Submarine effectiveness (Full Version)

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



Message

Tankerace -> Submarine effectiveness (4/15/2003 2:15:42 AM)

I just won my first scenario with a decisive victory, and before I go cranking up the difficulty to ungodly levels, I want to comment on one thing I noticed about the game.

In most games covering this type of warfare (in fact, the only ones that come close to this scale are Koei's PTO and SSI's GNB III) submarines are quite ineffective, and practically worthless. I found that in the beginning phase of my scenario (17), from May to October 1942, I was at a distinct carrier disadvantage (I lost the Lexington and Long Island, while Sara, Enterprise, and Hornet were badly damaged) and having no battleships, I chose a defensive campaign using my submarines. By late 1942, American subs had practically sank every ship with the word "Maru" in its name. In addition to that, they removed quite a few DDs for few losses (I think I lost 6 during the entire scenario, of which 4 were to DDs, 1 to enemy aircraft, and 1 to surface gunfire). Since they removed any chance for invasion by the Japanese, I was free to build up, to a point were I was able to force a huge carrier battle off Guadalcanal (I won, due to weather and luck. Lots of luck).

Japanese subs (with hist. doctrine) had a very different story. The sank a few merchants, mostly stragglers limping back to Nomea, and they did get a few DDs and 2 cruisers or so. In all, I think they sank about 16 ships total (and that is beefing the total, IMO), mostly destoyers and merchants. I will give them credit for putting 2 Long Lance's into the CV [I]Wasp[/I], effectively removing her from future combat (it was in November 1943), but other than that, they did nothing but be a little pesky. Over half the enemy ships sunk (about 400 total) were caused by my submarines. They might not be big and beautiful like a flattop, but you ain't gonna win without them. They spotted enemy carriers, at one time torpedoed 2 and damaging them, and at one point the Soryu ran into a mine laid by the USS Argonaut. The took the fight to the enemy when the surface guys couldn't. Well, these are just my thoughts



UV-Junkie -> Re: Submarine effectiveness (4/15/2003 4:01:59 AM)

I have noticed in v2.3 the Jap subs are not nearly as effective as in prior versions while US subs are much more effective. Also, I have yet to see a US ship hit a Jap mine while plenty of Jap ships have hit allied mines. Maybe this is just a string of bad luck on my part.

Has anyone else has noticed this?



Chiteng -> Re: Re: Submarine effectiveness (4/15/2003 4:37:57 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by UV-Junkie
[B]I have noticed in v2.3 the Jap subs are not nearly as effective as in prior versions while US subs are much more effective. Also, I have yet to see a US ship hit a Jap mine while plenty of Jap ships have hit allied mines. Maybe this is just a string of bad luck on my part.

Has anyone else has noticed this? [/B][/QUOTE]

Well I get lots of hits vs the computer with Jap mines.
Cant say I have ever seen one against a human



crsutton -> (4/15/2003 10:38:33 AM)

Nope, I am getting hits with both Japanese and American mines in all my email games. They wont win it for you but a hit now and then makes you feel good.



Tankerace -> (4/15/2003 11:01:32 AM)

IN my AI attack on Rabaul, my landing force was crippled by Jap mines, I lost 10 transports because of it. A funny thing, 2 nights after it was secure, the BB Musashi went to bombard and ran into on of their own Type 93 mines that was still their! LOL!



JohnK -> Ummmm.... (4/15/2003 1:04:48 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by crsutton
[B]Nope, I am getting hits with both Japanese and American mines in all my email games. They wont win it for you but a hit now and then makes you feel good. [/B][/QUOTE]

Anyone else find it ridiculous that the game notifies you when the enemy hits one of your mines?

Oh well. I shouldn't be surprised when surprisingly few people seem to be bothered that ships hit mines left and right in UV (even with the changes limiting mine depots) when they didn't, historically, in the real Solomons campaign.

In general, due to the quickness the sea bottom drops off around most of the likely target bases on the map, and the range of BB and CA guns, bombardment forces should NEVER be hitting mines because in reality it's too deep to mine effectively.



