eskuche is right. (fix subs please!)

[generalfdog]

Submarines are way to effective against surface ships! one on one even vs a destroyer they almost always win or come out even which is a problem when they are so much quicker and cheaper to build. In the normal game it isn't as noticeable because with the monster fleets they get squashed but if you play small fleets where you can only have one more capitol ship then sub, it is an issue! hopefully next patch?

[generalfdog]

looks like maybe this was allready addressed in wpe forum seems like a bug that is being taken care of. Great!

[ncc1701e]

If you mean this thread:
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 0&t=380479

There are two bugs described here:
. subs always get surprise attack

. subs always interdicts even in very low reconnaissance area

But, we were also talking earlier of the fact an Allied player may build way too much subs.

Looks like there are too things to investigate:
. not sure this is intended but ALL ships in WPP do not consume logistics points (compared to WPE). Adding logistics points may be a way to limit the number of ships, as such subs, on the map. See here:
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 3&t=381739

. there is also a debate on the PP cost of subs. Should it be higher?

These two last points have not been clarified for me.

[Remington700]

A couple thoughts about subs. Unlike ships, they do not lose effectiveness unless they are in combat. A stack of five which attacks a weak, low effectiveness task group can do a lot damage (interdiction during the enemy's turn appears to greatly improve the targeting).

When the stack is smaller, the subs seem to not perform as well. With the Small Fleet scenario we could limit the stack size (mirror surface fleet treatment) to three or four counters, however this will impact their ability to survive convoy raiding. For now, I will probably house-rule a three counter max and see what happens. I would expect this to cause the subs to take more damage when raiding and do less damage when attacking task groups and single counter ships.

[generalfdog]

I guess when used as intended in small groups to pick off wounded ships and mainly to raid convoys I feel they perform and cost about right, that is all I have ever done with them after reading some posts I had to break out a hot seat game and experiment, it seems to me they just need to be less effective against healthy surface ships, especially destroyers and cvs

[ncc1701e]

A couple thoughts about subs. Unlike ships, they do not lose effectiveness unless they are in combat. A stack of five which attacks a weak, low effectiveness task group can do a lot damage (interdiction during the enemy's turn appears to greatly improve the targeting).

So it means subs can stay on battle stations forever with a bunch of supply oilers. The crew of subs are supermen that are never getting tired. Life on board of these subs was so nice indeed during WW2.

That's does not sound right now that you say it that submarines don't lose effectiveness while they are at sea.

Subs need to lose effectiveness like any other surface ships. But, for long range patrol, I would say that subs should lose effectiveness a bit slower than surface ships. By a factor 2?

[*Lava*]

The problem with gimping subs is that there would be no incentive to buy escorts or, more importantly, put research points into anti-submarine warfare and naval air training.

[GiveWarAchance]

I just read now about US subs decimating Japanese troop ships and material transports. They sunk 1/3 of ships and damaged another 1/3 so only 1/3 got through unscathed. They had to go on long weird indirect routes to avoid being obvious targets to the subs. For example part of 43rd division was sent on 7 ships to Saipan and 5 were sunk. The rescued soldiers were not useful in combat after cause they were all wounded, many burned and some died after rescue.

The soldiers in the ships were stuck on shelves like chickens waiting to be broiled and were certain their ship would sink at any moment. There was only a rope ladder and some improvised stairs to escape with if sunk. Saipan commanders were upset cause they were getting their materials for building fortifications which created another problem from the sinkings. So it was gloom and doom and the subs kind of shut down the Japanese war effort almost by themselves despite being a small supporting military branch.

I read this around pages 337-338 in this book....
https://www.bookbrowse.com/bb_briefs/de ... d-infernos

[ncc1701e]

The problem with gimping subs is that there would be no incentive to buy escorts or, more importantly, put research points into anti-submarine warfare and naval air training.

I agree with you, this is just a quest for balance.

We have already identified:
. subs always get surprise attack
. subs always interdicts even in very low reconnaissance area
. ships do not consume logistics points i.e. already no limit for subs, destroyers, ...

As such, since subs cost nothing, no wonder why there are so much used. Thus, perhaps we can increase PP cost for subs from 80 PP to 100 PP, or from 80 PP to 120 PP (like WPE).

Increasing sub cost has also the advantage to increase PP needed to repair / upgrade existing subs. Again, an incentive for not maintaining a big sub fleet.

Let's progress with small changes as usual. The goal is just to prevent this in March/April 1943.

