Super U-boots?

[Ivanov]

Because a real example is always the best way to prove the point, so here we go:

To my big suprise, my opponent form the current game, has made a third attempt of attacking the British Fleet on the Channel waters. Please not the miserable French cruiser. It has been first "softened" by the U-boots which attacked it after they were moved. The subs didn't suffer any losses in the proces. The geniuine tactics of my enemy is to attack my destroyers with his Battleships or Cruisers and then lunching his subs against my big ships. A very smart thing to do, which is based on exploiting the flaws of the current system. In this way, he's surface vessels don't risk any serious damage attacking the destroyers and his subs are safe from harm against my BB's and CA's. This time I am not going to risk a confrontation and will withdraw to the ports in order to reinforce my fleet. The Royal Navy has been forced to a retreat by a force of consisting in 40% of U-boots. And this is WWI we are talking about here...

Don't get me wrong. I have experience in plaing this game. I know what I'm doing and I do it well. Here some statistics to prove it:

I have no doubts that I will win in the end. I also think that my opponent made a mistake wasting the MMP's on reinforcing and upgrading his navy in the eye of his huge loses suffered by his ground units. The bottom line is, that the situation like the one from the example above, feels very wrong to me.

Xwormwood and Bill advocate use the of the destroyer battle groups in order to counter the subs. I am sure that this tactics works really well when it's employed against lone U-boots and automatically forces them to a defensive. That's true and pays off well, but only if the U-boots are used against the convoys, far from the bases and without the support of the surface vessels. A lot of players will simply automatically follow the historical path and employ subs in this way. In that case the system works well and seems to be realistic. An innovative and determined player may take a different approach, just as my opponent did, by abusing the current flaws. In the current game, he hasn't used his U-boots agains the convaoys at all. Why to risk a loss a of a sub far away from the base in exchange of few convoy MMP's? It's better to try sinking British Battleships, especially when National Morale is at stake. Honestly, I would do exactly the same in order to win. The bottom line is - the current system, in which U-boots are such a versitile weapons of war, encourages abuse, which is resulting in a unrealistic warefare that may even decide the results of the game.

[Hyazinth von Strachwitz]

Ivanov,

As I have pointed out in a couple of other threads, I think the current combat model for Subs vs Suface Vessel needs to be tweaked. In reality (WWI and WWII) Subs and Surface Vessels usually didn`t work in combination; subs were too slow for that. In both the WWI and WWII campaign it is possible to put all your naval units in one big fleet (as you have pointed out) and exploit these weaknesses. I fully agree to your points.

In my eyes a reduction of the damage a sub does to a surface vessel can help a lot. At the moment the subs are the working horses of any major fleet, just as in Axis&Allies.

[Bill101]

Another very good point. In the current system, the subs may be set to the "silent" mode. I am not entirerely sure how it improves it's stealth abilities ( I have rather more experience fighting the U-boots than commanding them) Any comment on the "silent" mode feature?

Hi Ivanov

Here's an explanation of silent mode in a nutshell!

The silent mode enables subs to sail undetected and without being stopped, through Battleships, Cruisers, Carriers, Transports and Amphibious Transports.

It also gives them a 50% chance of passing through Destroyers.

The penalty is that the submarine will move slower as a result, at about 2/3 speed.

Bill

[xwormwood]

Ivanov,

As I have pointed out in a couple of other threads, I think the current combat model for Subs vs Suface Vessel needs to be tweaked. In reality (WWI and WWII) Subs and Surface Vessels usually didn`t work in combination; subs were too slow for that. In both the WWI and WWII campaign it is possible to put all your naval units in one big fleet (as you have pointed out) and exploit these weaknesses. I fully agree to your points.

In my eyes a reduction of the damage a sub does to a surface vessel can help a lot. At the moment the subs are the working horses of any major fleet, just as in Axis&Allies.

But where will you start and where will you end?

Isn't the SC Series all about to offer you the chance to rewrite history?

Personally i don't care if something didn't happened in WW1 or WW2 if it is still thinkable.

I like the idea to decide on my own what to do (and to do better or different).

Again: where will you start and where will you end?

This is not ment as a personal attack, just as a honest question.

If you take it very exactly, you have to abandon the whole combat system, even the whole game system of all computer or board games.

Nothing like this was ever possible. One leader, able to decide everything.

Units fighting in turns.

Etc.

Are subs to strong?

