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

RE: 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

Chernobyl -> RE: Why are subs so much worse in this game vs WIE and WAW? (12/15/2020 6:11:58 AM)
Haha my first thought was how did a dreadnought get past the blockade? I have found some of my opponents set up a gigantic Adriatic blockade immediately and some don't at all. Some even try to push into that sea with their navy for whatever reason.

OldCrowBalthazor -> RE: Why are subs so much worse in this game vs WIE and WAW? (12/15/2020 8:00:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chernobyl Haha my first thought was how did a dreadnought get past the blockade? I have found some of my opponents set up a gigantic Adriatic blockade immediately and some don't at all. Some even try to push into that sea with their navy for whatever reason. Had to be opening move with cruise and he tucked it in to a bay on the Greek coast or Taranto Bay. I always put a sub there at the mouth of the Adriatic, even though it's a 5 strength, and try to at least contest the convoy route into Montenegro soon after. The other two subs I try to reinforce at a French Port then send them up into the Adriatic in silent mode to 'check on' the AH fleet, and keep that surveillance up. This time I didn't because this opponent made really unorthodox moves like bringing the whole of the IGN out into the Atlantic to do a suicide battle during the first 3 to 4 turns including his subs. As a result, I pulled a bunch of naval assets out of the Med and just left a scratch force to do an overwatch, hoping the Italians would get in the war by April 1915. These suicide attacks were also going on on the land, and the game was over by autumn of 1915 with his defeat. I was using this ambush of my transport as an example, but that game I didn't particularly enjoy because essentially there was no rhyme or reason to what this opponent did at all.

Hubert Cater -> RE: Why are subs so much worse in this game vs WIE and WAW? (12/16/2020 1:12:13 PM)
Thanks for the feedback everyone and I have to be honest here, after catching up on the more recent posts here, I've realized now that I did mix up the fact that this was in the WWI forum for the game. Just meaning much of what I wrote does lean more towards WWII thinking on subs than specifically for WWI. If players are finding it hard to get their subs out to sea, or even keeping them alive, and more so in this game than in the WWII games and if the Intelligence hits are playing a significant role in that we are open to the possibility of some minor changes that could help. Please keep the suggestions and ideas coming and we'll have a think on it as well.

Tanaka -> RE: Why are subs so much worse in this game vs WIE and WAW? (12/16/2020 7:06:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hubert Cater Thanks for the feedback everyone and I have to be honest here, after catching up on the more recent posts here, I've realized now that I did mix up the fact that this was in the WWI forum for the game. Just meaning much of what I wrote does lean more towards WWII thinking on subs than specifically for WWI. If players are finding it hard to get their subs out to sea, or even keeping them alive, and more so in this game than in the WWII games and if the Intelligence hits are playing a significant role in that we are open to the possibility of some minor changes that could help. Please keep the suggestions and ideas coming and we'll have a think on it as well. Thanks Hubert! Was trying to remember if any changes in subs were made in the WW1 game patches yet? Is it possible to list the differences in subs here between the WW1 and WW2 games? Are they meant to be shorter ranged and weaker in this game? I'm assuming so due to earlier technology as Old Crow mentioned. I'm trying to figure out how and why in WW1 subs were more devastating vs WW2 yet in this game they seem weaker and more difficult to use? One big difference to me is the larger numbers of ships the allies have to both blockade and immediately bum rush any discovered sub and not having to deal with any significant enemy navy in the Med. Supply is a big issue to surviving since the increased number of allied ships reduce supply with each attack and you cannot go very far to raid. Short ranged, low supplied, allied naval hordes of death, blockades to get through, allied air power... And then you have no French ports to fall back to you have to return all the way back to Germany. It is really difficult to accomplish all of that with inferior subs...

mdsmall -> RE: Why are subs so much worse in this game vs WIE and WAW? (12/16/2020 7:49:46 PM)
As I recall, the only tactical difference is that subs in the WW2 game have a slightly longer range (21 APs versus 18), which makes sense given technology improvements. Since sonar was a WW2 era invention, I wonder if ASW tech should be as strong as it is in the WW1 game? A slight shift in the balance between Advanced Subs and ASW tech would increase the survival rate of German subs. Most of the differences are the strategic ones you have already listed. But you overlook a major strategic difference with the WW2 game - which are the NM hexes off the British coast and the possibility of shutting down British ports. That strategy does not exist in the WW2 game and it makes the attractions of investing in sub capability much greater for the German player in WW1, even if you have to keep building new ones to replace losses.

