Subs - underwater BBs

[Oleg Mastruko]

Subs seem to be undestructible in this game.

Yes, I have read accounts of "sub killers" on these boards, guys that managed to kill 6-7 subs in three month campaigns, but somehow cannot reproduce their achievements myself.

In one of my current games both me and my opponent have obviously put lots of effort on hunting subs, yet not a single sub has been sunk. We have no air, CV nor surface battles at all, so we concentrate almost exclusively on hunting each others subs.

In the last turn, I believed one of my (Jap) subs is gone. There was a message "SBD Dauntless attacking sub" (x3) After one of those attacks sub was "reported hit". Knowing Dauntless does not leave its home without at least 500 bomb I thought sub is finished.

Yet, when I started my turn, damage to my sub was ridicoulously low - 20-some Sys, 15 Flood. I don't even have to return the sub to port for repairs! What exactly SBD dropped on her? Surely a hit with 500 lb (not to mention 1000 lb) bomb would instantly sink any sub.

One of my subs with 60+ flood damage (from previous engagement with Allied SCs) received 500 lb bomb from B17 while repairing in port *. Guess what? It didn't sink! That sub received a depth charge hit, was hit with Mousetrap device, managed to limp to port, received 500 lb bomb while in port - and survived! After few weeks I repaired it enought to be sent on patrol. Jap subs seem to be only vessels able to get back into life after sustaining damage that would doom any other Jap ship.

As for enemy subs - I have Mavises, Jakes, Bettys, Nells, Emilys, Petes, Daves, and 2-3 units of Vals on ASW 100%, 1000 feet, yet I am unable to sink ANYTHING. Never, in 6 weeks of playing this scenario, and NO sub was hit from a plane. Spotted, yes, attacked by DDs - yes (rarely), but not ever by a plane. Of course, even when hit by DD depthcharge - those underwater BBs just shrug and continue their patrol....

This is ridicolously unrealistic.

Frankly, if I would be able to control my production in this game, I would be making exclusively subs.

* The bomb hit on this sub in port was obtained from 6 or 9 B17s attacking from 33.000 feet - another fantastic out of this world achievement for Norden bombsight but that's another story. I guess just being hit with a 500 lb piece of metal with no explosive charge dropped from that height would kill a sub.

O.

[mariovalleemtl]

Subs get hit A LOT more then that in ALL my PBEM games. At one point, I put all the planes of 4 CV in ASW because it was full of subs arond them near Luganville. I hit 3 of them in the next turn.

mv

[Oleg Mastruko]

You hit them, but did they sink?

O.

[Spooky]

I am playing a PBEM game with LongLance - I have to check the exact number but we lost about 5 subs each in the first 2 months ...

These subs were sunk in shallow waters by ASW planes (for Japanese subs) or DD (for US subs).

For instance, if a Jap sub is spotted at PM, just put all your PM bombers with 1000' ASW missions (100%) ... and wait for the Jap subs to be sunk - I once managed to sunk two subs by air ASW in the same turn ...

[Spooky]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Oleg Mastruko


* The bomb hit on this sub in port was obtained from 6 or 9 B17s attacking from 33.000 feet - another fantastic out of this world achievement for Norden bombsight but that's another story. I guess just being hit with a 500 lb piece of metal with no explosive charge dropped from that height would kill a sub.

O. [/QUOTE

Are you really sure that a bomb dropped at 33.000 feet will have more velocity when arriving on the target than a bomb dropped from a 5.000 feet altitude

[Oleg Mastruko]

Originally posted by Spooky

Originally posted by Oleg Mastruko


* The bomb hit on this sub in port was obtained from 6 or 9 B17s attacking from 33.000 feet - another fantastic out of this world achievement for Norden bombsight but that's another story. I guess just being hit with a 500 lb piece of metal with no explosive charge dropped from that height would kill a sub.

O. [/QUOTE

Are you really sure that a bomb dropped at 33.000 feet will have more velocity when arriving on the target than a bomb dropped from a 5.000 feet altitude

500 lbs of iron dropped from any attitude higher that 100 feet should sink a sub, especially if it already has 60+ flooding and Sys damage from DCs and Mousetraps.

But when I said 33.000 feet I was referring to uber-B17 issue, unrelated to uber-sub issue.

