sub wolfpacks

sub wolfpacks (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition

Message

ckk -> sub wolfpacks (11/14/2016 2:34:39 PM)
Good idea or not? If good, how should they be created and deployed? Thanks

dr.hal -> RE: sub wolfpacks (11/14/2016 2:48:48 PM)
No, the game doesn't model that concept well (and neither side used it in the Pacific theater, although the US did try a bit of this in terms of concentration later in the war IIRC). Best deployment is individually imho.

Oberst_Klink -> RE: sub wolfpacks (11/14/2016 2:49:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ckk Good idea or not? If good, how should they be created and deployed? Thanks A few of us tried, but it doesn't really work; it's better to have different TFs, perhaps on follow orders, IF you want to have lots of u-boats in one hex; but grouping them into one large Wolfpack doesn't work Kaleu! Klink, Oberst

Macclan5 -> RE: sub wolfpacks (11/14/2016 2:52:27 PM)
I think there is no consensus in this. I have seen it argued both ways. A long time veteran Sir Hans B perhaps has argued the most concise rationale I have seen to date. A sub wolfpack of 2 subs "appears" to have some chance of greater chance of a follow up strike" in same hex than a singleton sub or multiple singleton subs in the same hex. I am unsure if the mechanics under the hood exactly support this; but my "gut feeling is that its true" as well. Just 2 subs.. not 3 or 5 or 10.. I altered my sub patrols to : 2 match units endurance / speed wise and "do NOT" remain on station. Set a patrol zone even if its only 2 hexes as a particularly critical point. Somewhere between improved USN Torps and my change in tactics - my USN devils are getting lots of hits and especially follow up hits off the coast of Japan and the Philippines.

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: sub wolfpacks (11/14/2016 3:02:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Macclan5 I think there is no consensus in this. Don Bowen, who coded the sub war, spoke on this very early in the game's life. No need for consensus.

geofflambert -> RE: sub wolfpacks (11/14/2016 3:03:06 PM)
As the IJN I sometimes pair a sub with a floatplane carrying sub in the hopes that one or the other or both can react to a sighting. I do not deliberately put them in the same hex or have one follow the other but have each patrol a small triangle situated across the usual shipping lane. I can't say that strategy works.

Macclan5 -> RE: sub wolfpacks (11/14/2016 3:24:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 quote: ORIGINAL: Macclan5 I think there is no consensus in this. Don Bowen, who coded the sub war, spoke on this very early in the game's life. No need for consensus. Ahh well then my impression is merely that... an impression. [8D]

BBfanboy -> RE: sub wolfpacks (11/14/2016 3:35:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Macclan5 quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 quote: ORIGINAL: Macclan5 I think there is no consensus in this. Don Bowen, who coded the sub war, spoke on this very early in the game's life. No need for consensus. Ahh well then my impression is merely that... an impression. [8D] Your impression matches mine - I use subs in pairs and often both subs will attack the same TF. I think this is because the first sub attack (or being attacked) raises the DL of the target and the second sub therefore has a higher probability of making an attack. This does not seem to happen with two single-sub TFs in the same hex. BTW, if the first sub damages a ship the second sub is almost certain to also attack it. Cripples are targets in this game! PS - large wolfpacks do not seem to work - three subs have some success but not as much as two, and four or more subs don't seem to be able to get their act together. I did have one group of about seven subs that were transiting to a new base when they bumped into a lone enemy xAK ship. Only one of those subs attacked the ship and it missed.