Tanaka -> RE: Why are subs so much worse in this game vs WIE and WAW? (12/17/2020 1:50:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mdsmall As I recall, the only tactical difference is that subs in the WW2 game have a slightly longer range (21 APs versus 18), which makes sense given technology improvements. Since sonar was a WW2 era invention, I wonder if ASW tech should be as strong as it is in the WW1 game? A slight shift in the balance between Advanced Subs and ASW tech would increase the survival rate of German subs. Most of the differences are the strategic ones you have already listed. But you overlook a major strategic difference with the WW2 game - which are the NM hexes off the British coast and the possibility of shutting down British ports. That strategy does not exist in the WW2 game and it makes the attractions of investing in sub capability much greater for the German player in WW1, even if you have to keep building new ones to replace losses. That brings up the next question: Is ASW stronger or weaker in either game? Because it should definitely be weaker in WW1. And yes the NM hexes are for sure the biggest differences between the games. But what good are they if you avoid them or don't take unrestricted sub warfare?

The Land -> RE: Why are subs so much worse in this game vs WIE and WAW? (12/17/2020 9:32:31 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. 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. The account that I read in Marder's "From Dreadnought to Scapa Flow," which is the canonical five-volume history of the British naval war in WW1, is rather different. Signals intelligence was a big deal for the British in mid-1917 onwards once convoy was introduced. Essentially, submarines were located and convoys routed around the locations of the submarines. Of course this still differs from the game. They didn't locate submarines and send masses of destroyers to sink them - because the RN had abandoned 'sub hunting' entirely as a technique, because convoy was a far more effective method of protecting merchant ships (and, indeed, or sinking submarines...) But the game's problem is the whole counter-based subs vs counter-based destroyers, not specifically spying and intelligence.

Chernobyl -> RE: Why are subs so much worse in this game vs WIE and WAW? (12/17/2020 11:05:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: The Land is rather different Not sure we even disagree. I think Room 40 did cool stuff, but it most certainly didn't contribute significantly to anti-sub fleets locating and gangbanging German subs. And are hexes really the problem? It seems there's plenty of room to make subs more stealthy. Simply make it so you don't see a sub unless you pass directly over it (not just adjacent). And allow subs to conduct unrestricted warfare in adjacent hexes (not just directly on the NM hexes). And change S&I intel on subs to show up at the END of your turn instead of the beginning. That would make it very difficult to find those pesky subs, which was indeed the historical case.

Tanaka -> RE: Why are subs so much worse in this game vs WIE and WAW? (12/18/2020 1:41:30 AM)
The other thing I've noticed is the subs in this game seem a lot worse at sinking warships. You get a lot of 0,0 odds...Is ASW stronger?

OldCrowBalthazor -> RE: Why are subs so much worse in this game vs WIE and WAW? (12/18/2020 2:33:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tanaka The other thing I've noticed is the subs in this game seem a lot worse at sinking warships. You get a lot of 0,0 odds...Is ASW stronger? Upgrading your subs will help do more damage. Noticed how I pulled some of my big boys off the blockade line after you sniped one? Even 3 or 4 pts of damage to a dreadnought is expensive to repair, and I for one am rather cheap and want to avoid those costs, especially since right now Great Britain is tight on cash, at least for now. [:)] As for ASW..well ASW1 vs an un-upgraded sub does more damage, and ASW2 OR 3 is absolutely devastating to submarine with out an upgrade. The trick is to keep up or outpace the other in ASW vs Adv Submarine tech.

MVP7 -> RE: Why are subs so much worse in this game vs WIE and WAW? (12/18/2020 7:05:26 AM)
I my experience the SC:WW1 submarines feel more durable than they are in WaW for some reason (and they did even before the naval bomber nerf). Subs vs ASW is a tricky balance since sinking a sub demands that big horde of destroyers or they'll just get away and reinforce for pocket change. Using smaller or a spread out ASW fleet isn't really an option. It's in pretty sharp contrast to the usually very deadly naval combat of SC. As soon as one side loses a number of destroyers (which, unlike subs, are extremely fragile) the other can start operating their subs with complete impunity on the trade routes and NM hexes. Even before that submarines can cause a lot of damage by stalking the likely paths of enemy ships. I don't think anything short of another capital can damage a capital ship as much as an ambush by a sub and nothing comes close to that MPP efficiency. Against AI you can pretty much sink half of the Entente fleet with subs and mines alone with surface fleet mainly acting as bait and cleanup.

