Why are subs so much worse in this game vs WIE and WAW?

Why are subs so much worse in this game vs WIE and WAW? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command: World War I

Message

Tanaka -> Why are subs so much worse in this game vs WIE and WAW? (12/13/2020 7:08:05 PM)
They just get blown to pieces. I do fine with subs in the other games. Has anyone had any luck with them in WW1 and how? Short ranged, low supplied, allied naval hordes of death, blockades to get through, allied air power, sea mines, on and on...How do you use them at at all? I do ok in SP but vs human all of my subs get destroyed... Were not subs in WW1 more deadly? In WIE/WAW you can go further, have more space to roam, have less enemy doom fleet hordes attacking you, there are no mines, you can avoid air cover, there are none if few naval blockades, and so on... You also have the French and Spanish ports to keep you supplied unlike the WW1 game. I think next game I am just going to sit them all in port until upgraded...

stockwellpete -> RE: Why are subs so much worse in this game vs WIE and WAW? (12/13/2020 7:47:55 PM)
I am finding that Central Power subs do well against the AI in 1914 and 1915 in the Atlantic and against the Russian convoys. They start to struggle from 1916 onwards as Entente subs start to have more advanced Tech, except for in the Mediterranean where they can still prosper in the later years of the war.

Tanaka -> RE: Why are subs so much worse in this game vs WIE and WAW? (12/13/2020 9:23:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: stockwellpete I am finding that Central Power subs do well against the AI in 1915 and 1915 in the Atlantic and against the Russian convoys. They start to struggle from 1916 onwards as Entente subs start to have more advanced Tech, except for in the Mediterranean where they can still prosper in the later years of the war. Yeah I do ok against the AI but against the human player forget about it. The whole allied navy is forced onto one little sub with no supply after it gets attacked over and over...I just can't keep any alive...

OldCrowBalthazor -> RE: Why are subs so much worse in this game vs WIE and WAW? (12/14/2020 12:00:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tanaka quote: ORIGINAL: stockwellpete I am finding that Central Power subs do well against the AI in 1915 and 1915 in the Atlantic and against the Russian convoys. They start to struggle from 1916 onwards as Entente subs start to have more advanced Tech, except for in the Mediterranean where they can still prosper in the later years of the war. Yeah I do ok against the AI but against the human player forget about it. The whole allied navy is forced onto one little sub with no supply after it gets attacked over and over...I just can't keep any alive... "One little sub"? Your U-boats are being sent down to Neptune's Grotto because your admirals decided to swarm the English Channel here in late spring early summer 1915 while I was trying to get troop transports out and General Hamilton to his destination. That's why you are experiencing this. They were just a nuisance before, skulking around, nibbling on our convoy routes, threatening the possibility of Unrestricted Submarine Warfare, and the like. But enter The Channel, and we will box you in and destroy everything we can find, from the air and sea. One benefit to the Central Powers though, is that the Entente had to loosen the blockade (for now) and look at renewed interest in maxing out our ASW research a little more, thereby diverting money from some other enterprise (money is still short in London with all the propping up and long term investments in other enterprises, plus the costs of transport and amphibious adventures.) cheers [sm=duel.gif] Edit: In answer to "Why are subs so much worse in this game vs WiE", I surmise thats because Submarine Warfare is still in its infancy. Strategic and tactical doctrine was still being worked out, the technology was new, and then the political and moral implications of the use of this new weapon were only becoming evident at the early stage of the war. Btw, while it may be wise to keep your subs in harbor until they go up in level, remember that the Entente will also be researching ASW as a counter. The submarines gain experience early in the war if used on convoy lines or raiding, not just in combat with ships, and the combination of experience plus tech level can make them lethal. Its a matter of getting them out there, using them for interdiction and the like, and surviving all that to get home and upgrade. A challenging task indeed! [:)]

MVP7 -> RE: Why are subs so much worse in this game vs WIE and WAW? (12/14/2020 12:23:51 AM)
A mix of mines and submarines can do a lot of damage against the AI capital ships and the AI destroyers are prone to over-extend themselves chasing after a wounded sub heading for Germany. I imagine most people in multiplayer are aware of this and use their ships more carefully [:)].

1775Cerberus -> RE: Why are subs so much worse in this game vs WIE and WAW? (12/14/2020 1:09:51 AM)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxV9fQO4O1U A rather interesting short review and an very interesting channel.

