Resolved: submarines are in need of a lot of help

[El_Condoro]

I wonder how it would affect the game if, as well as sub changes, there was a change to DDs so that it cost them 2 Naval Supply to attack.

This would mean that a DD can move out to sea and attack twice maximum before the player would have to consider that they won't have cruise ability after further attacks. If the DD cruises out to sea, it will have even less attacks before the player has to choose to keep attacking or get back to base quickly.

Combat Data: Naval Supply Loss from Combat (Attacker) = 2 for DDs?

Edit: I see the title is "Resolved" - what is the resolution?

[CaesarAug]

Well, that certainly is interesting, El_Condoro. Your example of 2 attacks before losing the ability to cruise presumes a 10-supply DD. If a 12-supply DD, then it would get 3 attacks but the dynamic holds: i.e., it’s a way to “limit” DD attacks on subs (and indeed against any naval unit).

The “problem” are less than 10-supply DDs, which might only get 1 attack. This mechanism would require a more careful management of DDs. Anyway, food for thought, thanks.

[Elessar2]

I wonder how it would affect the game if, as well as sub changes, there was a change to DDs so that it cost them 2 Naval Supply to attack.

This would mean that a DD can move out to sea and attack twice maximum before the player would have to consider that they won't have cruise ability after further attacks. If the DD cruises out to sea, it will have even less attacks before the player has to choose to keep attacking or get back to base quickly.

Combat Data: Naval Supply Loss from Combat (Attacker) = 2 for DDs?

Edit: I see the title is "Resolved" - what is the resolution?

An old meme from another forum I frequent: means simply that an issue has been conclusively identified, not solved. Still working on solutions, and yes the 2 supply hit thing for destroyers is another pretty awesome brainstorm. I don't think there would be a major issue in a general fleet action given their small ordnance loads. The AI however as usual would have its issues: in a lot of test runs there will be like 6 Allied DD's all piled into Murmansk harbor, where they can't repair because Russia is noncooperative. They often don't return to a (suitable) base in the first place unless their damage gets excessive. But this idea would help the supply/RTB imabalance I mentioned above.

[Tanaka]

I've always said the easiest fix for this would be to not allow capital ships to attack subs. As it is now you can use Cruisers and Battleships to whittle down sub supply. Not very realistic IMO. Not allowing this would give some respite to the gang bangs.

[AshFall]

Following this thread and the tests with a lot of interest.

Subs really do need help. From all my Multiplayer experiences they get swarmed and die at any stage of the game unless the Allied player really drops the ball.

What are the results of testing the different options so far?

[CaesarAug]

Yes, the input is all very interesting brainstorming. But in the end, we must work within the current game engine.

The tests I’ve run so far have been shared in earlier posts of mine here. The one key (and commonly accepted opinion) is that supply consumption for subs when defending should be set to 0.

The retreat mechanism, as the game engine handles the parameters, may be good for other naval units but for subs is questionable, due to its interaction with the exclusive feature of subs which is diving.

I am currently of the opinion that subs should get a higher base chance of diving, i.e., set to 60%. And then with ASW countermeasures, be guaranteed an absolute minimum dive chance of 20%, and a theoretical maximum dive chance of 100%. The possibility of modding dive hex range would be great but that would have to be added by the developers.

Another player has suggested having destroyers consume 2 supply points when attacking. That would tend to limit the number of attacks by destroyers against subs (and of course any other attacks) because destroyers will more easily fall below supply level 5 and thus forfeit naval cruise. It sounds good but I get the impression may be a bit severe. Not sure, though, since I have not tested this yet.

Giving subs a base naval defence rating (like half the sub’s naval attack rating), upgradable through research, should be an adequate compensation against hounding by capital ships, since these will now suffer some damage. And in addition, with no ASW research allowed for capital ships, with a permanent sub attack and sub defense rating of 0, capital ships do not have incentives to go after subs, which can still dive and when defending, won’t consume any supply anyway. I have tested capital ships attack subs and have discovered that subs can still occasionally suffer 1 point of strength damage from, say, a battleship with a 0 sub attack: the sub dived but took that damage point. That is a good game design. But this doesn’t mean that capital ships should ever go after subs, since that is not their role. With the modifications suggested, this reality is better represented.

Other issues are naval action points and naval zone of control, i.e., regulating the distance in hexes naval units can come into battle range (reach an adjacent hex of a naval target), the role of escort vessels, etc.

[El_Condoro]

For what it's worth, I would not like the dive chance increased by the devs. For me and the way I approach war games, the dive mechanic is the exact reason why swarming against subs is done - it's the only way within the game to have any chance to alleviate the player's whack-a-mole frustration. I anticipate that increasing the dive chance would either increase the swarm size or, eventually, lead the player to feel that their energy is best placed only on the land war and defending transports than In trying - and failing - to deal with subs. All convoy routes might become like the Norway route for Germany - just let them all go.

[Edit]: It can be changed now, so I guess a few tests would be the best way to get a better idea of the actual effect.

[Elessar2]

.
What are the results of testing the different options so far?