OldCrowBalthazor -> RE: Why are subs so much worse in this game vs WIE and WAW? (12/18/2020 7:33:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MVP7 I my experience the SC:WW1 submarines feel more durable than they are in WaW for some reason (and they did even before the naval bomber nerf). Subs vs ASW is a tricky balance since sinking a sub demands that big horde of destroyers or they'll just get away and reinforce for pocket change. Using smaller or a spread out ASW fleet isn't really an option. It's in pretty sharp contrast to the usually very deadly naval combat of SC. As soon as one side loses a number of destroyers (which, unlike subs, are extremely fragile) the other can start operating their subs with complete impunity on the trade routes and NM hexes. Even before that submarines can cause a lot of damage by stalking the likely paths of enemy ships. I don't think anything short of another capital can damage a capital ship as much as an ambush by a sub and nothing comes close to that MPP efficiency. Against AI you can pretty much sink half of the Entente fleet with subs and mines alone with surface fleet mainly acting as bait and cleanup. Yeah, I suffered a severe setback as the British when one of my regular opponents sortied out with a portion of the IGN in the fall/winter of 1914. He scouted the Scotland-Norway blockade line with subs on silent mode, and went and attacked my strung out fleet...the result of a 2 turn fracas as he returned back to the Kiel and safety was the destruction of most of my destroyers, some light cruisers and a few DN's plus a lot of damaged ships. He lost or had damaged quite a few of his vessels, but lost none of his submarines. It was a brilliantly executed raid and within a few turns I realized how screwed Great Britain was. I had little to no counter to his subs, who returned out to sea and tore up my convoy routes. I couldn't put the blockade back up without potentially losing the rest of the fleet..and forthwith, without the blockade, there was nothing that could put a damper on his National Morale. This and other factors resulted in the Entente losing the war. It was a fantastic thing to witness though I was the victim of this high risk gambit. [:)]

Tanaka -> RE: Why are subs so much worse in this game vs WIE and WAW? (12/18/2020 6:33:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OldCrowBalthazor quote: ORIGINAL: MVP7 I my experience the SC:WW1 submarines feel more durable than they are in WaW for some reason (and they did even before the naval bomber nerf). Subs vs ASW is a tricky balance since sinking a sub demands that big horde of destroyers or they'll just get away and reinforce for pocket change. Using smaller or a spread out ASW fleet isn't really an option. It's in pretty sharp contrast to the usually very deadly naval combat of SC. As soon as one side loses a number of destroyers (which, unlike subs, are extremely fragile) the other can start operating their subs with complete impunity on the trade routes and NM hexes. Even before that submarines can cause a lot of damage by stalking the likely paths of enemy ships. I don't think anything short of another capital can damage a capital ship as much as an ambush by a sub and nothing comes close to that MPP efficiency. Against AI you can pretty much sink half of the Entente fleet with subs and mines alone with surface fleet mainly acting as bait and cleanup. Yeah, I suffered a severe setback as the British when one of my regular opponents sortied out with a portion of the IGN in the winter of 1914/15..scouted the Scotland-Norway blockade line with subs on silent mode, and went and attacked my strung out fleet...the result of a 2 turn fracas as he returned back to the Kiel and safety was the destruction of most of my destroyers, some light cruisers and a few DN's plus a lot of damaged ships. He lost or had damaged quite a few of his vessels, but lost none of his submarines. It was a brilliantly executed raid and within a few turns I realized how screwed Great Britain was. I had little to no counter to his subs, who returned out to sea and tore up my convoy routes. I couldn't put the blockade back up without potentially losing the rest of the fleet..and forthwith, without the blockade, there was nothing that could put a damper on his National Morale. This and other factors resulted in the Entente losing the war. It was a fantastic thing to witness though I was the victim of this high risk gambit. [:)] I will admit I should have attacked your blockade with my subs first instead of trying to venture out and raid with them. (Because that seems to be the best option-which I think is the problem) And when I did I finally had some success against your dreadnaughts but how did this opponent have any success attacking your destroyers with subs? What?

