Sub Vulching! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> The War Room



Message

crsutton -> Sub Vulching! (12/30/2002 11:15:38 PM)

It seems to be a pretty common tactic for e-mail opponents to park subs around major bases to vulch on ships leaving and entering harbor. It seems to be reaching the point of gamey tactics. (Not to say that I have not tried it myself). and very ahistorical. Historically, the waters around major bases were the most dangerous for subs due to the lack of deep water, extra air patrols and frequent ASW measures. This does not seem to translate in game terms. I know that subs are at more risk in shallow waters but is seems like a profitible tactic to vulch with them. Im beginning to worry that this tactic is detracting the historical flavor of the game.

I suggest that except for dedicated sub missions, such as mine laying and troop transport, all subs remain on computer control to prevent this sort of tactic. The AI for subs on computer control seems OK and they tend to hunt shipping lanes which is historically what subs did.

Any other thoughts on this?



Toro -> (12/30/2002 11:30:56 PM)

Just my thoughts: subs have a higher probability of being detected in coastal (including port/base) hexes, so there's a balance. For me, I don't like the idea of putting the subs on "auto" until coding can be added to allow subs to attack ships which pass through it's hex. At the moment, subs can only attack shipping when they end up in the same hex at the end of a phase. Therefore, the only feasible action for players to do is send subs to ports, or "guess" where a TF will end up during the turn.

I don't believe this change will be encompassed for UV, but I believe it's being considered for WitP (which, frankly, at this point is fine -- I think UV is near-perfect now, and definitely playable and balanced).



Canoerebel -> Vulching (is that a word???) (12/30/2002 11:49:50 PM)

I agree with CR and I hereby declare my intent in all PBEM games to leave patrolling subs under computer command. It's totally a-historical (and no fun anyway) when the Japs load up the Port Moresby hex with 15 subs, or the Allies do the same to Rabaul.



Bax -> (12/30/2002 11:54:05 PM)

While admitting that it is gamey, I agree with Toro that the only way to really get results with subs is to park them at an enemy base. I wish it weren't so. To counter this, I use a lot of ASW air units and some destroyer groups at my bases.

I guess it's a matter of choice between two PBEM opponents. Toro and I uses the same tactic on each other in our game, so we both know what to expect.



Canoerebel -> Gamey Play (12/31/2002 12:13:52 AM)

Uncommon Valor is like any other strategy game in that humans have a strong desire to win and an amazing ability to micro-analyze the game looking for every possible advantage. Nothing wrong with that - it separates the true titans from the rest of the pack.

It's interesting to see that happening with UV. Folks are developing data bases for every type of ship and plane to make sure their task forces are optimized, figuring out exactly what percentage damage requires a trip back to Hawaii or Tokyo, and seeking the optimum altitudes to place CAP, bombers, escorts, recon and other planes.

There's nothing wrong with that. After all, the armed forces engaged in the same type of analysis during the war in an effort to win.

The folks who enjoy that sort of planning, or who will endure it in order to maximize their chances of victory, will nearly always beat those of us who find analysis and planning on that level tedious.

I remember a comment by a designer of Empire of the Rising Sun (an excellent strategic game that followed Advanced Third Reich) to the effect that his intention was to develop a game in which the players could simply think "What would Halsey do now?" or "What action would Yamamoto take at this point?" instead of gamey microanalysis that increased the odds of winning but detracted from the feeling of sitting in the fleet admiral's chair. It was a nice idea, but he failed miserably. The grognards quickly devoured the excellent game and found all kinds of ways to increase their chances of winning that had nothing to do with "What would Halsey do now?"

This is not a criticism of those driven to win. It's thanks to these folks that the standard of excellence in this game is achieved, competition is enhanced, and knowledge about the game is derived and communicated to Matrix which can then make changes to get rid of any undesirable "tricks of the trade."

But I am not at that level. I want to win, but I don't want to send all my subs to Port Moresby. I want them scattered about the sea lanes and lurking around ports looking for victims, just as they did in the war.



