Submarine Warfare issues (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series



Message

tbachus -> Submarine Warfare issues (5/12/2019 8:05:54 PM)

OK, after a lot of trial and error on submarine tactics, I thought I would bring this to the forums. It seems to me, after playing a lot of different scenarios, that ASW is relatively easy while trying to conduct offensive tactics with subs is very difficult. I have found it very difficult to penetrate ASW screens, or even just trying to hunt say a Soviet SSN one-on-one. An example from Northern Fury is a 688 sub (Newport News) detecting a Soviet Victor III just outside torpedo range. I've tried everything I can think of to get within Mk48 range without being discovered, but nearly every time I'm getting wiped out by an SS-N-15 before I can even get close. And I am literally creeping in at 5 kts towards him, above, below and in the layer. On the flip side, if the player has a capable ASW TG with helicopters, virtually no sub can get close without easily being detected and destroyed. Is this normal? I'm not a submariner so no clue. Would love to hear other opinions, thanks!
-Tim B



Rory Noonan -> RE: Submarine Warfare issues (5/12/2019 9:49:59 PM)

Have you played through the submarine tutorials?



tbachus -> RE: Submarine Warfare issues (5/13/2019 2:11:31 AM)

Yes, but a long time ago. I suppose it is worth it to try running through them again.



Rory Noonan -> RE: Submarine Warfare issues (5/13/2019 2:17:23 AM)

They're designed to get you comfortable with a selection of basic tactics using submarines. One of the problems I see people come up against occasionally is players expecting to use their subs as one-man armies; given their vulnerability to dedicated ASW assets sometimes it's better to just observe and report the position of an enemy rather than engage with the submarine. In general if you're going to be attacking enemy surface units, they need to be isolated enough that you can kill them all on your first volley. If any ASW helos are still around once you've made your presence known, or if you have a surface ship nearby with something like an ASROC or a Silex, then chances are your days are numbered.



ARCNA442 -> RE: Submarine Warfare issues (5/13/2019 4:21:09 AM)

I've had a similar experience with submarines - against second-tier navies they are incredibly deadly, but if the enemy has helos and powerful sonars then attacking is basically suicide. I haven't done detailed testing, but the best option appears to be getting in front of the enemy, going as deep as possible, cutting power, and waiting for them to steam overhead. If possible, using fighters to take out enemy ASW aircraft will make your job exponentially easier.

This is somewhat at odds with the popular submariners' opinion that surface ships are nothing but targets, and I occasionally wonder if it would be more realistic if CMANO had an RNG element for detection ranges like it does with weapon accuracy in order to simulate how sensors and their operators rarely perform perfectly in the real world. Perhaps scale it with crew proficiency - ie an average crew will detect at 80-100% of calculated range, while a rookie crew would detect at 60-100% and an ace crew at 90-100%.



jarraya -> RE: Submarine Warfare issues (5/13/2019 3:49:46 PM)

There are stories of very silent Swedish submarines sneaking in and performing a simulated attack against an entire US CV battle group, or subs crashing because they never detected each other until it was too late, but you won't see that in Command.

On the same lines, I recently ran a few tests to better understand how submarines evade torpedoes (in my uneducated opinion, torpedoes are way too effective, but I have nothing to back that other than watching a few videos of people playing other submarine video games).

What I found is that the game does not take any sort of manoeuvring capability into account when evading torpedoes (like it does it does for aircraft). The standard evasion is run as deep as possible and flank speed away from the torpedo. The sub won't even turn or change depth. When I tried weaving and changing depth manually the results are exactly the same, the percentage chance of a torpedo hitting a turning and sinking/climbing sub is exactly the same as hitting a straight running sub at flank.

Perhaps this is something that could be improved, making more manoeuvrable subs better at evading torps?



DWReese -> RE: Submarine Warfare issues (5/13/2019 5:10:41 PM)

quote:

Perhaps this is something that could be improved, making more maneuverable subs better at evading torps?


I totally agree with you. Presently, regardless of what maneuvers you perform, the hit/kill percentage is the same. I tried running deep/shallow/within the layer and the results were the same.

I don't claim to know anything about a sub's ability to evading torpedoes. Perhaps what we are seeing is exactly what it should be. But, it would seem that the farther away that the sub is when the torpedo's existence is discovered, the better your chance of evading it. Moving into, above or below the layer should probably be something that possibly could be some kind of a modifier. I would think that something like that, even if it only amounted to a 5 percent reduction, would be appropriate.