Tanaka -> RE: Why are subs so much worse in this game vs WIE and WAW? (12/14/2020 2:08:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OldCrowBalthazor quote: ORIGINAL: Tanaka quote: ORIGINAL: stockwellpete I am finding that Central Power subs do well against the AI in 1915 and 1915 in the Atlantic and against the Russian convoys. They start to struggle from 1916 onwards as Entente subs start to have more advanced Tech, except for in the Mediterranean where they can still prosper in the later years of the war. Yeah I do ok against the AI but against the human player forget about it. The whole allied navy is forced onto one little sub with no supply after it gets attacked over and over...I just can't keep any alive... "One little sub"? Your U-boats are being sent down to Neptune's Grotto because your admirals decided to swarm the English Channel here in late spring early summer 1915 while I was trying to get troop transports out and General Hamilton to his destination. That's why you are experiencing this. They were just a nuisance before, skulking around, nibbling on our convoy routes, threatening the possibility of Unrestricted Submarine Warfare, and the like. But enter The Channel, and we will box you in and destroy everything we can find, from the air and sea. One benefit to the Central Powers though, is that the Entente had to loosen the blockade (for now) and look at renewed interest in maxing out our ASW research a little more, thereby diverting money from some other enterprise (money is still short in London with all the propping up and long term investments in other enterprises, plus the costs of transport and amphibious adventures.) cheers [sm=duel.gif] Edit: In answer to "Why are subs so much worse in this game vs WiE", I surmise thats because Submarine Warfare is still in its infancy. Strategic and tactical doctrine was still being worked out, the technology was new, and then the political and moral implications of the use of this new weapon were only becoming evident at the early stage of the war. Btw, while it may be wise to keep your subs in harbor until they go up in level, remember that the Entente will also be researching ASW as a counter. The submarines gain experience early in the war if used on convoy lines or raiding, not just in combat with ships, and the combination of experience plus tech level can make them lethal. Its a matter of getting them out there, using them for interdiction and the like, and surviving all that to get home and upgrade. A challenging task indeed! [:)] What I mean by one little sub is they are picked off one by one piecemeal. Whether in the channel or somewhere else. I was forced to go into the channel because you run out of supply so quickly it is the closest way home. And then when my subs are picked off the only defense I have is to send more subs in defense to help out only to get picked off as well. Not attacking you personally just a frustrating part of this game when compared to the others in the series. The sub action is much more difficult. And yes I think the only answer is to leave them in port until upgraded otherwise you lose them all. They just can't go far enough and back to cause any damage without being destroyed with no supply by the endless hordes of allied ships that reduce supply with each attack.

Chernobyl -> RE: Why are subs so much worse in this game vs WIE and WAW? (12/14/2020 2:44:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tanaka I was forced to go into the channel because you run out of supply so quickly it is the closest way home. A secret is if the sub is in silent mode it doesn't lose any supply when moving. It's slower but considering that a sub's supply level is so vital, worth it.

Chernobyl -> RE: Why are subs so much worse in this game vs WIE and WAW? (12/14/2020 2:47:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tanaka They just can't go far enough and back to cause any damage without being destroyed with no supply by the endless hordes of allied ships that reduce supply with each attack. It's even worse later in the game when (someone correct me if I'm wrong) spying and intel will auto detect your subs even if they are in silent mode. It's quite ahistorical considering the greatest sub campaign of all time was arguably German WWI subs especially in 1917. As it is in game, subs are probably strongest in 1914-15 and then afterwards it gets too dangerous against a smart opponent. Someone should probably start a thread about sub warfare rebalance. I have several ideas :)