Tanaka -> RE: Why are subs so much worse in this game vs WIE and WAW? (12/18/2020 6:51:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MVP7 I my experience the SC:WW1 submarines feel more durable than they are in WaW for some reason (and they did even before the naval bomber nerf). Subs vs ASW is a tricky balance since sinking a sub demands that big horde of destroyers or they'll just get away and reinforce for pocket change. Using smaller or a spread out ASW fleet isn't really an option. It's in pretty sharp contrast to the usually very deadly naval combat of SC. As soon as one side loses a number of destroyers (which, unlike subs, are extremely fragile) the other can start operating their subs with complete impunity on the trade routes and NM hexes. Even before that submarines can cause a lot of damage by stalking the likely paths of enemy ships. I don't think anything short of another capital can damage a capital ship as much as an ambush by a sub and nothing comes close to that MPP efficiency. Against AI you can pretty much sink half of the Entente fleet with subs and mines alone with surface fleet mainly acting as bait and cleanup. Could you name the reason? Is this against human or AI? Also it is not just destroyers. Any allied ship attacking a sub reduces the sub supply and I have noticed very little damage to any attacking allied ships.

MVP7 -> RE: Why are subs so much worse in this game vs WIE and WAW? (12/18/2020 10:29:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tanaka Could you name the reason? Is this against human or AI? Also it is not just destroyers. Any allied ship attacking a sub reduces the sub supply and I have noticed very little damage to any attacking allied ships. Against AI. As long as the sub level matches the ASW level of the destroyer the subs just don't seem to take that much damage. The sub will dive away and it still usually has some strength left at the end of enemy turn which is enough to slip away into friendly port. Subs don't really cause casualties on defense but if a non-destroyer enemy ship sails into a sub it takes massive damage from the ambush. I have seen subs take at least 4 strength off full strength dreadnoughts. After a ship has ran into a sub it is usually stuck next to it so you can fire a prepared attack before moving away on your own turn which is usually pretty devastating as well. If you have another sub nearby (or have enough movement left on the aforementioned sub) your can set it up two hexes away from the wounded enemy between it and its harbor which usually results into another devastating ambush. If the enemy still has destroyers I try to keep my subs in North Sea so an overzealous pursuit by the AI can pull their destroyers into the range of my surface ships.It takes all of the destroyers to effectively take down a sub and the AI knows it so you can lead the AI destroyers on a wild goose chase by raiding the distant convoys west of Africa or in the middle of Atlantic. Then the rest of your sub fleet can lay waste to the bigger ships left behind or just generally keep harassing the Entente. It only takes one or two subs to cause plenty of damage in any one place if there are no multiple destroyers (or torpedo boats) around. The worst thing to do is to try and send your subs to the NM hexes before sinking the enemy destroyers in the North Sea or by diverting them elsewhere. The NM hexes leave your subs too far from friendly ports and too close to the British ports so there's nothing to be gained there. After the allied destroyers are dealt with the German sub fleet can pretty much sink the rest of the Entente fleet on their own.

Tanaka -> RE: Why are subs so much worse in this game vs WIE and WAW? (12/18/2020 11:16:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MVP7 quote: ORIGINAL: Tanaka Could you name the reason? Is this against human or AI? Also it is not just destroyers. Any allied ship attacking a sub reduces the sub supply and I have noticed very little damage to any attacking allied ships. [/quote The worst thing to do is to try and send your subs to the NM hexes before sinking the enemy destroyers in the North Sea or by diverting them elsewhere. The NM hexes leave your subs too far from friendly ports and too close to the British ports so there's nothing to be gained there. After the allied destroyers are dealt with the German sub fleet can pretty much sink the rest of the Entente fleet on their own. Exactly my point [:)] Not very historical!

ThisEndUp -> RE: Why are subs so much worse in this game vs WIE and WAW? (12/19/2020 9:31:31 AM)
I'm going have to take credit for that sortie against OldCrow. The trick was not to hit with the subs, just to spot juicy targets. There is a pretty significant penalty to running into an unspotted enemy ship, which GB pretty much has to take if he wants to counterattack, since he has no aircraft or subs at the start to do the spotting. Germany, on the other hand, starts with 2 subs. This is the strongest tactical advantage they have. So you spot, strike, then retreat in a defensive formation. Bonus points if you manage to strike when it's calm, then force him to counterattack in stormy weather. An important thing to note is that to break the blockade, you must inflict at least 2:1 losses against the British and keep enough capital ships to act as a credible threat against a resumed blockade. Difficult but very achievable goal in 1914. Impossible once the British start using subs and airships to patrol the North Sea in early 1915. So if you don't sally in 1914, don't ever sally.

