wolfpacks

[gwgardner]

Is there any advantage to grouping subs for convoy raiding in this game? For example, would one get much the same results by sending out 3 individual subs as by sending out 1 group of 3?

I ask this because I have sent out groups at times, but when the enemy discovers the subs, the battles don't always show all the subs in the group. Like for a group of 3, the battle would only show one.

If a sub within a group finds and attacks a convoy, does every sub in the group attack, or just the one?

I'm confused. (as usual)

[Michael the Pole]

ORIGINAL: gwgardner

Is there any advantage to grouping subs for convoy raiding in this game? For example, would one get much the same results by sending out 3 individual subs as by sending out 1 group of 3?

I ask this because I have sent out groups at times, but when the enemy discovers the subs, the battles don't always show all the subs in the group. Like for a group of 3, the battle would only show one.

If a sub within a group finds and attacks a convoy, does every sub in the group attack, or just the one?

I'm confused. (as usual)

As you know Gary, armor zooming accross the featureless plains bores me to tears, so I've spent a lot of time trying to figure out how the naval rules work. I'm confused too. After yesterdays amazing and completely unexpected ambush of Glenn's Kriegsmarine, I really dont know what its going to come up with next.
I think I mentioned to ya'll my experience with the Graf Zeppelin -- sortied it with the entire German navy and watched her sink under attack by a group of English cruisers with not another German vessel in sight. Still dont understand how that happened.

[cpdeyoung]

Were you in "fleet" or "raider" mode?  I think you would have wanted "fleet" for a force with a CV, as the raiders are spread out trying to find victims, and thus more subject to defeat in detail. I think you were just unlucky. I have played the naval module many times in solo play and I think the two pools of ships in a sea zone will have ships randomly selected from each pool when raiding.  You normally would have had an escort for your aircraft carrier, but fleets can raid too, and are the way to go with high value units.
 
Chuck

[balto]

To add to Mike's post.  Kriegsmarine were in port in Kiel.  By Mike's attempt to invade Denmark (or something like that) that forced the entire German Navy out of the Port and they were wiped out and, according to Mike's , he lost like 2 subs.  What I also noticed is that in the REPORTS.., there is no mention of any NAVAL battles at all.  I tried all the Navy reports (convoys, engagements, battles.., etc..).  They mention nothing.   If Mike's had not alerted me to this, I would have had no idea the entire Kreigsmarine were wiped out 100%.   But then again because the allies have so much STP, the Kriegsmarines are basically useless until much later, they might be some deterrent to an invasion..., might be.  The naval part in this game is not a factor for Axis.  A quick fix for that would be to significantly reduce Allied STP.., but even then,, the navy part of this game is kind of really not working at all.   

[gwgardner]

In my current game, I started sending out mini-wolfpacks of 3 subs, level 1, Italian. Have 6 of those. So far, about 6 subs lost, and like 2 enemy PPs destroyed.

I think I'll put the Italian subs back in port.

[gwgardner]

My little experiment with Italian subs has convinced me that:

1) level one subs (at least) are useless, since they are easily caught and destroyed, with very little damage to enemy convoys;

and

2) without a mod, I can't see investing in subs at all.

It might be interesting, however, to do a quick test, change the level of starting navies to the highest levels, and see what kinds of cost/benefit ration results. Only if that showed subs were useful, would I in a real game actually put the PPs into subs/sub technology.

Which of you gurus volunteers to make that test!?

[balto]

Hi Gary.  IMHO, no matter what level the subs are, the most damage they can do is some STP (which the allies have craploads of and they can buy more in blocks of 10 if they need to, but they will not need to).  High level subs also could hurt some convoys if they are able to intercept the convoys while not themselves being intercepted by Allied escorts!!   But considering the cost of subs to the Axis, level 5 subs still would be questionable.  But I see where you are going.  I think that the whole Naval things needs to be revisted  - someday.  Maybe not in the first patch.  I think a great way to handle navy in this game (if is ever to be addressed) is to have something like 3rd Reich (yes, that was 20 some years ago) that the subs actually represent hits against British BRPs, err, PPs.  That would still allow this game to be a land based game, but give the Axis another avenue to make Britain/Lend Lease/Murmansk starve at the expense of putting 100% of the Axis PP into the Russian front.  I do not feel strongly about what I just posted, so I guess I should prepare to be bashed for this post. 