OldCrowBalthazor -> RE: Why are subs so much worse in this game vs WIE and WAW? (12/14/2020 3:20:50 AM)
Tanaka, I have been absolutely wrecked by the Central Powers U-boats circa 1915 in previous matches...and have done the wrecking too. It all depends on the current circumstances however, and I as the CP have aborted operations before if the Entente is particularly frisky. In this match with you, your valiant submarines almost caught a transport carrying a valuable HQ on his way to a critical destination. With that, and seeing numerous other U-boats gathering, I pulled down part of my blockade to deal with this threat with extreme prejudice. Edit: I just pulled my turn and looked at the reports: You lost 3 subs during that multi-turn fandango, and had a few more that were severely damaged but by excellent seamanship made it out of my net. I have some severely damaged vessels including a Battle Cruiser which will be expensive to repair. It could of been far worse because I just got ASW1. The thing is, money is extremely tight for Britain, and we can't afford to have a major disruption of a port like I thought might happen. The situation on the continent is stabilized somewhat, but the Central Powers are dangerous, and my blockade on Germany is super important to keep her National Morale down..its all give or take..and I'm sure an evolution in your U-boat strategy will be the result of your hard knocks, which is how evolution works. [;)] 1775Cerberus, Thanks for that link..a very entertaining, informative, and sometimes humorous episode on the early history of submarine warfare and early counter measures. "Long lining them like tuna"..lol Chernobyl, Yep, 1914 to 1915 is the window of opportunity for the U-boats..and maybe later on in 1916-17 if the surviving subs max out to lvl 3 experience and go back out in a planned operation, possibly in conjunction with surface vessels like mine carrying DD's and/or the IGN.

Tanaka -> RE: Why are subs so much worse in this game vs WIE and WAW? (12/14/2020 6:02:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OldCrowBalthazor Tanaka, I have been absolutely wrecked by the Central Powers U-boats circa 1915 in previous matches...and have done the wrecking too. It all depends on the current circumstances however, and I as the CP have aborted operations before if the Entente is particularly frisky. In this match with you, your valiant submarines almost caught a transport carrying a valuable HQ on his way to a critical destination. With that, and seeing numerous other U-boats gathering, I pulled down part of my blockade to deal with this threat with extreme prejudice. Edit: I just pulled my turn and looked at the reports: You lost 3 subs during that multi-turn fandango, and had a few more that were severely damaged but by excellent seamanship made it out of my net. I have some severely damaged vessels including a Battle Cruiser which will be expensive to repair. It could of been far worse because I just got ASW1. The thing is, money is extremely tight for Britain, and we can't afford to have a major disruption of a port like I thought might happen. The situation on the continent is stabilized somewhat, but the Central Powers are dangerous, and my blockade on Germany is super important to keep her National Morale down..its all give or take..and I'm sure an evolution in your U-boat strategy will be the result of your hard knocks, which is how evolution works. [;)] 1775Cerberus, Thanks for that link..a very entertaining, informative, and sometimes humorous episode on the early history of submarine warfare and early counter measures. "Long lining them like tuna"..lol Chernobyl, Yep, 1914 to 1915 is the window of opportunity for the U-boats..and maybe later on in 1916-17 if the surviving subs max out to lvl 3 experience and go back out in a planned operation, possibly in conjunction with surface vessels like mine carrying DD's and/or the IGN. Like I said just voicing frustrations and asking for tips it is certainly not personal and I am really enjoying our game and you are a wonderful opponent. Thanks for the tips everyone please keep them coming! Specifically how do you venture out so far with such low supply range through all of these obstacles that reduce supply and stay alive?

Tanaka -> RE: Why are subs so much worse in this game vs WIE and WAW? (12/14/2020 6:04:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chernobyl quote: ORIGINAL: Tanaka I was forced to go into the channel because you run out of supply so quickly it is the closest way home. A secret is if the sub is in silent mode it doesn't lose any supply when moving. It's slower but considering that a sub's supply level is so vital, worth it. Thanks yeah I pretty much have to stay in silent mode anyway to get through the naval hordes and not die haha...

Tanaka -> RE: Why are subs so much worse in this game vs WIE and WAW? (12/14/2020 6:07:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chernobyl quote: ORIGINAL: Tanaka They just can't go far enough and back to cause any damage without being destroyed with no supply by the endless hordes of allied ships that reduce supply with each attack. It's even worse later in the game when (someone correct me if I'm wrong) spying and intel will auto detect your subs even if they are in silent mode. It's quite ahistorical considering the greatest sub campaign of all time was arguably German WWI subs especially in 1917. As it is in game, subs are probably strongest in 1914-15 and then afterwards it gets too dangerous against a smart opponent. Someone should probably start a thread about sub warfare rebalance. I have several ideas :) I did not know that spying could show subs in silent mode that makes no sense. And yeah that's what I thought if subs were so much more destructive in WW1 it does not show in this game. Please start a thread and your ideas!