Yeah I know you were joking, and I know I sometimes lose temper, but my patience with this game is slowly running out (I never thought I'd be saying this.)

What unnerves me the most is the impression that Matrix guys kinda stopped taking any input from gamers on these boards when releasing new patches, and they do not respond to clear the issues, as they did few weeks ago.

If there is a rationale for subs being modelled as they are - I'd like to see it, and I'll shut up pronto. I am ALWAYS ready to accept the rationale for designers decisions, but if they do not respond to such glaring bugs and inaccuracies, then whats the use?

O.

[Spooky]

Well, subs are VERY resilient I once got the Argonaut to hit a mine ... and she got only about 20 Flotation Damages (and a few SD points) , that were repaired before she came back to Noumea for resupplying mines ...

However, I just got in my PBEM games 2 S-series subs sunk by Jap destroyers

BTW, I wonder if a reported hit - ASW planes or DD Depth Charges - cannot also mean a "explosion close to the hull" - with a few SD & FD damages but not as damaging as a direct hit ...

[Erik Rutins]

Oleg,

The lack of response does not indicate a lack of awareness. There are Matrix and 2 by 3 folks constantly reading these boards and gathering input. Since my duties with Battlefields! require more and more of my time, I've transitioned away from UV while Ross has taken over the lead support role. His style may be different from mine as far as frequency of responses or he simply may be more busy, but I know for a fact that he's been taking notes.

Realize also that often reports come in to us from many gamers with contradictory information. Each is sure that what is reported is correct. In other instances, our own experience with UV (and believe me, we've played a LOT of it) contradicts reports here. In order to put something on the list for UV/WitP we need corroborate anything reported here. That takes time and rarely allows for an immediate response to a new issue. If it's something we've already dealt with, we can respond quickly.

As I write this, yet another patch is in testing for UV specifically addressing many recent concerns. I'm sure that you will find that Ross, Mike and 2 by 3 will continue to support UV capably and responsively as they have in the past.

Regards,

- Erik

[siRkid]

I lost 3 subs in one day when I tried to stop a Jap invasion of PM. All sunk by esscorts in shallow water.

Who knows?

[Mojo]

My USN subs got murdered early on. Lost 3 or 4 in one turn that were sunk by DDs escorting a mortally wounded Yamato that was limping along making less than 10 knots.

I have had subs "hit" by depth charges and the report shows up "belt armor penetration" and had them survive and make it back to port. Now I'm thinking that a solid hit like that to a submerged sub should sink it but I could stand not to lose those VPs.

[wpurdom]

In my own experience against the AI, I don't find subs unduly invulnerable at all (on either side). With respect to ports, I haven't found bombing ports all that effective the little I have done it and so I don't do it much and neither does the AI. I'm not surprised at the little damage. Maybe the sub is just suffering near-miss damage, like the Pennsylvania at Pearl Harbor, when the DD next door was torn to pieces.

[ciril]

Spooky is saying what I would have, that a reported hit might not necessarily be a direct hit on the sub's hull.

And of course, not every reported hit is a hit in the first place (FOW).

As for the hit on the sub in port, that may have been pure luck. There were bombs dropping all over the place, and one decided to hit the sub (or hit close to it).

Blimey, Oleg, you are having a bad day!

[juliet7bravo]

Check the durability ratings for subs...higher than most cruisers. A sub can get riddled by gunfire, hit by bombs, still live to fight another day, AND repair all the damage at sea. Unless, of course, they're MY subs, which sink when sneezed at, LOL. I had a sub eat 3x500 lbs bombs once and survive...solid confirmed hits that caused damage.

Personally, I think there's not enough ASW attacks, and the ones that occur are too effective. There should be alot of ineffective ASW attacks at low experience levels, with their effectiveness increasing with experience. The number of hits on ASW ships isn't suprising, most of them have manueverability ratings significantly lower than a cargo ship. Might also be why there isn't as many attacks as there should be...ASW ships flat can't draw a bead on the subs since they're wallowing around like a garbage scow. Might also explain why so many light surface combatants get whacked by high altitude bombs. When subs and ASW ships are sharing the same hex, and especially if the sub has made an attack, the water should be getting positively churned by DC's...of whatever effectiness being determined by the ASW ships experience or luck.

