RE: U-boats ...

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: U-boats ...

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Commander - Europe at War Gold >> RE: U-boats ...

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: U-boats ... - 10/18/2007 5:32:59 PM

HansBolter

Posts: 7704
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd

Also, I play with fog of war on (always), so perhaps I have to play with fog of war off for a while, because I'd swear the allies have more naval units than those described.

My experiences exactly. Even when I tried wolf pack tactics attacking with a minimum of 3 subs, I was swarmed by anywhere from 6-8 allied ships, losing 2 of the 3 subs while the third limped home severely damaged.

In one game I positioned 3 subs off the coast of Newfoundland and witnessed the AIs convoys being handed off from one wolf pack of secorts to another. The AI maintained one wolf pack to to pounce on any subs intercepting near the coast, another near mid Atlanitic and yet another near Britain (I had a 4th sub near enough to Britain to see the escorts there). At no time was there ever a sufficient gap in their coverage where the convoys could be hit without the subs being pounced on by a multiship group. This clearly represents a sophisticated approach to convoy coverage completely out of touch with reality for the early period of the war. I would have no criticism of seeing this in the latter half of 1943, but it is totally unrealistic for 1940/1941.

(in reply to JudgeDredd)

Post #: 61

RE: U-boats ... - 10/18/2007 5:46:24 PM

Joe D.

Posts: 4004
Joined: 8/31/2005
From: Stratford, Connecticut
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bossy573

quote:

ORIGINAL: Irish Guards
... Is anyone building subs or fleet consistently with the Axis ...

The German navy is worthless and an effective submarine campaign in the Atlantic is impossible ...

So the short answer is no. A viable Axis naval strategy in CEAW is non-existent.

That's a shame, considering Churchill once said the only thing that really frightened him during the war was the U-boat peril. But apparently England has nothing to worry about in CEaW

_____________________________

Stratford, Connecticut, U.S.A.

"The Angel of Okinawa"

Home of the Chance-Vought Corsair, F4U
The best fighter-bomber of World War II

(in reply to Bossy573)

Post #: 62

RE: U-boats ... - 10/18/2007 6:23:08 PM

Spechtmeise

Posts: 82
Joined: 7/1/2005
Status: offline

I have 3 to 4 subs on patrol off Newfoundland and in the south Atlantic, and boy do they maul the convoys. Before the destroyers come close they bite half or more of the produktion points out of the convoy. Some get through, of course. I am in 1941 currently. I am thinking of building a lot more subs due to their successes.

(in reply to Joe D.)

Post #: 63

RE: U-boats ... - 10/18/2007 6:49:45 PM

firepowerjohan

Posts: 378
Joined: 4/7/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Stratocruiser

I have 3 to 4 subs on patrol off Newfoundland and in the south Atlantic, and boy do they maul the convoys. Before the destroyers come close they bite half or more of the produktion points out of the convoy. Some get through, of course. I am in 1941 currently. I am thinking of building a lot more subs due to their successes.

What difficulty level are you playing?
I think ppl could have trouble with the fact that on higher difficulty levels the AI will start with some bonus units including some extra naval units.

_____________________________

Johan Persson - Firepower Entertainment
Lead developer of:
World Empires Live http://www.worldempireslive.com/
CEAW http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=18
CNAW http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=52

(in reply to Spechtmeise)

Post #: 64

RE: U-boats ... - 10/18/2007 10:31:08 PM

Joe D.

Posts: 4004
Joined: 8/31/2005
From: Stratford, Connecticut
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Stratocruiser

I have 3 to 4 subs on patrol off Newfoundland and in the south Atlantic, and boy do they maul the convoys. Before the destroyers come close they bite half or more of the produktion points out of the convoy. Some get through, of course. I am in 1941 currently. I am thinking of building a lot more subs due to their successes.

Compare this w/what happened to HansBolter's subs vs. the AI off New Foundland re 1940/41; very different results due to different game settings?

_____________________________

Stratford, Connecticut, U.S.A.

