Matrix Games Forums

What I have seen from Graycompany is that he used his subs very effectively early in the game.  When the allied forces were inexperienced and before ships upgraded he used his subs aggresively and with pretty good effect.  He mainly focused on raiding my shipping and camped out in shipping lanes well away from LBA.  He also used them as scouts to spot for CLs acting as surface raiders.  Really gave me a rough time.

However, now that escorts have upgraded and I have more air power he has lost a number of subs.  He now mostly seems to use subs within his airspace, or as minelayers...which is very annoying. [;)]

Another note here: Never ever load a unit onto 1 ship. Always use 2 or more, even if it will fit on one ship. If the ship goes, so does the unit.

Well, in the early going there is a race to get troops to some of the islands before the Japanese can invade. At that time transports are at a premium, so the certain units end up on single tranports.

Besides, you can't split a single squadron of aircraft (CHS has most of the allied air units as single squadrons) among more than one transport, so I had begun to ignore that old rule.

In general that is a good rule of thumb, but it no longer applies to every situation.

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

Another note here: Never ever load a unit onto 1 ship. Always use 2 or more, even if it will fit on one ship. If the ship goes, so does the unit.

Well, in the early going there is a race to get troops to some of the islands before the Japanese can invade. At that time transports are at a premium, so the certain units end up on single tranports.

Besides, you can't split a single squadron of aircraft (CHS has most of the allied air units as single squadrons) among more than one transport, so I had begun to ignore that old rule.

In general that is a good rule of thumb, but it no longer applies to every situation.

Yep. plus I have had the KB show up and sink an entire TF before. There's an entire tank Bde sitting on the bottom of the Bay of Bengal and a 64 plane transport unit sitting at the bottom of the IO.

but generally that is an excellent rule of thumb.

After PH, I sent the long-range IJN subs to camp off SanFran by about 8 hexes.
 
They sank 3x crippled BBs...  [;)]
 
Other than that, it's mostly a waiting game.
 
I usually keep subs in packs of 6, send them to a deployment area, and then split them into individual TF in separate hexes.  Then you just have to sit and wait.  You need to find a spot along a likely ship route, that is usually about 6+ hexes from an enemy base (close to a base, you'll likely be spotted by LBA and then hunted by DDs).  If you're spotted, you gotta move.
 
-F-

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

ORIGINAL: wwengr

ORIGINAL: cavalry

In both my PBEM my JAP subs have done well - I think the JAP subs are great . You can track allied convoys with a wolfpack of about 5 subs 2 with planes.

The best result against surface war ships was two torps in the Washington , twice having encounters shots at allied CV ( Illustrious near Columbo and Wasp near Baker )

Sub doctrine is OFF thats not all that realistic in terms of the game I feel

In that PBEM I have sunk about 15 allied subs ( two to planes only ) and about 4 of those were lost in a few days trying to get a shot at the big allied CV TF near baker its May 43 that seems pretty good I think I have lost 10 subs and I think of those two to planes .

In my other game now in Setember 42 the allied subs have been mainly mine laying and have had some success about 10 jap AK etc sunk but their losses are starting to mount as they need to lay mines where my ASW Capability is getting better.

So should I change my skippers whats the best trait for a sub skipper , crew levels are all around 70

Michael

Submarines
Assign leader using these priorities:

• Aggression – Influences sub’s chance of contacting enemy TF’s
• Naval Skill – Influences sub’s chance of contact and survivability in an ASW attack
• Leadership – Influences the sub’s experience gain
• No other skills or qualities have any influence

I pretty much do this with one exception. I do not want the Glen carrying subs to attack. Their job is to find targets for the other boats. I do not put aggressive commanders in those boats.

It is a good point. While we generally look at most skills/qualities as higher is better, this does not always hold true. The desired agressiveness in a leader is situational. As an operational game, you are depending on your e-commanders to make good decisions. Low agressiveness is a desirable quality in some cases. Non-combat and recon units usually do best when they avoid a fight.

In my game with Brad, he sank the CA Maya off Malaya on the 2nd or 3rd day of the war with a Dutch boat IIRC. Just slightly annoying!!!

He has had shots at bigger targets but torps have either missed or failed to detonate. Unfortunately our game is about to enter 1943 and his torps will get much better... not a prospect I'm looking forward to as his boats have been a P.I.T.A. (pain in the a--)

Chez

Chez, that wasn't a Dutch boat, it was the S-38 (and it was Dec 11, the fifth day of the war - I knew that my little notebook would come in handy one day!). A lucky shot if there ever was one... It kinda makes up for all those AOs that were recipients of dud torpedoes... or maybe not!

Hey, in our game it is the one year anniversary of S-38's little victory there! Unfortunately the captain and crew of the S-38 can't celebrate. They were sunk off Davao on Feb 12, '42 during the battle for Mindanao.

ORIGINAL: Mynok


I get pretty good results sinking AK/AP types early in the war but not much after that.

Hmmm....around Singapore and Java? [8|][:D]

I've had reasonable success in my game with Yava.  I don't have the specifics to hand, but IIRC despite several HK groups patrolling my usual patrol areas I've managed to sink a minelayer and several transports around the Pacific islands, and sank two AO between Hawaii and the US West Coast.  I've lost one I-boat with a few more returning home for moderate damage.  Success against warships has been limited to hitting damaged DDs so far.

