sub wolfpacks

[ckk]

Good idea or not? If good, how should they be created and deployed? Thanks

[dr.hal]

No, the game doesn't model that concept well (and neither side used it in the Pacific theater, although the US did try a bit of this in terms of concentration later in the war IIRC). Best deployment is individually imho.

[Oberst_Klink]

ORIGINAL: ckk

Good idea or not? If good, how should they be created and deployed? Thanks

A few of us tried, but it doesn't really work; it's better to have different TFs, perhaps on follow orders, IF you want to have lots of u-boats in one hex; but grouping them into one large Wolfpack doesn't work Kaleu!

Klink, Oberst

[Macclan5]

I think there is no consensus in this.

I have seen it argued both ways.

A long time veteran Sir Hans B perhaps has argued the most concise rationale I have seen to date.

A sub wolfpack of 2 subs "appears" to have some chance of greater chance of a follow up strike" in same hex than a singleton sub or multiple singleton subs in the same hex.

I am unsure if the mechanics under the hood exactly support this; but my "gut feeling is that its true" as well.

Just 2 subs.. not 3 or 5 or 10..

I altered my sub patrols to : 2 match units endurance / speed wise and "do NOT" remain on station. Set a patrol zone even if its only 2 hexes as a particularly critical point.

Somewhere between improved USN Torps and my change in tactics - my USN devils are getting lots of hits and especially follow up hits off the coast of Japan and the Philippines.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Macclan5

I think there is no consensus in this.

Don Bowen, who coded the sub war, spoke on this very early in the game's life. No need for consensus.

[geofflambert]

As the IJN I sometimes pair a sub with a floatplane carrying sub in the hopes that one or the other or both can react to a sighting. I do not deliberately put them in the same hex or have one follow the other but have each patrol a small triangle situated across the usual shipping lane. I can't say that strategy works.

[Macclan5]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Macclan5

I think there is no consensus in this.

Don Bowen, who coded the sub war, spoke on this very early in the game's life. No need for consensus.

Ahh well then my impression is merely that... an impression. [8D]

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: Macclan5

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Macclan5

I think there is no consensus in this.

Don Bowen, who coded the sub war, spoke on this very early in the game's life. No need for consensus.

Ahh well then my impression is merely that... an impression. [8D]

Your impression matches mine - I use subs in pairs and often both subs will attack the same TF. I think this is because the first sub attack (or being attacked) raises the DL of the target and the second sub therefore has a higher probability of making an attack. This does not seem to happen with two single-sub TFs in the same hex.

BTW, if the first sub damages a ship the second sub is almost certain to also attack it. Cripples are targets in this game!

PS - large wolfpacks do not seem to work - three subs have some success but not as much as two, and four or more subs don't seem to be able to get their act together. I did have one group of about seven subs that were transiting to a new base when they bumped into a lone enemy xAK ship. Only one of those subs attacked the ship and it missed.

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Macclan5

I think there is no consensus in this.

Don Bowen, who coded the sub war, spoke on this very early in the game's life. No need for consensus.

Quite correct Bullwinkle.

There is a very extensive 2011 thread (and several other more recent shorter ones too) on this very issue where I made several lengthy posts (together with appropriate dev references IIRC) and IIRC Don Bowen also chipped in directly.

But heck why bother getting the facts when it is so much easier to just come to the game and expect pre conceived ideas to apply.

Alfred

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: Macclan5

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58




Don Bowen, who coded the sub war, spoke on this very early in the game's life. No need for consensus.

Ahh well then my impression is merely that... an impression. [8D]

Your impression matches mine - I use subs in pairs and often both subs will attack the same TF. I think this is because the first sub attack (or being attacked) raises the DL of the target and the second sub therefore has a higher probability of making an attack. This does not seem to happen with two single-sub TFs in the same hex.

BTW, if the first sub damages a ship the second sub is almost certain to also attack it. Cripples are targets in this game!

PS - large wolfpacks do not seem to work - three subs have some success but not as much as two, and four or more subs don't seem to be able to get their act together. I did have one group of about seven subs that were transiting to a new base when they bumped into a lone enemy xAK ship. Only one of those subs attacked the ship and it missed.