Chiteng -> Re: Ummmm.... (4/15/2003 1:18:46 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by JohnK
[B]Anyone else find it ridiculous that the game notifies you when the enemy hits one of your mines?

Oh well. I shouldn't be surprised when surprisingly few people seem to be bothered that ships hit mines left and right in UV (even with the changes limiting mine depots) when they didn't, historically, in the real Solomons campaign.

In general, due to the quickness the sea bottom drops off around most of the likely target bases on the map, and the range of BB and CA guns, bombardment forces should NEVER be hitting mines because in reality it's too deep to mine effectively. [/B][/QUOTE]

Already commented on long ago.
Some rabid pro-mine poster shut everyone down.
I am more angry that Savo Island is almost immpossible to re-create.



LargeSlowTarget -> Re: Re: Submarine effectiveness (4/15/2003 2:48:00 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by UV-Junkie
[B]I have noticed in v2.3 the Jap subs are not nearly as effective as in prior versions while US subs are much more effective.
[snip]
Has anyone else has noticed this? [/B][/QUOTE]

I tend to agree. I've captured Luganville in a PBEM game but wasn't able to destroy my opponent's forces in the base hex. He is running in forces and supplies for a counterattack via fast transport with lots of DMS, DM, DD and even cruisers. I've positioned my subs along the route and even in the base hexes, but in the past two weeks I got no contacts at all. And this in Aug/Sept 42, THE months for IJN submarines IRL.
My opponent on the other hand has positioned submarines around my staging base at Lunga, and they are quite effective, despite dozens of patrol and float planes in Lunga on ASW. Pretty frustrating.



Gamara -> (4/16/2003 4:36:47 AM)

I have been pplaying against AI as both US and IJN. I have seen few mine hits from either side. I have had mine fields that were in restricted waters near villa that numberd around 400 mines and had CV groups as well as transport groups move throught hem with impunity. Most times i see teh DD's have destroyd two mines etc and the enemy ships waltz right through. As for Subs, I think they are worthless other than as scouts. I have had nearly 100 sightings since I started playing UV from both sides. I have sunk 2 ships as USN and fired on only 4 others. As IJN I have yet to hit any ships I have fired on and have had few contacts in general. As IJN I have tied with both Sub doctrine on and off. I have tried using natural choke points and even i believe it was Mogamis list of sweet ambush spots and have had no results. I see posts of people picking off damaged ships and or transports, I just find it amazing that my sub forces suck so bad. I have found my only hope is to get lucky with aircraft or a surface force striking the enemy. As for defensive units, mines and subs, I think they are a waste at this point. Oh I am playing version 2.3



Snigbert -> (4/16/2003 4:52:04 AM)

[B]I am more angry that Savo Island is almost immpossible to re-create.[/B]

Due to the huge amount of luck and surprise the Japanese enjoyed in this battle, it should be difficult to recreate.



Blitzer -> (4/16/2003 5:39:48 AM)

I'm in mixed agreement with this thread. 2.3 mines seem about the same to me as before. However, the subs (IJN especially) are decidedly less effective. I hesitate to call them worthless; I've mostly given up placing them astride sea lanes and instead have gotten quite good at arranging them in aesthetically pleasing patterns. :cool:



Chiteng -> (4/16/2003 5:53:29 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Snigbert
[B][B]I am more angry that Savo Island is almost immpossible to re-create.[/B]

Due to the huge amount of luck and surprise the Japanese enjoyed in this battle, it should be difficult to recreate. [/B][/QUOTE]

Luck is a myth. All luck is...is being prepared when opportunity
arrives.

It CAN be simulated



Chiteng -> (4/16/2003 5:54:37 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Blitzer
[B]I'm in mixed agreement with this thread. 2.3 mines seem about the same to me as before. However, the subs (IJN especially) are decidedly less effective. I hesitate to call them worthless; I've mostly given up placing them astride sea lanes and instead have gotten quite good at arranging them in aesthetically pleasing patterns. :cool: [/B][/QUOTE]

They keep the USN from sending single ships.
So in that sence they help a bit.



