Allied Submarine Warfare questions.

[Remenents]

I have been playing the Allies in numerous games using Auto Sub Ops. What I would like to know is:

1) Would I get better results if I took control over the subs manually?
2) What are some preferable areas to deploy subs to manually?
3) Why do the subs on Auto Sub Ops seem to mostly sit in port around Manila and Java at the start of the war? Usually for the first 2-10 turns.
4) What is the best use for them? Should I be trying to sink transports or should I go after the more juicy targets such as CAs or bigger?
5) What are the best bases to use for manual Sub Ops at the start of the war?
6) I have tried using Allied Torpedoes on and off, but there doesnt seem to be any difference in the torpedoes actually detonating at the start of the war and first the first 3-5 months. Anyone else have that issue?

[John Lansford]

1) Yes
2) Locate them at chokepoints and obvious transit routes
3) Got me; never use Auto Sub Ops
4) You don't get a choice; they attack targets depending on the individual commander's initiative
5) All of them.  Base subs out of Manila and Singapore until those bases are lost, then Surabaya, Darwin and Pearl Harbor.  I have sub support ships (AS) at Darwin, Townsville, Noumea and Suva, and send damaged subs to Sydney and Pearl Harbor.
6) Always use the historic Allied torpedo settings so haven't noticed that.  British and Dutch torps shouldn't have a high failure rate in any event though.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Remenents

I have been playing the Allies in numerous games using Auto Sub Ops. What I would like to know is:

1) Would I get better results if I took control over the subs manually?
2) What are some preferable areas to deploy subs to manually?
3) Why do the subs on Auto Sub Ops seem to mostly sit in port around Manila and Java at the start of the war? Usually for the first 2-10 turns.
4) What is the best use for them? Should I be trying to sink transports or should I go after the more juicy targets such as CAs or bigger?
5) What are the best bases to use for manual Sub Ops at the start of the war?
6) I have tried using Allied Torpedoes on and off, but there doesnt seem to be any difference in the torpedoes actually detonating at the start of the war and first the first 3-5 months. Anyone else have that issue?

My opinions:

1. Dunno. This sounds harsh, but here it is: it depends on whether you're a better SS commander than the computer. Personally, I believe that most players would benefit from manual SS warfare control.

2. Straits, chokepoints, high traffic regions around Malaya, DEI (early in the war), Phillipine straits (as was IRL), maybe the northern Solomons or southern tip of P/NG if Port Moresby is disputed.

Go where the most current ship traffic is to allow for lots of shots on target. You'll need them, as USN torpedoes are notoriously inefficient for the first 1+ year of the conflict as the Allied player. I'd also keep a few hunting around the resource-producing bases, such as Palembang, Balikpapan, Java, etc. that will be receiving some IJ tanker traffic.

3. Dunno.

4. Anything that you can blow up and sink is a good target. If it's a CA (or better) a CV, have yourself a party. However, remember that the top 2 targets IRL for the allied submarines were troop transport and fleet oilers / tankers. Capital ships are a nice bonus, but putting 800 equipment-laden IJ soldiers into the Phillipine Sea is priceless.

5. Although you start with nice support in Manila, air attacks on the port will quickly make that untenable as a FOB. If you can maintain air coverage in Singapore, that will work as a forward base. Otherwise, Java (AS in Batavia and Soerbaja), Darwin (with an AS), Brisbane, Noumea (with an AS) are reasonable options. You want something relatively close to the action, but safe from air and port attack, if possible. You will be going back and forth frequently reloading torpedoes, since you fire so many of the dad-blasted things to achieve a single hit, so don't make it TOO far out of the way.

6. To make it more realistic, I have never played without the allied torpedo 'issue'.

Good luck!

[rockmedic109]

1.  Question number 3 answers this.
 
2.  Anywhere Japanese ships are.  Straints, chokepoints and outside ports make the best places.
 
3.  I don't know.
 
4.  You can't target the ships yourself.  But afloat that flies a Japanese flag is a worthy target.  Even a lowly xAKL is worth sinking.  It all reduces the Japanese ability to wage war.  A case can be made for NOT sinking the battleships.  They are fuel hogs and keeping them running around will help deplete Japanese fuel stocks which will adversely affect his industry.
 
5.  Midway is a decent forward base for ops against the home islands.  Wake would be better, but Wake will fall and it's not cost effective to retake it in 42.  Manila and Singapore are good at the start, but they will not last long.  Soerabaja will last a little longer, but you will want ot evac an AS from Manila to Darwin early.
 
