Subs

[FDRLincoln]

I have noticed from playing the Pacific Jutland scenario that submarines are very effective in this game. Or perhaps I should say that ASW is LESS effective!

[Tankerace]

ASW, to put it bluntly, is crap. Torpedoes, provided they hit and detonate, are murder. Your best defense (in the big campaigns) are Q ships and lots of escorts. And training, the better trained, the better chance you can score a killing blow.

Avoid subs like the plague (though, their torps don't scplode nearly as much as in WitP).

[FDRLincoln]

All as it should be! Poor ASW, use of Q-ships, etc.

Can't wait to start an actual campaign.

Once again, I must complement you on the work you and the rest of the team did. Remarkable, especially considering the complete lack of attention this era gets in the wargameverse.

[watchtower]

It makes you wonder why the major nations didn't make a load more subs considering how devastating they seem to have been at this point in time? Problem of finding enough willing recruits i supose - not the nicest place a 1920's sub!!

[Tankerace]

Mainly because subs were deathtraps. Many were lost due to mechanical failures, breakdowns, or collisions. No airconditioners (no fleet boats), and very short range (which you will find out... ). Plus, the "true career for a navy man was aboard a battleship, not the toy of the submarine and the aeroplane."

[pasternakski]

Well, at least they were better than THIS thing:

[Tankerace]

This is true. I wonder if they had a no beans at lunch rule before climbing in.

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

This is true. I wonder if they had a no beans at lunch rule before climbing in.

And how did they keep from breaking their elbows on that infernal crankshaft? I remember the first time I tried one of those paddleboats, I kept hitting my ankles against the machinery, and it hurt like the dickens.

Oh, and by the way, stud, nice job with this. You've had the (dis)pleasure of reading some of my posts about the WitP system, but, as I said elsewhere, I'm happy to support good guys like you by buying what you develop - even under adverse circumstances with less than an ideal game system. I have the same sentiments about what Marshall Ellis and Frank Hunter are trying to get done, and I wish them success, too.

So take a couple of bucks out of your hard-earned WPO earnings and buy yourself one on me, willya?

(an aside - I have relatives in Oklahoma of the type that give your state the reputation for having an entire layer of "stupid" you don't see anywhere else - unless it's Texas).

[watchtower]

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

This is true. I wonder if they had a no beans at lunch rule before climbing in.

Advert: No one under 5 foot 8 or over 5 foot 10 need apply for this exciting underwater job opportunity

[Alikchi2]

(an aside - I have relatives in Oklahoma of the type that give your state the reputation for having an entire layer of "stupid" you don't see anywhere else - unless it's Texas).

Oi [;)]

At least we can agree on the Texans.

[Pkunzipper]

In our PBEM game, Janushm and me decided to use an house-rule to not send sub to patrol enemy base hexes...

Maybe he was a bit unlucky, but in 10 days of Jutland scenario my subs hit his BB/BC 5/6 times, plus a lot of other small ships...

IMHO subs aren't too strong in combat (maybe they can evade a lot of depth charge runs), but the biggest issue is that they intercept too often enemy TF...

So my suggestion for a future patch is to reduce sub maneuvrability from 70 to about 65/60, and decrease their chance to establish a contact with each enemy TF on the same hex to about 70/80 % of the current value.

Since many players here played Jutland scenario, that is a good test scenario (small map with a plenty of subs), I'm interested to know what they think!

EDIT: I forgot to say I'm Japan

[Tankerace]

Is this with sub doctrines on or off?

[Pkunzipper]

Doctrine ON for both sides

[Tankerace]

SHallow or deep water hexes? Contacts will always be more closer to shore and in shallow water. Also changing the Mvr would not have any effect.

[Pkunzipper]

Near all contacts were in base or shallow water hexes.

I thought that mvr would had an impact on chance to avoid a depth charge attack

[Tankerace]

That's why. Hunting (historically) is always better in those areas. COntacts will be harder in deep water.

[Tankerace]

It does, but it doesn't affect TF interception.

ORIGINAL: Pkunzipper

Near all contacts were in base or shallow water hexes.

I thought that mvr would had an impact on chance to avoid a depth charge attack

[Rainerle]

Hmm,

isn't it that the map should be modified in order to change the distribution of shallow/non shallow water hexes (i.e. less hexes would qualify as shallow due to more restrictive dive depths)

[kfmiller41]

I will agree that subs are definetly more dangerous in WPO than WITP. I have hit several BBs in my campaign game and have subs scouting in any port I think will be invaded, which I think is how they would be used. I now give serious thought about using fleet units without a heavy Destroyer escort, and even then with the ASW capability, or lack of that they have I am always going to worry when subs are around. I think this is well done and makes for another layer of Strategy to use. I post scout lines of subs because of limited surface units early in the game and also surface units can be engaged and sunk much easier than subs.

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: Pkunzipper

In our PBEM game, Janushm and me decided to use an house-rule to not send sub to patrol enemy base hexes...

Maybe he was a bit unlucky, but in 10 days of Jutland scenario my subs hit his BB/BC 5/6 times, plus a lot of other small ships...

IMHO subs aren't too strong in combat (maybe they can evade a lot of depth charge runs), but the biggest issue is that they intercept too often enemy TF...

So my suggestion for a future patch is to reduce sub maneuvrability from 70 to about 65/60, and decrease their chance to establish a contact with each enemy TF on the same hex to about 70/80 % of the current value.

Since many players here played Jutland scenario, that is a good test scenario (small map with a plenty of subs), I'm interested to know what they think!

EDIT: I forgot to say I'm Japan

Having waited about 18 months to get subs to act like subs in this engine - I'd be willing to call the current implementation in WPO "perfect". Over on the WITP we had been told for months how subs were already perfect even though they sank at the drop of a hat.

Subs in the "WWI Era" were about as capable as their WWII brethern at surface attacks .. but ASW was woefully underpowered.

So, my vote is please do not change ASW or Subs in WPO !!!