibility).

It might be useful to relate why I was so irritated by the submarine situation in SC WW I. The particular problem that brought my irritation to the surface resulted from the incredible damage done to the Royal Navy submarine fleet by the game designers. Depending on the source you refer to, the Royal Navy had at least twice as many submarines as the Germans had U-boats in 1914…yet there is not a SINGLE RN submarine in the North Sea when the war starts. There is only a half strength RN submarine in the distant eastern part of the Mediterranean. And the first RN submarine does not arrive in the North Sea until 1915. In contrast the Germans start with a U-boat (strength 10) in the middle of the North Sea and a second U-boat (also strength 10) in the Baltic. And the Germans get a significant number of U-boats delivered to them, which make submarines an important part of the German fleet.

Why this imbalance? A good question, but I would speculate that the designers are seeking to recreate the possibility of a U-boat campaign against shipping. Unfortunately, the current rules gives a German player good prospects if he chooses to use his submarines against warships instead of convoys, and is provided with quite a few more submarines than seems plausible historically. As a result an anti-naval campaign by the German fleet has surprisingly good prospects against the Grand Fleet. And in one PBEM game, my opponent decided not to use his U-boats against convoys, but very effectively against the British Fleet. Of course, given the current way in which submarines are treated, the German advantage in submarines (which really does not reflect historical reality in 1914 and 1915) resulted in serious losses to the British fleet, an aggravation made even more insulting by the almost complete absence of RN submarines from the North Sea (the RN had REALLY put a lot of effort into having submarines available to counter the German fleet before the war, something which a player of SC would never realize). However, after calming down I realized that what REALLY irritated me was the way in which my opponent was able to use his submarines (effectively, he could use them as surface warships, bringing them together in swarms to attack RN battleships during his turn, and choosing his targets with precision in a way completely at odds with historical reality). So that got me thinking and the result is the recommended changes to how submarines are treated in the SC series.

[lettowvorbeck]

I totally agree with this paragraph. The U-boat "Swarm Attack" aimed directly at the battle fleets is way too effective. Their cheapness to build and repair only enhances the problem. Also, they shouldn't be so 'fast'. Subs were slow, yet they have the same movement range as fast destroyers. They shouldn't be able to chase anyone down.

Why this imbalance? A good question, but I would speculate that the designers are seeking to recreate the possibility of a U-boat campaign against shipping. Unfortunately, the current rules gives a German player good prospects if he chooses to use his submarines against warships instead of convoys, and is provided with quite a few more submarines than seems plausible historically. As a result an anti-naval campaign by the German fleet has surprisingly good prospects against the Grand Fleet. And in one PBEM game, my opponent decided not to use his U-boats against convoys, but very effectively against the British Fleet. Of course, given the current way in which submarines are treated, the German advantage in submarines (which really does not reflect historical reality in 1914 and 1915) resulted in serious losses to the British fleet, an aggravation made even more insulting by the almost complete absence of RN submarines from the North Sea (the RN had REALLY put a lot of effort into having submarines available to counter the German fleet before the war, something which a player of SC would never realize). However, after calming down I realized that what REALLY irritated me was the way in which my opponent was able to use his submarines (effectively, he could use them as surface warships, bringing them together in swarms to attack RN battleships during his turn, and choosing his targets with precision in a way completely at odds with historical reality). So that got me thinking and the result is the recommended changes to how submarines are treated in the SC series.

[SeaMonkey]

And I might add, subs should be able to attack one another.

[Bossy57322]

Maybe have 2 types of submarines. 1 for strategic use, another (very limited in numbers) for scouting and battle fleet duty.

The strategic subs would be placed on strategic points (a NM point or trade route). The counter would be devoting a portion of the opposing fleet to convoy duty and sub hunting. When either player removes a part of his fleet/ subs for this, his playable fleet/ subs are reduced to reflect the material contribution to the battle. Might make the actual surface action interesting or force the Entente to devote more to naval expenditures - which was a drain. It would be necessary to abstract some of this. That way the Battle of the Atlantic would become what it actually was - a numbers game which could be won or lost by technological research and industrial production.

[Iron Ranger]

I think they can now SeaMonkey, seams I did damage to a UK sub with Ger sub in a game against the AI

[Ludi1867]

Lettowvorbeck

While I appreciate your support of my proposed submarine attack changes, I have to disagree with you strongly regarding speed of submarines. Your comments are quite accurate, IF you are describing tactical movement by submarines. However, SC is supposedly an operational/strategic level game. In the time scale represented by a turn of SC your comments are, perhaps surprisingly, not really accurate at all. At the operational/strategic level, submarines are actually relatively fast, ESPECIALLY as compared to destroyers. At a tactical level destroyers of the period were significantly faster than submarines. However, a destroyer employing its high speed very rapidly burned through its fuel, and therefore tended not to proceed at very high speeds very often – as otherwise it would be searching for a fueling station (underway replenishment would not be practiced until another war, and even then not all that effectively except by a very small number of navies – primarily the USN). As a result, submarines, with diesel engines and therefore quite significant cruising ranges could proceed at a good cruising speed for long periods, providing them with quite good operational/strategic speed.

I deliberately avoided discussing speed in my comments, as I really think it is a bit of a red herring (pardon the nautical metaphor, but it is rather appropriate). The real aspect of submarine behaviour that needs changing is HOW they are employed, and tinkering with the speed of submarines doesn't really fix things. In SC Global Conflict, for example, submarines are VERY slow (as are, astonishingly enough, aircraft carriers, another rather bizarre design choice that really does not reflect naval or historical reality well at all). Yet submarines, even with the slower speed found in Global, are just as capable of very ahistorical employment. So speed adjustment does not really fix the problem.