"The Angel of Okinawa"

Home of the Chance-Vought Corsair, F4U
The best fighter-bomber of World War II

(in reply to Spechtmeise)

Post #: 65

RE: U-boats ... - 10/18/2007 10:56:27 PM

HansBolter

Posts: 7704
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline

It appears that what we are seeing here is a disparity between the forces/capabilities of the AI's land/air forces and it's naval forces.

We've been told that the normal settings with no advantage to either side is really an introductory mode that experienced gamers shouldn't use if they want any challenge at all from the AI.

This apparently holds true for the AI's use force size/use of land and air units, but, apparently, not for it's force size/use of naval units. When we give the AI advantages to get a decent fight out of the AI's land and air units, the AI also gets a boost in it's naval force size that seems to throws the naval game out of whack.

Does that seem like a sound assesment or am I again basing my interpretations on too few iterations as I haven't "tried hard enough" or played a suffficent number of games to make a fair assesment?

< Message edited by HansBolter -- 10/18/2007 11:00:51 PM >

(in reply to Joe D.)

Post #: 66

RE: U-boats ... - 10/18/2007 11:24:10 PM

firepowerjohan

Posts: 378
Joined: 4/7/2007
Status: offline

On normal difficulty, No naval units are added for Allied AI. On Small, medium or hard setting both UK and USA get one BB and DD each.

_____________________________

(in reply to HansBolter)

Post #: 67

RE: U-boats ... - 10/18/2007 11:44:14 PM

HansBolter

Posts: 7704
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: firepowerjohan

On normal difficulty, No naval units are added for Allied AI. On Small, medium or hard setting both UK and USA get one BB and DD each.

Well that certainly doesn't seem like a sufficient quantity to throw things "out of whack".

My impressions must be a result of my lack of effort following initial negative experiences once I realized I could win easily without even participating in the naval game.

I know I have been a harsh critic but I am trying to be fair as well.

< Message edited by HansBolter -- 10/18/2007 11:47:08 PM >

(in reply to firepowerjohan)

Post #: 68

RE: U-boats ... - 10/18/2007 11:58:07 PM

Bigfish

Posts: 90
Joined: 7/17/2006
From: Frankfurt, Germany
Status: offline

Hi at all,

what a thread

- Boys this is still a game with an silly AI. If you play with "House Rules" then you are in trouble with your subs - ok this is correct. But if you play with game rules only it is quit easy to do a good naval strategic work as the german player.

Early in war 39-40 move all your sub forces in the south atlantic and kill the african convois - i never see any allied ship heading southward to attack my navy in the south. This is because the allied navy want to protect convois - but the small african convois are sunk in 1-2 turns - no convoi no Royal Navy! Let the canadian and us convois pass - this ist no problem. Build 2-4 subs and 1-2 Battleships if you want 1 carrier. If you have 4-5 subs and 2-3 BBs kill the Royal Navy ship by ship - this is quit easy. Hit enemy destroyers with your BBs an do the rest to them with your subs. If you build an carrier use it for reconnaissance only!

Now you're in the position to rule the sea - till the us enters war. By this event you're navy should be now at 6-7 subs and 3-4 battleships maybe 1 carrier. - the only job of this ships and subs ist to sunk the russian convois - no convoi pp is permitted to reach murmansk! - So you're able to do a fast job at the eastern front because russia do not have enough pp they need.

Damage Destroyers with your BBs finish them with your subs. And while you sunk the allied navy the AI produces new ships this is the reason while allied convois are nonrelevant because the AI uses this pp for the replacement of the losses. At one point the AI changes the focus on ground forces and air - so you could rule the hole atlantic -> Allways think about that it is no russian convoi permitted to reach Murmansk!

EDIT: When the Suez is yours - send the italian navy to the atlantic for reinforcement of the german navy...

I think the only challenge of the naval war is to play against another human - but till now i have'nt done this...

Regards
Bigfish

< Message edited by Bigfish -- 10/19/2007 12:04:38 AM >

(in reply to firepowerjohan)

Post #: 69

RE: U-boats ... - 10/19/2007 1:45:44 PM

HansBolter

Posts: 7704
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bigfish

Hi at all,

what a thread - Boys this is still a game with an silly AI. If you play with "House Rules" then you are in trouble with your subs - ok this is correct. But if you play with game rules only it is quit easy to do a good naval strategic work as the german player.