OldCrowBalthazor -> RE: Why are subs so much worse in this game vs WIE and WAW? (12/19/2020 12:21:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThisEndUp I'm going have to take credit for that sortie against OldCrow. The trick was not to hit with the subs, just to spot juicy targets. There is a pretty significant penalty to running into an unspotted enemy ship, which GB pretty much has to take if he wants to counterattack, since he has no aircraft or subs at the start to do the spotting. Germany, on the other hand, starts with 2 subs. This is the strongest tactical advantage they have. So you spot, strike, then retreat in a defensive formation. Bonus points if you manage to strike when it's calm, then force him to counterattack in stormy weather. An important thing to note is that to break the blockade, you must inflict at least 2:1 losses against the British and keep enough capital ships to act as a credible threat against a resumed blockade. Difficult but very achievable goal in 1914. Impossible once the British start using subs and airships to patrol the North Sea in early 1915. So if you don't sally in 1914, don't ever sally. Yep, It was you ThisEndUp. [8D] It was one of the most audacious and brilliant gambits I've ever witnessed in a PM match, and I've seen a lot! Within a turn or two, after the shock of it all, I realized the full ramifications of it meant to the Entente, the UK in particular. Since a significant portion of ThisEndsUp's IGN was still intact, and All of his submarines, I didn't dare put my diminished fleet on the blockade line except for one or two on each of the blockade hexes so he would get the notifications that the blockade was still up! I never really saw the IGN out in the North Sea again, but the threat of it coming back out was real, and his subs ruled the seas because I had only a few DD's and CL's with ASW left, which are the only ships that have a chance rambling with U-boats. You are right with this statement, "If you sally out, sally out in 1914, or not at all." What I learned is, "Don't implement the Blockade on full until you deploy your sub the Nautilus and a screen on patrol in the North Sea that can act as a tripwire". I didn't name you on the forums because I thought you may want to try it again on another opponent, but I am glad you claimed your prize, because you really deserve mention for this action in the dispatches!

OldCrowBalthazor -> RE: Why are subs so much worse in this game vs WIE and WAW? (12/19/2020 12:55:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tanaka I will admit I should have attacked your blockade with my subs first instead of trying to venture out and raid with them. (Because that seems to be the best option-which I think is the problem) And when I did I finally had some success against your dreadnaughts but how did this opponent have any success attacking your destroyers with subs? What? ThisEndUp used two submarines in silent mode and spotted most of my ships who had just deployed on the Scotland-Norway Blockade Line. Then, in the same turn, he attacked a lot of these ships with a significant portion of Germany's surface fleet, who must of sortied out the turn or two before, and crept up the coasts of Denmark and Norway. This was in the opening turns of 1914, before I had everything sorted. The first strikes sunk a few DN's and other craft. During the next few turns, as I rallied and try to chase down his retreating fleet, my navy ran into mines and sub ambushes. A lot of his surface vessels were damaged and a few sunk, but what remained of my fleet, (about 60% of the initial total survived) was damaged, some having as little as a few points of strength left. It was quite frankly, a high risk strategic surprise perfectly executed.

ThisEndUp -> RE: Why are subs so much worse in this game vs WIE and WAW? (12/19/2020 1:38:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OldCrowBalthazor I never really saw the IGN out in the North Sea again, but the threat of it coming back out was real, and his subs ruled the seas because I had only a few DD's and CL's with ASW left, which are the only ships that have a chance rambling with U-boats. The entire Kriegsmarine was actually at anchor off the coast of Iceland in mid-1915 ;) They waited there while I scouted out your positions with subs again, but most of your fleet was at port this time. It didn't seem wise to reveal their presence and start another fight I might lose, to sink the small targets that were in the open seas. Especially since the French and Italian navies were conspicuously absent from the Mediterranean at the time. The important point is that subs are a potent tactical weapon that have uses beyond raiding convoy routes. You can scout, ambush pursuing capital ships, form zones of control that cost more to cross, etc. I'm sure someone else could come up with other creative uses as well. Even if you'd rather not involve your surface fleet, a swarm of lvl 1 or 2 subs can bring down a DN in one turn if attacking in sufficient numbers.