Seamonkey and Iron Ranger

The inability of submarines to engage submarines (which seems to remain true in SC WW I – I just fired up a hot seat game against myself and found submarines unable to attack opposing submarines, so I am surprised by Iron Ranger's comment) is a minor problem which does result in some rather anomalous situations. However, I think it is a comparatively minor problem compared to the more serious issue of how excessively effective submarines can be when misemployed – as SC WW I allows.

Bossy

While two types of submarines might seem like a plausible solution, I really do not think that trying that solution would address the problems currently found in the tactical use of submarines in SC when combating warships. It would also result in more complex game mechanics. The changes I am proposing would be more or less invisible to the player – there would still only be one submarine counter – and would require players to change their behaviour to get optimal results. Players could also continue to play just the way they do now – but they would likely be less successful if they failed to adapt and use their submarines more along historical acccurate (and reality accurate) ways.

[Iron Ranger]

Thanks for correcting me Luci, like I said in a AI game I thought I did damage to a sub with another one.. but if you tested it then of course I would trust that. Blame the beer and end of finals, not the fool typing!

[Colin I]

Really you need strategic areas where you place subs and destroyers (with some influence for air). The balance (numbers and technology) determines MPP losses from convoys and attrition - rare but nasty losses to capital ships - plus lower level more consistent attrition to subs.

[Bossy57322]

While two types of submarines might seem like a plausible solution, I really do not think that trying that solution would address the problems currently found in the tactical use of submarines in SC when combating warships. It would also result in more complex game mechanics. The changes I am proposing would be more or less invisible to the player – there would still only be one submarine counter – and would require players to change their behaviour to get optimal results. Players could also continue to play just the way they do now – but they would likely be less successful if they failed to adapt and use their submarines more along historical acccurate (and reality accurate) ways.

True, what I suggest (and Colin picks up on it above) is some kind of expanded off-board strategic configuration. It would somewhat change the mechanics of the game, but in reality not a whole bunch as right now we don't see the convoy battles - just the results. What we don't see is the drain on the economic resources of the combatants - not enough IMHO anyway.

Beyond that, in keeping with making the changes as simple as possible, I think your suggestions make a ton of sense and would welcome giving them a shot.

[Ludi1867]

Hi Colin and Bossy

The idea of an 'off map strategic area for the shipping war' is not unreasonable. It has certainly been around for a long time – the original Third Reich used something along those lines for the Battle of the Atlantic way back in the 70s (when I was writing finals Iron Ranger!) – and I have suggested something along the similar lines in the past. However, I have seen little (actually no) appetite amongst the SC game design team to introduce such an off map system. That is the main reason I have suggested some rather minor adjustments WITHIN the current SC design to try and address some of the more egregious systemic problems that currently exist.

So, while I am not really against your idea, I just do not think it has much of a chance, and I am trying to focus on what might be achievable with my suggestions.

[Bossy57322]

Hi Colin and Bossy

The idea of an 'off map strategic area for the shipping war' is not unreasonable. It has certainly been around for a long time – the original Third Reich used something along those lines for the Battle of the Atlantic way back in the 70s (when I was writing finals Iron Ranger!) – and I have suggested something along the similar lines in the past. However, I have seen little (actually no) appetite amongst the SC game design team to introduce such an off map system. That is the main reason I have suggested some rather minor adjustments WITHIN the current SC design to try and address some of the more egregious systemic problems that currently exist.

So, while I am not really against your idea, I just do not think it has much of a chance, and I am trying to focus on what might be achievable with my suggestions.

I hear you and think your suggestions are very good. MHO is there are just too many submarines possible. So I would like to suggest a far tighter limit on their production as well, especially on the Entente side of things.

[lettowvorbeck]

I think there are too many as well. The Turks should really be limited to just one unit.

What is the hard build limit for the number of submarines for each country?

[lettowvorbeck]

Another silly thing is when you have a level 2 sub surrounded on all sides and it just dives from every attack. I've had one encircled for two straights turns, not a single point of damage inflicted from 12+ attacks, including level 2 anti sub destroyer units.

[Isnogud]

Yes, that seems strange. It is currently winter (rough see and/or snow), does this have any effect on sub hunting?

[Hubert Cater]

Thanks for the feedback Ludi and we'll be testing out some of the suggested changes for the WWII campaign to see how it plays out.

[SeaMonkey]

Thanks Hubert, Ludi had some great suggestions. It's this kind of recourse that has brought SC to the state it is now, far superior to the "others" in this scale.

[Sharkman]

I have read the suggestions, I like the off map strategic combat Idea for the subs, this could be expanded to include off map strategic bombing. Devoting Bombers, escorts, and interceptors to strategic operations would allow for some strategic bombing with results. I think this would be a very exciting addition to a great game system. there could be a lot of options, night bombing, attacking infrastructure, supply, industry. This all is more for ww2 than ww1, but on a smaller scale with less effects it could be used for ww1 as well.

[Ludi1867]

Hi Hubert

Thanks for the feedback - I hope that there will be some further improvements in the naval war. I am quite aware that there have been substantial changes since the original SC first came out - and I hope that improvements continue, as the evolution of the game engine in SC has been one of the most positive hallmarks of this series.