I am about to do another World test with the various suggestions upthread [plus two from the WitP thread]:

100% retreat % (so there is no ambiguity as to when it is triggered)
Have dive % set to 50% right now, tho may do CaesarAug's suggestion to make it 60%
+2 supply hits to destroyers when they attack
NO supply hits when a sub is attacked
30% surprise bonus to subs (realize this means that for the AI they will lose a lot of CLs which they often use to attack subs)
+1 sub speed per tech level
+0.5 sub naval defense per tech level
Give subs 2 levels of AA, and yes prior testing reveals they WILL do damage to attacking planes*
Storm damage for all ships, less for subs
Zoc penalty of 7 for all ships, subs included
30% repair costs for ships
[May have to craft a rescue script when all of those Allied DDs pile up in Murmansk]

El_condoro read my mind because I may indeed replace the dive mechanism with the retreat mechanism. Except that tech can play no part in the latter, alas. I'll see what 100% does first in conjunction with the 50% base dive.

[OldCrowBalthazor]

I'm keeping abreast of this epic thread and all the ideas.
It's a real science project here to solve what most folks think is the inadequacies of the current submarine mechanic (s).
Highly interesting.

[CaesarAug]

Give subs 2 levels of AA, and yes prior testing reveals they WILL do damage to attacking planes*

Hey Elessar2, so subs with AA can damage attacking planes! The Manual specifically states otherwise. Now that’s interesting! Well, subs should get AA then.

Regarding dive vs. retreat, it’s the interaction between the two that makes it unsatisfactory overall. So it looks like prioritising almost to the practical exclusion of one or the other. Unless some balance can be found. It’s preferable to integrate both mechanisms. Should prove interesting. I for one would miss the modded dive claxon!

[Edit] Did some quick testing. Retained base dive chance at 60% but added a 100% non-resource retreat capability with a 6-hex range. I still get the impression the game engine favours the dive mechanism over the retreat mechanism. But it also seemed that there was less diving than I expected and in fact, with no retreat. Seems both mechanisms tend to thwart each other’s dynamic, though favouring the dive over the retreat. With all this, unless some balance can be tweaked, I still prefer dive over retreat for subs if one of them has to go…

[BillRunacre]

This is a great thread and it's very pleasing to see the testing that is going on.

I did try out giving Submarines increasing air defense with tech, but even with minimal 0.5 increments the losses to air units could be rather heavy against heavily upgraded subs, even those without experience.

[BillRunacre]

Yes, the input is all very interesting brainstorming. But in the end, we must work within the current game engine.

Very true, and in terms of improving things here the solutions will for the most part have to be what the engine can already do.

That said, I do make a note of ideas with good potential for the future, so I don't want anyone discouraged from posting off the wall ideas, as they may well appear in a future game!


Great posts all round here guys, for a game released a few years ago it is very pleasing to see that it's still played and enjoyed a lot.

[CaesarAug]

Oh, our pleasure, sir! The Strategic Command series is a neat system that’s very enjoyable to play… and to mod… and to play-test! And it’s great seeing the dedicated support by the developers.

Based on gaming experience, many of us really like to think things out and propose tweaks we believe may contribute to more historical realism and better gameplay. The approach to modding one aspect is to consider its overall implications and, given what can be modded currently, find the best balance.

As for offering suggestions for possible game engine changes…

1) Enable additional modding possibilities of weather effects for all units, including air units, i.e., for example, modding a 50% reduction in air combat capability when in rain, etc., research upgradable. And similarly so for all land and naval units. Perhaps include day and night combat modes. And maybe add research upgradable detection parameters for units, i.e., not automatic detection, as this would be especially relevant for naval units at sea and for carrier & land-based naval air search.

2) Enable modding of sub dive hex range.

3) Enable separate attack & defence damage evasion % for land units and air units. Currently they share the same parameter while naval units has its own.

4) Enable per-ship class attack & defence damage evasion %. In other words, not just one overall %, but adjustable on a per-ship class basis, i.e., a carrier could, say, have a defensive 50% evasion from battleships and battle cruisers, but only a defensive 25% from heavy cruisers, and maybe a 0% evasion from submarines, etc. All research upgradable, of course!

5) Enable per-land unit type and per-air unit type attack & defence damage evasion % just like for naval units suggested above.

These suggestions would allow much greater player customisation… and endless modding to find the “perfect”combinations!! But it would be awesome!

[LoneRunner]

Yes, the input is all very interesting brainstorming. But in the end, we must work within the current game engine.

Very true, and in terms of improving things here the solutions will for the most part have to be what the engine can already do.

That said, I do make a note of ideas with good potential for the future, so I don't want anyone discouraged from posting off the wall ideas, as they may well appear in a future game!


Great posts all round here guys, for a game released a few years ago it is very pleasing to see that it's still played and enjoyed a lot.

Thanks for the feedback Bill. I was wondering if you could let us know when the game engine will not allow an idea to be implemented. I hate to keep pestering you for an upgrade when the idea is not even feasible. Unit stacking comes to mind. I believe the biggest weakness of the Command series is the inability to stack units. But I don't want to keep suggesting unit stacking if that idea is just out of the ballpark.

