Matrix Games Forums

I have .07.2

I installed this version midway through a game v. the AL Axis. May have scrambled a few things, I believe I also lost some Canadian built escorts.

I'll add my observations but it is difficult to quantify due to all the random variables.

It appears that subs deployed as a mass (stack of 3 full strength) is more effective than the three raiding in separate groups. I rarely see a big kill of merchants and escorts except when they are massed. Two stacks rarely get any hits. The one and two stack seem more prone to receiving damage from escorts. It also seems very random. Like its based on a 60 side die. I have seen a string of 8 kills, sometimes two sets in a single turn by a stack, then nothing for a few turns. It seems to occur either one extreme or the other.

Escorts are limited to 10 per area still no matter how many you have. This should be changed to simulate the implementation of large convoys which are one of the two primary reasons the Allies won the sub war.

The second reason they won is the use of air power which right now appears ineffective. That might change if the Allies invested in Naval Air (I assume it helps against subs but haven't checked) but right now they have to invest in strategic bombers for naval operations to get the distance needed to be useful. Considering this was the primary improvement in the tactics for countering subs it probably needs a separate construction path.

Carriers should be much more effective against subs. They were pretty much death to any sub or surface ship operating in their range. Especially UK carriers which had slow planes better suited to ASW than for attacking surface ships.

I haven't seen any players go with a strong subs strategy so it is hard to say how the game balances out over the long term. Most don't invest in either building new subs or improving their tech numbers since it is quite expensive. Most just keep the three groups they get at the start until attrition takes them out of the game.

Right now I consider the problem more with consistency. Sometime subs are hell on wheels destroying massive amounts of UK Merchants. Other times they are just annoying flies. Which leaves the UK player always wondering if they should build merchants and escorts or not. The subs need to be a little less effective, especially in mass against escorts, but consistent in producing kills. Likewise, on the results from escorts. Then both players could come up with more "historic" operational plans for use in the "Atlantic war".

Thanks for a good summation of the Uboats vs Allied air. I didn't know that most players don't invest in sub tech or build Uboats for Germans, but makes sense in that you never get close to hurting British with some 300+ merchants and lots of escorts to start.
Does seem to take away from the idea of a WW2 simulation without a real Uboat threat.

I always go with a strong sub strategy and max it out. It has an effect. The key is not to lose them early.

I am thinking about automatizing the CV process so players don't have to hunt down subs. I just gotta figure out how. As a note the UK lost carriers escorting convoys. Later they used CVEs specifically designed to escort. But fleet carriers got sunk early in the war escorting. How many I don't remember.

In WarPlan the Allied carriers are as good as invulnerable.

ORIGINAL: sveint

In WarPlan the Allied carriers are as good as invulnerable.

I wouldn't quite say that.

ORIGINAL: Alvaro Sousa

I always go with a strong sub strategy and max it out. It has an effect. The key is not to lose them early.

I am thinking about automatizing the CV process so players don't have to hunt down subs. I just gotta figure out how. As a note the UK lost carriers escorting convoys. Later they used CVEs specifically designed to escort. But fleet carriers got sunk early in the war escorting. How many I don't remember.

In the UBoat game they are the ultimate target.[:)] But it is rarely easy kills since carrier come with lots of screening ships.

Three British CV's were lost to UBoats but over quite a long period of time. About one per year.
HMS Courageous on Sep 17, 1939
HMS Ark Royal on Nov 13, 1941.
HMS Eagle on Aug 11, 1942.

I couldn't tell if any of the fleet carriers were actually used to hunt UBoats.
It looks like for the first two years of the war destroyers were the main killers with, interesting enough, mines coming in second. After that air planes became the main killer which probably corresponds to the introduction of long range patrols over most of the Atlantic.

Plus Doenitz loved to use the ultra code to keep track of his UBoat wolfpacks. Later in the war, after the British broke the codes, they were able to send planes to specific areas to hunt down the UBoats and their dropped depth charge patterns and tactics had become more accurate also.

Only the Eagle was a small carrier. The other 2 were rather large. All 3 consisted of at least 35% of the carrier fleet the UK had. So losing 3 CVs a year would mean by late 1942 they would have none.

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana

ORIGINAL: sveint

In WarPlan the Allied carriers are as good as invulnerable.

I wouldn't quite say that.

Invulnerable to submarines. Which is not historical.

ORIGINAL: Alvaro Sousa

Only the Eagle was a small carrier. The other 2 were rather large. All 3 consisted of at least 35% of the carrier fleet the UK had. So losing 3 CVs a year would mean by late 1942 they would have none.

Based on the timings it was just one CV a year. One each int 39, 41, and 42.
That probably corresponds to the odds of random bad things happening in war rather than any particular vulnerability of CV's.

ORIGINAL: sveint

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana

ORIGINAL: sveint

In WarPlan the Allied carriers are as good as invulnerable.

I wouldn't quite say that.

Invulnerable to submarines. Which is not historical.

Was that a sub or air attack?

I just had a CV taken out by Italian air which surprised me since in the previous air attacks the CV's had stood up well.