Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

I will agree with Belphegor. I play with IJN sub doctrine on (have done so since the beginning) and they will attack both merchants and combat ships in non-combat TFs. It does tone down those attacks, but it does not eliminate them.

Surprised to hear that, in my games sub commanders always follow the manual and attack merchants really “very seldom”, and I never saw attacks against the warships in non-combat TFs with doctrine ON, may be I’m simply unlucky… don’t know. I still feel that some tweaking is required here.

Did you change your sub commanders to better & more agressive ones?

Yes. Sub commanders, TF commanders... all maniacs!

For subs you should use careful commanders, agressivenes increases the chance of getting sunk by a large margin.

Subs in the game are underpowered and way too easy to spot/kill.

ORIGINAL: BlackVoid


Subs in the game are underpowered and way too easy to spot/kill.

Hi,
this statement ist old and I also thought like that for a long time. But just maybe the real reason why many people come up with that conclusion is that there are so few unsuccessful ASW attacks where 50-60 % of the ASW capacity are expended for nothing. This never happens in WitP even when it was rather the rule in the early years IRL. If most of the time the subs get away even though lots of DC are dumped then players wouldn't neccessarily come up with the conclusion that subs are a one-shot weapon. This effect is created when 1 out of 2 times some escort actually dumps DC's the sub is lost.
OTOH they are too easy to spot. Can't be that IJN spotted 5-7 subs around Formosa/Taiwan every single day !!!
On a further note I read (E. Bagnasco) that in the first year of the war IJN sub skippers approached their admiralty and wanted to conduct anti-merchant warfare but this demand was turned down.

140 (109 + 29 + 2 captured) successful attacks during first 13 months of the war. 15-20 attacks on merchants per month and this is with Doctrine ON(!). Is it possible with WitP sub doctrine ON?

Do you not have to still do math on that particular stat? I seem to remember early on there was a statement that not every ship (especially merchant) was represented in the game. So if not every ship is represented, it would likely be much more difficult to approach the historical result. Most of those successful attacks were in the Indian Ocean, how many subs do most players send there?

Because of the abstraction and the missing merchants, perhaps the subs are getting proportionally similar results? Just asking.

ORIGINAL: BlackVoid

In my opinion, sub warfare is the worst modelled in WITP. The only things subs are good for in WITP is attacking cripples, so that is what I use them for. With IJN, that means sub-doctrine ON. If they do not attack escort TFs, then this is a big problem...
Even Allies have a lot of trouble with subs if they use them historically, because dedicated hunter-killer groups will sink them by the dozen.

As IJN, even with doctrine off, you wont make a dent in allied shipping, you will just get your boats sunk.

I would really like to see a well worded poll about this. I'm not the only one here who thinks the submarine/anti-submarine model is off. First poll I'd like to see is a simple one...
A) Do you think the sub/anti-sub model is good?
B) Do you think the sub/anti-sub model is bad?

From there we can get more detailed breakdowns of what is perceived to be the biggest issues and then perhaps something will get done about it. There are enough people playing with serious WITP time that we can get some headway going. I am so fed up with the excuse that no test results have been sufficiently supplied by myself or any other critic but given the huge variations within the context of the model/historical fact, no single test is sufficient to illustrate the point being made without some "defender of the faith" disecting it and thereby losing the gist of the example or test case. I believe, given the limitations of any series of tests as mentioned, the mean "feel" of the model within the WITP community is more important for what we need and constitutes the "tests" requested.

I think the first poll should be

"Are you a 'critic' or a 'defender of the faith'" [;)]


Personally I haven't been convinced by either side so I'd prefer the "bloody fence-sitter" category added in.

Ron: If you could change 1 thing about the sub/ASW model what would it be... in other words, what change would be the most dramatic to bringing this around for you?

ORIGINAL: Belphegor

I think the first poll should be

"Are you a 'critic' or a 'defender of the faith'" [;)]


Personally I haven't been convinced by either side so I'd prefer the "bloody fence-sitter" category added in.

Ron: If you could change 1 thing about the sub/ASW model what would it be... in other words, what change would be the most dramatic to bringing this around for you?

There are obviously a number of things which I believe need attention. Nik has shown that durability plays a HUGE factor as it is tied in with dive depth, detectability, ASW weapon accuracy etc. If some way could be found to untie the VP and production costs from the durability rating, players could tweak the sub durability to their hearts content.