Philwd -> (4/16/2003 11:10:18 AM)

In my previous game when we upgraded to 2.3 my opponents ' USN fleet subs, not his S-boats, went from 17% torp hits to 80%. I posted on the bug forum and about the only replies I got were IJN subs seem less effective while USN seemed about right. So I chalked it up to a string of bad luck.

In my new game as IJN I have gotten 2 sub attacks both against single ships. USN seems less effective so far. We are only 3 weeks into the game so it will probably get worse for me:( .

Quark



SoulBlazer -> (4/17/2003 4:21:37 AM)

I hardly use mines because I hate dealing with them and think they make the game too easy.

In my games with Drex, he uses mines heavily and with major effects -- I've had carriers, battleships, and cruisers hit minefields I did'nt know about that had JUST been planted and required to return home, and also had a light cruiser and a escort carrier sink due to mine hits.

But just now in our game with Drex his South Dakota hit a mine field that HE planted at one of my bases and has to return to Pearl. So it hits both ways. :D



Tanaka -> (4/17/2003 4:42:43 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Gamara
[B]I have been pplaying against AI as both US and IJN. I have seen few mine hits from either side. I have had mine fields that were in restricted waters near villa that numberd around 400 mines and had CV groups as well as transport groups move throught hem with impunity. Most times i see teh DD's have destroyd two mines etc and the enemy ships waltz right through. As for Subs, I think they are worthless other than as scouts. I have had nearly 100 sightings since I started playing UV from both sides. I have sunk 2 ships as USN and fired on only 4 others. As IJN I have yet to hit any ships I have fired on and have had few contacts in general. As IJN I have tied with both Sub doctrine on and off. I have tried using natural choke points and even i believe it was Mogamis list of sweet ambush spots and have had no results. I see posts of people picking off damaged ships and or transports, I just find it amazing that my sub forces suck so bad. I have found my only hope is to get lucky with aircraft or a surface force striking the enemy. As for defensive units, mines and subs, I think they are a waste at this point. Oh I am playing version 2.3 [/B][/QUOTE]

As I only play as the Japs in my games I have not had or seen this problem at all. On the contrary I would think that most of my opponents have thought my subs have been too effective. In most of my current games at least half if not most of my allied sinkings early to mid game are from subs. While at the same time allied subs do not bother me all that much. Not boasting or anything its just that I have not seen this problem in my games. There is nothing I love better than sinking an allied cruiser with one of my subs!!! :) Dont give up just try new tactics.



Admiral DadMan -> (4/17/2003 9:23:08 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Snigbert
[B]I am more angry that Savo Island is almost immpossible to re-create.[/B]

Due to the huge amount of luck and surprise the Japanese enjoyed in this battle, it should be difficult to recreate. [/QUOTE]That's right. To re-create Savo Is. you'd need:[list]
  • a Coastwatcher report ignored,
  • FRUPAC intel mis-interpreted,
  • a sighting by a Hudson mis-handled,
  • your Invasion Force Commander summoning the Screening Force Commander 15 Miles away (removing HMAS Australia's guns from the battle) for a conference,
  • bad disposition of forces... [/list]Need I go on?

    And didn't we have a big "to-do" about IJN sneaking in undetected/unmolested as well, and people moaning about not being able to shut down the Tokyo Expresses?

    B-25 and B-26's usually put a stop to that tactic :)



    • Chiteng -> (4/18/2003 1:26:22 AM)

    [QUOTE]Originally posted by Admiral DadMan
    [B]That's right. To re-create Savo Is. you'd need:[list]
  • a Coastwatcher report ignored,
  • FRUPAC intel mis-interpreted,
  • a sighting by a Hudson mis-handled,
  • your Invasion Force Commander summoning the Screening Force Commander 15 Miles away (removing HMAS Australia's guns from the battle) for a conference,
  • bad disposition of forces... [/list]Need I go on?

    And didn't we have a big "to-do" about IJN sneaking in undetected/unmolested as well, and people moaning about not being able to shut down the Tokyo Expresses?