Difficult to tell, if you don't know how a person plays his fleet.

Is further improvement possible? Of course, it always is.

Personaly, i like what it is right now in the game.

I know that i have it in my hands to decide, to plan, and to react on my opponents moves.

There are so many possibilities.

In my games (1.02) i never had the impression that subs are to strong or the royal navy to weak. I learned that all depends on how i play, if i use my forces wisely, etc.

Subs are and were a thread to any naval unit.

I guess we would have a different discussion today if the german Kriegsmarine would have had working torpedos in 1939-1940.

But most fired torpedos during this time were duds.

http://www.uboataces.com/articles-wooden-torpedoes.shtml

http://www.uboat.net/history/torpedo_crisis.htm

http://eaglescholar.georgiasouthern.edu:8080/jspui/bitstream/10518/3627/1/Wright_David_H_201005_MA.pdf

And than the german high command wanted the subs to hunt enemy convoys.

On the other side the japanese did use their subs to attack enemy war ships and neglected convoys. That might have been not the best descision.

But still, they had a different philosophy.

When i play, i like the idea that i can decide what to do with my subs.

If my opponent don't sent them to attack my convoy lines, than i react and prepare my fleet. Good thing is, that my convoys get through unmolested.

On the other side: if my enemy sends most of his subs against my convoy lines, i know that his fleet won't be able to kill my fleet if i keep my fleet together.

[Sharkman]

Hi Ivanov

Here's an explanation of silent mode in a nutshell!

The silent mode enables subs to sail undetected and without being stopped, through Battleships, Cruisers, Carriers, Transports and Amphibious Transports.

It also gives them a 50% chance of passing through Destroyers.

The penalty is that the submarine will move slower as a result, at about 2/3 speed.

Bill

Good to know, I was unaware that subs could pass enemy ships without stopping, I guess I hadn't been properly using the silent mode. Does this allow them to leave a blocaded port? Is this in the manual? Why have I been sending my u-boat crews to their deaths for no reason?:eek:

[Sharkman]

actually in light of this post and my current game playing 1.02, im rethinking my objections to subs as they are in 1.02.

i launched an attack against the brit blockcade with the entire german navy, well supported by subs. the RN was able to force me into a rather humilating retreat. My opponent had plenty of destroyers on hand at the same level as my subs and most of his surface ships were the same level of anti sub tech. he was able to more than keep my subs at bay. in fact my subs are really taking a beating. im starting to think it was a mistake to use them against his fleet. i should of used the distraction my fleet provided in order to break my subs out into the open seas where they could of been more profitable used against convoys.

my surface ships did manage to sink 2 bbs without losing any myself, but my destroyers and cruisers took a beating. all in all i'd say the germans came out better, but just like irl they had to flee back to base.

in a nut shell, i'd have to say the subs as they are now in 1.02, are best used against convoys.

as stated by xworm and others, subs in 1.02 aren't that much use against a fleet well protected by destroyers and equal anti sub tech. which is how it was irl.

in short, disregard my previous posts on the subject.

I agree, although I didn't really like trading battleships for u-boats, I did manage to hold off the u-boats better than I expected, as far as material goes you definately won the naval battle, but strategicaly I think I came out better because I should be able to reset the blocade and you lost a good number of the subs that would otherwise have been raiding my convoy lines. It was definately an exciting battle. At least in The Great War I guess the subs are ok, I'm curious to see how they are in 1.03.

[Bill101]

Good to know, I was unaware that subs could pass enemy ships without stopping, I guess I hadn't been properly using the silent mode. Does this allow them to leave a blocaded port? Is this in the manual? Why have I been sending my u-boat crews to their deaths for no reason?:eek:

Hi

It's on page 70 of the WWI manual, though allowing them a 50% chance of passing through Destroyers is something we only introduced in patch 1.02.

Using silent mode is the key to getting your U-Boats out to the west coast of the British Isles and back, especially to get them through the blockade lines.

[Ivanov]

Ivanov,

As I have pointed out in a couple of other threads, I think the current combat model for Subs vs Suface Vessel needs to be tweaked. In reality (WWI and WWII) Subs and Surface Vessels usually didn`t work in combination; subs were too slow for that. In both the WWI and WWII campaign it is possible to put all your naval units in one big fleet (as you have pointed out) and exploit these weaknesses. I fully agree to your points.

