Allied Sub Doctrine

[2ndACR]

How many of you are using the Allied sub doctrine? What results have you seen?

Me and Ron are using it, and I do not think his subs have fired a shot the whole game.
Of course I massacred most of his subs on turn 1, but I can not remember the last time any of my ships have been attacked by subs.

It is so rare, that alot of my rear area convoys are running around completely unescorted.

I understand why we have the sub doctrine, but I feel it should make the sub less likely to engage hvy escorted convoys, but take a shot at unescorted shipping. As it is now, I have barely used any ASW assets at all. Few a/c on ASW search and hardly any escorts.

My .02 cents.

[Belphegor]

I am using it in a couple of games. I have seen a lot less shots taken, but still have done some good damage. It was accidentally switched off for one turn. That turn was so different it was obvious.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

How many of you are using the Allied sub doctrine? What results have you seen?

Me and Ron are using it, and I do not think his subs have fired a shot the whole game.
Of course I massacred most of his subs on turn 1, but I can not remember the last time any of my ships have been attacked by subs.

It is so rare, that alot of my rear area convoys are running around completely unescorted.

I understand why we have the sub doctrine, but I feel it should make the sub less likely to engage hvy escorted convoys, but take a shot at unescorted shipping. As it is now, I have barely used any ASW assets at all. Few a/c on ASW search and hardly any escorts.

My .02 cents.

Had three shots as of Jan 22, 1942. One Dutch sub fired submerged and missed and two Americans each engaged an AK on the surface. Judging by the replays, I'd say my subs have been in hexes with enemy TFs innumerable times. One S Boat must have had TFs in or through its hex a dozen times when you were invading Luzon and it did not make a peep.

I think the doctrine is ill conceived. Basically, the historical doctrine was unrestricted submarine warfare, but the game seems to emulate the IJN doctrine of warships over merchants. If anything, the sub bosses like Fife, Wilkes and Christie stressed torpedo husbanding, nothing else. (Mk 14s were in short supply and were designed to detonate under the keel, thereby requiring less torps per ship). Any lack of aggressiveness is a leadership issue and the prewar sub drivers in command of the subs in the game generally have poor ratings. I see no reason for reducing effectiveness further by slapping this doctrine penalty onto the mix.

To make up for the fact that leaders can't be changed for ships as there is no skipper pool (unless you want to put an admiral in command), allied sub doctrine I believe is meant to simulate more aggressive COs as war progresses. This is fine, I just don't see why the frequency of attacks was "programmed down" so severely and I'm just not in agreement that the allies put any less priority on merchants in favour of warships. I believe the Dutch and British should not suffer this across the board allied penalty at all but I don't think this can be helped.

[RoyalOak]

Allied sub doctrine seems working proprely for me. Just consider the following facts :
- "In December of 1941, after having fired in excess of 70 torpedoes at 28 targets only one hit was recorded." (http://www.battlebelow.com/subwar.htm)
- "All of the pre-war training for the U.S. submarine commanders, which was previously geared in support of the surface fleet, was now obsolete and impractical. There was, for all intents and purposes, no surface fleet left to scout or screen for. The Fleet Exercises of the 1930's were totally unrealistic compared to the type of war which they now faced. The United States Navy developers of tactical planning for submarine warfare never anticipated the situation that they found themselves in during December 1941." (ibid)

The US subs only begin to be an extremly lethal weapon by the start of 43.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: RoyalOak

Allied sub doctrine seems working proprely for me. Just consider the following facts :
- "In December of 1941, after having fired in excess of 70 torpedoes at 28 targets only one hit was recorded." (http://www.battlebelow.com/subwar.htm)
- "All of the pre-war training for the U.S. submarine commanders, which was previously geared in support of the surface fleet, was now obsolete and impractical. There was, for all intents and purposes, no surface fleet left to scout or screen for. The Fleet Exercises of the 1930's were totally unrealistic compared to the type of war which they now faced. The United States Navy developers of tactical planning for submarine warfare never anticipated the situation that they found themselves in during December 1941." (ibid)

The US subs only begin to be an extremly lethal weapon by the start of 43.

28 targets fired at in Dec. Well it almost Feb42 and 3 have been fired at for a total of 8 torps. Given the game allows faster pace of ops and higher chance of intercept, this makes me wonder.

I think I'll just not chose it...problem solved.[:'(]