Accuracy ratings of DC's should be addressed. Pre-war "ash cans" should have a significantly reduced accuracy over the later "tear drop" fast sinkers. IJN DC's should have an abysmal accuracy rate due to their old design and shallow fuzes.

[John Lansford]

Air based ASW assets are not very effective. I keep seeing reports of "Mavis attacks sub" and nothing happens to my subs. I realize that the only detection gear the planes had was the Mk I eyeball, but planes were a real danger to everyone's subs throughout the war. Even a sub running at periscope depth could be seen by a plane flying over it.

I've also had subs take multiple depth charge hits and survive. I don't think this is unrealistic; unless a depth charge blew up right under a sub, it tended to take gradual increasing damage until something vital broke and it either sank or had to surface. I do agree that a sub has too high a value, however.

BTW, the British developed aerial harpoons for their ASW planes. They were 5" rockets with solid steel warheads on them. The aircraft fired them in volleys at a sub, puncturing its hull and keeping it on the surface. I don't know if the USN ever used them but they were effective, since planes that couldn't carry anything else now had a useful ASW weapon.

[siRkid]

When I was flying in P3s, there was talk of using cluster bombs with anti-tank warheads for the same purpose.

[Oleg Mastruko]

Originally posted by John Lansford
Air based ASW assets are not very effective. I keep seeing reports of "Mavis attacks sub" and nothing happens to my subs. I realize that the only detection gear the planes had was the Mk I eyeball, but planes were a real danger to everyone's subs throughout the war. Even a sub running at periscope depth could be seen by a plane flying over it.

As for Mavises themselves, I think it's easy to say why they are so ineffective. I guess they never switch their armament to bombs, so they try to attack the sub with torpedos which will not get them anywhere. I believe designer didn't give Mavises any secondary/ASW mission weapon.

There was similar problem with Catalinas in 1.0, so they were patched as to use bombs and DCs when on ASW missions. I guess Mavises can't do that (I cannot attest as to how realistic is that, maybe it is after all).

But Vals, Petes, Jakes, Daves etc. should be different story...

I managed to "force" Jake patrol floatplane into attacking MSW/DMS/AK conwoy with 60 kg bombs (albeit ineffectivelly) but NEVER ever saw them use bombs on subs.

O.

[Oleg Mastruko]

Originally posted by Kid
When I was flying in P3s, there was talk of using cluster bombs with anti-tanks warheads for the same purpose.

Kid you flew on Orions?

One of my favorite Cold War planes....

Usually people go after "sexier" stuff, fighters, bombers, assault aircraft and such, but to me the very essence of cold war is hardware like Orion: planes for "underwater chess" as Sean Connery says in Red October.

I'd love to see sim dealing with this sort of stuff, not always fighters and fighters all over again. Not all PC sim lovers are your average alpha males But I digress...

O.

[siRkid]

Originally posted by Oleg Mastruko


Kid you flew on Orions?

One of my favorite Cold War planes....

Usually people go after "sexier" stuff, fighters, bombers, assault aircraft and such, but to me the very essence of cold war is hardware like Orion: planes for "underwater chess" as Sean Connery says in Red October.

Yep, I flew on them for 10 years. Great plane! I was the Radar, MAD, ECM, and FLIR operator. In fact my SQ was one of the first to test and evaluate the FLIR back in the 70's. I think I am the first operator to ever photograph a Soviet sub using FLAIR. I have the photo it was presented to me. When I get my scanner fixed I'll post it. I spent my last 11 years in IUSS. Still hunting subs but from a much lower altitude. The cold war for us in ASW was very active and exciting. I retired when the Soviets quit playing.

[Supervisor]

Originally posted by John Lansford
Air based ASW assets are not very effective. I keep seeing reports of "Mavis attacks sub" and nothing happens to my subs.

I've had several S-boats whose endurance went down following several of those "attack/no hit" messages, so it seems like there is an effect. Many of my subs were harassed enough this way that I was forced to return them to base prematurely to refuel.

[ciril]

Paragraph 29 of the 1.10 patch readme says ships in port take a reduced amount of damage from being bombed. This would explain the problem with the "resilient" sub in port.

As for the subs "hit" at sea, it might also be that they get hit with MG fire, which is of course not as lethal as a bombing.