In my eyes a reduction of the damage a sub does to a surface vessel can help a lot. At the moment the subs are the working horses of any major fleet, just as in Axis&Allies.

Nice one Hyazinth:) I quess we have simmilar experiences operating and fighting the subs.

Hi Ivanov

Here's an explanation of silent mode in a nutshell!

The silent mode enables subs to sail undetected and without being stopped, through Battleships, Cruisers, Carriers, Transports and Amphibious Transports.

It also gives them a 50% chance of passing through Destroyers.

The penalty is that the submarine will move slower as a result, at about 2/3 speed.

Bill

Thanks Bill I honestly was not aware how it worked.

Isn't the SC Series all about to offer you the chance to rewrite history?

Personally i don't care if something didn't happened in WW1 or WW2 if it is still thinkable.

(...)

If you take it very exactly, you have to abandon the whole combat system, even the whole game system of all computer or board games.

I was kind of waiting for the argument about exploiting alternative historical scenarios offered by the game:) I think the biggest thrill and excitement this game gives me, is the possibility of exploiting many potential historical "what ifs'. The thing is that the fun is much bigger ( at least for me ), if those alternatives are put within some logical frame of the historical realism. The Great War for example, gives us an opportunity to see how the First World War could be won by the Central Powers. After defeating Russia, there was a big chance that Germany could have won on the Western Front in 1918. Allied armies were weakened, the Germans achieved the numerical superiority and the American forces were too few and still unprepared. What wasn't achieved by Ludendorff can be achieved by any of us in the game. Now, was it possible for the Kaiserliche Marine to defeat Royal Navy by using U-boots against it's surface vessels? Absolutely not. It was technically impossible. In order to get the upper hand in the sea war, the Germans would have to build a lot of classic battleships and cruisers, but it would take a lot of time - a lot more than the five years that lasted the war. The use of submarines was a shortcut tactics. A brilliant idea, how to affect the British war economy, without actually having to face the might of the Royal Navy in an open battle. We may say that it was the first asymmetric campaign waged in the modern times. Asymmetric - means choosing a completely different approach of waging the war, and trying to achieve different goals by the different means, than the enemy would be expecting us. In another words, the U-boots were supposed to be unleased against the Allied convoys not the fleet. A thing that had never been done before.

Once more point about the realism. As I said before, alternative scenarios are exctiting, when they were also possible to materialize in the times that the game is representing. In the WWII campaigns of SC2, the players can for example invest into development of rockets. As we all know, it was actually done by the Germans during the Second World War. By investing in that kind of research, the player may increase the effectiveness and range of the rockets. Would it be a nice alternative if the player could upgrade his rockets in the last stage, into intercontinental ballistic missiles, armed with nuclear warheads? Well, at least for me, it wouldn't be a cool option...

I truly understand that everyone has a different expectations from ther game, but at least for me the historical realism is one of the things I value the most.

At the end, I just want to stress, that the Battlefront team has done an amazing work in this matter so far and I hope none feels offended by my long, persistent and repetitive tirades...

[Sharkman]

I think this has been an interesting and constructive discussion that addreses a subject that has long bothered me. Although I have changed my opinion to some extent, I still think the u-boats are more useful and versitile than they should be, I think they are ok in The Great War but in Global Conflict they are still too effective for the German player. The u-boats can be devastating even on the very first turn, in reality the u-boats were not at all effective in 1939, it might make sense to take away the level 1 technology at the start of the game or start the Germans with one less u-boat. The ammount of free u-boats the Germans get still seems to me to be too much as well.

[Hyazinth von Strachwitz]

Basically all points I`ve been reading are right. Playing the Axis vs. the AI in SoE usually the Royal Navy is completely sunk in 1942, and german subs block all english ports. The UK is out of the game completely. This is a feature that needs to be tweaked definitely. Reducing the combat skills of subs is an idea, reducing the amount and tech level of the german subs is another one.

I am pretty sure that Hubert fears major negative effects for the Axis side in Multiplayer.. and he is right. One idea can be to make the subs even more difficult to fight in the beginning of the war. After 1943 the german subs were pretty useless, and the question is how to model that. I think a limitation of Advanced Subs to Level 3 while leaving the Allied ASW feature at 5 can help to knock the german subs out of the game in the long run.

[xwormwood]

. After 1943 the german subs were pretty useless, and the question is how to model that. I think a limitation of Advanced Subs to Level 3 while leaving the Allied ASW feature at 5 can help to knock the german subs out of the game in the long run.

