Resolved: submarines are in need of a lot of help
Posted: Thu Jul 07, 2022 11:19 pm
While I have mainly played vs. the AI, I have recently been involved in my own vs. human matches in my WitP scenario, and have been following a number of vanilla AARs both here and on Youtube.
In that time I have become either perturbed or confused (depending on whether I was a participant or spectator) by the struggles that submarines often have when trying to raid convoy lines. As someone who has been a big sub aficionado his entire life, this has proved to be rather disappointing.
Of the 2 historical sub fleets which had any success executing anti-merchant warfare, the Kriegsmarine typically has a somewhat better time of it than the United States Navy does. But I'll declare that neither service in the SC game system can have a lot of success unless their opponent is completely asleep at the helm. While you can of course say that about any of the strategic realms in SC, subs typically struggle with certain specific gameplay features which makes them less effective than historical, and that includes trying to damage or sink nonescort enemy warships as well.
Right to the core thesis: subs can be easily swarmed and sunk, and there's not much they can do about it. Once a submarine is located by a significant number of enemy units, it is highly likely to die unless it gets very lucky or its tormentors get distracted by other units/subs.
OK, addressing the following argument right off the bat: yes, it often comes down to whether you win or lose the numbers game. Have more subs than the enemy has escorts, and the Happy Times are here. Have fewer, and it's gloom and despair. That however fails to address the very real mechanical issues with the current code and settings. Be a rather boring game if all you needed to do to win was have more units than your opponent, operational & tactical factors be damned. I'll address this in more detail below.
The issues are as follows:
Subs' max diving range, which is essentially their "retreat" range, is far too small [2] to be of any use. In a land or fleet action, retreats can be useful to have a unit in danger scurry back behind the protection of its fellows. But for a sub, usually operating in a solo manner on the wide-open sea, it typically proves to be a useless manuever. Because...
Subs are much less stealthy than they should be. Subs in "submerged" mode can be easily relocated and reattacked, because an enemy only needs to brush up against it to find it again. Likewise a sub moving on its own turn while submerged will have its movement reduced by each encounter it has with an enemy vessel, even if it doesn't try to move into the same space as another unit.
Thus once located it can be attacked again and again with impunity. The worst aspect of this is that an enemy ship which has already expended its attack can still be used to scout and relocate the sub for its fellows who still have attacks left to depth charge it again, and again.
The simplest solution to this would be to allow the Retreat settings in the Combat Data table be the sub's submerged maximum distance. This way the sub would have more than a ghost's chance in heck of getting away from its tormentors. I'd likely set it to 6 for Global, 8 for Euro, and 10 for the Pacific.
Addressing an objection I saw the last time I suggested this. Yes, the chances of "sinking" the sub in question will be reduced, sure, but recall this isn't a single ship, but a wolfpack of ~4-8 subs. This can thus be addressed by upping repair costs to 8-10% from the current 5, reflecting the real expense of building new subs. [I'd extend this to destroyers too as well as MTB's-initial costs can be reduced to compensate]
Submerged subs specifically need to be more stealthy than they are now. I am now wondering if something got changed in a recent patch, where before I swore I could sneak by enemy escorts without being slowed down by them, nor could they on their turn detect me unless they tried to occupy the same hex.
There's another issue however, and this one is operational in nature, one with no obvious solution. And that has to do with operational tempo. Typically a 3rd of the sub fleet would be on station hunting, 3rd in transit, and 3rd in port resting and refitting.
But what I've discovered is that an individual sub may spend quite a bit less of its time on station than what history would suggest. And that has to do with the long transit distances and thus times to get to and from the Happy Hunting Grounds.
In the Atlantic (both titles) it may take at least 4 turns to get from Germany around Scotland and into the convoy lanes. In World that is almost 4 months (Euro about 3). A WWII sub would likely take no more than a month. Of course you can put it on Naval Cruise, but that will eat up a supply point as well as make it take more damage if it encounters an enemy.
[The World map makes it even tougher to sneak past Scapa Flow because Scotland is "leaning" too close to Norway, by at least a couple of hexes.]
This is even worse in the Pacific with its longer distances. Escorts when in low supply and damaged can just dart into a nearby friendly port and a turn or two later they are as good as new. Subs have a multi-turn odyssey to get back to their base, with no guarantee that they'll make it back past the gauntlet of ASW vessels and land-based air in the first place. Go slow and take forever, or go Cruise and risk redetection and destruction (and a submerged but slow sub isn't guaranteed safe passage as indicated above). ASW units therefore typically can spend more of their time on station, thus increasing their effective numerical advantage. Thus a sub fleet needs to be larger than the enemy's ASW fleet to compensate.
Easiest remedy I can come up with is to remove supply losses for subs if in Cruise mode. Just need an entry in the Combat Data table. ["naval supply loss from Cruise Mode"] And while I an at it allow subs to cruise while submerged, using 1 supply point in this case and risking disaster if they run into something.
One more issue, one I wasn't actually aware of until today in point of fact, and that has to do with the Surprise mechanic, which is more relevant when subs are acting against warships specifically. OK the devs have decided this mechanic is to stay, fine it is their game.
Ostensibly this mechanic gives an advantage to the nonmoving side when the moving side bumps into a nonspotted unit.
Every unit in the game (the 1939 WaW scenario) gets this bonus, except one. THE one unit which historically was most able thanks to design and doctrine to most take advantage of an enemy which unwittingly stumbles across it...
You have one guess as to which unit it is.
Yep, submarines.