[Michael the Pole]

ORIGINAL: gwgardner

My little experiment with Italian subs has convinced me that:

1) level one subs (at least) are useless, since they are easily caught and destroyed, with very little damage to enemy convoys;

and

2) without a mod, I can't see investing in subs at all.

It might be interesting, however, to do a quick test, change the level of starting navies to the highest levels, and see what kinds of cost/benefit ration results. Only if that showed subs were useful, would I in a real game actually put the PPs into subs/sub technology.

Which of you gurus volunteers to make that test!?

Gary
Interesting post, and I think that the experiment would be valid, except for the following point, and I hope Pan Doomtrader will take notice:
Churchill said repeatedly that the ONLY time he was ever concerned about losing the war was during the Battle For The Atlantic, which was won by mid to late 1942. My impression is that the Germans were using no higher than tech level 3 subs at that time (if not TL2s.)
We REALLY need to kick up the intensity of the naval war!

[Michael the Pole]

ORIGINAL: balto

Hi Gary.  IMHO, no matter what level the subs are, the most damage they can do is some STP (which the allies have craploads of and they can buy more in blocks of 10 if they need to, but they will not need to).  High level subs also could hurt some convoys if they are able to intercept the convoys while not themselves being intercepted by Allied escorts!!   But considering the cost of subs to the Axis, level 5 subs still would be questionable.  But I see where you are going.  I think that the whole Naval things needs to be revisted  - someday.  Maybe not in the first patch.  I think a great way to handle navy in this game (if is ever to be addressed) is to have something like 3rd Reich (yes, that was 20 some years ago) that the subs actually represent hits against British BRPs, err, PPs.  That would still allow this game to be a land based game, but give the Axis another avenue to make Britain/Lend Lease/Murmansk starve at the expense of putting 100% of the Axis PP into the Russian front.  I do not feel strongly about what I just posted, so I guess I should prepare to be bashed for this post. 

It's actually not a bad way to handle it, Glenn. Interestingly, while Churchill says that he was worried sick about the Sub problem (see above), he also says that it was a "curiously cold blooded" kind of a war from his point of view, with charts and tables and ratios of toneage lost to subs sunk, and subs produced versus escorts launched. And the increasing fear in his heart as the tonnage lost line came closer and closer to the necessary imports line, knowing that once they crossed, England was doomed! The other thing he mentions again and again is what he calls "the Wizard War," the race between the British scientists and Hitler's scientists to produce new anti-sub tech and improved sub tech. All of these things are in the game right now, we just need to increase the anxiety level. If the Allied player noticed a serious effect on PP from losses to subs, that'd do it.
Subs are the equivelent of Strategic Bombers without the civilian casualties (except from starvation!)

[Michael the Pole]

ORIGINAL: Michael the Pole

ORIGINAL: balto

Hi Gary.  IMHO, no matter what level the subs are, the most damage they can do is some STP (which the allies have craploads of and they can buy more in blocks of 10 if they need to, but they will not need to).  High level subs also could hurt some convoys if they are able to intercept the convoys while not themselves being intercepted by Allied escorts!!   But considering the cost of subs to the Axis, level 5 subs still would be questionable.  But I see where you are going.  I think that the whole Naval things needs to be revisted  - someday.  Maybe not in the first patch.  I think a great way to handle navy in this game (if is ever to be addressed) is to have something like 3rd Reich (yes, that was 20 some years ago) that the subs actually represent hits against British BRPs, err, PPs.  That would still allow this game to be a land based game, but give the Axis another avenue to make Britain/Lend Lease/Murmansk starve at the expense of putting 100% of the Axis PP into the Russian front.  I do not feel strongly about what I just posted, so I guess I should prepare to be bashed for this post. 