Don't model that just because it happened.

Why where the Uboats useless?

Because bad decisions were made.

Better german sub designs weren't build.

German naval code was broken.

It could have been completly different if the Nazis would have made different decisions.

In SC the players make the decisions. Or better: should make the decisions.

Certain things are still scripted, like russian winter strike, low French morale etc. etc.

But these scripted things get fewer and fewer with every release, and for that i'm thankful.

If i research the best possible sub tech and my opponent ignores to improve his destroyers, if i buy tons of subs and my opponent neglects to purchase destroyer, why should my subs suddenly become useless in 1943?

I know that this is not what you ment, and i only brought this example to remind all those in favor of changes that these changes have to be sound and fair for every side.

When it comes to GlobalConflict we shouldn't forget that this game has an older game engine. If the current sub model of SC The Great War would be used in GlobalConflict to, than this game would play a bit different.

Maybe Hubert can put this into his next GlobalConflict patch?

Personaly i would be more in favour of a new GlobalConflict release.

Call it GlobalConflict Gold (with all the latest game engine improvements included) or GlobalConflict Deluxe (same as Gold, but with a 20% bigger map), or MotherofAllGlobalConflict (same as Deluxe, but with the Patton drives East campaigns included).

I would happily pay for each of these. HAP-PI-LY.

Well, ok, sorry for wandering off, but if nothing else i can dream, can't i?

[Sharkman]

Your right about the game in the long run, (the various stategies make this game great)it's the first turns that seem to be to be unbalanced and unhistorical. The Germans start with 2 u-boats at tech level 1, and their navy is at tech level 1, the Brits have 0 destroyers and their navy has tech level 0. The only effective anti-sub unit in the atlantic is an aircraft carrier (and I'll be damned if I use it to hunt u-boats), I don't think this is historicaly correct.

I too support a new Global Conflict with the Call to Arms engine, and would also be glad to pay with my hard earned money for it.

[SeaMonkey]

Now we're talkin! Global Gold with a base LoC.

[Ivanov]

I agree that the players should have an opportunity to develop very advanced subs, if such is their wish. The problem in my opinion is, that the sub research is too cheap now ( I'm talking about WWI campaigns ). It is not a problem for Germany making 400 or 500 MMPs' to invest 50MMPs' each turn into U-boot developement. Also, limiting the number of the subs that the German player gets for free, could solve some of the issues, that we have discussed here. It would be a players decision if to invest in this type of warfare and could prevent the apperance of too many, too advanced U-boots. I think this solution could satisfy those who opt for the maximum realism and those who would like to explore some alternative, new paths that the game offers.

And of course the current effectiveness of the subs against other vessels should be addressed somehow, that's all

[Sharkman]

I just tried out Silent mode, but I bumped into the Russian cruiser and had to stop:confused:

[Hubert Cater]

Hi Sharkman,

If you end your move next to or under an enemy unit your sub will also be stopped regardless of mode, i.e. this is just a matter of how units occupy tiles.

Additionally, if you let's say attempted to move through a series of unknown enemy unit positions, without any tile to end up on without an enemy unit already occupying the tile, then the engine will stop the sub at the first available tile.

All this means is if you were attempting to move through something like 5 tiles and all the tiles had an enemy unit, then the engine would stop your sub movement at the first empty tile... again this is just a matter of how units occupy tiles and not much that the 'Slient' mode can do about this.

Hopefully this makes sense and helps a bit,

Hubert

[Hubert Cater]

Your right about the game in the long run, (the various stategies make this game great)it's the first turns that seem to be to be unbalanced and unhistorical. The Germans start with 2 u-boats at tech level 1, and their navy is at tech level 1, the Brits have 0 destroyers and their navy has tech level 0. The only effective anti-sub unit in the atlantic is an aircraft carrier (and I'll be damned if I use it to hunt u-boats), I don't think this is historicaly correct.

I too support a new Global Conflict with the Call to Arms engine, and would also be glad to pay with my hard earned money for it.

I'm coming a bit late to this discussion and admittedly I haven't read every post in detail but I think I have got a feeling for some of the thoughts here and just wanted to reply with a few of my own.

From memory I believe the Germans start with Level-1 subs to reflect their efforts in this area prior to the break out of hostilities and they begin with Level-1 Naval Warfare to reflect the slight edge the Germans had in gunnery at the beginning of the war, i.e. the advantages of their gun laying radar and gunnery techniques which included firing usually up to 3 salvos at once including the calculated salvo and an under and over slightly adjusted set of salvos to compensate for any miscalculation.