Allow the editor more leeway in sub dive distances, make them more stealthy, give them more time on station, and give them the surprise bonus that they deserve, and subs would no longer be mild annoyances to be pummeled into oblivion, but very real (but not invincible) threats to convoy and ship.
In that time I have become either perturbed or confused (depending on whether I was a participant or spectator) by the struggles that submarines often have when trying to raid convoy lines. As someone who has been a big sub aficionado his entire life, this has proved to be rather disappointing.
Of the 2 historical sub fleets which had any success executing anti-merchant warfare, the Kriegsmarine typically has a somewhat better time of it than the United States Navy does. But I'll declare that neither service in the SC game system can have a lot of success unless their opponent is completely asleep at the helm. While you can of course say that about any of the strategic realms in SC, subs typically struggle with certain specific gameplay features which makes them less effective than historical, and that includes trying to damage or sink nonescort enemy warships as well.
Right to the core thesis: subs can be easily swarmed and sunk, and there's not much they can do about it. Once a submarine is located by a significant number of enemy units, it is highly likely to die unless it gets very lucky or its tormentors get distracted by other units/subs.
OK, addressing the following argument right off the bat: yes, it often comes down to whether you win or lose the numbers game. Have more subs than the enemy has escorts, and the Happy Times are here. Have fewer, and it's gloom and despair. That however fails to address the very real mechanical issues with the current code and settings. Be a rather boring game if all you needed to do to win was have more units than your opponent, operational & tactical factors be damned. I'll address this in more detail below.
The issues are as follows:
Subs' max diving range, which is essentially their "retreat" range, is far too small [2] to be of any use. In a land or fleet action, retreats can be useful to have a unit in danger scurry back behind the protection of its fellows. But for a sub, usually operating in a solo manner on the wide-open sea, it typically proves to be a useless manuever. Because...
Subs are much less stealthy than they should be. Subs in "submerged" mode can be easily relocated and reattacked, because an enemy only needs to brush up against it to find it again. Likewise a sub moving on its own turn while submerged will have its movement reduced by each encounter it has with an enemy vessel, even if it doesn't try to move into the same space as another unit.
Thus once located it can be attacked again and again with impunity. The worst aspect of this is that an enemy ship which has already expended its attack can still be used to scout and relocate the sub for its fellows who still have attacks left to depth charge it again, and again.
The simplest solution to this would be to allow the Retreat settings in the Combat Data table be the sub's submerged maximum distance. This way the sub would have more than a ghost's chance in heck of getting away from its tormentors. I'd likely set it to 6 for Global, 8 for Euro, and 10 for the Pacific.
Addressing an objection I saw the last time I suggested this. Yes, the chances of "sinking" the sub in question will be reduced, sure, but recall this isn't a single ship, but a wolfpack of ~4-8 subs. This can thus be addressed by upping repair costs to 8-10% from the current 5, reflecting the real expense of building new subs. [I'd extend this to destroyers too as well as MTB's-initial costs can be reduced to compensate]
Submerged subs specifically need to be more stealthy than they are now. I am now wondering if something got changed in a recent patch, where before I swore I could sneak by enemy escorts without being slowed down by them, nor could they on their turn detect me unless they tried to occupy the same hex.
There's another issue however, and this one is operational in nature, one with no obvious solution. And that has to do with operational tempo. Typically a 3rd of the sub fleet would be on station hunting, 3rd in transit, and 3rd in port resting and refitting.
But what I've discovered is that an individual sub may spend quite a bit less of its time on station than what history would suggest. And that has to do with the long transit distances and thus times to get to and from the Happy Hunting Grounds.
In the Atlantic (both titles) it may take at least 4 turns to get from Germany around Scotland and into the convoy lanes. In World that is almost 4 months (Euro about 3). A WWII sub would likely take no more than a month. Of course you can put it on Naval Cruise, but that will eat up a supply point as well as make it take more damage if it encounters an enemy.
[The World map makes it even tougher to sneak past Scapa Flow because Scotland is "leaning" too close to Norway, by at least a couple of hexes.]
This is even worse in the Pacific with its longer distances. Escorts when in low supply and damaged can just dart into a nearby friendly port and a turn or two later they are as good as new. Subs have a multi-turn odyssey to get back to their base, with no guarantee that they'll make it back past the gauntlet of ASW vessels and land-based air in the first place. Go slow and take forever, or go Cruise and risk redetection and destruction (and a submerged but slow sub isn't guaranteed safe passage as indicated above). ASW units therefore typically can spend more of their time on station, thus increasing their effective numerical advantage. Thus a sub fleet needs to be larger than the enemy's ASW fleet to compensate.
Easiest remedy I can come up with is to remove supply losses for subs if in Cruise mode. Just need an entry in the Combat Data table. ["naval supply loss from Cruise Mode"] And while I an at it allow subs to cruise while submerged, using 1 supply point in this case and risking disaster if they run into something.
One more issue, one I wasn't actually aware of until today in point of fact, and that has to do with the Surprise mechanic, which is more relevant when subs are acting against warships specifically. OK the devs have decided this mechanic is to stay, fine it is their game.
Ostensibly this mechanic gives an advantage to the nonmoving side when the moving side bumps into a nonspotted unit.
Every unit in the game (the 1939 WaW scenario) gets this bonus, except one. THE one unit which historically was most able thanks to design and doctrine to most take advantage of an enemy which unwittingly stumbles across it...
You have one guess as to which unit it is.
Yep, submarines.
Allow the editor more leeway in sub dive distances, make them more stealthy, give them more time on station, and give them the surprise bonus that they deserve, and subs would no longer be mild annoyances to be pummeled into oblivion, but very real (but not invincible) threats to convoy and ship.
