Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: U-boats not a menace

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command WWII War in Europe >> RE: U-boats not a menace Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: U-boats not a menace - 4/24/2017 5:39:48 PM   
Hubert Cater

 

Posts: 5199
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline 		Thanks for the responses and clarifications, always much appreciated, and I believe the rounding change will have the desired effect to hopefully resolve this.

_____________________________

Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/FurySoftware

We're also on Facebook! https://www.facebook.com/pages/Fury-Software/233842800005900

Join our Steam Community:
http://steamcommunity.com/groups/strategiccommand3

(in reply to vonik)
Post #: 61
RE: U-boats not a menace - 4/24/2017 9:11:12 PM   
PJL1973


Posts: 159
Joined: 4/4/2005
Status: offline 		I think I've already experienced something similar to what vonik has described in one of my PBEM games. Furthermore, it's been the main reason why I've stopped playing PBEM until it's been sorted out. I don't mind taking losses, as long as I figure out how it could be countered. Certainly right now I would consider subs to be the strongest naval unit in the game, and as Germany can build lots more of them than everyone else they have an advantage in this.


_____________________________


(in reply to Hubert Cater)
Post #: 62
RE: U-boats not a menace - 4/25/2017 3:36:19 PM   
Capitaine

 

Posts: 1043
Joined: 1/15/2002
Status: offline 		Isn't it pretty unrealistic to attack a sub unit with 10+ destroyer units? 5+ destroyer units? Destroyers were assigned as convoy escorts primarily, not in giant "wolfpacks" hunting down uboat wolfpacks. At least I've never heard of such kinds of formations among ASW ships as we've heard about uboats.

The point is that low attack results giving uboats high experience are the result of ahistorical tactics anyway. Why keep attacking if it only benefits the uboat? It appears that the new silent running protocol makes killing subs entirely a difficult thing to achieve in disparate tech situations. Perhaps the strategy should mainly be placing surface units adjacent to subs to negate convoy raiding as Hubert mentions above?

(in reply to vonik)
Post #: 63
RE: U-boats not a menace - 4/25/2017 5:35:56 PM   
Toby42


Posts: 1626
Joined: 8/10/2003
From: Central Florida
Status: offline 		Hunter - Killer groups operated in WWII. It was usually an escort carrier and several escorts. In this game carriers are pretty useless against U-boats. Unless they have been improved with the latest patches? I haven't played the game for awhile!

_____________________________

Tony

(in reply to Capitaine)
Post #: 64
RE: U-boats not a menace - 4/25/2017 6:13:34 PM   
VigaBrand

 

Posts: 303
Joined: 12/19/2014
From: Germany
Status: offline 		Yes, but you could buy escort carries which had the same attack value against a sub as a destroyer.

_____________________________




(in reply to Toby42)
Post #: 65
RE: U-boats not a menace - 4/25/2017 10:19:02 PM   
vonik

 

Posts: 262
Joined: 4/8/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Capitaine

Perhaps the strategy should mainly be placing surface units adjacent to subs to negate convoy raiding as Hubert mentions above?


This makes no sense . You'll have big ships immediately killing your destroyer if you don't move it. And if you bring big ships too, it is even worse because the other subs will pulverize them .
A good German typically puts 1 sub well visible to everybody (preferably raiding) and 6 others hidden waiting around it .
Only a sub may stay on place for many turns and get no damage . Any other ship is killed in 2 turns max .

(in reply to Capitaine)
Post #: 66
RE: U-boats not a menace - 4/27/2017 12:00:42 AM   
wie201

 

Posts: 793
Joined: 11/9/2002
From: Fairfax, VA, USA
Status: offline 		Just my three Martini opinion, but I just don’t think it is practical, programming-wise, to make a game that combines land, air and sea under one general system satisfactory to a, more or less, hard-core gamer. I would prefer the naval and air campaigns being somewhat abstracted in some way, (for example, a group of hexes made into zones for the naval war).

Otherwise, the programmer could create three games that interface flawlessly together:

Strategic Command WWII War in Europe Land Campaign

Strategic Command WWII War in Europe Naval Campaign

Strategic Command WWII War in Europe Air Campaign

A cornucopia of delights for the hard-core gamer.

A nightmare for the programmer.

But, for the record, I am delighted with the status quo!


< Message edited by wie201 -- 4/27/2017 12:03:20 AM >

(in reply to vonik)
Post #: 67
RE: U-boats not a menace - 4/27/2017 12:45:09 AM   
MemoryLeak


Posts: 491
Joined: 12/4/2000
From: Woodland, CA USA
Status: offline 		Restrict all ships and make it mandatory to return to port because morale, readiness and supply will drop to
an unacceptable level that makes the naval unit totally ineffective. This would eliminate the unrealistic ability they currently have
to stay at sea for years without returning to port. This would help with the problem of constant mass attacks. You would have
to split your forces and keep some at sea, some returning to port, some returning to patrol area and some in port.
Just like real Admirals had to deal with.

_____________________________

If you want to make GOD laugh, tell him your future plans

USS Long Beach CGN-9
RM2 1969-1973

(in reply to wie201)
Post #: 68
RE: U-boats not a menace - 4/27/2017 2:14:26 AM   
Leadwieght

 

Posts: 327
Joined: 2/23/2017
Status: offline 		ML,

As you are probably aware, ships and subs in Raider mode do lose supply every turn.

I see the logic of having all ships use up some supply every turn they are at sea, but how would that change game balance?

As it stands now the Axis player has to periodically move U-Boats back to bases to re-supply, in order to maximize convoy losses. If the Allies had to keep sending their escorts back to port, would that tip the balance too much towards the Axis? Not sure, just asking.

(in reply to MemoryLeak)
Post #: 69
RE: U-boats not a menace - 4/27/2017 3:52:46 AM   
battlevonwar


Posts: 1041
Joined: 12/22/2011
Status: offline 		The Mechanics of Naval Warfare won't be understood fully till a lot of players spend 5-6-7 games up against someone who knows how to use ships well. This breaks things down:

BBs Kill: Cruisers + CVs + DDs and damage other BBs
Cruisers: Cheap Weakers BBs
Destroyer: Kills Subs
CVs: Attacks everything but cannot get hit in return
Subs: Destroys everything but Destroyers

All big ships even DDs hammer coastal units and supply!

The RN has upwards of near 35 ships as the war progresses and primarily by event and a ton of DDs. In one game I am not lying I've literally raided 25-35 MPPs against the Western Allies. I'm rather shocked I managed it. Why would I put a 200 MPP Ship, that requires research and upgrades out there to die?

< Message edited by battlevonwar -- 4/27/2017 3:53:51 AM >

(in reply to Leadwieght)
Post #: 70
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command WWII War in Europe >> RE: U-boats not a menace Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.734