OldCrowBalthazor -> RE: Why are subs so much worse in this game vs WIE and WAW? (12/19/2020 2:20:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThisEndUp The entire Kriegsmarine was actually at anchor off the coast of Iceland in mid-1915 ;) They waited there while I scouted out your positions with subs again, but most of your fleet was at port this time. It didn't seem wise to reveal their presence and start another fight I might lose, to sink the small targets that were in the open seas. Especially since the French and Italian navies were conspicuously absent from the Mediterranean at the time. The important point is that subs are a potent tactical weapon that have uses beyond raiding convoy routes. You can scout, ambush pursuing capital ships, form zones of control that cost more to cross, etc. I'm sure someone else could come up with other creative uses as well. Even if you'd rather not involve your surface fleet, a swarm of lvl 1 or 2 subs can bring down a DN in one turn if attacking in sufficient numbers. Double subterfuge! So while I thought I was chasing down the German Fleet to the Kiel Canal, you broke north? omg, what Daring! Here I thought I was chasing down stragglers off Jutland and not being able to block the canal before your fleet escaped. Your IGN never went to the Baltic!! Jumping Jupiters, thats a bold maneuver my friend, and you must have a steel resolve to have sit there off Iceland that whole time. Well, I also did a naval subterfuge, and that was making you think I sent out the bulk of my French/Italian heavies out to the Atlantic. They never left. I tucked them all up in the Tyrrhenian Sea hoping that you would think that, because my Atlantic Fleet was so messed up. They sat for a year there, hoping that your Austro-Hungarian Navy would venture out so I could ambush them. I took great pains to keep them from your submarines that started to sniff around out of the Adriatic. I even went so far as to send some Italian or French ships out a little west of Gibralter so those German subs lurking around would see them and think the whole shabang was heading to England. Its all revealed now, or at least, this part of that match is, which was a few mutual games and a month or more ago. Gameplay like that isn't easily forgotten, and lessons were learned! [:D]

Tanaka -> RE: Why are subs so much worse in this game vs WIE and WAW? (12/19/2020 6:57:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OldCrowBalthazor quote: ORIGINAL: Tanaka I will admit I should have attacked your blockade with my subs first instead of trying to venture out and raid with them. (Because that seems to be the best option-which I think is the problem) And when I did I finally had some success against your dreadnaughts but how did this opponent have any success attacking your destroyers with subs? What? ThisEndUp used two submarines in silent mode and spotted most of my ships who had just deployed on the Scotland-Norway Blockade Line. Then, in the same turn, he attacked a lot of these ships with a significant portion of Germany's surface fleet, who must of sortied out the turn or two before, and crept up the coasts of Denmark and Norway. This was in the opening turns of 1914, before I had everything sorted. The first strikes sunk a few DN's and other craft. During the next few turns, as I rallied and try to chase down his retreating fleet, my navy ran into mines and sub ambushes. A lot of his surface vessels were damaged and a few sunk, but what remained of my fleet, (about 60% of the initial total survived) was damaged, some having as little as a few points of strength left. It was quite frankly, a high risk strategic surprise perfectly executed. Brilliant! And we shall call this the Jutland Gambit! [:D]

ThisEndUp -> RE: Why are subs so much worse in this game vs WIE and WAW? (12/20/2020 1:20:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OldCrowBalthazor Double subterfuge! So while I thought I was chasing down the German Fleet to the Kiel Canal, you broke north? omg, what Daring! Here I thought I was chasing down stragglers off Jutland and not being able to block the canal before your fleet escaped. Your IGN never went to the Baltic!! Jumping Jupiters, thats a bold maneuver my friend, and you must have a steel resolve to have sit there off Iceland that whole time. Oh no you misunderstand! The fleet did retreat in tatters past the canal in 1914. They were refitted at port for another sally in 1915, during which they sneakily sailed up to Iceland, and which I did not capitalise on. I see now I should have pounced anyway!

OldCrowBalthazor -> RE: Why are subs so much worse in this game vs WIE and WAW? (12/20/2020 2:06:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThisEndUp quote: ORIGINAL: OldCrowBalthazor Double subterfuge! So while I thought I was chasing down the German Fleet to the Kiel Canal, you broke north? omg, what Daring! Here I thought I was chasing down stragglers off Jutland and not being able to block the canal before your fleet escaped. Your IGN never went to the Baltic!! Jumping Jupiters, thats a bold maneuver my friend, and you must have a steel resolve to have sit there off Iceland that whole time. Oh no you misunderstand! The fleet did retreat in tatters past the canal in 1914. They were refitted at port for another sally in 1915, during which they sneakily sailed up to Iceland, and which I did not capitalise on. I see now I should have pounced anyway! Triple subterfuge! Well that's even more ballsy...my combined Franco-Italian Mediterranean Fleet COULD of been up by Great Britain. I remember shoving my 3 Russian Subs (and this is the sub thread) deep into German waters and off the Danish Islands to see where your fleet was..off and on it was as I seem to remember...and I saw German ships, but not the complete number I saw by reading the reports..I figured from that p.o.v. that the bulk of IGN balled upon both sides of the Kiel. Even my UK subs were poking around over there off Jutland. Well, something smelled fishy to me in 1915 and beyond, and that is why I kept the British Fleet tight around her home waters. Something was peculiar, and intuition probably saved me from further disaster. Well played ThisEndUp! [8D]