6.  Without the Allied Torp failures on, you will eventually sink an incredible number of transports before 43 and inhibit the AI too greatly.  This might have changed some since original WITP, but you are better off playing with it on..
 
Hope this helps.

[vlcz]

Anyone has tried "wolfpack" tactics?, I use to put 3-4 subs in a TF and put one good commander in charge, results are quite good (as long I can compare..) but I feel it is only because they spot easily ...so the same number of 1SS TF could do the same. They do not really seem as fighting  as group against big convoys , is this by US/jap doctrine being different than kriegsmarine´s or there are internal modifiers not shown that adds to each sub.

[Remenents]

I would be willing to bet that there are penalties for stacking subs in TFs. The reason I say that is because, historically, US subs hunted solo and also because the AI only puts 1 sub per TF. So the odds are quite high there is some kind of penalty.

[vlcz]

ORIGINAL: Remenents
I would be willing to bet that there are penalties for stacking subs in TFs. The reason I say that is because, historically, US subs hunted solo and also because the AI only puts 1 sub per TF. So the odds are quite high there is some kind of penalty.

Odds are you are right, but there is a chance (or I hope it [;)]) that this pack tactic has been left "open to discover"

In the Auto/manual debate , I left them in "auto" mode, but "steal" almost anyone from the AI asap I see them, it may not be full effective but there is one advantage in doing this (for lazy people who play against AI at least), the AI will recover control and send them to port when they need to replenich fuel/torpedoes... and thats easy to forget.

[Walloc]

ORIGINAL: vlcz

Anyone has tried "wolfpack" tactics?, I use to put 3-4 subs in a TF and put one good commander in charge, results are quite good (as long I can compare..) but I feel it is only because they spot easily ...so the same number of 1SS TF could do the same. They do not really seem as fighting  as group against big convoys , is this by US/jap doctrine being different than kriegsmarine´s or there are internal modifiers not shown that adds to each sub.

Since only 1 sub can attack no matter number of subs in TF. That makes extra subs in a TF more or less tho not totally superflous. In essence wolfpacking should be a bad idea because of that limit. Only 1 sub attacks and by nature u have far few TF if u wolfpack = few oppertunities for finding enemies = less killz.

At leased thats the theory based on the manual.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

[crsutton]

I use a mixture of both. I notice that the AI likes to use a lot of S boats to patrol around the west coast. Since, they are only looking for that rare lucky shot against a Japanese sub- I transfer these ships to OZ and Noumea for use against the Japanese advance there. Sometimes I pick a patrol zone and then change the sub to comp control. That seems to work just fine and I don't have to mind the sub unless it takes damage. AI control works pretty well but as said you will want to manage some of your subs depending on the areas you want covered.

[pompack]

ORIGINAL: crsutton

I use a mixture of both. I notice that the AI likes to use a lot of S boats to patrol around the west coast. Since, they are only looking for that rare lucky shot against a Japanese sub- I transfer these ships to OZ and Noumea for use against the Japanese advance there. Sometimes I pick a patrol zone and then change the sub to comp control. That seems to work just fine and I don't have to mind the sub unless it takes damage. AI control works pretty well but as said you will want to manage some of your subs depending on the areas you want covered.

Same here. In general the AI does pretty well setting up those hundreds (at least it seems that way when I try it manually) of patrol areas. I override some of the selections to thicken up my favorite areas and I notice that the AI will sometimes send slightly damaged subs back out on patrol unless you manally disband them. I find basic auto-sub-ops to be a great time saver and it works at least as well as totally manual if you do a bit of judicious overriding.

[TerryHoax]

hello, another question for ss ops:

my subs couldn't sink ijn TKs

its march 42 in my new game and i have sunk about 300 AKs / APs but NOT A SINGLE TK !!!
Anyone the same problem?[&:]

My subs quiet often attack TKs, but everytime a tk is attacked: "Hit but no detonation" -> "Torpedoes miss" -> "can't launch torpedoes due to mechanical problems"

I know, some TKs are a little bit faster and harder to hit than AKs but they seme to have a special protection by "carma" or something.... i mean fast CAs and BBs i have sunk now, but TKs seems to be impossible to sink with subs...
Or is it just my bad carma, so i have to praise the god of submarines [&o][&o] before attacking TKs ??


in this case there is no difference if the subs are "Auto" or "manual" , i use both of it depending on the area.
There should be an option: only retirement allowed if "torpedoes or fuel are/is empty

I don't use patrol zones, i set my subs to a hex with reaction to 3-6 hex.


sorry for bad english, we have normaly our own language [:D]

[Chickenboy]

TerryHoax:

I don't get a lot of hits on tankers because of faulty torpedoes. On occasion, just like AKs with Mk. 14s, I'll get a detonation and satisfying catastrophic fireball from the fuel or oil-laden tanker.