Early in war 39-40 move all your sub forces in the south atlantic and kill the african convois - i never see any allied ship heading southward to attack my navy in the south. This is because the allied navy want to protect convois - but the small african convois are sunk in 1-2 turns - no convoi no Royal Navy! Let the canadian and us convois pass - this ist no problem. Build 2-4 subs and 1-2 Battleships if you want 1 carrier. If you have 4-5 subs and 2-3 BBs kill the Royal Navy ship by ship - this is quit easy. Hit enemy destroyers with your BBs an do the rest to them with your subs. If you build an carrier use it for reconnaissance only!

Now you're in the position to rule the sea - till the us enters war. By this event you're navy should be now at 6-7 subs and 3-4 battleships maybe 1 carrier. - the only job of this ships and subs ist to sunk the russian convois - no convoi pp is permitted to reach murmansk! - So you're able to do a fast job at the eastern front because russia do not have enough pp they need.

Damage Destroyers with your BBs finish them with your subs. And while you sunk the allied navy the AI produces new ships this is the reason while allied convois are nonrelevant because the AI uses this pp for the replacement of the losses. At one point the AI changes the focus on ground forces and air - so you could rule the hole atlantic -> Allways think about that it is no russian convoi permitted to reach Murmansk!

EDIT: When the Suez is yours - send the italian navy to the atlantic for reinforcement of the german navy...

I think the only challenge of the naval war is to play against another human - but till now i have'nt done this...

Regards
Bigfish

All of what you say makes perfect sense and appears to be a perfectly viable strategy. However, when one can easily drive to Perm and Teheran, winning the game hands down while COMPLETELY IGNORING THE NAVAL GAME, where is the incentive to even make the effort to develop a viable naval strategy?

If the naval game had a significant influence on the outcome of the game and the German player could NOT win while ignoring it there would be a reason to pursue it. As things stand now, there is no rerason beyond satisfying one's own desire to engage in naval combat.

(in reply to Bigfish)

Post #: 70

RE: U-boats ... - 10/19/2007 3:20:26 PM

IainMcNeil

Posts: 2804
Joined: 10/26/2004
From: London
Status: offline

The point was not to force you to play a naval game but to offer strategic options. You can ignore it, dabble in it or really focus on it. It should not be required to invest in naval units to win a game.

_____________________________

Iain McNeil
Director
Matrix Games

(in reply to HansBolter)

Post #: 71

RE: U-boats ... - 10/19/2007 3:30:12 PM

firepowerjohan

Posts: 378
Joined: 4/7/2007
Status: offline

We are trying to make the game a challenge for everyone and that is why we have difficulty levels. The moment we make for example Subs too powerful ppl will post strategies where they were able to prevent D-Day and any convoy support by just buying Subs and placing them in the Atlantic and that the game is broken which actually happened early on before the patches. We changed WALLIES AI so that it is focusing alot more of its money into naval purchase especially in the mid-game and that is just the AI's choice of strategy.

Currently the subs are not way off, just need perhaps abit rearrange of their tech levels and their cost of purhase. As for the Atlantic, the size of it is shortened alot in game so the Atlantic sub warfare is a semi-abstraction that in order to not make the big map too big!

That said, I do not think we should be too conerned if a Sub attack seems to be near the US coast and not in the "middle of the Atlantic" since the Atlantic is altered. In the same way, movement rates are considerable lower than in real WW2 when it comes to crossing the Atlantic. If we were to make that more realistic we would probably have to make a turn represent 3 days instead of 10 days unless we want Navakl units to have movement=80 hexes or something. Whatever we choose it is always a trade-off and abstraction from reality unless we have a simulation based on hours instead of like now when one turn is 10 days

You can also argue in historical games that we know more than what they knew in 1939 so the Allied player knows that Subs can kill their economy and will be even more concerned building up destroyers. Same with USSR, Germany knows that USSR winter will kill them so will advance more cautiously, which in real WW2 they did not know exactly how the importance of certain factors would be...until too late