OldCrowBalthazor -> RE: Why are subs so much worse in this game vs WIE and WAW? (12/14/2020 8:01:07 AM)
Tanaka, Oh, I haven't taken anything personal. No, far from that, in fact, quite the opposite! If some of my posts seem a bit strident, such as " I pulled down part of my blockade to deal with this threat with extreme prejudice", its because I like to 'play in role' hmmm, or roleplay I guess. It gives a post so much more flavor.[:D] Now, about silent or 'submerged' subs as quoted by Chernobyl "spying and intel will auto detect your subs even if they are in silent mode", this is not exactly accurate or I am interpreting his meaning wrong. Each turn, each country that has a S&I lvl of at least 1 makes a check at 1% per level of S&I on EVERY enemy unit on the board. So, for example, if lets say Germany an S&I lvl 2, then EVERY enemy unit of Germany will get a dice roll..e.g. if 2% is rolled on one particular unit, it will be revealed during your new turn. I am not sure if it applies to subs on 'silent' mode, but I believe it does. If this is correct as Chernobyl has stated, then I think it should be fixed to not be detectable. Also, as a side note, as per the example above, lets say Germany has a S&I lvl of 2, AH has S&I lvl 1, and the Ottomans have S&I lvl 0, then Every enemy (Entente) units on the board gets a 2% check for Germany, then a 1% check for AH, and no check for the Ottomans. Anyway, if there is a check on submarines on silent mode, it will be a very low chance of it being detected by a S&I (spying) check.

Chernobyl -> RE: Why are subs so much worse in this game vs WIE and WAW? (12/14/2020 8:24:54 AM)
I have to conform that through testing but I feel it's true. Regarding the intel detection, you say it's 2% per unit. So I take it that I don't need to shuffle my units around? I thought there was a % chance of detecting a unit, and then the game selects an undetected unit. Because front line armies and previously intel-detected units are already visible, it tends to select other, unseen units (often ships at sea). But you're saying this is NOT how it works, that EVERY unit has a 2% chance, and if it is already seen by the opponent then no intel-detection event happens even when the 2% rng returns true. In that case, it doesn't benefit me to maximize the number of undetected units (I don't care if it spots one of my recon bombers or detachments but I DO care very much if intel detects one of my subs or a Marines being transported)

OldCrowBalthazor -> RE: Why are subs so much worse in this game vs WIE and WAW? (12/14/2020 9:13:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chernobyl I have to conform that through testing but I feel it's true. Regarding the intel detection, you say it's 2% per unit. So I take it that I don't need to shuffle my units around? I thought there was a % chance of detecting a unit, and then the game selects an undetected unit. Because front line armies and previously intel-detected units are already visible, it tends to select other, unseen units (often ships at sea). But you're saying this is NOT how it works, that EVERY unit has a 2% chance, and if it is already seen by the opponent then no intel-detection event happens even when the 2% rng returns true. In that case, it doesn't benefit me to maximize the number of undetected units (I don't care if it spots one of my recon bombers or detachments but I DO care very much if intel detects one of my subs or a Marines being transported) I was using 2% has an example of a country that had an S&I lvl 2. I just read the rule in the manual: It states a 1% chance per S&I lvl check against every enemy unit on the board, with a maximum of 5 units that could be revealed. So, if a let's say France had a S&I of 2, then it would have a 2% chance per enemy unit on the board...a seperate check for each unseen unit I am guessing. Also, you are right with the perception that ships will suffer the chance of being detected more, in that they will be going through a check, while, the bulk of an enemies units are front line units near yours that are already detected because they are within sight. (per FoW), and thus, will not go through a check. (or if they are, it's by default 'automatically' detected.) I didn't mean to muddy the waters here, (pardon the pun), but I thought you had posted that subs on silent mod are automatically 'detected', when what they are is that they are subject to an automatic 'check', which would have either a 1% or 2% chance of being 'detected' by said country. Also, I agree with you that submarines in 'silent' mode should Not be subject to this check, but I am assuming it is doing a check on them because I haven't seen a rule saying it is not. This we should ask the Devs for clarification. If its determined by them that indeed these silent mode subs are subject to a check, we should advocate that they change this if that is possible. The submariners have it tough enough already. [:)]

Hubert Cater -> RE: Why are subs so much worse in this game vs WIE and WAW? (12/14/2020 10:10:08 PM)
I think we would lean towards the idea that even though subs can be designated as 'Silent' they did have to re-surface, and did often surface at night to communicate, e.g. broadcast and receive messages, that tended to give away their positions, from time to time, as subs still needed to get info on convoys somehow. For example, in game terms, situations like these would arguably qualify for a spotting Intelligence hit, e.g. Ultra vs Enigma and in these instances would probably be no less than a sub not running in 'Silent' mode.