Canoerebel -> ....on the other hand (12/31/2002 12:43:32 AM)

On the other hand, the IJN and USN would have sent huge concentrations of subs to Rabaul, Port Moresby, Pearl Harbor, San Francicso, Tokyo, etc., if doing so would have yielded results that made it worthwhile (lots of kills at an acceptable mortality rate for friendlys). That UV players follow this strategy simply indicates that the risk is, in fact, acceptable. In the "real war", the enemy would have had countermeasures that would have made frequent use of this tactic suicidal. Matrix simply needs to make that the case in the game. In UV, we don't need to think about the long-range consequences of losing twenty subs in one ill-advised gambit (because that's not going to happen as things now stand nor do we have to think what will be available in 1944 and 1945), nor is it a big problem to strip the periphery of the game "board" to concentrate on the center (leaving vast stretches of the Pacific unpatrolled by subs would have made it much easier for the enemy to take advantage of the absence in those regions, but in the game there are no other regions to worry about), nor do we deal with the reaction from the press and public at home.

The fix to this would simply be to make the consequences of using this tactic unacceptable due to the increased odds of catastrophic submarine losses.

(I have now replied to my own post indicating I have way too much time on my hands).



Point Luck -> (12/31/2002 3:14:12 AM)

For every action there is an opposite and equal reaction. My opponent has well as myself use every tactic available to reach the desired results WIN THE GAME. If I find that my opponent places all his subs in one of my ports than I develop a tactic to effectively counter that maneuver. Such as increased ASW aircraft, deploy more mines, deploy hunter killer TF’s with one slow moving vessel accompanied by three or four DD’s with high ASW ratings. Place to port off limits until swept clean of the nemesis.

I’ve been playing as the IJN with the new reduced ASW capabilities, and yes my opponent did score some early victories in the long run I still feel I fared far better. With most of his subs now forming reefs while my cripples are already on their way back from Tokyo to replenish the fleet.

Historical or not I really don’t play the game relive history and repeat what the leaders in the past have done, since this game can never factor in the human aggressions and or frailties that made up the many brave soles who fought so hard with the ideas, tools and doctrines of the time. I play the game as designed with all it’s capabilities and flaws. I learned to use the tools available.

Since I’ve been playing this game for the last 7 months and have found no real cheats in the current version, I feel that alls fair in Love and War. I just take my lumps as well as give them.



Canoerebel -> (12/31/2002 3:54:56 AM)

It sounds as if you have found adequate countermeasures. If so, and if they are equal and opposite to mass submarine posting at primary ports, then there really isn't a problem. We'll just learn to deal with that tactic and end up sending lots of subs to the bottom (forming artificial reefs, as you put it so well), encouraging players to discontinue deploying submarines in that fashion.

Still, there is nothing to discourage UV players from "stripping the periphery" of the game board and sending all subs to the middle, or most hotly contested areas, which wouldn't have happened during the war because doing so would have left so many sea lanes undefended.

If both the US and Japan kept the sea lanes defended during WWII and thus didn't, so to speak, send a mass of subs to the middle of the board, then perhaps a better way to convey through Uncommon Valor the actual situation both sides faced during the Coral Sea/Solomons contest would be to reduce the number of available subs or, alternatively, to establish zones where subs must be stationed. Another alternative would be to make computer control of sub patrols mandatory (while permitting human control for other missions like mine laying and transport).



Toro -> (12/31/2002 3:55:13 AM)

Interesting note, earlier, about stacking all subs in one port. I'd like to play that person, since I think I could quickly eliminate the threat. :D

Putting all your proverbial eggs in one basket is NEVER a good idea, and against an experienced human opponent (read: one who knows how to deploy an effective countermeasure) will get you slaughtered in short order (most of the time -- there are always exceptions), even in a game. As PL said, there are ways to counter such moves. Let the guy place everything in one port. The easiest way to counter any such activity is to know where the threat is first, and since you know, it relieves more forces elsewhere to engage the enemy.

Anyway, those are my thoughts.