We also have to boil down issues into their cause whether it is strategies or a general problem since if the problem is not general then what we change to make the AI games more "realistic" might cause PBEM and TcpIP suddenly to become unplayable so therefore we aim to get as much info as possible to not overcoompensate. I woudl like to see some screenshots of the Sub wars if someone can post them

< Message edited by firepowerjohan -- 10/19/2007 4:09:37 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to IainMcNeil)

Post #: 72

RE: U-boats ... - 10/19/2007 4:40:31 PM

HansBolter

Posts: 7704
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iain McNeil

The point was not to force you to play a naval game but to offer strategic options. You can ignore it, dabble in it or really focus on it. It should not be required to invest in naval units to win a game.

I couldn't disagree more strongly, but that is only my opinion and I am only one customer.

(in reply to IainMcNeil)

Post #: 73

RE: U-boats ... - 10/19/2007 4:48:36 PM

HansBolter

Posts: 7704
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: firepowerjohan

We are trying to make the game a challenge for everyone and that is why we have difficulty levels. The moment we make for example Subs too powerful ppl will post strategies where they were able to prevent D-Day and any convoy support by just buying Subs and placing them in the Atlantic and that the game is broken which actually happened early on before the patches. We changed WALLIES AI so that it is focusing alot more of its money into naval purchase especially in the mid-game and that is just the AI's choice of strategy.

Currently the subs are not way off, just need perhaps abit rearrange of their tech levels and their cost of purhase. As for the Atlantic, the size of it is shortened alot in game so the Atlantic sub warfare is a semi-abstraction that in order to not make the big map too big!

That said, I do not think we should be too conerned if a Sub attack seems to be near the US coast and not in the "middle of the Atlantic" since the Atlantic is altered. In the same way, movement rates are considerable lower than in real WW2 when it comes to crossing the Atlantic. If we were to make that more realistic we would probably have to make a turn represent 3 days instead of 10 days unless we want Navakl units to have movement=80 hexes or something. Whatever we choose it is always a trade-off and abstraction from reality unless we have a simulation based on hours instead of like now when one turn is 10 days

You can also argue in historical games that we know more than what they knew in 1939 so the Allied player knows that Subs can kill their economy and will be even more concerned building up destroyers. Same with USSR, Germany knows that USSR winter will kill them so will advance more cautiously, which in real WW2 they did not know exactly how the importance of certain factors would be...until too late

We also have to boil down issues into their cause whether it is strategies or a general problem since if the problem is not general then what we change to make the AI games more "realistic" might cause PBEM and TcpIP suddenly to become unplayable so therefore we aim to get as much info as possible to not overcoompensate. I woudl like to see some screenshots of the Sub wars if someone can post them

Those are acceptable responses. However, perhaps some accounting for the truncated geography of the Atlantic should be considered with regard to how easy that makes it for the Allied side to position "interception" groups that provide complete coverage of the entire route between America and England.

Furthermore the sequential nature of a turn based game is what is making it possible for ships hundreds of miles away from the sight of a uboat attack to automatically be able to pounce on the subs following the sub attack, who, in reality, would be long gone from the location of the attack by the time those "interceptors" ever arrived on the scene.

Perhaps a mechanism needs to be introduced whereby true "escorts" who are adjacent to the convoy when it gets attacked are the only enemy naval unist who can automatically find the sub and that enemy "patrolling" units moving multiple hexes to get to the attack location, as an after the fact reaction to the attack, have a very, very slim, but not no, chance of finding and attacking the sub.

After all, in the real world, as an "escort", in order to able to protect your "charge" from harm and destroy prospective attackers, you have to actually be "escorting" the convoy, not patrolling the general sea lanes hundreds of miles away.

< Message edited by HansBolter -- 10/19/2007 4:55:02 PM >

(in reply to firepowerjohan)

Post #: 74

RE: U-boats ... - 10/19/2007 4:53:14 PM

IainMcNeil

Posts: 2804
Joined: 10/26/2004
From: London
Status: offline

Everyone has an opinion and rarely do they agree, but that's why the world is such an interesting place :) What if the axis had not wasted effort on their subs and surface naval - who knows how that would have effected the war. What if they'd put more in to subs and starved the UK? Maybe we'd all be speaking German!