Chernobyl -> RE: Why are subs so much worse in this game vs WIE and WAW? (12/21/2020 11:09:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OldCrowBalthazor omg, what Daring! Imagine if he had slipped a German marines unit thru on its way to invade Canada or Casablanca ;)

Chernobyl -> RE: Why are subs so much worse in this game vs WIE and WAW? (12/21/2020 11:14:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OldCrowBalthazor ThisEndUp used two submarines in silent mode and spotted most of my ships Yes, I am not sure why people talk about sub attack being powerful in this game. It's not that strong, but their scouting ability is THE strongest thing about subs in a large fleet battle. Being able to locate the enemy fleet to know what you're up against, locating enemy weakened ships, and perhaps most importantly of all when you spot them they don't "stop" your ships and eat all their movement points or cause a "sudden explosion" battle. You get to waltz up and hit them hard. But ONLY if you see them first. Subs and carriers do this well. Their second best ability in a fleet battle is that they can "block" enemy ships and take relatively little damage. If you have a vulnerable/damaged retreating battleship, you can place some subs around it, unseen, which will suddenly appear and stop the enemy surface vessels which must then move around the sub or sink it in order to get to your retreating ship. Of third place importance is their attack value.

Chernobyl -> RE: Why are subs so much worse in this game vs WIE and WAW? (12/21/2020 11:53:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MVP7 As long as the sub level matches the ASW level of the destroyer the subs just don't seem to take that much damage. The sub will dive away and it still usually has some strength left at the end of enemy turn which is enough to slip away into friendly port. They take damage to a doom fleet because ALL enemy ships (even those like BB which have 0 anti-sub attack) reduce sub supply. Once the supply is low, the sub starts taking lots of damage. Not to mention it can't move very far to escape even if it lives an extra turn. Diving doesn't help very much against a smart opponent. He WILL find your sub again quickly and destroy it. A smart opponent will also run scouts up and down above the Northern Blockade area to catch subs in silent mode which slipped thru. They only have so many movement points in silent mode and can't burn past the blockade in cruise mode cause they'll get stopped and detected. Using the French/Belgian ports to go thru the English Channel doesn't work either because a smart Entente opponent will scout this route with blimps/airplanes every turn. Your returning sub will get spotted and destroyed. I guess you could try during bad weather but good luck holding a sub near France for several turns waiting for rain hoping not to get spotted/detected. The only exceptions to this are Mediterranean subs IF the Entente moved enough of their fleet away (Ottoman or Greek ports are close by so your sub might be able to escape if ambushed). Also the Russian sub in the Black Sea is really tough to kill. The Ottomans don't have enough ASW resources to force it to retreat from the Zonguldak red hexes. Russian subs can also safely raid the Swedish convoy route if they choose because they have friendly ports close by. But for German subs in the Atlantic? Forget it. Time favors the Entente as they get more ships which can search for your subs. Entente subs and carriers are great at searching sub transit route zones. Just have a death ball ready in a centralized position. Also tech favors the anti-sub fleet. Consider that even CL, CA, and yes BATTLECRUISERS (CC) get +1 sub attack per ASW tech researched (and upgraded). The HMS Indefatigable gets depth charges in this game. As it stands, I don't think subs stand much of a chance making it to the Atlantic, doing convoy raiding, and returning in one piece in any way that favors the Central Powers. They're more likely to take as much damage as they dish out in MPP, likely to get sunk which causes a NM swing, and to boot they also provide experience to the enemy ASW fleet! Not worth it against a competent human.