    B-25 and B-26's usually put a stop to that tactic :) [/B][/QUOTE]

    So what your telling me is that the game will be unable to simulate reality. Not even closely. The greatest defeat ever
    inflicted on the USN in a fair fight will be ignored.



    • Mr.Frag -> (4/18/2003 1:34:34 AM)

    Be fair, at least we have the option to start the game BEFORE Midway ended the war completely.

    Picture UV if we did not have the ability to play scenario 17 or 19, then you can complain :D

    Bad enough knowing you will loose if the Allied player is good, forget about having to play knowing even if the Allied player is bad you will still loose.



    Chiteng -> (4/18/2003 2:00:14 AM)

    [QUOTE]Originally posted by Mr.Frag
    [B]Be fair, at least we have the option to start the game BEFORE Midway ended the war completely.

    Picture UV if we did not have the ability to play scenario 17 or 19, then you can complain :D

    Bad enough knowing you will loose if the Allied player is good, forget about having to play knowing even if the Allied player is bad you will still loose. [/B][/QUOTE]

    Actually I played Yamamoto's Prophecy and managed to not only sink all the USN CV but not lose any more Jap CV as well.

    However none of that bears on the inability to simulate reality.



    Mr.Frag -> (4/18/2003 3:29:48 AM)

    Which part of reality would you like to simulate as there are many parts?

    Do you want a complete weather database that exactly duplicates the historic weather day by day?

    Do you want to duplicate each and every radio dispatch and have decoding staff working around the clock to deliver intepretations?

    Do you want to simulate the exact mechanical process used to create the steel used to build the ships/planes/etc that we use and make sure that you duplicate any structural flaws due to welder Bob coming to work after having a fight with his wife about his kid's allowance money and putting a bad seam on boiler number three that in turn causes the boiler to explode at exactly the wrong time when the ship happens to need emergency power to turn into the torpedo so it misses?

    If you want reality, go read the history books, as that is the ONLY reality available. Simulations on the other hand offer one the ability to play around with some VERY LIMITED aspects of history to have some fun. No matter how much effort is put into writing a simulator, it is NOT reality in any way shape or form. It is a SIMULATOR of what COULD POSSIBLY HAPPEN. Not a recreation of what DID happen.

    Your post stating you sunk USA CV's in scenario 16 means nothing, as in REALITY, it didn't happen. You complain that you can't recreate one specific event but you are perfectly ok with having this happen? Wheres the logic? :D

    Reality would consist of us watching UV as the computer played turn after turn by itself, with completely predetermined outcome based on what historically happened. Not really much fun to sit at your computer and simply hit next 500+ times to watch the pre-determined results go by.



    Chiteng -> (4/18/2003 3:35:42 AM)

    [QUOTE]Originally posted by Mr.Frag
    [B]Which part of reality would you like to simulate as there are many parts?

    Do you want a complete weather database that exactly duplicates the historic weather day by day?

    Do you want to duplicate each and every radio dispatch and have decoding staff working around the clock to deliver intepretations?

    Do you want to simulate the exact mechanical process used to create the steel used to build the ships/planes/etc that we use and make sure that you duplicate any structural flaws due to welder Bob coming to work after having a fight with his wife about his kid's allowance money and putting a bad seam on boiler number three that in turn causes the boiler to explode at exactly the wrong time when the ship happens to need emergency power to turn into the torpedo so it misses?

    If you want reality, go read the history books, as that is the ONLY reality available. Simulations on the other hand offer one the ability to play around with some VERY LIMITED aspects of history to have some fun. No matter how much effort is put into writing a simulator, it is NOT reality in any way shape or form. It is a SIMULATOR of what COULD POSSIBLY HAPPEN. Not a recreation of what DID happen.

    Your post stating you sunk USA CV's in scenario 16 means nothing, as in REALITY, it didn't happen. You complain that you can't recreate one specific event but you are perfectly ok with having this happen? Wheres the logic? :D

    Reality would consist of us watching UV as the computer played turn after turn by itself, with completely predetermined outcome based on what historically happened. Not really much fun to sit at your computer and simply hit next 500+ times to watch the pre-determined results go by. [/B][/QUOTE]

    Reality is that Savo Island and Tassaforonga happened.
    THAT is reality.