We have to go with our own opinions when designing games. You're free to do the same when you design yours! :)

_____________________________

Iain McNeil
Director
Matrix Games

(in reply to HansBolter)

Post #: 75

RE: U-boats ... - 10/19/2007 6:09:42 PM

Bossy573

Posts: 363
Joined: 3/25/2005
From: Buffalo, NY
Status: offline

What exactly is one sub or naval unit representing? Is it a single ship or some kind of combat group?

_____________________________

(in reply to IainMcNeil)

Post #: 76

RE: U-boats ... - 10/19/2007 6:10:12 PM

MemoryLeak

Posts: 491
Joined: 12/4/2000
From: Woodland, CA USA
Status: offline

Iain,

Hi, I would have to side with Hans on this issue. I don't think it is strictly a matter of opinion that we are addressing here, but more of a basic philosophy of a war game.

The better games, more intricate if you will, are the ones where each aspect, whether it is armour or air or inf or artty or naval forces has a purpose and can be utilized as part of the overall strategy of the player.

I personally believe that when a major component such as naval/submarine warfare can be almost totally ignored by players without consequence is a flaw and detracts from the potential enjoyment of the game.

I play the game frequently because I like it but I think it can be improved. Perhaps reduce the range of the units so that the subs can have a chance to leave the area of the last convoy attack. Or a roll of the dice (percentage) that after each attack the subs can't be located the next turn.

Anyway, I enjoy playing the game and I'm glad to see you are improving it with each patch.

_____________________________

If you want to make GOD laugh, tell him your future plans

USS Long Beach CGN-9
RM2 1969-1973

(in reply to IainMcNeil)

Post #: 77

RE: U-boats ... - 10/19/2007 6:40:16 PM

IainMcNeil

Posts: 2804
Joined: 10/26/2004
From: London
Status: offline

The point you're missing is that you can gain a significant advantage through good use of the naval units, so the options are there, you're just choosing not to use them. I agree the tactics required are not 100% realistic, but they do work. I'd like to see them become more realistic some time in the future but it requires fairly significant changes.

_____________________________

Iain McNeil
Director
Matrix Games

(in reply to MemoryLeak)

Post #: 78

RE: U-boats ... - 10/19/2007 6:49:59 PM

Joe D.

Posts: 4004
Joined: 8/31/2005
From: Stratford, Connecticut
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

... Furthermore the sequential nature of a turn based game is what is making it possible for ships hundreds of miles away from the sight of a uboat attack to automatically be able to pounce on the subs following the sub attack, who, in reality, would be long gone from the location of the attack by the time those "interceptors" ever arrived on the scene ...

I don't recall having this w/HoI2, which is somewhat similar to this game as CEaW is a cross between it and PG, but in real time.

Then again, in HoI, sub attacks on (routine cargo) convoys were heavilly abstracted; the only "real" battles happened when a sub/sub fleet engaged an enemy surface fleet, so maybe any comparison just doesn't apply.

But if turn-based is the problem, the obvious solution is a WEGO approach; but that would be asking too much of a game revision for just naval/sub tactics.

_____________________________

Stratford, Connecticut, U.S.A.

"The Angel of Okinawa"

Home of the Chance-Vought Corsair, F4U
The best fighter-bomber of World War II

(in reply to HansBolter)

Post #: 79

RE: U-boats ... - 10/19/2007 7:50:46 PM

MemoryLeak

Posts: 491
Joined: 12/4/2000
From: Woodland, CA USA
Status: offline

Iain,

I respectfully submit that it is you who is missing the point. The submarine component is not used by many players. For me it is because the cost involved to build a sub unit versus the gain from doing so is not worthwhile. You can count on the sub unit being destroyed or nealy so during the first encounter with a naval combat unit. And the encounter is inevitable and usually quite soon after your attack on a convoy.\

I use the two orginal subs the Germans get very judiciously. I usully patrol at the northwest corner of the map and jump convoys that come by. I only hit them once and do not pursue them because means instant destruction. I usually get away with this for awhile but my turns are numbered. I really can't move about too much because the end is unavoidable. If I run into any naval combat unit I'm toast. No chance at all.
My point is the subs , being as weak defensively as they are, should have an opportunity to escape, or at least a roll of the dice to allow them to escape a certain percentage of the time. This would represent the illusive nature of subs.