1775Cerberus -> RE: Why are subs so much worse in this game vs WIE and WAW? (12/14/2020 10:28:47 PM)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z84AwLIfqAI Room 40. WW1 signals intelligence in bowlers.

OldCrowBalthazor -> RE: Why are subs so much worse in this game vs WIE and WAW? (12/14/2020 11:59:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hubert Cater I think we would lean towards the idea that even though subs can be designated as 'Silent' they did have to re-surface, and did often surface at night to communicate, e.g. broadcast and receive messages, that tended to give away their positions, from time to time, as subs still needed to get info on convoys somehow. For example, in game terms, situations like these would arguably qualify for a spotting Intelligence hit, e.g. Ultra vs Enigma and in these instances would probably be no less than a sub not running in 'Silent' mode. I didn't realize that signals intelligence was that much of factor in WW1 like it was in WW2 regarding submarine warfare. I did read that the Germans had heard 'in the clear' non-encrypted wireless traffic between the Russian commanders conducting the invasion of East Prussia in 1914, and this helped Hindenburg and Ludendorff defeat them at Tannenberg. I have changed my views on the possible detection of subs in silent mode because of your explanation and viewing 1775Cerberus's link to the YouTube channel 'Drachinifel',and the episode 'Room 40. WW1 signals intelligence in bowlers. Submarines in silent mode can possibly be detected by a S&I spy roll. It makes perfect sense now why thats possible.

Chernobyl -> RE: Why are subs so much worse in this game vs WIE and WAW? (12/15/2020 12:04:57 AM)
Wikipedia says Room 40 didn't provide much real time sub location intelligence. It sounds like if the Admiralty had been more openminded, then more may have been possible, but in reality the information was rarely transmitted in a timely fashion convoys or warships at sea. It doesn't sound to me like very many German submarines were sunk as a direct result of signals intelligence, if any. A balanced approach would be for signals intelligence to detect submarines at the END of your turn rather than the beginning.

OldCrowBalthazor -> RE: Why are subs so much worse in this game vs WIE and WAW? (12/15/2020 12:13:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chernobyl Wikipedia says Room 40 didn't provide much real time sub location intelligence. It sounds like if the Admiralty had been more openminded, then more may have been possible, but in reality the information was rarely transmitted in a timely fashion convoys or warships at sea. Hmmmm...well, it seems like they won't budge on this thing. Still, its only a 1% or 2% chance per S&I (spy) level for a submarine in silent mode to be detected. Perhaps, a passing commercial ship relayed the info, or a long lined tuna decided it was time to talk. [:D]

Chernobyl -> RE: Why are subs so much worse in this game vs WIE and WAW? (12/15/2020 12:31:45 AM)
2% is a lot. If you have 8 subs creeping around the enemy fleet they're going to find a couple of them and destroy them just due to signals over the course of a year. Consider that much of the journey of subs to and from the Atlantic is spent rather close to large numbers of enemy vessels. Some of them are low on supply or damaged and attempting to return. I don't see how you could wage a (historically wildly effective) sub campaign in 1917 if you're getting ambushed like that. Signals intelligence gathered should be of limited use due to the underdeveloped relationship between the army/navy and intelligence. This isn't Bletchley Park in 1944.

mdsmall -> RE: Why are subs so much worse in this game vs WIE and WAW? (12/15/2020 12:46:07 AM)
Perhaps the existing FOW function which notifies the Entente player if a German sub has been convoy raiding could be adapted to S&I effects against subs in Silent mode anywhere on the board. The FOW function (as far as I can tell) gives you a good idea of where an enemy raider was two turns ago. It's a clue, but not one you can rely on to find a sub and kill it, provided it has moved in the intervening turn. If S&I reveals a sub (either in Silent Mode or perhaps in both modes), there also could be a one turn delay before notification. It does not exempt them completely from being revealed, but it would help their survivability a great deal. This seems justifiable to me, since S&I seems to have a much bigger effect in practice in exposing naval units on the high seas, versus land units behind the front lines, to enemy attack.