Point Luck -> (12/31/2002 4:32:56 AM)

I would like to add that as training scenario my opponent and I have played a truly NON-HISTORICAL game. We each where permitted to edit the game how we saw fit, with only a few rules such as the total number of carriers each side was permitted to have, keeping a 3 to 1 ratio to offset the US advantage of larger carrier air wings. Other than that we where permitted to add whatever we felt we needed to make this scenario one horrendous naval battle. I might add that neither side knows what the other opponent has available or when is arrives

Needles to say we are both operating with no less than 30 subs in theatre. This has lead to the development some very interesting sub and counter sub tactics. We are currently on the 90th day of the scenario and have witnessed some very bloody battles. Both on and under the sea. As far as A/C goes we are both now receiving a game message of no available pilot slots left. (that means that we each have over 20,000 pilots engaged)

Neither of us on the whole deploy more than one or two subs in an enemy port. But we sure do hunt down each other’s ships out in the shipping lanes (very effectively I might add). We have learned by playing this large scenario the very intricate mechanics of the game. To the point of how to lay traps and how to even lure capital ships into these sub traps. We have also have become very effective as ASW.



bilbow -> (12/31/2002 4:47:31 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Toro
[B]Just my thoughts: subs have a higher probability of being detected in coastal (including port/base) hexes, so there's a balance. For me, I don't like the idea of putting the subs on "auto" until coding can be added to allow subs to attack ships which pass through it's hex. At the moment, subs can only attack shipping when they end up in the same hex at the end of a phase. Therefore, the only feasible action for players to do is send subs to ports, or "guess" where a TF will end up during the turn.


Toro, I think you may be wrong on this. My subs routinely attack ships as they move through the hex. One can usually not be sure of course where a convoy starts and ends it's turn, but I'm sure this is going on. For example, a convoy just left Cairns headed for PM, and my sub in the hex just off the port sank American Legion with 4 torps. In this particular game with Dascateer I have coinfirmed sinkings of 25 merchies, most by sub, and it's only early July 42. I never place subs in ports, and have quite good results, far better than could be explained by coincidentally being in the target's ending hex.



Point Luck -> (12/31/2002 5:01:15 AM)

Actually after numerous experiments and 7 months of game play sub attacks DO only occur as stated in the manual when both a sub and ship end their turn in the same hex. Much to my dismay.

However knowing this just means that more strategic planning is involved when deploying subs. Also you do know when and where ships are departing and arriving from and with good recon you can calculate approximately where a ship will end it’s turn.

Knowing the type of ships making up a convoy checking the intel screen for speed of the slowest ship and you pretty much can be the first-ess with the most-ess as Nathan Bedford Forrest would say



BigJoe417 -> (12/31/2002 9:42:08 AM)

I think the subs should be coded to be able to attack any ships that pass through their hex.

While I'm making a wish list on subs;

I would also like to be able to set their orders so that they focus on capital ships only or transport ships only.

On a related note, pt boats in UV are weak. The dont have depth charges, 50 cals, rockets. Some PT boats were truely offensive weapons platforms. With Depthcharges they could be another ASW.



Veldor -> Historical Inaccuracy (12/31/2002 10:00:11 AM)

I wonder if you all are "missing the boat" :) on all this historically accurate sub behavior talk... I mean, it seems the main two scenarios everyone out there are playing are pretty historically innacurate to begin with (Whats historically accurate about the Battle of Midway never having taken place, or the Germans capturing Moscow???) But scenarios like that exist for hypothetical and/or better play balance in the game type purposes. So shouldn't the real question be... What would be best for better playability and play-balance purposes? In simple terms what would make the game more fun to play? If something is historically OVER-accurate and no fun to play.. well maybe I'm the minority but I wouldn't want to play it then...



boomboom -> My thoughts (12/31/2002 11:23:57 AM)

Mine your own ports.Have some ms in the port.When you move ships in and out of port,the turn before have the ms at sea in port.