Of course, if that was done then the AI's defensive tactics would have to be enhanced to include these defensive maneuvers, and that may be too difficult (or time time consuming) for the developers.

Doug



Dimitris -> RE: Submarine Warfare issues (5/13/2019 6:27:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jarraya
There are stories of very silent Swedish submarines sneaking in and performing a simulated attack against an entire US CV battle group, or subs crashing because they never detected each other until it was too late, but you won't see that in Command.


I've seen it (the former, not the latter). Am I playing a different game?



Raptorx7_slith -> RE: Submarine Warfare issues (5/13/2019 7:08:30 PM)

I wish I could detect subs as easily as you guys!

I think it goes both ways and this is one of those cases where you need to provide saves instead of just saying "subs are always detected" because that has not been my experience at all.



StellarRat -> RE: Submarine Warfare issues (5/13/2019 9:01:31 PM)

I've destroyed other subs and gotten away without being detected. Haven't tried against ASW guarding a task force though.



DWReese -> RE: Submarine Warfare issues (5/13/2019 9:20:30 PM)

That standoff range of the SS-N-14 (Silex) and SS-N-15 (Starfish) is quite impressive. Generally, the ship (using towed array) will detect you before you can get close enough to fire your torpedoes at it in a 1-on-1 duel. You may detect the ship earlier, but you won't be close enough to fire at it. Before the sub can get close enough, the ship is firing off the standoff torpedoes and the sub has to start to make a run for it.

One tactic that you could try is to fire using Bearing Only Launch in the direction of your target. Generally, the torpedoes will travel several miles further than the 8-10 launch range and you might get lucky. But if the shiip has these standoff torpedoes, you had better start running right after you launch because the ship will be launching against you.

Doug



SeaQueen -> RE: Submarine Warfare issues (5/14/2019 5:37:28 PM)

The thing to remember is that there's very limited public domain data on the effectiveness of ASW systems. In some cases the performance figures in Command are probably optimistic and in some cases they're probably pessimistic. There are important systems in Command which aren't even represented at all (e.g. multistatic sonar), so that's also a factor. The transmission loss model is fairly crude (and non-physical!). I've also noticed that it tends to be fairly liberal with its use of sonobuoys to search, and on long patrols ASW aircraft might fail to retain a small reserve of sonobuoys (e.g. ~20%) to complete the localization process. Retaining a reserve for localization could, under some circumstances, mean that they can't search quite as much area quite as effectively as they might.

That being said, I think it's also important to remember that if a warship's ASW systems were completely ineffective, then they wouldn't bother buying them. Penetrating an ASW screen is challenging, and it might be that in many cases the lowest risk approach is just to fire off a bunch of ASCMs at max range and then clear the datum. Once you're past the screen, pegging a high value target like an amphib or a carrier is fairly easy, sure, but that's only because they can't fight back. You still have to worry about all the CGs, DDGs, and FFGs surrounding it.

A tactic I've found that works better against fast moving surface formations is to avoid coming at the formation from the front and instead approach from one side at an angle. I pick the slowest possible speed to get me in torpedo range (3-8kts) and if I have to go too fast I let them go. That's what fighter jets and bombers are for. I change depth every 15-20 minutes. The reason is two-fold, the first is that I want to put my sensors on both sides of the layer in order to update my picture. The other reason is that I want to keep the enemy's knowledge of my position sufficiently uncertain in the event that I am detected, that they can't drop a torpedo on me with a reasonable chance of it hitting. Active sonar yields your exact position almost immediately so assume you've been fixed if you can see them and they're active. Generally speaking, it's safest to assume that if you have contact with them, then they have contact with you, because the transmission loss from them to you is the same as from you to them. Relying on the inferiority of their sonar systems only works with very old systems (e.g. November class, Whiskey class) when there's a gigantic mismatch in capabilities. More recent Victor III or Type 093 submarines might not be as good as a western SSN, but they might still be good enough. When I'm in range, I shoot my salvo, change depth again, and run. With luck a few will hit stuff.






ARCNA442 -> RE: Submarine Warfare issues (5/14/2019 11:42:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jarraya

What I found is that the game does not take any sort of manoeuvring capability into account when evading torpedoes (like it does it does for aircraft). The standard evasion is run as deep as possible and flank speed away from the torpedo. The sub won't even turn or change depth. When I tried weaving and changing depth manually the results are exactly the same, the percentage chance of a torpedo hitting a turning and sinking/climbing sub is exactly the same as hitting a straight running sub at flank.




