Submarines dominating surface engagements.

[hakon]

I find it a problem, the way that submarines can totally dominate surface engagements.

Take a battles with sides A and B.

Player A has 5 HF and 2 LF
Plyaer B has 2 HF and 5 Subs

Assume that HF's have increased evasion by 1, LF' have increased evasion by 1 and sub attack by 1, and the subs have 4 attack 3 evasion. Ie quite typical techs for about 41-42.

Typically, 2 fleets from each side will fight in the ship-to-ship step. This could result in 1 damaged BB on each side. This is ok.

Next, ALL 5 submarines fire for 2-3 hits (defenders will have 15-16 defence if not fired upon, and 12 if fired upon in the first step, while subs attack on an average of 14) With luck, they sink the damaged BB. next the 2 LF's fire at the subs, for 0-1 hit.

Counting the price of the units, the sub heavy side is dealing twice as heavy damage as they are recieving, having less units (in terms of price).

Lets look at how this would play out IRL. The battleships would probably stay pretty close to each other if expecting a surface engagement, and the light fleets would be used as a screen (for player A). The task force would travel at a speed of about 20 knots, increased to 25-30 if neccessary.

Player B would probably also keep his battleships together. He could try to use his subs as a screen, but that would reduce his speed to the speed of the subs (say 15 knots, max). The heavy fleets of player B could also include some DD escorts, for some additional screening.

Anyway, the screening capacity of player A would be superior, and he would be the one most likely to be able to surprise the opponent, and as long as he is travelling quicker (not being slowed down by subs), he can always avoid combat, choose direction, kill the screen of the enemy, etc, etc. When combat _did_ occur, all his heavy fleets would participate, and he would usually pick a time when he would have some kind of advantage. Player B should as a minimum loose his heavy fleets.

The subs of player B would be pretty safe, of course, and could inflict some casualties, but if used for screening they would not all be close enough to participate in the actual battle, and otherwise, the surprise bonus of player A should be even greater.

Bottom line is that i think subs should be less of a nemesis to surface (especially heavy) fleets. I think the americans (with superior tech, that attack relied heavily on radar) managed to kill just one japanase BB with subs. The germans killed at least 1 english BB with subs too, in port. (Royal Oak, was it?). But killing BB was not what the subs were designed for. (Also BB were usually pretty well protected vs torpedoes, mostly fearing torpedo attack from DD's and MTB's.)

Proposed changes (should be easy) :
- Reduce armor of heavy fleets by 2, and increase their evasion by 1. Their ship attack should be reduced by 1 to balance this.
- Reduce armor of light fleets by 1, increase their evasion by 1. Possibly take one away from their ship attack.
- Reduce armor of CV-fleets by 1, increase evasion by 1.
- Make transports priority targets for subs, like artillery is for bombers.

An added benefit of these changes, is that air based bombs become more effective vs fleets, now comparable to torpedoes. (Naval dive bombers would never have been built if they were totally useless vs capital ships.)

[Scott_WAR]

Its the drastic difference in combat that having a 1 tech level advantage gives. Its way too much, and makes combat results like you state above happen. Even though is it very unrealistic. Germany had better technology throughout most of the war, yet we see how that didnt save them. In the game however, if germany maintains a tech advantge as they had in real life, they would be unstoppable. Having a tech advantage in real life isnt that overpowering.

Add to that the fact that technolgically advanced units actually cost more in real life, the fact that the game lets you keep getting them at the same cost as when they were not advanced makes tech even more overpowering. I should be able to get MORE regular bombers than the nation that is buying more advance bombers. The fact that I pay the same for lower tech units as another nation pays for higher tech units, means I cant buy more of those units to outnumber the higher tech units.

[Drax Kramer]

ORIGINAL: Scott_WAR

Germany had better technology throughout most of the war, yet we see how that didnt save them.

Actually, German technology was not so much better as popularly thought. German tanks did not become technologically better until late in the war when it didn't matter any more. German aircraft were not particularly better than those flown by their major power opponents and German navy was definitely not technologically advanced than their western adversaries.


Drax

[Basilhare]

Yeah, Subs seem to be a little out of whack.....in my PBEM game, I just got trounced....5 subs vs. 6 HF and 2 LF, Subs killed 5 HF w/ no losses....granted the Axis player increased his sub tech and my ASW is only "2", but that seems a little ridiculous......basilhare

[IDrinkBeer]

ORIGINAL: Basilhare

Yeah, Subs seem to be a little out of whack.....in my PBEM game, I just got trounced....5 subs vs. 6 HF and 2 LF, Subs killed 5 HF w/ no losses....granted the Axis player increased his sub tech and my ASW is only "2", but that seems a little ridiculous......basilhare

Outright killed them? What Year/Season are we talking about? What was the SA value of the subs? I'm going to assume it was at least 4. If the Germans are at 4 and you make a nice pile of boats in an area without enough Light Fleets to screen for them ( even if they are only "2" attack you get what you deserve. [:D][;)]

[Grotius]

I really don't have any problem with this, playing as either side. It's not particularly expensive to research ASW as the Wallies, or to research sub evasion as the Germans. Each side can easily keep in "sight" of the other, tech-wise. One just has to keep a very watchful eye on one's opponent's techs.

[hakon]

ORIGINAL: Grotius

I really don't have any problem with this, playing as either side. It's not particularly expensive to research ASW as the Wallies, or to research sub evasion as the Germans. Each side can easily keep in "sight" of the other, tech-wise. One just has to keep a very watchful eye on one's opponent's techs.

Grotius:

I dont have a problem with the balance between the subs and the ASW-weapons. It is the bizarre combination of subs and heavy fleets vs light and heavy fleets that bug me. The western allies have enough fleets to counter this vs a germany who exploits this, but there is really very little the IJN can do vs the US surface fleet, if the US guards its surface fleet with subs. (Or against the subs if the US guards them with his surface fleet

[celebrindal]

ORIGINAL: Grotius

Grotius:

I dont have a problem with the balance between the subs and the ASW-weapons. It is the bizarre combination of subs and heavy fleets vs light and heavy fleets that bug me. The western allies have enough fleets to counter this vs a germany who exploits this, but there is really very little the IJN can do vs the US surface fleet, if the US guards its surface fleet with subs. (Or against the subs if the US guards them with his surface fleet

That's what hordes of carrier planes are for

[Basilhare]

Yep, killed them dead...Summer '42...I think the subs were at Torp 4....next turn he killed the other HF....