OldCrowBalthazor -> RE: Why are subs so much worse in this game vs WIE and WAW? (12/22/2020 12:36:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chernobyl As it stands, I don't think subs stand much of a chance making it to the Atlantic, doing convoy raiding, and returning in one piece in any way that favors the Central Powers. They're more likely to take as much damage as they dish out in MPP, likely to get sunk which causes a NM swing, and to boot they also provide experience to the enemy ASW fleet! Not worth it against a competent human. Pretty much has been my experience...... though through 1914 to mid 1915, I have been able to cause considerable mayhem on the highseas as the Central Powers in a few MP matches. [sm=00000622.gif]

Tanaka -> RE: Why are subs so much worse in this game vs WIE and WAW? (12/22/2020 2:23:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chernobyl quote: ORIGINAL: MVP7 As long as the sub level matches the ASW level of the destroyer the subs just don't seem to take that much damage. The sub will dive away and it still usually has some strength left at the end of enemy turn which is enough to slip away into friendly port. They take damage to a doom fleet because ALL enemy ships (even those like BB which have 0 anti-sub attack) reduce sub supply. Once the supply is low, the sub starts taking lots of damage. Not to mention it can't move very far to escape even if it lives an extra turn. Diving doesn't help very much against a smart opponent. He WILL find your sub again quickly and destroy it. A smart opponent will also run scouts up and down above the Northern Blockade area to catch subs in silent mode which slipped thru. They only have so many movement points in silent mode and can't burn past the blockade in cruise mode cause they'll get stopped and detected. Using the French/Belgian ports to go thru the English Channel doesn't work either because a smart Entente opponent will scout this route with blimps/airplanes every turn. Your returning sub will get spotted and destroyed. I guess you could try during bad weather but good luck holding a sub near France for several turns waiting for rain hoping not to get spotted/detected. The only exceptions to this are Mediterranean subs IF the Entente moved enough of their fleet away (Ottoman or Greek ports are close by so your sub might be able to escape if ambushed). Also the Russian sub in the Black Sea is really tough to kill. The Ottomans don't have enough ASW resources to force it to retreat from the Zonguldak red hexes. Russian subs can also safely raid the Swedish convoy route if they choose because they have friendly ports close by. But for German subs in the Atlantic? Forget it. Time favors the Entente as they get more ships which can search for your subs. Entente subs and carriers are great at searching sub transit route zones. Just have a death ball ready in a centralized position. Also tech favors the anti-sub fleet. Consider that even CL, CA, and yes BATTLECRUISERS (CC) get +1 sub attack per ASW tech researched (and upgraded). The HMS Indefatigable gets depth charges in this game. As it stands, I don't think subs stand much of a chance making it to the Atlantic, doing convoy raiding, and returning in one piece in any way that favors the Central Powers. They're more likely to take as much damage as they dish out in MPP, likely to get sunk which causes a NM swing, and to boot they also provide experience to the enemy ASW fleet! Not worth it against a competent human. THIS. ALL OF THIS EXACTLY! I don't think ALL ships should be able to attack subs and reduce supply. Only ships with ASW should be able to do that. Battleships attacking a sub over and over to just reduce supply to 0 is a cheap trick and is just not historical or realistic. quote: As it stands, I don't think subs stand much of a chance making it to the Atlantic, doing convoy raiding, and returning in one piece in any way that favors the Central Powers. They're more likely to take as much damage as they dish out in MPP, likely to get sunk which causes a NM swing, and to boot they also provide experience to the enemy ASW fleet! Not worth it against a competent human. YEP!

Chernobyl -> RE: Why are subs so much worse in this game vs WIE and WAW? (12/22/2020 2:33:19 AM)
Subs in silent mode should probably not be spottable by adjacent enemy ships. It should take a direct encounter to find the damn thing. Subs should probably do a super alpha strike to any BB,CC,CA or DN that runs directly into them when they weren't already spotted. Think 7th Cruiser Squadron 1914, HMS Barham... Central Powers submarines sunk 10 battleships and 18 cruisers during the WWI! They shouldn't do this alpha strike to DD or Torpedo Boats though. DD should stop and spot them if they attempt to cruise over an enemy sub hex. But similarly subs in silent mode should be blind. They shouldn't be super scouts. Historically the Germans (and Japanese in WWII etc) attempted to use sub flotillas to locate enemy fleets, but the results were usually poor to mediocre at best. Certainly not reliable. Wikipedia also implies that WWI subs had worse visibility while submerged. Maybe someone who knows the naval history could confirm or deny this. While "silent mode" doesn't equate precisely to submerged, it does partly. So that helps to justify why silent subs could not have vision of adjacent hexes.

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

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.296875