Submarine aces

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Submarine aces

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

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

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Submarine aces - 12/15/2002 7:32:37 PM

entemedor

Posts: 65
Joined: 6/14/2002
From: Barcelona (Spain)
Status: offline

Hello,
A feature I would like to see added to the Intel page is a list of most successful submarines, just as there are successful pilots. Perhaps it would be a short list on UV, but it surely shall be longer in WitP.

My current campaign (Scen 17, 12 Oct 1942) has seen 9 sinkings scored by US submarines, all against commerce ships (3 APs and 6 AGs); five of them by old S-boats. Only boats to have scored twice are GRAMPUS and S-37. Own losses have been 4 boats.

As for IJN subs, they have sunk 4 ships outright (3 DDs and fleet oiler KENNEBEC) and finished-off three crippled destroyers. Most successful is I-157 with two DDs sunk. Own losses are 2 I-boats.

I think S-boats are too successful in UV compared with large fleet submarines. If we look at John D. Alden book on US submarine attacks in WW2, we learn for an example that S-boats made just 5 attacks from a total of 47 made by US subs during August '42; next month, just 2 attacks out of a total of 32. But in my UV campaign, S-boats are making more than half the attacks by US subs! If we compare just armament, as perhaps UV is doing, the difference between an S- and a Tambor- class may not be so overwhelming, but UV should contemplate the bad general condition on which old S-boats were; they seldom completed a patrol without serious technical breakdown. Also, they were simply too small, too crowded, too ill-ventilated for long patrols. In UV terms of gameplay, perhaps their autonomy should be drastically reduced in favour of larger fleet boats.
Just an idea, but something must be done to prevent S-37 being the highest-scorer in SW Pacific!

Cheers,
Entemedor

Post #: 1

S-Boats - 12/15/2002 9:54:21 PM

Ron Saueracker

Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline

With regard to performance and attack frequency, don't forget that the level of naval activity in the game is MUCH higher than historical levels. Players are not hindered by a variety of logistical limitations which kept operations at a lesser pace and reduced scope.

_____________________________

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to entemedor)

Post #: 2

- 12/16/2002 2:33:43 AM

Drex

Posts: 2524
Joined: 9/13/2000
From: Chico,california
Status: offline

I agree on the list of subs and their kill record. that way you could place your more experienced subs in critical areas.

(in reply to entemedor)

Post #: 3

- 12/16/2002 5:45:03 AM

Admiral Scott

Posts: 625
Joined: 1/8/2001
From: Syracuse, NY USA
Status: offline

Great idea.

(in reply to entemedor)

Post #: 4

- 12/16/2002 6:49:01 PM

DoomedMantis

Posts: 1922
Joined: 8/24/2002
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline

Something else would be ships counting number of planes they have shot down and also ships sunk as well

_____________________________

I shall make it a felony to drink small beer.

- Shakespeare

(in reply to entemedor)

Post #: 5

- 12/16/2002 8:54:03 PM

TIMJOT

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline

Keep in mind the S-boats effectiveness is directly related to the fact that their torps were generally more reliable and due to their obsolecence were forced to make the more effective periscope attack. Where as fleet boats were still trying to use the totally ineffective blind sonar attack with defecive torps.

Fleet subs may have had many more attacks, but how many were successful? I am pretty sure s-boats had a better record during this time period.

(in reply to entemedor)

Post #: 6

Submarine attacks - 12/17/2002 12:16:06 AM

entemedor

Posts: 65
Joined: 6/14/2002
From: Barcelona (Spain)
Status: offline

TIMJOT, I have looked at Alden's book again to check this possibility. Results are:

August '42
Fleet boats: 19 sinkings out of 47 attacks
S-boats: 2 sinkings out of 5 attacks (remarkably enough, one of the two was heavy cruiser KAKO, first major success against IJN warships)

September '42
Fleet boats: 13 sinkings out of 32 attacks
S-boats: no sinkings out of 2 attacks

Of course many of these actions took place outside the geographical area covered by UV.
Now there are the results of my UV campaign for these two months (Scen 17 playing IJN).
August '42:
Fleet boats: 2 attacks, no success
S-boats: 4 attacks, 2 ships damaged

September '42:
Fleet boats: 7 attacks, 1 ship sunk
S-boats: 6 attacks, 3 ships sunk

I still believe that in UV S-boats are too effective when compared to larger submarines, they should not be making so much attacks.

Cheers,

Entemedor

(in reply to entemedor)

Post #: 7

Re: Submarine attacks - 12/17/2002 3:06:21 AM

TIMJOT

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by entemedor
[B]TIMJOT, I have looked at Alden's book again to check this possibility. Results are:

August '42
Fleet boats: 19 sinkings out of 47 attacks
S-boats: 2 sinkings out of 5 attacks (remarkably enough, one of the two was heavy cruiser KAKO, first major success against IJN warships)

September '42
Fleet boats: 13 sinkings out of 32 attacks
S-boats: no sinkings out of 2 attacks

Of course many of these actions took place outside the geographical area covered by UV.
Now there are the results of my UV campaign for these two months (Scen 17 playing IJN).
August '42:
Fleet boats: 2 attacks, no success
S-boats: 4 attacks, 2 ships damaged

September '42:
Fleet boats: 7 attacks, 1 ship sunk
S-boats: 6 attacks, 3 ships sunk

I still believe that in UV S-boats are too effective when compared to larger submarines, they should not be making so much attacks.

Cheers,

Entemedor [/B][/QUOTE]

I don't know Entemedor, I may be missing something, but

Historical S-boats Aug-Sept
7 attacks = 2 sinkings

UV S-boats Aug-Sept
10 attacks = 3 sinkings

Your S-boats look pretty historically accurate to me.

Your fleet boats seem a little off, but is it possible a matter of deployment.

(in reply to entemedor)

Post #: 8

Submarine attacks - 12/17/2002 4:09:59 PM

entemedor

Posts: 65
Joined: 6/14/2002
From: Barcelona (Spain)
Status: offline

Yes TIMJOT, I agree with you that UV results for S-boats are not too far off of the real campaign (perhaps about 30% higher), then what is definitely wrong is the lack of success by fleet subs.

Excuse me if I look stubborn on this subject, that's not my intention. My complaint is just that UV S- boats should not be allowed to sink more ships (3) than fleet boats (1), when in the real campaign they sank just 2 ships out of 32 total sinkings (in the whole Pacific, that's true). If the AI is deploying boats so badly as to allow this to happen, then some routime should correct it (perhaps increasing S-boats SYS damage when in patrol, so allowing them less days at sea).

Best wishes.

Entemedor

(in reply to entemedor)

Post #: 9