And, I wanted to mention that WaW is still being played and enjoyed because of your continued support. If I notice that a game is not being supported, I don't buy it. I bought ACW right after release because I knew you and the rest of the staff would support the game for years.

[BillRunacre]

Thanks for the feedback Bill. I was wondering if you could let us know when the game engine will not allow an idea to be implemented. I hate to keep pestering you for an upgrade when the idea is not even feasible. Unit stacking comes to mind. I believe the biggest weakness of the Command series is the inability to stack units. But I don't want to keep suggesting unit stacking if that idea is just out of the ballpark.

There's no harm in suggesting ideas relating to stacking, I do read them and have noted some thoughts of my own on this subject to which I occasionally add others that I see here and elsewhere.

It can also be useful to see others' responses to such suggestions, as often ideas can be inspired from the discussions, particularly if they highlight the underlying issue that is leading to something being suggested, i.e. sometimes something can be resolved in a different manner to that proposed, and with less work/significant engine changes.

And, I wanted to mention that WaW is still being played and enjoyed because of your continued support. If I notice that a game is not being supported, I don't buy it. I bought ACW right after release because I knew you and the rest of the staff would support the game for years.

Thanks, I greatly appreciate that, and you are right of course.

[Elessar2]

Some more testing at a 100% retreat chance does reveal that subs can do so, but only if below 5 health and surfaced. Seen dozen of attacks on my subs when they were submerged by DDs, and they all just dived the usual 1-2 hexes. The only sub retreats I've seen were by Allied ones, and only because the AI often doesn't try to get them out of Dodge when damaged, and they never leave them in Submerged mode at the end of the turn.

[CaesarAug]

If I'm reading you aright, and assuming you have set the base dive chance to 60%, it seems that the retreat mechanism for subs does not give particularly satisfactory results. Additionally, I suspect your sub testing results have given less dives than otherwise expected, and less retreats than expected, correct?

If so, it appears then that both the dive and retreat mechanisms tend to interfere with each other. And the retreat dynamic is not as reliable as dive, and furthermore does not put subs in silent running mode like dive does.

Again, if I'm reading all this correctly, it confirms my testing as well. So for my taste, I prefer sub diving than sub retreating, despite the 1-2 max hex dive range, over a modded greater retreat hex range.

[epower]

Fascinating discussion.

After a long hiatus from the game, I'm sucked in once again and lately I've been chasing down U-Boats in my recent Naval mod game as Allies (UK & USA) v Axis AI. Following Old Crow Balthazar's practice, only Screening forces(DD), HK groups (CVL) and Maritime Bombers get the ASW upgrade. Not sure how to use the editor and alter the AI to do likewise but that's another topic.

Full disclosure: I've occasionally succumbed to ahistoric and, dare I say it, 'gamey' tactics to deal with these irritating Subs.
I must admit to calling in "all units" across the Atlantic to deal with a single pesky Wolfpack.
Also, I'm largely ignoring both U-505 lurking off Africa and the two I-Boats sitting near Sydney, Australia. The income hit just isn't that bad. I'd rather this weren't the case.

To go with the many excellent suggestions mentioned previously regarding supply (Subs and +2 for DDs), increased APs for Subs and boosted base dive chance, I'll add the following:

• Significantly increase the MPP loss from a successful convoy lane raid. PQ-17 being an extreme example. A 15 MPP hit is irritating. Whack me for 50-60 and you now have my complete attention. Not for nothing did Churchill write, "the only thing that ever really frightened me during the war was the U-boat peril.’ As it stands now, I'm not frightened.

• Limit ASW tech to DD, CVL & Maritime bombers.

• Sub attack value vs transports to 8, so as to keep pace with any corresponding Amphibious warfare defensive upgrades.

• Punish DD and CVL Naval cruise with both a severe penalty if ambushed by a sub and also with increased supply expenditure (=3?) so as to reflect fuel consumption running at flank speed. Is this possible in the editor?

Cheers,

[CaesarAug]

Yes, increasing a sub’s convoy raiding effectiveness is definitely something I have modded. Been testing with even 100-200.

As for modding a higher supply consumption for DDs and CVLs when cruising and surprised by a sub, that is not possible. What is possible is increasing a sub’s Hidden Attacker Readiness Bonus to, say, somewhere between 25-50%.

With max 4 levels of Advanced Sub research, and a corresponding max 4 ASW research levels, sub naval, carrier, and transport attack values are increased to a default 6 in my testing (+1 per level maxing out at 10) with the exception of US subs which start at 2 (failure of the infamous Mark 14 torpedo early on, but increasing +2 per level, maxing out at 10), and Japanese subs which start at 4, with a +2 per level increase, and thus will eventually max out at 12.

Agree on ASW research limited to DDs, CVLs, and Maritime Bombers.

[Elessar2]

Just wanted to touch on retreats a bit more: I think given a sufficient retreat range, it would help subs out quite a bit actually. Better to be completely out of range of being attacked or detected by air, than to dive the 1-2 measly spaces and be whacked again. But otherwise yes it doesn't happen often enough.