It's actually not a bad way to handle it, Glenn. Interestingly, while Churchill says that he was worried sick about the Sub problem (see above), he also says that it was a "curiously cold blooded" kind of a war from his point of view, with charts and tables and ratios of toneage lost to subs sunk, and subs produced versus escorts launched. The other thing he mentions again and again is what he calls "the Wizard War," the race between the British scientists and Hitler's scientists to produce new anti-sub tech and improved sub tech. All of these things are in the game right now, we just need to increase the anxiety level. If the Allied player noticed a serious effect on PP from losses to subs, that'd do it.
Subs are the equivelent of Strategic Bombers without the civilian casualties (except from starvation!)

Actually, thats a pretty good idea, if I do say so myself. Subs and escort vessels had essentially two, mutually exclusive, tasks: 1)anti-shipping/ anti-sub work, and 2)fleet work (scouting/attacking or defending capital warships. In fact, it was the major difference in how the US/Germans used their subs (anti-shipping) as opposed to the Japanese who devoted their subs almost exsclusively to fleet use.
Why dont we do this: We do it like the Strategic Bombing Campaign.
Subs could be used for fleet work, in which case we'd leave them on the map and use them as we do curently. But for anti-shipping work, we dont even have to deploy them on the map -- simply compare them with the Allied anti-sub investment, compare tech levels and reduce the Allied PPs negatively, as appropriate.
What do ya'll think?[&:]

[James Ward]

ORIGINAL: gwgardner

My little experiment with Italian subs has convinced me that:

1) level one subs (at least) are useless, since they are easily caught and destroyed, with very little damage to enemy convoys;

and

2) without a mod, I can't see investing in subs at all.

It might be interesting, however, to do a quick test, change the level of starting navies to the highest levels, and see what kinds of cost/benefit ration results. Only if that showed subs were useful, would I in a real game actually put the PPs into subs/sub technology.

Which of you gurus volunteers to make that test!?

I think Germany starts with level 3 subs and 1 bulb towards level 4. Their subs don't do squat as far as I can tell. Maybe if you built 20 of them and got them on a convoy route it might make a slight differance but as Germany I usually don't have 1200 extra PP's sitting around.[:)]

[James Ward]

ORIGINAL: Michael the Pole

Subs could be used for fleet work, in which case we'd leave them on the map and use them as we do curently. But for anti-shipping work, we dont even have to deploy them on the map -- simply compare them with the Allied anti-sub investment, compare tech levels and reduce the Allied PPs negatively, as appropriate.
What do ya'll think?[&:]

I think that is a fantastic idea. It would certainly fit into the scale of the game. I bet it could be worked into the game replacing the calculation that determine convoy losses now. It might be necessary to have u-boats take losses to in order for the Axis to have to keep funding the effort instead of it only being a one side affair.

[Michael the Pole]

ORIGINAL: James Ward

ORIGINAL: Michael the Pole

Subs could be used for fleet work, in which case we'd leave them on the map and use them as we do curently. But for anti-shipping work, we dont even have to deploy them on the map -- simply compare them with the Allied anti-sub investment, compare tech levels and reduce the Allied PPs negatively, as appropriate.
What do ya'll think?[&:]

I think that is a fantastic idea. It would certainly fit into the scale of the game. I bet it could be worked into the game replacing the calculation that determine convoy losses now. It might be necessary to have u-boats take losses to in order for the Axis to have to keep funding the effort instead of it only being a one side affair.

Sure. You would do the same things with subs and escort vessels that you do with subs on anti-shipping missions. Vessels (subs, escorts, carriers -- no more battlewagons killing subs!) on anti-sub missions wouldn't even be on the map. During the Allied turn, you'd just factor the number and tech level of the anti-sub forces against the number/tech level of the subs, and the result would be escorts lost/subs lost.