Essentially what you've described as initial Allied difficulty in dealing with Axis subs early in the war is for the most part intended by design. For example, the UK had attempted to use the Royal Oak carrier to patrol for subs in September 1939 ending in its sinking and after that the Royal Navy quickly determined the best way to handle the sub threat was with Destroyers making the 'Destroyers for Bases' decision all the more important.

In this sense I would argue that what we have modeled is more or less historical in that the Royal Navy has some difficult decisions to make early on, i.e. take on the sub threat with their limited anti-sub capability and risk the losses of capital ships, or accept the idea that the subs will be a menace until the proper anti-sub capabilities are at hand including additional Destroyer help and so on.

Hubert

[Hubert Cater]

Also regarding the change introduced in the patch 1.02. It is a really good improvement but it actually increases the sub potential. If the sub is attacking a warship that didn't move in the previous turn, it's not really an ambush situation but an open clash, were both sides want it and are prepared for it.

Just to clarify here, this is actually incorrect in that the sub will only achieve an *ambush* if the warship bumps into the sub, i.e. the sub has not moved and not the other way around.

However, the only case where this would apply is if the sub and the warship begin their turn adjacent to each other.

Sub ambushes a surface vessel when a suprise is achieved and I'm sure that 90% of the 15% RN ships sunken by the subs, mentioned by Xwormwood, were not knowing what actually hit them:)

Correct and this is what we've now modeled since the release of the v1.02 patch.

An example how the current system works in the actual game. A battleship bumps accidentally into a sub, taking some small damage and giving the sub a an opportunity to hit it hard it the next turn. Usually the warships operate in the battlegroups, so after bumping into a sub the Allied player has an opportunity to attack the sub with another vessel. He brings a destroyer which attacks the sub. The subs escapes evading the damage but losses the opportunity to strike the battleship in the next turn.

Just to add several more clarifications I would say that this part of your assessment is also correct.

So the BB stays relatively undamaged, but the sub commander may simply try do bump into the Allied ships in the next turn, due to the relative impunity of such a move and the striking power of the subs after they are moved. If there are few subs around, they can completely paralize the Allied battlegroup, even if it consists of destroyers and carriers. Due to that the Allied player will always take some serious damage, the U-boots - not necessarily.

If the sub had to move in order to attack the remaining BBs in the area then I would say that this assessment is incorrect as it no longer works this way in game since v1.02.

What would happen in this case is the sub would have its attack capability halved, and it would take double the losses simply because it moved first and then attacked.

Just to reiterate what Bill previously described:

* If a sub moves and then attacks, its attack capability is halved and it will take double the losses

* In an enemy unit bumps into a hidden sub, then the sub attacks with its full attack capabilities and values.

Hopefully this addresses your concerns regarding subs!

Hubert

[Sharkman]

Thanks for your reply Hubert, I'm figuring out the silent mode, it suprised me to be stopped by a cruiser on my very first silent move, but your explaination makes sense, kind of sucks that I've been playing so long with out a proper understanding of the silent function.

As far as German u-boats in general go I would still argue that simply having 2u-boats at all in september 1939 places them way ahead of all other nations, and they have a chit in sub research, and there are several free subs comming soon. I would say that the problems the Germans had with their u-boats and especialy their torpedoes would justify taking away the level 1 tech or at least taking it away from the subs themselves (which means the German player has to invest in upgrading his subs before sending them out).

By the way I really love this game, I'm presently playing several e-mail games, Great War and Global Conflict, the last time I enjoyed playing any game this much was way back in the 70's and 80's playing Advanced Third Reich, Hells Highway and The Guns of August, you've really got somthing that is above and beyond any other computer WW1/WW2 strategy game. The player-developer-playtester communication is I think unique and exceptional.

[SeaMonkey]

Shark, just to add a little more comfort to the pass-through mechanic even though "The Master" has reassured you, I extensively tested the feature awhile back setting up a custom model through the editor.

It worked as designed, passing through all naval types except DDs while in silent mode. I must say that the new developments seem even more realistic and slowly but surely, Hubert and company are getting this most difficult combat arena simulated to a very high degree of accuracy.