Alfred -> RE: sub wolfpacks (11/14/2016 3:46:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 quote: ORIGINAL: Macclan5 I think there is no consensus in this. Don Bowen, who coded the sub war, spoke on this very early in the game's life. No need for consensus. Quite correct Bullwinkle. There is a very extensive 2011 thread (and several other more recent shorter ones too) on this very issue where I made several lengthy posts (together with appropriate dev references IIRC) and IIRC Don Bowen also chipped in directly. But heck why bother getting the facts when it is so much easier to just come to the game and expect pre conceived ideas to apply. Alfred

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: sub wolfpacks (11/14/2016 4:11:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BBfanboy quote: ORIGINAL: Macclan5 quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 quote: ORIGINAL: Macclan5 I think there is no consensus in this. Don Bowen, who coded the sub war, spoke on this very early in the game's life. No need for consensus. Ahh well then my impression is merely that... an impression. [8D] Your impression matches mine - I use subs in pairs and often both subs will attack the same TF. I think this is because the first sub attack (or being attacked) raises the DL of the target and the second sub therefore has a higher probability of making an attack. This does not seem to happen with two single-sub TFs in the same hex. BTW, if the first sub damages a ship the second sub is almost certain to also attack it. Cripples are targets in this game! PS - large wolfpacks do not seem to work - three subs have some success but not as much as two, and four or more subs don't seem to be able to get their act together. I did have one group of about seven subs that were transiting to a new base when they bumped into a lone enemy xAK ship. Only one of those subs attacked the ship and it missed. Using subs in pairs in the same TF is sub-optimal. I recommend you find Don's posts. He was quite clear why.

BBfanboy -> RE: sub wolfpacks (11/14/2016 4:25:41 PM)
I report what my experience has been. I tried the one-sub roving patrol zone method and was not happy with results. I have been happy using them in pairs and in small PZs, so that is my preference. I recommend the OP try both methods for a while.

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: sub wolfpacks (11/14/2016 4:26:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BBfanboy I report what my experience has been. I tried the one-sub roving patrol zone method and was not happy with results. I have been happy using them in pairs and in small PZs, so that is my preference. I recommend the OP try both methods for a while. Sigh. http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3921147 http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2889330&mpage=2&key=sub%3F#

m10bob -> RE: sub wolfpacks (11/14/2016 4:35:29 PM)
In game wolf packs tend to make detection of the subs easier, and there are no verifiable benefits for the user. It gives the defending player a greater ability to damage the subs as they will be more "bunched up". The concept WAS tried during the Midway campaign to some extent, fanning subs out to the west of Midway in an arc, but they were deployed much too late to assist in detection, arriving on station after the Japanese had already gone by. Even had they deployed sooner, all but the "S" boats were using those defective torpedoes, anyway. Anybody interested in the U.S. sub war in the Pacific really needs to acquire a copy of Clay Blair's great book(s) on the matter, SILENT VICTORY....IMHO). [image]local://upfiles/7909/2FDE821F1DAA4DAE934CFDCE47B85692.jpg[/image]

BBfanboy -> RE: sub wolfpacks (11/14/2016 4:39:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: m10bob In game wolf packs tend to make detection of the subs easier, and there are no verifiable benefits for the user. It gives the defending player a greater ability to damage the subs as they will be more "bunched up". The concept WAS tried during the Midway campaign to some extent, fanning subs out to the west of Midway in an arc, but they were deployed much too late to assist in detection, arriving on station after the Japanese had already gone by. Even had they deployed sooner, all but the "S" boats were using those defective torpedoes, anyway. Anybody interested in the U.S. sub war in the Pacific really needs to acquire a copy of Clay Blair's great book(s) on the matter, SILENT VICTORY....IMHO). I have read several books on the US sub war. Large wolf packs were definitely not used but pairs of subs sometimes were. Darter and Dace taking down three CAs at the start of the Battle of Leyte Gulf is my best example of how they can work together.

ckk -> RE: sub wolfpacks (11/14/2016 4:46:55 PM)
Yep Got it read it Rereading it again which was what prompted my question[:)] Blair does say that sub packs were used later in the war I was just wondering how or if this could be done in the GAME

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: sub wolfpacks (11/14/2016 6:04:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BBfanboy I have read several books on the US sub war. Large wolf packs were definitely not used but pairs of subs sometimes were. Darter and Dace taking down three CAs at the start of the Battle of Leyte Gulf is my best example of how they can work together. Two were sometimes used, but three was more normal from mid-44 on. But the tactics were not those of the Germans in that there was no coordination from shore, and the subs only cooperated in the loosest sense, with the SOPA being in tactical charge of the group. Major attention was paid to EMCON. When a TF was located other groups were not vectored onto the track. The tactic was not adopted because single-sub patrols didn't work. It was more that targets were becoming scarce and USN subs numerous, so choke points could be more effectively closed with three at no cost to the overall campaign.