[ncc1701e]

Interesting video on this subject:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5e0Tor2kMg

It is really in 1944 that the US submarine campaign was the most successful. Helped by the new sub bases on the Mariana islands (in Guam and in Saipan) captured in 1944; and because much closer than Pearl Harbor.

Once again, this proves that submarines must lose effectiveness while they are at sea like surface ships.

This is clearly explained in this video at 12:30.

---

Japan lost 9,000,000 tons of Merchant Shipping; 6,000,000 after Jan 1st, 1944.

[*Lava*]

At the end of my last campaign against the AI the Japanese were at 1944 with 5 in advancements for Naval Air Training, but only at 1941 with only 2 in advancements in Anti-Submarine Training. The Japanese built 0 MMs during the campaign, though they did build some escorts. Thus, the AI wasn't really prepared to fight a long term battle to preserve their convoys.

I would think in PBEM a Japanese player would be far better prepared to handle the threat.

As for effectiveness losses, in general, I find the sludge hammer approach to effectiveness of ships at sea to be such that it completely ruins any simulation of the war. While one can say, hey, submarines suffered losses to effectiveness while on long patrols, I would counter that the US 5th fleet was at sea the entire war, while in this game, in my campaign they were in port for 90% of the game.

Personally, I would only require ships to be in port for repairs. I would have a distance of say 20 hexes away from any main supply port where ships could operate with very small penalties. The further the ships operate away from the home port, the greater the penalties. This would serve to reduce effectiveness of long range submarines operating far from home. At the same time I would allow oilers to increase effectiveness of fleets. The 5th fleet remained at sea the entire war because it was constantly being resupplied with everything the fleet required to maintain a high level of combat readiness.

I guess I should show some sympathy for a Japanese player who is ill prepared for dealing with the US submarine threat, but to be quite honest I am not. The Japanese player has plenty of tools to use against submarines. They can invest heavily in ASW for their escorts, they can place aircraft with Naval Air Training all along their convoy lines and they can patrol those lines with destroyers and CVLs.

Submarines are the only offensive weapon that the Allies can use against the Japanese fairly early in the war. Everything else is in the favor of the Japanese to carry out offensive war, and now you want to give the Japs even more favorable conditions? Sorry, but IMO, the Japanese players need to learn how to play defense too.

[ncc1701e]

At the end of my last campaign against the AI the Japanese were at 1944 with 5 in advancements for Naval Air Training, but only at 1941 with only 2 in advancements in Anti-Submarine Training. The Japanese built 0 MMs during the campaign, though they did build some escorts. Thus, the AI wasn't really prepared to fight a long term battle to preserve their convoys.

That's an AI bug. Hope you have already reported it in the Tech Forum so that it could be looked at.

[ncc1701e]

I guess I should show some sympathy for a Japanese player who is ill prepared for dealing with the US submarine threat, but to be quite honest I am not. The Japanese player has plenty of tools to use against submarines. They can invest heavily in ASW for their escorts, they can place aircraft with Naval Air Training all along their convoy lines and they can patrol those lines with destroyers and CVLs.

Submarines are the only offensive weapon that the Allies can use against the Japanese fairly early in the war. Everything else is in the favor of the Japanese to carry out offensive war, and now you want to give the Japs even more favorable conditions? Sorry, but IMO, the Japanese players need to learn how to play defense too.

Why are you focused on Japan? The above sub bugs, the fact that submarines are way to effective against surface ships, are affecting both Axis and Allies.

[GiveWarAchance]

My subs were nearly all smashed by Japan over time. Convoy raiding is like trying to slap a lion on the face. Sometimes you get in a lucky slap while more often your hand gets slashed up. I guess that is how it was but the historical Japan didn't have much success chasing US subs. I just hope subs are not weakened more cause in this game they are easy for Japan to find and hit unlike historically when it was a real struggle to catch subs.

[GiveWarAchance]

Lava what settings are you using now?
Did you click on each "historical" button once to get Trained-Good-Random for the enemy AI?
Did you try it higher? I wonder if the 4% logistics is enough for them?

Also I wonder if the AI behavior set to RANDOM is better? I know human players are very random and invade in unexpected places like Sydney area and New Zealand so I think the AI should do the same for more fun.

[*Lava*]

I haven't been playing the game since my last campaign.

Just doesn't sit well with me to have my fleet in port 90% of the time.

In my last game I just upped the difficult one time for each. Probably need to give the AI more help, though.

[Remington700]

Submarines are way to effective against surface ships!

Instead of weakening the subs - which will adversely affect convoy raiding, maybe the anti-sub values should be bumped up on surface ships.