Keep trying, there's nothing magical to it, just weight of odds. The more shots on target you get from a variety of different submarine types, the more likely you'll start hitting the target with exploding torpedoes.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: TerryHoax



its march 42 in my new game and i have sunk about 300 AKs / APs but NOT A SINGLE TK !!!
Anyone the same problem?[&:]

you have sunk 300 ships with subs in three months? How does that work, considering that only something like every third or fourth attack results in an actual sinking. That would be over 1000 attacks in 90 days, more than 10 attacks daily... [&:]

[TerryHoax]

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: TerryHoax



its march 42 in my new game and i have sunk about 300 AKs / APs but NOT A SINGLE TK !!!
Anyone the same problem?[&:]

you have sunk 300 ships with subs in three months? How does that work, considering that only something like every third or fourth attack results in an actual sinking. That would be over 1000 attacks in 90 days, more than 10 attacks daily... [&:]

no, not all with subs, thats right, but maybe half of them i think (i play with reliable US Torps "on")
first thing i have done was to change every sub comander with low ratings. So they are effectiv and aggresiv but only for AKs and APs

but if i have 1 of 2 or 3 sub-attacks on AKs a success, and from ~15 attacks on TKs every time a miss, no detonation or mechanical problems, then this seems very special... in my opinion the kill ratio of AKs and TKs should be equal, so i wonder...

Don't get me wrong:
Im very happy with my subs, they are good and effectiv and the TKs i will kill by air in the future.
It is no problem for me, if the japs have got fuel, but no transport-ships to use this fuel.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: TerryHoax

no, not all with subs, thats right, but maybe half of them i think (i play with reliable US Torps "on")
first thing i have done was to change every sub comander with low ratings. So they are effectiv and aggresiv but only for AKs and APs

but if i have 1 of 2 or 3 sub-attacks on AKs a success, and from ~15 attacks on TKs every time a miss, no detonation or mechanical problems, then this seems very special... in my opinion the kill ratio of AKs and TKs should be equal, so i wonder...

Don't get me wrong:
Im very happy with my subs, they are good and effectiv and the TKs i will kill by air in the future.
It is no problem for me, if the japs have got fuel, but no transport-ships to use this fuel.

I think playing with reliable Torps 'on' may be explaining the majority of your atypical success. Yes, increasing commanders' aggression and leadership skills is a contributory part, but reliable USN torps will be the death knell for the IJN in short order. For long-term playability, you may wish to reconsider.

[String]

ORIGINAL: Walloc

ORIGINAL: vlcz

Anyone has tried "wolfpack" tactics?, I use to put 3-4 subs in a TF and put one good commander in charge, results are quite good (as long I can compare..) but I feel it is only because they spot easily ...so the same number of 1SS TF could do the same. They do not really seem as fighting  as group against big convoys , is this by US/jap doctrine being different than kriegsmarine´s or there are internal modifiers not shown that adds to each sub.

Since only 1 sub can attack no matter number of subs in TF. That makes extra subs in a TF more or less tho not totally superflous. In essence wolfpacking should be a bad idea because of that limit. Only 1 sub attacks and by nature u have far few TF if u wolfpack = few oppertunities for finding enemies = less killz.

At leased thats the theory based on the manual.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

Only one sub can attack, BUT, atleast in stock, in multi sub TF's, each sub got a chance to attack, until one of them actually did. So while a single sub TF might not attack that CV TF that just passed its hex, a 7 sub TF most likely will.

[Rob Brennan UK]

But String conversely a 7 sub stack is a lot more likely to be spotted by patrol a/c and DL is a hex based phenomenon. the AI is far more likely to avoid these easier spotted packs.

I think ?

[seydlitz_slith]

ORIGINAL: Rob Brennan UK

But String conversely a 7 sub stack is a lot more likely to be spotted by patrol a/c and DL is a hex based phenomenon. the AI is far more likely to avoid these easier spotted packs.

I think ?

Yes, if it is like stock, detection works both ways. In stock I always prosecuted wolfpacks because it seemed easier to locate and kill at least one of the submarines.