For me, however, the present ability of surface TFs to use every available ship with an ASW ability vs the sub (the "gang bang") is the biggest problem. This turns the ASW model into a pure game of numbers, with players forming these massive ASW hunter killer TFs...look in the AARs to see some of these 20+ ship TFs. Some sort of partially random percentage of escorts being able to involve themselves would be great.

So a random % of escorts engaging when in a TF not totally dedicated to ASW (ie. destroyers in a Air Combat TF) and a TF max ship limit in dedicated ASW TFs in the same manner as other TFs have ship limits except potentially much smaller?

ORIGINAL: Belphegor

So a random % of escorts engaging when in a TF not totally dedicated to ASW (ie. destroyers in a Air Combat TF) and a TF max ship limit in dedicated ASW TFs in the same manner as other TFs have ship limits except potentially much smaller?

Yeah, something along this approach would do wonders. I think an ASW TF, because of the bonus it gets and the amount of escorts which can conceivably "hunt" a sub without "getting in the way" should be around 4. Other TFs escorts were there to "escort" their larger counterparts so a fraction of them should be capable of engaging the sub as the majority will continue on with the convoy/TF.

How about an ASW effectiveness drop (like more than 15 ships in an Air Combat TF) for more than a certain number of ships in an ASW TF? Rather than limit the number of ships, reduce their effectiveness if over 4 (for sake of discussion) same thing? or is it better to have a definite cap.

I'd agree with the other TF escorts %, I don't think every escort would pull off station to try for a sub... perhaps 20%?

Here is the "killed" list for IJN subs in my game with Mogami. IJN sub ops are off. I'm fairly happy with how the subs are doing, though I steer subs away from contacts with heavy escorts. My subs generally operate in groups, with 1 or more Glen-boats as spotters and 3 to 5 ROw-boats or I-boats as shooters. The Glen-boats are used to bracket likely sea routes and the others are manuevered into place based upon course/speed observations over several turns. If I detect a strong escort, I don't engage.

My favorite sub is the Glen-boat, as it has been used to vector other subs, KB, and surface action groups onto contacts to good effect. I generally try to keep them out of areas where a TF will run directly over them, usually a hex or two off the sea lane.

I'm fairly happy with how the subs are doing, though I steer subs away from contacts with heavy escorts.

So, basically you are forced by the game to utilize an entirely different approach with subs due to the ASW model being way off. You shy away from the true Japanese sub doctrine. Japan went for the big fish but in the game it is even deadly going after a small weakly escorted convoy. This is what I mean when I say the model distorts strategy/tactics.

How many IBoats are sunk?

ORIGINAL: Belphegor

How about an ASW effectiveness drop (like more than 15 ships in an Air Combat TF) for more than a certain number of ships in an ASW TF? Rather than limit the number of ships, reduce their effectiveness if over 4 (for sake of discussion) same thing? or is it better to have a definite cap.

I'd agree with the other TF escorts %, I don't think every escort would pull off station to try for a sub... perhaps 20%?

Why not?[;)] Anything is better than the gang bang.[8|]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
So, basically you are forced by the game to utilize an entirely different approach with subs due to the ASW model being way off. You shy away from the true Japanese sub doctrine. Japan went for the big fish but in the game it is even deadly going after a small weakly escorted convoy. This is what I mean when I say the model distorts strategy/tactics.

Hmmm.. looked at in that way...yeah, I guess I have adapted a bit. I don't send subs within 3 to 5 hexes of most Allied bases, and I do not send subs in against forces I expect to have even medium sized escorts. Almost all my subs are patrolling in deep water. On the other hand, my goal is to sink ships and my subs are doing that. Aside from the ones sunk directly, intel provided by Glen subs has allowed me to snag 4 CA, 1 CL, 8 DD, 8 AK, 1 PG, 1 DM, 2 MSW, and 1 DMS. (approximately 350 VP worth of ships, plus 8 or 10 aircraft that were deployed to the CA's)

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
How many IBoats are sunk?

Four. Two died on the same turn, to the same TF between PH and the West Coast. The other two I forgot the circumstances. On the two sunk the same turn, there were only a couple escorts, but they got lucky rolls both times. My subs have been attacked multiple times, with misses about the same as hits, and with hits being lethal a little less than half the time, I'd say. My subs have made contact quite a bit, and I have 2 subs dinged up in the 20's and 30's from DC attacks they survived in addition to the 4 sunk. In most cases, my attacks were clean, with no retaliation despite the presence of escorts.