Admiral Scott -> THE SOLUTION (12/31/2002 12:02:23 PM)

I think Matrix/2by3 should increase the detection of subs and the success in attacking them in all shallow and base hexes by aircraft, but only during good weather.
At night, and in bad weather it should be worth the risk to enter a shallow water or base hex. But on Clear and partly cloudy days it should be too risky if there are aircraft about.

It should be gradually more risky, from T-storms being the safest, then rain, then night (moon light remember), then overcast, then partly cloudy, and clear weather being almost suicidal if plenty of ASW aircraft are around.



Toro -> (12/31/2002 10:29:34 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by bilbow
[B]My subs routinely attack ships as they move through the hex. One can usually not be sure of course where a convoy starts and ends it's turn, but I'm sure this is going on. [/B][/QUOTE]

Bilbow,

Don't confuse end of "turn" and end of "phase." Subs do not attack targets in-transit (ie, passing through their hex), but they will attack ships ending up in the same hex at the end of each phase. There are two (three??) phases in each turn.



crsutton -> (12/31/2002 11:39:48 PM)

Well, this certainly did generate some discussion. Thanks to all for contributing.

Let me just say that the policy of concentrating subs into packs near ports would have been in reality a disaster for either side. The Germans used subs in packs in the Atlantic but only in deep water. After the Allies began to get the edge in ASW warfare-these German wolf packs really did not accomplish much.

As for concentrating around ports, it just was not done. The reason is that a concentration of subs defeated all of the advantages that subs posessed. It was stealth and dispersion that worked for submarines. Once concentrated-sucessful or not-the submarines would in effect create a target rich enviroment for the enemy. That is, the enemy would need far fewer resources to deal with the subs and have far greater chance of sinking subs if they were all bunched up-especally in shallow water.

One ASW plane might stumble on two or three subs in one patrol instead of the hundreds of sorties flown over great ocean distances looking for lone subs, and thus have greater chances of inflicting harm. (My uncle flew a liberator on sub patrol for over a year in the pacific and never saw a enemy sub) Also, there would be more targets and less searching required for sub hunting ships. Not to mentioned the hightened alertness of incoming convoys.

So in terms of UV, I think the practice of massing subs is ahistorical and gamey. I have found that if left to their own devices, subs on AI do a pretty fair job of duplicating reality and manage to sink a fair number of ships. Both Japanese and American subs tend to lurk in supply lanes and the sub commanders seem to do a good job. On occasion you will find a sub lurking near a major port and that is fine too. I have no objection to turning off the Japanes sub doctrine, if agreed to by both players (although I think American torpedoes are an effective trade off).

In the future, I will ask my opponents before starting to leave all patroling subs on computer control. Dedicated missions are another thing.



crsutton -> (12/31/2002 11:45:01 PM)

I should add that I have less reservations about massing subs around your own ports when invasion threats. It only makes sense that a commander in a critical situation such as this might throw tactical consideration to the wind and sacrifice valuable submarines to save a more important situation. However, my subs will be on computer control, so this topic would not be an issue.



Point Luck -> (12/31/2002 11:58:02 PM)

[I]Also, there would be more targets and less searching required for sub hunting ships. Not to mentioned the hightened alertness of incoming convoys.[/I]

That is exactly why I do not object, if my opponent chooses to park is sub fleet on my doorstep. I know where there are, I know how to get to them.

On the opposing side I disperse my subs in wolf packs in deep water placed in obvious shipping lanes. I might even go so far as to place a large concentration of subs out about 7 to 10 hexes from a big fat juicy enemy CV TF just waiting for my adversary to try to move his carriers in for a kill. This tactic has bagged me some good hits on quite a few of his heavies.

Yes on occasion I may also place a couple of subs in my opponent’s ports but only after he side steps my sub traps and I have to chase down his TF’s.



GulfXray -> To mass or not to mass, that is the question.... (1/1/2003 9:56:16 AM)

Great discussions guys!

I have been playing against PointLuck now for 7 months. He has played the IJN and I the USN/Allies. As he mentioned earlier, we play a custom scenario.

On the subject of massing subs, I rarely have more than 2 subs in any hex at a time. Yes, occasionaly I have more, but not often.