No doubt, SC is the best there is in grand strategy.:cool:

[Ivanov]

If the sub had to move in order to attack the remaining BBs in the area then I would say that this assessment is incorrect as it no longer works this way in game since v1.02.

What would happen in this case is the sub would have its attack capability halved, and it would take double the losses simply because it moved first and then attacked.

Just to reiterate what Bill previously described:

* If a sub moves and then attacks, its attack capability is halved and it will take double the losses

* In an enemy unit bumps into a hidden sub, then the sub attacks with its full attack capabilities and values.

Hopefully this addresses your concerns regarding subs!

Hubert

Hi Hubert, thank you for your clarification on the subject. I've just runned a quick test that has confirmed your words. This is what would happened if the sub attacked the BB after the movement:

2:1 - not a very favourable result for the sub against the battleship. So the key tactics would be to avoid ending up the movement next to the U-boots. I guess the fog and chaos of the war made me think, that the enemy's subs vere more dangerous than they actually are:) The thing is, that if there are too many of them around, they can really cause some considerable devastation, especially if they are so difficult to destroy. This would get back to my previous point - limiting the number of free subs and increasing the cost of the research.

Once again, thank you for the clarification. Strategic Command is the best game ever:)

[Ludi1867]

I have been following this thread with great interest, and have certainly learned a bit about how silent mode works. Overall I think the point that has to be remembered is that SC is (very much by design!) a game and NOT a simulation. The designers have worked hard to try and roughly recreate some of the decisions that were faced by wartime leaders, but there is certainly no effort to precisely model how things worked during the war. Instead every effort is made to recreate the overall atmosphere.

Submarine warfare, especially against commerce, is an excellent example of this. The convoy lines placed on the game map are very rough and crude approximations of the actual convoy routes used in the wars. In reality, however, shipping and convoy routes could vary quite significantly from those displayed on the map. Moreover, there were no convoys in the Atlantic in World War one until about April 1917 – and U-boats had real difficulty finding ships in the middle of the Atlantic (most ships were sunk within 200 miles of the UK, with a much smaller number sunk close to North America by the few U-boats that were dispatched overseas in the Great War.) Yet in SC WW I U-boats simply have to place themselves adjacent to a shipping route ANYWHERE in the Atlantic and they will inflict significant MPP losses. Historically accurate? Hardly. Does it work from a game perspective? Well, actually, it more or less does.

OK, things were different in WW II because the Allies instituted convoys almost immediately the war started, right? Wrong. While the Allies did start convoys pretty quickly, the convoys, and the routes they followed, changed substantially as the war progressed. Even composition changed, as at various points in the early part of the war merchant ships capable of speeds of 15 knots were allowed to proceed independently – and often did. But the biggest changes were that most early convoys were not at all like the convoys most of us have seen in history books or movies. Early convoys had few ASW escorts, and often dispersed when only part way across the Atlantic, or reformed only as they approached within a few hundred miles of the UK. Why? Because the biggest threat perceived by the RN at the outset of the war was surface warships, not submarines. And early on this estimate was probably not all that wrong, as there really were not that many U-boats available to the Kriegsmarine when the war started. Depending on your source the German Navy had only 56 or 57 U-boats when the war started, and only about 1/3 of those were ocean going – most were the Type II that could make it out into the North Sea, but that was about it. For most of the first year or two the Germans were challenged to keep 8 U-boats on patrol at any one time. The 'wolfpacks' that Doenitz dreamed of (and had written about during the interwar years) were not possible yet, and early German wolfpack efforts were both tentative and not always that successful. However, a massive building program designed to deliver hundreds of ocean going U-boats began to bear fruit in late 1941 and by late 1942 the Germans had more than the magic number – 300 U-boats – that Doenitz considered essential to a successful anti-shipping campaign. Ironically, U-boat successes were comparatively low in late 1941 (Allied codebreaking worked very well in the second half of 1941), and there were very few attacks on convoys in the first half of 1942 – yet the first half of 1942 was one of the more successful periods for U-boats, as the USN, in an act that remains hard to understand today, failed to mandate convoys for merchant ships for months after becoming involved in the war. It is only in the second half of 1942 and the first part of 1943 that the Battle of the Atlantic actually corresponds roughly to what is the norm throughout SC. Does that matter to the game? Not really!