Chernobyl -> RE: Why are subs so much worse in this game vs WIE and WAW? (12/15/2020 12:53:59 AM)
Incidentally the S&I detection also eventually finds all your opponents minefields which makes them worthless. Not sure if that was the intention or not.

OldCrowBalthazor -> RE: Why are subs so much worse in this game vs WIE and WAW? (12/15/2020 12:59:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mdsmall Perhaps the existing FOW function which notifies the Entente player if a German sub has been convoy raiding could be adapted to S&I effects against subs in Silent mode anywhere on the board. The FOW function (as far as I can tell) gives you a good idea of where an enemy raider was two turns ago. It's a clue, but not one you can rely on to find a sub and kill it, provided it has moved in the intervening turn. If S&I reveals a sub (either in Silent Mode or perhaps in both modes), there also could be a one turn delay before notification. It does not exempt them completely from being revealed, but it would help their survivability a great deal. This seems justifiable to me, since S&I seems to have a much bigger effect in practice in exposing naval units on the high seas, versus land units behind the front lines, to enemy attack. This might be a good remedy actually.

OldCrowBalthazor -> RE: Why are subs so much worse in this game vs WIE and WAW? (12/15/2020 1:05:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chernobyl Incidentally the S&I detection also eventually finds all your opponents minefields which makes them worthless. Not sure if that was the intention or not. Yeah, I noticed that. I've started using them 'tactically' now during or in anticipation of an engagement instead of making a defensive net that's easily detected by different means. I started hoarding mines now where in the past I'd lay them down almost immediately in a defensive belt or whatever.

Chernobyl -> RE: Why are subs so much worse in this game vs WIE and WAW? (12/15/2020 2:10:03 AM)
I have a bit of a bias as a Central Powers player :) Anyhow I did some testing. Yes intel/signals does detect subs. Out of port. Either silent or cruise mode both get detected. It wasn't quite as often as I thought, but still could easily result in a few sub losses over the course of a game, mostly depending on where the sub happens to be located relative to your destroyer death ball.

OldCrowBalthazor -> RE: Why are subs so much worse in this game vs WIE and WAW? (12/15/2020 2:51:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chernobyl I have a bit of a bias as a Central Powers player :) Anyhow I did some testing. Yes intel/signals does detect subs. Out of port. Either silent or cruise mode both get detected. It wasn't quite as often as I thought, but still could easily result in a few sub losses over the course of a game, mostly depending on where the sub happens to be located relative to your destroyer death ball. Its unfortunate for a player when their transport has been detected and they don't know it. Of course, its usually an Entente transport moving something from England to Egypt or Greece perhaps..and they didn't bother to send an escort or advanced sqdr to sweep the route. These cases are rare, and a successful ambush even rarer...but if the transport is sunk, it can be a game changer if said transport had a HQ unit on board. [X(]

Chernobyl -> RE: Why are subs so much worse in this game vs WIE and WAW? (12/15/2020 3:31:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OldCrowBalthazor it can be a game changer if said transport had a HQ unit on board. [X(] Does one sub attack really ever do 10 damage to a transport?

OldCrowBalthazor -> RE: Why are subs so much worse in this game vs WIE and WAW? (12/15/2020 4:12:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chernobyl quote: ORIGINAL: OldCrowBalthazor it can be a game changer if said transport had a HQ unit on board. [X(] Does one sub attack really ever do 10 damage to a transport? I don't know..possibly if the transport was in cruise mode and crashed into a surfaced upgraded submarine? This calls for a hotseat test and find out. In a game long ways back I crashed a transport with a UK corp on it into an AH Dreadnought in the eastern Med. It was like an alpha strike..boom!..10 damage, all hands lost. I have no idea how it got out there but it may have been lurking for sometime in some out of the way spot like the armpit of Libya or a nook on the Anatolian coast. The DN got sunk next turn but the loss of that corp was brutal since the UK was barely above water money-wise and the Canal or Kuwait was calling. The turn previously an HQ from England had just got through and landed at Alexandria...so phew! I always send out pathfinders when transports are involved now [:)] Edit: I always suspected he knew my transport was coming perhaps from a previous S&I check..but I did't ask and he didn't tell. The DN was right astride the convoy line somewhere north of the Libya-Egyptian border..and there was no raider indication,(it was probably turned off) so it was rather odd and I have always wondered if it was a planned ambush or just lucky.

Page: [1] 2 3 4 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.796875