Why do I do this? Because 1) I want to win just as PointLuck wants to win, and 2) a sub is built to sink enemy shipping. I have found that turning my subs over to the AI results in next to no return, whereas when I can guide them I can acheive some results. Now, if Pointluck ran his convoys more like the AI did, I might have different results.

As has been mentioned, for every action, there is a reaction - PointLuck has been very effective in countering this tactic, consequently, I don't employ it often or in the same place. It is effectivve only for a short period of time, then the tide turns against me. PointLuck has made me pay when I get greedy and on a couple occasions has sucked my subs into a ASW trap.

The downsides to this type of tactic are, IMHO, 1) it increases the opponents ASW effectiveness once he figures out how to counter, 2) it means I'm not somewhere else, and 3) PointLuck has a few less things to wonder about.

Regardless, it's a good game and I enjoy hearing all the different views.

Happy, and Safe, New Year to All!!!



johnbruning -> Sub Vulching (1/2/2003 8:08:38 AM)

Historically, in 1942, U.S. Navy submarine operations relied heavily on patrolling very close to Japanese naval bases. A small example:

The USS Pollack spent one of its many war patrols running between Japanese naval bases in the Central Pacific. At times, through the periscope, the crew could see the masts of ships in various harbors.

This was done, I think, in part because through 1942, the USN had very little understanding or knowledge of Japanese convoy routes & systems. Without knowing where the enemy would be on the open sea, the USN relied on scouting and attacking ships near known bases to a greater degree in 1942 and early 1943 than the rest of the war. Even so, there are many examples of "Sub vulching" into the latter stages of the war. To stay with USS Pollack, in mid-1943, her crew engaged a Japanese convoy right at the entrance to Tokyo Bay. They were so close, the crew could see the shore.

That said, it is true that the ASW assets were always strongest nearest key bases. However, for the Japanese in 1942, this is not saying much at all, as their ASW efforts that year border on pathetic. Everything from their ability to track and attack a target, to their limited settings on their depth charges, to the sheer lack of ASW-dedicated assets made things much easier for Allied submarines. Mark Parillo wrote a great book that covers this in detail called "The Japanese Merchant Marine in WWII."


Regards,

John Bruning



tanjman -> Re: Sub Vulching (1/2/2003 8:52:17 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by johnbruning
[B]snip...
That said, it is true that the ASW assets were always strongest nearest key bases. However, for the Japanese in 1942, this is not saying much at all, as their ASW efforts that year border on pathetic. Everything from their ability to track and attack a target, to their limited settings on their depth charges, to the sheer lack of ASW-dedicated assets made things much easier for Allied submarines. Mark Parillo wrote a great book that covers this in detail called "The Japanese Merchant Marine in WWII."


Regards,

John Bruning [/B][/QUOTE]

You would think with the example of what the Germans did to the UK in WWI and were already doing to them in WWII the IJN would have paid more attention to protecting its mechant marine, especialy since this is one of the main reason for sea power in the first place. I guess it wasn't glamous enough for Samurai. And then again hindsight is always 20/20 ;)



johnbruning -> (1/2/2003 9:03:03 AM)

Good point! The Japanese had no powerful ASW advocates on their general staff between the wars. They were fixated on combat power and the "Decisive Battle" and thus neglected the protection of their lines of communications. It just wasn't glamorous.

Unfortunately, the same can be said for the U.S. Navy to a certain degree. Witness what happened on the Eastern Seaboard and the Gulf coast in the opening months of 1942--what the U-boat skippers called "The Second Happy Time."


JohnB



tanjman -> Second Happy Time (1/2/2003 9:26:01 AM)

JohnB,

I blame congress and the coastal state/local goverments for this. As an example it was months before blackouts were instituted (they were resisted by the local goverments). The U-Boat skippers sure loved that city glow that back lighted their targets for them :mad:

I also blame the US Army and Army Air Force who where in charge of costal defense. No USAAF air crews were trained for ASW yet they demanded they do it not the USN :mad: And of course the US Coastal Artillery command has its share of blame for taking on a mission it wasn't equipped to handle :rolleyes: although they did do a decent job of harbor defense :p

Sorry JohnB, didn't mean to go off on a rant ;) but boy did it feel good :D



johnbruning -> (1/2/2003 9:53:25 AM)

Tanjman,

Boy you are right on with everything you pointed out. The idea that the coastal cities didn't want to douse their lights because it would affect the tourist trade was just sickening. As if the corpses, oil and debris on the beaches weren't going to do that anyway.