Things are probably too lethal, but my subs sunk 214 VP worth of ships in return for 32 VP worth of subs lost. If you add the ships sunk as a result of the intel from sub ops, I am at roughly 560 VP gained to 32 VP lost. I have read a lot of complaints about how the IJN should keep it's subs in port. I've probably said a few things myself. Well, if deploying an asset gives me better than a 17 to 1 advantage in Victory points, keeping it in port is a mistake and things on the opposing side can't be too overpowered.

The only caveat for me is that each of the ships sunk was in lightly guarded TF's. I don't think any of the TF's I've encountered with my subs had more than 4 or 5 escorts. Given that is the case, things might get stickier once Mogami starts putting 8, 10, and 15 escorts in each TF.

Hmmm.. looked at in that way...yeah, I guess I have adapted a bit. I don't send subs within 3 to 5 hexes of most Allied bases, and I do not send subs in against forces I expect to have even medium sized escorts. Almost all my subs are patrolling in deep water

I don't think this is a distortion of tactics. Although I am more familiar with the Atlantic, the Germans did as much as possible attempt to place their subs outside patrol range of aircraft as much as possible (not excluding patrolled areas); the ports and coastal areas were sure to be trouble for the sub (except during drumbeat) but that didn't preclude them going there either, just not preferred territory. Closer to ports and land, more easily found TFs, out further, harder to find but still findable. Whether this applies in the Pacific I can't say...

I would certainly agree with Ron that huge ASW task forces exploit the game a little bit; but I also think theoretically were possible if not actually used. It is the same argument I think as "how many divisions will fit on Bikini Atoll?" The game doesn't limit you except by supply.... So some common sense should prevail on ASW TF sizes?

So some common sense should prevail on ASW TF sizes?

Some common sense could have been exercised initially regarding many things, and unfortunately players now have to wade though countless house rules to get the game to function anywhere near where us "sticklers" think it should.

Oh well...

I don't think this is a distortion of tactics. Although I am more familiar with the Atlantic, the Germans did as much as possible attempt to place their subs outside patrol range of aircraft as much as possible (not excluding patrolled areas); the ports and coastal areas were sure to be trouble for the sub (except during drumbeat) but that didn't preclude them going there either, just not preferred territory. Closer to ports and land, more easily found TFs, out further, harder to find but still findable.

The Uboats ranged virtually everywhere and only adapted as technology and the strategic situation dictated. They did not stop attacking heavily defended convoys or stooped cruising heavily trafficked convoy routes because the historical submarine/anti submarine combat model was whacked as players have found it necessary to do. If I can't place I-Boats in Torpedo Junction in 1942 in the hopes of taking a crack at a USN CV once in awhile without the CV TF reversing the role and becoming the hunter killer of the very subs deployed against it as was done historically (thanks to the limits of ASW tactics and technique in 1942) then there is a frigging problem with my puddin'.

My two cents

in PBEM Im absolutely satisfied with how subs are modelled in this game, its very ,very much how you use em.
tabpub is the man to ask how to use USA subs -I think he is "the expert"[:@]
As IJN in 6 months Ive lost i think just 3 subs -but Im very, very cautious
So, based on my tactics (actually Im also hopeless at finding his merchies), in my next game against wobbly (starting todayactually) Ive asked for doctrine on the IJN.
I use mine for scouting, cripples, mines, transport and recon, not merchant warefare.
Sounds like doctrine on , does'nt it!
so, ok, doctrine on it is!
Im after the carriers[:D]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: BlackVoid

In my opinion, sub warfare is the worst modelled in WITP. The only things subs are good for in WITP is attacking cripples, so that is what I use them for. With IJN, that means sub-doctrine ON. If they do not attack escort TFs, then this is a big problem...
Even Allies have a lot of trouble with subs if they use them historically, because dedicated hunter-killer groups will sink them by the dozen.

As IJN, even with doctrine off, you wont make a dent in allied shipping, you will just get your boats sunk.

I would really like to see a well worded poll about this. I'm not the only one here who thinks the submarine/anti-submarine model is off. First poll I'd like to see is a simple one...
A) Do you think the sub/anti-sub model is good?
B) Do you think the sub/anti-sub model is bad?

From there we can get more detailed breakdowns of what is perceived to be the biggest issues and then perhaps something will get done about it. There are enough people playing with serious WITP time that we can get some headway going. I am so fed up with the excuse that no test results have been sufficiently supplied by myself or any other critic but given the huge variations within the context of the model/historical fact, no single test is sufficient to illustrate the point being made without some "defender of the faith" disecting it and thereby losing the gist of the example or test case. I believe, given the limitations of any series of tests as mentioned, the mean "feel" of the model within the WITP community is more important for what we need and constitutes the "tests" requested.

No takers...[8|]