    Mr.Frag -> (4/18/2003 3:39:34 AM)

    [QUOTE]Reality is that Savo Island and Tassaforonga happened.[/QUOTE]

    Reality is that Japan lost the war! Your point is somewhat pointless. :D



    Chiteng -> (4/18/2003 3:52:56 AM)

    [QUOTE]Originally posted by Mr.Frag
    [B]Reality is that Japan lost the war! Your point is somewhat pointless. :D [/B][/QUOTE]

    No it isnt. If the game doesnt at least try to addess
    reality, it becomes an enhanced 'Risk'

    A game in the guise of a simulation.

    Everything that happened at Savo Island not only CAN
    be simulated, but it HAS been simulated, in other games.



    SoulBlazer -> (4/18/2003 4:34:30 AM)

    Savo Island CAN happen. It's easier to get agansit the AI because most human players are not that stupid. :D



    demonterico -> (4/18/2003 9:38:13 AM)

    In my opinion, one of the most difficult things to simulate in a wargame is stupidity. Why would anyone want to do the same dumb things that occurred historically? Also our games eliminate the chain of command, thereby eliminating much of the possibilty for misunderstanding, misinterpitation, mischance, mismymommy, ect, ect. If there hasn't been a Savo Is. in your game then the right circumstances have not developed for it to happen. Suprise night combats can happen in UV.

    UV is a game. If you want reality you have to use real bullets.



    Chiteng -> (4/18/2003 9:40:44 AM)

    [QUOTE]Originally posted by demonterico
    [B]In my opinion, one of the most difficult things to simulate in a wargame is stupidity. Why would anyone want to do the same dumb things that occurred historically? Also our games eliminate the chain of command, thereby eliminating much of the possibilty for misunderstanding, misinterpitation, mischance, mismymommy, ect, ect. If there hasn't been a Savo Is. in your game then the right circumstances have not developed for it to happen. Suprise night combats can happen in UV.

    UV is a game. If you want reality you have to use real bullets. [/B][/QUOTE]

    It can be more than Enhanced World In Flames however



    Yamamoto -> (4/18/2003 10:32:31 AM)

    Didn't this thread have something to do with submarines ?

    Yamamoto



    Admiral DadMan -> "Mine" is a Four Letter Word... (4/18/2003 8:52:41 PM)

    The Original Poster used the word "mine" at the end of his post, and that was it, apparently everything was game



    Micah Goodman -> (4/19/2003 3:58:59 AM)

    I am playing the game with the latest patch against a Japanese computer player. Granted this is my first full game but those darn subs are kicking my A**. I have lost one damaged carrier, four damaged CA’s two healthy ones and three of four DD’s. The Japanese park their subs in what I have begun to call torpedo ally five to eight hex squares North West of Nomua. I sent a bombardment group of about eight CA’s and several DD’s to jump a supply task force at Guadalcanal. I came out with a slight advantage over the Japanese, (he lost a CA two DD’s and several others damaged to my loss of a single DD and several other CA’s and DD’s damaged) but on the trip back those Japanese subs slaughtered me. Two more CA’s lost two damaged and sent back to Pearl Harbor. So I sent out three SC groups of three each and another slaughter took place. 6 SC’s lost to one damaged Japanese sub. After sending two groups of four DD’s to find them they left, or I just missed them.

    One mistake I know I made was failing to send some DD escorts from Nomua to follow the cripples home. But holy cow I had visions of fanatical Japanese officers surfacing and sink my ships with Samurai swords! As I get better and refine my tactics hopefully my losses will decrease but at this rate the Japanese can retire their Aircraft Carriers and just send subs south. So far my only attempt to lay mines (USS Argonaut) ended with her loss to A Japanese DD south of Rabual.



    Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

    Valid CSS!




    Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
    0.75