|
Nikademus -> Sub refinements (1/13/2003 1:29:34 AM)
|
Well PBEM has certainly been enlightening for me.
The issue of subs of course is not new but i wanted to post a refresher on them after being roughly handled in PBEM by uber-wolf pack operations off bases.
Sub routines need a serious scrubbing. Right now, as all UV players know, Subs in the game are currently unable to "patrol" and can only attack TF's if they happen to land in the same hex at the end of a 12-hour cycle within a game turn.
As such, it makes it extremely difficult, if not impossible for deep water interceptions to happen. (its easier against the AI, which always uses the same or similar routes, humans are a different story)
The result is that players are forced to bunch their subs at or around bases where ships inevitably have to go. The problem is that these shallow water hexes, so close to operating PC and air assets were historically quite dangerous for subs to operate in but the disadvantages of this are not modeled in the game.
Recently IJN ASW was halved in UV. Historically this was a correct move. Unfortunately the minority that protested this move had a very valid point as i have just recently found out. While historically correct, because of the way Subs behave in UV, a far more ahistorical result occurs.......USN players can bunch a half dozen to a dozen subs at a base hex and just have a field day against IJN assets, even old obsolecent S-boats (actually they are the most devastating because their Mk-10's dont suffer dud problems)
Because IJN ASW is so abysmal, these mass "wolf-pack" subs parked right off a base can just shoot away hitting ships left and right and the IJN player can do little about it. In playing a PBEM game and being exposed to this tactic for the first time i've had a dozen incidents of torpedoed ships in less than 3 days. ASW efforts reaped zero kills, I only got one because of a fluke surface engagement between a sub and a charging light cruiser.
My suggestions:
1) penalties for attack and defence need to be assigned to subs that choose to operate in shallow water hexes. This penalty needs to be increased further in the presence of air patrol assets such as in or near a base hex. The attack penalty represents the additional challenge of subs to set up their shots in this high danger area (discovery is much greater than out in deep water hexes, away from aircraft and regular surface patrols)
The defensive penalty is more self explanitory, if discovered, before or after a shot is taken, being attacked in a shallow water hex is far more dangerous for a sub than a deep water hex given a sub's primary source of evasion is to "go deep"
2) the above suggested penalties should not be static but should be modified by sub and sub commander exp, by the absence or presence of radar on the sub, same for escorts and aircraft on ASW, day vs night, and the level and proficiancy of ASW air and surface assets (particularily near or at bases)
3) A genuine "patrol" feature needs to be coded in for subs so that players are not forced to bunch subs around bases in order to secure attacks. My thought would be a limited form of "react to enemy" similar to how carrier TF's behave when set to react. Subs on the map should have range bands that represent to the player this "reaction" zone that, dependant on sub experience, randoms, crypto, and the presence of radar, defines how far a sub might react to reach a hex currently occupied by an enemy TF. This would allow subs to be more properly deployed in safer deep water hexes, and site them along known or suspected routes taken by enemy shipping. When in these deep water hexes, the penalties described in #1 would not be present and with Japanese ASW at its current level, should give historical results in terms of leathality.
The only recourse i can see in the absence of the above suggestions or something similar would be to restore Japanese ASW to what it was so that the IJN player is no longer so vulnerable to mass bunching of subs at base hexes.
|
|
|
|