However, the Navy did resist instituting a convoy system along the Eastern Seaboard until the losses became simply appalling.


It was one of those maddening things that showed just how unprepared we were for total war in early 1942. Not only did we not have the weapons, personnel and doctrine needed, the military did not have a "total war" mindset yet. A lot of pre-war officers who were totally unsuited for wartime had to be weeded out of every service before a wartime mentality really could set in.
In the meantime, a lot of guys died for their errors.

John



crsutton -> (1/3/2003 5:00:52 AM)

Good points. In the IJN, ASW warfare was considered unworthy of the Samurai tradition as was any sort of defensive warfare. This arm, as a result suffered from lack of competent personell. Japanese radar technology suffered as a well for this very same reason.

Of course the USN could have learned a great deal from our British "cousins" but traditional rivalries and prejudices prevented the Americans from gaining much insight. As a result American ASW tactics suffered early in the war as well. Yet the Americans did have access to the latest technology and were much better at learning on the job.

In the end, the real glory goes to the code breakers both in the Pacific and Altantic theaters. The Allies pretty much knew where to find the enemy subs and pursued them relentlessly. In some cases not sinking all the subs that they could to prevent the enemy from realizing that their codes were compromised.



panda124c -> Re: ....on the other hand (1/10/2003 1:53:53 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Canoerebel
[B]
(I have now replied to my own post indicating I have way too much time on my hands). [/B][/QUOTE]

You are not playing enough UV. :D

I leave my subs on automatic except for special missions such as minelaying or special patrols. And at this I only use two to three subs at the most. And when finished I return them to computer control. The general management of sub forces is very time consuming. I don't concentrate subs in shallow hexes because of the losses sustained when doing this.



Drex -> (1/11/2003 12:57:11 AM)

I too use my subs for minelaying under human control and once that function is completed turn them over to the computer. I get more results from laid mines than I do from actual torp attacks (however this is for the Japanese).



Feinder -> (1/11/2003 3:39:49 AM)

That's kinda funny, I -rarely- park my subs in an enmy port, and at last tally, my subs were respsponsible for fully 30% of enemy ships killed (including a crippled CV that would have made it home had SS-40 not run 2 torps into her).

I hate parking subs in ports, because (at least in my experience playing my brother), it guarentees their death. In our last game, Knavey and I were popping each other's subs off left and right, because we could guarentee there would be subs at Buna, Gili-Gili, PM, Rabaul, Shortland... etc.

Both of us learned to make extensive use of hunter-killer groups, combined with local air assets. Personally, I've got at least one group of 6 ASW vessals in every port I use (and I know Knavey is close to the same), for the EXPLICT purpose of smacking the he11 out of any subs anywhere near my port (esp any foolish enough actually enter my port hex).

Furthermore, I commonly use my less experienced short-ranged bombers (maybe the A-20s or the A-24s) for sub spotting before committing them to full service. They spot the sub, I send the hunter-killers to kill it. Or if I've got a good squadron that is kinda banged up and needs to rest/pair, I'll set them to ASW with maybe 30% and maybe they'll actually go after the bugger while the other planes are being repaired. Again, they spot the sub, the hunter-killers go after it.

FWIW however, Knavey is playing IJN sub-doctrine on (we just wanted to see how MUCH it affects things), and he hasn't take as many shots (but again, he's not sitting in my ports waiting for me to kill him either). Frankly, I think he's using them more for mining duties, as I've already discovered a couple of fields. The only sub I use for mines is Argonaut. I pay my skippers to shoot torpedoes!

-F-



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
4.15625