Subs and Air Attacks

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Subs and Air Attacks

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] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> Subs and Air Attacks

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Subs and Air Attacks - 2/7/2003 11:11:42 AM

PBYPilot

Posts: 183
Joined: 3/13/2002
From: Marina del Rey, CA
Status: offline

It still rankles that an air attack on a sub can cause the sub to lose a major part of it's fuel, even when the sub is udamaged by the attack. This happens in single sub TF's as well as multi sub TF's.

An alternative that might not be difficult to incorporate and would not only reduce the unrealism of the current effect but actually increase the realism of air-sub results would be for the subs to take a op point hit instead of an endurance hit.

This would have the result of reducing the sub's radius of action for the day that attack occured. And that *was* the effect that air attacks did have.

I'm posting this here rather than the bug forum because we're been told, officialy, that "it's not a bug, it's a rule."

PBYPilot
"Slow airplanes and fast women."

Post #: 1

- 2/7/2003 12:16:21 PM

CapAndGown

Posts: 3206
Joined: 3/6/2001
From: Virginia, USA
Status: offline

And what exactly is a reduced action radius going to do since the subs are probably just parked in Shortlands Harbor anyway?

(in reply to PBYPilot)

Post #: 2

- 2/7/2003 12:26:15 PM

PBYPilot

Posts: 183
Joined: 3/13/2002
From: Marina del Rey, CA
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by cap_and_gown
[B]And what exactly is a reduced action radius going to do since the subs are probably just parked in Shortlands Harbor anyway? [/B][/QUOTE]
:D

Well, I for one sure wouldn't mind the suggestion that popped up about giving an advantage to ASW in friendly harbors. Half my ship losses in my current game were SC's and PC sunk by Japanese SS torpedoes! :rolleyes: I'll bet that's more of those type ships lost to sub torpedo attacjs than in the whole war in real life.

PBYPilot
"Slow airplanes and fast women."

(in reply to PBYPilot)

Post #: 3

- 2/7/2003 12:33:42 PM

CapAndGown

Posts: 3206
Joined: 3/6/2001
From: Virginia, USA
Status: offline

At least as the US your DDs can sink the jap subs. Try playing a PBEM as the Japs. You will quickly find out you are completely helpless in the face of the US uber S-boats.

(in reply to PBYPilot)

Post #: 4

- 2/7/2003 12:54:25 PM

pasternakski

Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by cap_and_gown
[B]At least as the US your DDs can sink the jap subs. Try playing a PBEM as the Japs. You will quickly find out you are completely helpless in the face of the US uber S-boats. [/B][/QUOTE]

I completely agree that the S-boats are, and always have been, the most unrealistically modeled class of ships in UV - except Japanese barges (or "colliers," as we have been taught to call them) in their swarming millions. Tell you what - rope off Oklahoma, flood it with water, send the S-boats and colliers there to fight each other, and let's get back to fighting a reasonable simulation of the campaign in the South Pacific.

_____________________________

Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.

(in reply to PBYPilot)

Post #: 5

- 2/7/2003 1:31:19 PM

PBYPilot

Posts: 183
Joined: 3/13/2002
From: Marina del Rey, CA
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by cap_and_gown
[B]At least as the US your DDs can sink the jap subs. Try playing a PBEM as the Japs. You will quickly find out you are completely helpless in the face of the US uber S-boats. [/B][/QUOTE]

Well, my suggestion re: changing the effects of air attacks on subs would help this. Especially if combined with some sort of home field advantage for local ASW forces.

I've also got to say that in my current campaign (on hold due to the Esc bug) ALL, repeat ALL, my ship losses have been to Jap SS torpedo attacks. . Many of them inside allied harbors.

I think the lesson here is that if you are going to model the interaction between lots of different forms of weapons systems (air, sea, land, subsurface), you have to model each system accurately, or it'll lead to ahistoric use and ahistoric results.

Another way to lower the ubereffctivenss of subs would be to reduce the chance of "achieving a firing solution" so that even though subs were in a hex with an enemy surface TF, their chance of even being able to make an attack is reduced. Oh well, we'll se....

PBYPilot
"Slow airplanes and fast women."

(in reply to PBYPilot)

Post #: 6

- 2/7/2003 2:36:10 PM

Veer

Posts: 2231
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Excuse me
Status: offline

I just keep auto sub ops on. That helps with the realism.

_____________________________

In time of war the first casualty is truth. - Boake Carter

(in reply to PBYPilot)

Post #: 7

- 2/7/2003 11:01:42 PM

Mr.Frag

Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline

Since subs can only attack when a task force lands in their hex, I think they increased the effectiveness to compensate.

If they fixed the real issue, in that subs can not shoot at passing targets, I think we would see this other problem go away.

As it sits now, the only real choice of use for subs is to stack them in the enemies port hexes and the end result is an overly high concentration of subs.

Fix the real problem, not the resultant use by players trying to work around the problem.

Any port hex should be presumed to have torpedo nets and other anti-submarine defences that should make short work of anyone foolish enough to send a submarine into the hex.

(in reply to PBYPilot)

Post #: 8

- 2/8/2003 2:09:16 AM

timtom