One thing I found recently (and mostly by accident) is that if you counterattack immediately (even with a BOL) you will cause the enemy sub to turn away and lose wire guidance. Then you can often use manual torpedo evasion to stay outside of the seeker range of the incoming weapon instead of having to outrun it.

But my main issue with torpedos is that they are extremely maneuverable and will generally reattack again and again until they hit or run out of fuel. I suspect that in real life torpedoes are closer to how missiles are modeled in CMANO and only get one good shot at the target since decoys should lead them away from the sub.



tbachus -> RE: Submarine Warfare issues (5/15/2019 12:20:52 PM)

Good discussion everyone. Here is another example of my less-than-accomplished sub hunting skills. In the same Northern Fury scenario in which I've lost the Newport News to that Victor III a few times, I tried a different approach. Instead of creeping towards the contact, I sprinted/drifted away from the estimated location in an attempt to find him later at, hopefully, a more advantageous position. When I subsequently located the contact, he was traveling SE above the layer at 5 kts. I was located about 12 nm south, also creeping above the layer. I figured I would head NW, then NE and try to get around him for a torpedo shot from his stern. This is maybe where I went wrong, but I thought I would try to avoid his bow mounted passive sonar by dropping beneath the layer until I was at least 90 degrees off his heading. But apparently his towed array was more effective than I suspected as after about 10 mins of creeping along at 5 kts, the dreaded SS-N-15 shot appeared and I was toast again.

In the same scenario, I used the approach that Apache85 mentioned earlier in this thread. The Scranton, out ahead of the Vinson TG, detected a subsurface contact near its location. However, instead of trying to attack, I brought her to shallow depth to simulate calling in air support, and then back down just above the layer but making no aggressive movements. There was a Viking nearby on ASW patrol I and also had CAP F-14s to cover, so I dispatched the aircraft to the last known position of the contact, located with a few active sonobuoys and sent it to the bottom with a Mk46. Of course, this option is not always available, but when it is, maybe that is the better way to go?

Thanks again everyone,
TimB



SeaQueen -> RE: Submarine Warfare issues (5/15/2019 3:07:16 PM)

It is always better to engage submarines with aircraft than with other submarines or surface ships. Unless expediency is an issue, aircraft always have two HUGE advantages:

1) The can search a larger area faster.
2) Submarines can rarely if ever shoot back at them.

So the question isn't, "Is it better to engage with an aircraft?" Of course it is! But rather, "Can I send an aircraft where I want to go in time?" That is dependent on on the presence of enemy SAMs and DCA coverage, your own SAMs and DCA, as well as where the aircraft is. Hint: Keep them close to the stuff you care most about.



SeaQueen -> RE: Submarine Warfare issues (5/15/2019 3:29:52 PM)

quote:


I suspect that in real life torpedoes are closer to how missiles are modeled in CMANO and only get one good shot at the target since decoys should lead them away from the sub.


They're not, and the real answer is that it depends on how you want to model it.

There is such a thing as circle search torpedoes and there are torpedoes that will re-attack until they run out of gas or hit something. The truth is that when you really get into it, all torpedoes have their own unique capabilities and behaviors. Some of them are extremely smart and programmable. Even for torpedoes of the same type, there's no guarantee they will behave the same because they typically have many different modes and settings. Command does its best to make a reasonable assumption about what might happen, and it's not a poor one, necessarily.

Similarly, there are many different kinds of decoys. Some of them are mobile and sophisticated. Others are basically giant Alka Seltzers and must make a bunch of bubbles presenting a sonar target. Some of them can be quite persistent and might have tactical uses other than evading torpedos. There are decoys out there which are much more like UUVs. Command abstracts all of this to a probability of effectiveness.

The other option is to abstract both the torpedo behaviors and the decoy behaviors entirely, and reduce them both to a probability of effectiveness. In the weapon's case it would be a probability of effectiveness given the possibility of re-attack (if applicable). In the decoy's case it would be a net effectiveness given the possibility of reattacks. If one had actual data to estimate theses probabilities, it can be quite realistic. Command doesn't. They make an educated guess. Similarly, the less abstracted representation of decoys and weapons isn't bad either. If one could get all the data on exactly how to operate a Mk. 54 torpedo, for example, it would be possible to model its behavior in excruciating detail (re-attacks and all!). Good luck with that.

The issue as I see it isn't that one way or the other is more or less realistic. It's whether the software captures an effect in such a way that it influences decision making at the appropriate level. For most people's uses I think it's fine.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.890625