Thanks for listening

_____________________________

If you want to make GOD laugh, tell him your future plans

USS Long Beach CGN-9
RM2 1969-1973

(in reply to IainMcNeil)

Post #: 80

RE: U-boats ... - 10/19/2007 8:56:21 PM

firepowerjohan

Posts: 378
Joined: 4/7/2007
Status: offline

I agree that a plan could be to make the subs more durable increasing their survivability and/or make them more cheap to use as a strategy. What I am not sure I agree about is that sometimes "realism" means that Axis and Allies must do the exact same strategies like they did in real WW2.

Demanding that Axis follow a historical buildup of forces and strategies would also by the same logic mean that Axis should not be able to win without trying to bomb Britain or to try and win Africa to get the oil in mid east?

Strategies shoudl be balanced so that there exist several to choose from that can win the game and here I agree and we will balance the units further if necessary

< Message edited by firepowerjohan -- 10/19/2007 9:16:10 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to MemoryLeak)

Post #: 81

RE: U-boats ... - 10/19/2007 9:13:08 PM

HansBolter

Posts: 7704
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

But if turn-based is the problem, the obvious solution is a WEGO approach; but that would be asking too much of a game revision for just naval/sub tactics.

One obvious solution yes, but decidely not a workable one with the present turn based system.

What I suggested above MIGHT be a more workable solution where only those units truly escorting (ie..adjacent to the convoy) could automatically "find" the sub to attack it. Interseptors reacting from long distance would have only a minute chance to find the sub. This would prevent the Allied player, be it human or AI from stationing "reaction wolfpacks" at intervals across the compressed Atlantic and actually have to parcel out his navy to the job of escorting.

This alone would alter the dynamic considerably. Subs attacking heavily escorted convoys would be very vulnerable, while subs finding lightly escorted, or unescorted convoys would have the historical field day.

< Message edited by HansBolter -- 10/19/2007 9:17:43 PM >

(in reply to Joe D.)

Post #: 82

RE: U-boats ... - 10/19/2007 9:25:11 PM

Irish Guards

Posts: 143
Joined: 8/13/2004
Status: offline

I actually started this thread ....
In the hope that the whole naval war would be included in a more balanced aspect ...
As it stands now, and I have mentioned this before ... It is very difficult to incorporate the different theaters in a WW2 game ...
As far as the overall scope is concerned I am still finding ...
And I just hope someone says something like .. ahh .. well .. You just haven't played enough ...

That would be a riot ....

As far as playability goes ... all works fairly well ........ But .....
Allies can and do wreak havoc in many different situations on board in the naval war ....
Leading to basically no naval war ... which in itself takes a huge part of WW2 and throws it in the trash ....
I just used my entire Allied fleet to utterly devestate the Italian navy before they even had a chance to move ...

This is because of when they join ... Which is now earlier in some cases ... Big smook so what ... Even if you have to DoW Italy to use the Allied fleet to kill the Italian navy ... no penalty whatsoever ....
In the game I have mentioned .. I have killed the 2 U-boats in the NA ....
Then sent the most of the fleet to the Med .. July 1940 .. France is still holding ...
Italian fleet now consists of a 3 factor BB ... Next turn .. I will chase him to Trieste and he will also die ...

Is this balanced ...

Even plausible to send BB .. DD and subs into a port to attack the fleet ... There has to be a defensive capacity ... This should also include BB just bombarding the hell out of land units in cities .... entrenched ...

I have and will continue to give numerous examples .. And in the meantime I will plan the next phase of the Italian nightmare ...
Which will be the Invasion of Italy before they are even in the war ...
I am fairly sure I can take Italy out in 1 turn ... Just a matter of getting the right pointy units in the proper places and proper times ...

IDG

(in reply to firepowerjohan)

Post #: 83

RE: U-boats ... - 10/20/2007 12:06:55 AM

SeaMonkey

Posts: 804
Joined: 2/15/2004
Status: offline

Once again a "Blast from the Past", Rambo Rome Gambit.