But you have to keep this in mind when reading comments from the game designer. For example, when Hubert Cater says “From memory I believe the Germans start with Level-1 subs to reflect their efforts in this area prior to the break out of hostilities and they begin with Level-1 Naval Warfare to reflect the slight edge the Germans had in gunnery at the beginning of the war, i.e. the advantages of their gun laying radar and gunnery techniques which included firing usually up to 3 salvos at once including the calculated salvo and an under and over slightly adjusted set of salvos to compensate for any miscalculation.” he is not wrong if you consider the overall effect of his design decisions on the game, but his historical assessments can be questioned (if you want to – his assessments are accurate as far as they go, but leave out the lack of numbers of U-boats early in the war.)

Hubert's comments on the German surface fleet are quite interesting, and make a valid point. The RN did have significant difficulty when fighting the surface ships of the Kriegsmarine, and did not really gain a significant advantage until the spring of 1944. But the details of that development are probably better researched as history – the game ALLOWS a player to research naval warfare tech, but in the overall scheme of things most British players are hard pressed to match the historical achievement of the RN.

Those interested in the fascinating development of radar controlled gunnery in the RN in the English Channel are encouraged to read the chapter by Michael Whitby (Senior Naval Historian in the Canadian Department of National Defence) in 'Fighting at Sea' http://www.amazon.ca/gp/product/1896941567?ie=UTF8&tag=bairmari-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1638&creative=6742&creativeASIN=1896941567 . That chapter provides not only a detailed history of the tactical and technical factors that allowed the RN to, finally, prevail in battles with surface ships of the Kriegsmarine, but also provides excellent insight into how professional and competent the Kriegsmarine surface fleet was, resulting in a number of remarkable successes by that force in the first years of the war.

Finally, to get back to the game itself, I wanted to ask a question of Bill101, who commented earlier as follows:

Bill101 “xwormwood's comments to form a pack of Destroyers to go sub hunting is very wise advice, because even if they don't immediately sink an enemy sub on attacking it, every attack they launch will reduce the sub's supply value. The lower this goes, the slower the sub will move and the lower its effectiveness in both commerce raiding and in attacking your surface fleet. So even unsuccessful attacks will help to send that submarine back to port....”

My question is: does EVERY attack lower a sub's supply, or just those attacks that do not result in the submarine diving? The difference is, to me, important. I have had occasions where a number of attacks in a row have resulted in the submarine diving, and in that case the supply level of the submarine has NOT gone done (and I just did a quick trial in SC WW I 1.02 and had the same result). Now, I can see the supply level not being affected some time, but it seems like EVERY time the submarine dives then supply does not go down. I find the failure of the submarine's supply level to decrease, at least some of the time, problematic.

So, does a submarine's supply level go down every time it is attacked? Or only on those occasions when it does not dive? If it is the latter, I strongly argue that a submarine's supply level should decrease after an attack even if it dives, at LEAST 50% of the time.

[Bill101]

Good point Ludi, I wasn't taking the diving into account and I will have to check on that.

[Sharkman]

Hi Ludi,

You certainly know more about the history of WW1 and WW2 than I do. I am more interested in the "historical atmosphere" than the absolute reality. So any comments or suggestions I have made are actualy directed at that "feeling".

I realy like the Naval part of the game, but in addition to the extensivly discussed u-boat thing I do have a few other naval suggestions:

1. Ships should only be naval warfare upgradeable 1 time for 1 point, this prevents pre-war battleships from becomming equal to the Yamoto.

2. Captured ships should not be naval warfare upgradeable at all, this prevents the Strassbourg from becomming the third Bismark class ship.

3. Minor allied ships should allways remain 1 naval warfare point below the controlling major power, this is just logical.

4. The Bismark, Tirpitz, Yamoto, and Musashi, should start with at least naval warfare level 2, they were that much better than their counterparts.

5. All free ships entering after 1939 (with some exceptions like the old destroyers England gets from the USA, and the Free French) should begin with at least naval warfare level 1, these were modern ships unlike the mostly WW1 vintage ships which start the game.

This is just some "food for thought", but I think it makes sense.

[Ivanov]

Very interesting an valuable assessement Ludi. Definitely inspiered me to do some further research about the naval warfare. I just would like stress, that I don't expect the game to be 100% historicaly acurate. Such an orthodoxical approach, would probably result in making the game unplayable. I agree that recreating the atmosphere of the dark days of WWI and WWII is the most valuable aspect of SC, at least from my point of view. That's why seeing packs of subs sinking the flower of Royal Navy bothered me so much:)