ORIGINAL: USS America

ORIGINAL: Mynok


I get pretty good results sinking AK/AP types early in the war but not much after that.

Hmmm....around Singapore and Java? [8|][:D]

Yes, those spots do ring a bell.....the abandon ship bell. [:D]

One thing I've never seen is a sub attacking another sub...does this ever happen in WitP?

ORIGINAL: Sauvequipeut

One thing I've never seen is a sub attacking another sub...does this ever happen in WitP?

No - i think they might try to put in in AE, though.

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

ORIGINAL: Sauvequipeut

One thing I've never seen is a sub attacking another sub...does this ever happen in WitP?

No - i think they might try to put in in AE, though.

Did Sub vs. Sub ever actually occur in WWII?

ORIGINAL: wwengr

Did Sub vs. Sub ever actually occur in WWII?

Yes it did. Read the book War Fish for an occurance.

There was a fair few subs put down by other subs in both WWI and WWII.
 
British subs bagged 19 U-Boats in WWII, with American subs adding a further 2. The Royal Navy lost at least 3 subs to U-Boats.
 
 In WWI British subs had accounted for 18 U-Boats, including some gained by using a variant of the Q-Ship principle - instead of arming the ship, it was shadowed by a sub. U-Boats claimed 5 British subs in return. 
 
There were also sub-on-sub friendly fire losses - most famously the sinking of HMS Oxley by HMS Triton on 10 September 1939, which gained for the Oxley the unwanted distinction of being both the first British warship sunk in WWII and the first warship to be sunk by the British in WWII.
 
In the Pacific in WWII the US Navy lost at least one sub to a Japanese sub - the USS Corvina in 1943. US subs are credited with 19 Japanese subs, and the RN a further 2. That represents about 1/6th of Japanese WWII sub losses.
 
So...it did happen and should be represented, although as an occasional occurrence, not a wild-west style mid-ocean sub-on-sub shootout.

ORIGINAL: Sauvequipeut

There was a fair few subs put down by other subs in both WWI and WWII.

British subs bagged 19 U-Boats in WWII, with American subs adding a further 2. The Royal Navy lost at least 3 subs to U-Boats.

In WWI British subs had accounted for 18 U-Boats, including some gained by using a variant of the Q-Ship principle - instead of arming the ship, it was shadowed by a sub. U-Boats claimed 5 British subs in return. 

There were also sub-on-sub friendly fire losses - most famously the sinking of HMS Oxley by HMS Triton on 10 September 1939, which gained for the Oxley the unwanted distinction of being both the first British warship sunk in WWII and the first warship to be sunk by the British in WWII.

In the Pacific in WWII the US Navy lost at least one sub to a Japanese sub - the USS Corvina in 1943. US subs are credited with 19 Japanese subs, and the RN a further 2. That represents about 1/6th of Japanese WWII sub losses.

So...it did happen and should be represented, although as an occasional occurrence, not a wild-west style mid-ocean sub-on-sub shootout.

I assume that these were surface engagements between the subs. Or at least the targeted sub was on the surface. This is one area in which I am obviously not well read.

Thanks to Mike Solli for the reference to War Fish. Any other recomendations for good reading on this topic?

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

ORIGINAL: wwengr

Did Sub vs. Sub ever actually occur in WWII?

Yes it did. Read the book War Fish for an occurance.

If this is the book by Grider - it is/was my favorite first person account of sub wars (and i've read many).

ORIGINAL: wwengr

ORIGINAL: Sauvequipeut

There was a fair few subs put down by other subs in both WWI and WWII.

British subs bagged 19 U-Boats in WWII, with American subs adding a further 2. The Royal Navy lost at least 3 subs to U-Boats.

In WWI British subs had accounted for 18 U-Boats, including some gained by using a variant of the Q-Ship principle - instead of arming the ship, it was shadowed by a sub. U-Boats claimed 5 British subs in return.

There were also sub-on-sub friendly fire losses - most famously the sinking of HMS Oxley by HMS Triton on 10 September 1939, which gained for the Oxley the unwanted distinction of being both the first British warship sunk in WWII and the first warship to be sunk by the British in WWII.

In the Pacific in WWII the US Navy lost at least one sub to a Japanese sub - the USS Corvina in 1943. US subs are credited with 19 Japanese subs, and the RN a further 2. That represents about 1/6th of Japanese WWII sub losses.

So...it did happen and should be represented, although as an occasional occurrence, not a wild-west style mid-ocean sub-on-sub shootout.

I assume that these were surface engagements between the subs. Or at least the targeted sub was on the surface. This is one area in which I am obviously not well read.

Thanks to Mike Solli for the reference to War Fish. Any other recomendations for good reading on this topic?

AFAIK there was one sub-surface sub sinking as well in ww2 with a british submarine bagging a u-boat.

I think there may also have been an IJN sub that was technically submerged when it was hit, but it had only just submerged.  The US sub may have even launched the torpedo while the target was still on the surface.  I'll try to confirm that.

ORIGINAL: Panther Bait

I think there may also have been an IJN sub that was technically submerged when it was hit, but it had only just submerged. The US sub may have even launched the torpedo while the target was still on the surface. I'll try to confirm that.

There was one "confirmed" kill of an Ro-boat that was supposed to be submerged, however, later (i.e. relatively recent) post-war investigations did not bear it out (it was in the JANAC report, though)... the sub that was credited as being sunk was in port at the time awaiting scrapping. [X(] [:D]