Now just wait for the UK and French to DoW Low Countries and take them in one turn while Germany is attacking Poland.

(in reply to Irish Guards)

Post #: 84

RE: U-boats ... - 10/20/2007 2:09:42 AM

Vypuero

Posts: 232
Joined: 4/7/2007
From: Philadelphia, PA USA
Status: offline

I am thinking we will make the low countries "pro-allied" so you cannot attack them as allies, on the other hand I dont know if you might not be able to turn it to your advantage as axis, if you were clever enough. Have not tried it

(in reply to SeaMonkey)

Post #: 85

RE: U-boats ... - 10/20/2007 5:19:20 AM

Irish Guards

Posts: 143
Joined: 8/13/2004
Status: offline

Yep .. Sea gets it .. Thats a BJ Rambo move ...

Lets just move the BB's from there docks and then attack em w Inf invading ...
Worst is he did it with ... KaNaDiAnS ...
Oh Dear ...
I guardantee all minors spheer of influence ...

IDG

(in reply to Vypuero)

Post #: 86

RE: U-boats ... - 10/20/2007 9:04:24 AM

Forwarn45

Posts: 718
Joined: 4/26/2005
Status: offline

Building a few extra troops as Italy during the neutral period should prevent the Allies from getting too far on land. On sea, why not leave the Italian navy off-map until the first turn Italy is active? Probably too hard to code, but just a thought. Otherwise, another house rule would seem to be in order.

< Message edited by Forwarn45 -- 10/20/2007 9:08:13 AM >

(in reply to Irish Guards)

Post #: 87

RE: U-boats ... - 10/20/2007 2:10:04 PM

JudgeDredd

Posts: 8573
Joined: 11/14/2003
From: Scotland
Status: offline

Johan

I have been playing with the game and have successfully blocked the atlantic (for the most part) by having 5 subs going from north west to south east and 3 or 3 subs behind this wall.

The wall of subs detect convoys and keep their eyes peeled for escorts and the 2 or 3 behind attack. Generally speaking they can destroy the convoy BEFORE the escorts turn up, other times I simply weaken it and let it go on their way for fear of being attacked by a convoy.

So, im (revised) o, there is the ability to successfully have a "wolfpack" strategy.

Subs are not too expensive, they do not take too long to build and they can be effective.

I do think the combat results are a little porked for the reason I mentioned in a previous post

a battleship wandered into my sub hex and the combat result was 2-1 in the battleships favour...for a start because it was surprised, the sub should've came off better and also, being a sub v a battleship (as acknowledged by you) the the battleship is less effective against subs...so it appears, in that particular instance, that the combat is porked

However, with reference to my initial view of subs being a waste of resources, I am willing to stand corrected.

_____________________________

Alba gu' brath

(in reply to Forwarn45)

Post #: 88

RE: U-boats ... - 10/20/2007 2:37:02 PM

firepowerjohan

Posts: 378
Joined: 4/7/2007
Status: offline

That sounds good Judge and that is also why we are trying to make modest changes to not overcompensate and swing the game the other way around. We want as detailed observations as possible so if you find anything more on this issue pls post it.

I think we all want some random variation to battles and that is why that 2-1 in favour of the BB happened in the battle. Save before a battle and rerun it 10 times and you will see that maybe 8 times out of 10 the sub will be winning the battle over the BB but in the other 2 cases where BB gets lucky well that is just the way we want it so that the game is not too predictable

< Message edited by firepowerjohan -- 10/20/2007 6:14:27 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to JudgeDredd)

Post #: 89

RE: U-boats ... - 10/20/2007 9:59:32 PM

Vypuero

Posts: 232
Joined: 4/7/2007
From: Philadelphia, PA USA
Status: offline

I was thinking though there are some significant disadvantages to Allies attacking low countries. One is that forever more, once the Axis takes them, they get full instead of half value. That is 6 PP more every turn the rest of the game. Not to mention the casualties they save in not fighting them - to me it seems like a pretty big gamble.

(in reply to firepowerjohan)

Post #: 90