Using subs in pairs in the same TF is sub-optimal. I recommend you find Don's posts. He was quite clear why.

[BBfanboy]

I report what my experience has been. I tried the one-sub roving patrol zone method and was not happy with results. I have been happy using them in pairs and in small PZs, so that is my preference. I recommend the OP try both methods for a while.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

I report what my experience has been. I tried the one-sub roving patrol zone method and was not happy with results. I have been happy using them in pairs and in small PZs, so that is my preference. I recommend the OP try both methods for a while.

Sigh.

tm.asp?m=3921147

tm.asp?m=2889330&mpage=2&key=sub%3F#

[m10bob]

In game wolf packs tend to make detection of the subs easier, and there are no verifiable benefits for the user.
It gives the defending player a greater ability to damage the subs as they will be more "bunched up".

The concept WAS tried during the Midway campaign to some extent, fanning subs out to the west of Midway in an arc, but they were deployed much too late to assist in detection, arriving on station after the Japanese had already gone by.
Even had they deployed sooner, all but the "S" boats were using those defective torpedoes, anyway.

Anybody interested in the U.S. sub war in the Pacific really needs to acquire a copy of Clay Blair's great book(s) on the matter, SILENT VICTORY....IMHO).

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: m10bob

In game wolf packs tend to make detection of the subs easier, and there are no verifiable benefits for the user.
It gives the defending player a greater ability to damage the subs as they will be more "bunched up".

The concept WAS tried during the Midway campaign to some extent, fanning subs out to the west of Midway in an arc, but they were deployed much too late to assist in detection, arriving on station after the Japanese had already gone by.
Even had they deployed sooner, all but the "S" boats were using those defective torpedoes, anyway.

Anybody interested in the U.S. sub war in the Pacific really needs to acquire a copy of Clay Blair's great book(s) on the matter, SILENT VICTORY....IMHO).

I have read several books on the US sub war. Large wolf packs were definitely not used but pairs of subs sometimes were. Darter and Dace taking down three CAs at the start of the Battle of Leyte Gulf is my best example of how they can work together.

[ckk]

Yep Got it read it Rereading it again which was what prompted my question[:)]

Blair does say that sub packs were used later in the war I was just wondering how or if this could be done in the GAME

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

I have read several books on the US sub war. Large wolf packs were definitely not used but pairs of subs sometimes were. Darter and Dace taking down three CAs at the start of the Battle of Leyte Gulf is my best example of how they can work together.

Two were sometimes used, but three was more normal from mid-44 on. But the tactics were not those of the Germans in that there was no coordination from shore, and the subs only cooperated in the loosest sense, with the SOPA being in tactical charge of the group. Major attention was paid to EMCON. When a TF was located other groups were not vectored onto the track.

The tactic was not adopted because single-sub patrols didn't work. It was more that targets were becoming scarce and USN subs numerous, so choke points could be more effectively closed with three at no cost to the overall campaign.

[Macclan5]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

tm.asp?m=3921147

tm.asp?m=2889330&mpage=2&key=sub%3F#

This is most definitively helpful.

Truly I have read the manual and many many threads and I had not come across this one. [8D]

Its amazing what you learn and read and the depth of "tactical detail"... this game is amazing.

Even more so as the mechanics largely mirror the historical reality; especially as few of us run the "simulation on Big Blue at home".

Thank muchly Ser Moose

[ckk]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

I report what my experience has been. I tried the one-sub roving patrol zone method and was not happy with results. I have been happy using them in pairs and in small PZs, so that is my preference. I recommend the OP try both methods for a while.

Sigh.

tm.asp?m=3921147

tm.asp?m=2889330&mpage=2&key=sub%3F#

Thanks Bullwinkle

That's what I was looking for

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: ckk

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

I report what my experience has been. I tried the one-sub roving patrol zone method and was not happy with results. I have been happy using them in pairs and in small PZs, so that is my preference. I recommend the OP try both methods for a while.

Sigh.

tm.asp?m=3921147

tm.asp?m=2889330&mpage=2&key=sub%3F#

Thanks Bullwinkle

That's what I was looking for

Really, thank Alfred.

[ckk]

For Alfred [&o][&o][&o]

For you thanks I couldn't find those citations try as I might on Search