Macclan5 -> RE: sub wolfpacks (11/14/2016 7:32:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3921147 http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2889330&mpage=2&key=sub%3F# This is most definitively helpful. Truly I have read the manual and many many threads and I had not come across this one. [8D] Its amazing what you learn and read and the depth of "tactical detail"... this game is amazing. Even more so as the mechanics largely mirror the historical reality; especially as few of us run the "simulation on Big Blue at home". Thank muchly Ser Moose

ckk -> RE: sub wolfpacks (11/14/2016 7:52:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 quote: ORIGINAL: BBfanboy I report what my experience has been. I tried the one-sub roving patrol zone method and was not happy with results. I have been happy using them in pairs and in small PZs, so that is my preference. I recommend the OP try both methods for a while. Sigh. http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3921147 http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2889330&mpage=2&key=sub%3F# Thanks Bullwinkle That's what I was looking for

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: sub wolfpacks (11/14/2016 7:54:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ckk quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 quote: ORIGINAL: BBfanboy I report what my experience has been. I tried the one-sub roving patrol zone method and was not happy with results. I have been happy using them in pairs and in small PZs, so that is my preference. I recommend the OP try both methods for a while. Sigh. http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3921147 http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2889330&mpage=2&key=sub%3F# Thanks Bullwinkle That's what I was looking for Really, thank Alfred.

ckk -> RE: sub wolfpacks (11/14/2016 7:58:05 PM)
For Alfred [&o][&o][&o] For you thanks I couldn't find those citations try as I might on Search

Chickenboy -> RE: sub wolfpacks (11/14/2016 8:44:23 PM)
Rather than have >two subs in one TF ("wolfpack") or two subs in 2 TFs parked in a hex, I would recommend having a patrol schedule whereby one submarine is always at the hex, another tracking out and 'clearing' DLs. Alternate by changing the number of days in the hex from the patrol menu. This way subs will automatically clear their DLs, yet provide undetected coverage to 'hotspot' hexes.

Major Shane -> RE: sub wolfpacks (11/14/2016 11:20:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 quote: ORIGINAL: BBfanboy I have read several books on the US sub war. Large wolf packs were definitely not used but pairs of subs sometimes were. Darter and Dace taking down three CAs at the start of the Battle of Leyte Gulf is my best example of how they can work together. Two were sometimes used, but three was more normal from mid-44 on. But the tactics were not those of the Germans in that there was no coordination from shore, and the subs only cooperated in the loosest sense, with the SOPA being in tactical charge of the group. Major attention was paid to EMCON. When a TF was located other groups were not vectored onto the track. The tactic was not adopted because single-sub patrols didn't work. It was more that targets were becoming scarce and USN subs numerous, so choke points could be more effectively closed with three at no cost to the overall campaign. I have tried the 3 boat method in my game vs AI Japan. I just wanted to try it to emulate USN historical practice. I'm in NOV 43 but tried it from MAY to SEP 43. My results weren't that different than normal. So I shifted back to single boats focused on choke points or isolating islands I am preparing to invade.

geofflambert -> RE: sub wolfpacks (11/14/2016 11:38:30 PM)
If we're talking about predating on convoys or surface TFs using the same routes, I keep a log of all sightings, and I mean across more than one PBEM and more than one opponent. As the IJN I use float plane carrying subs to increase the number of sightings and improve the log. Then I place most of my patrol zones along these lanes, away from large bases and their air ASW, not to mention their close surface ASW support. Now, if we're talking patrolling against military TFs looking for a fight, it's just your best bet as to where to hunt them. As the IJN you have practically no intelligence info to help you make that guess. Yet IJN doctrine was to pursue such TFs over freight and troop convoys. I think they did better historically than I ever have on that count.

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.640625