Matrix Games Forums

I won't post how naval combat is resolved for the most part cause I don't totally understand it yet Maybe someone else can? I will post on some other things that work for me though (your mileage may vary).

Subs - Subs are an excellent unit for wreaking havoc on all sides. Their one huge advantage is that they don't use extended supplies to move (they only use supplies for more torpedos). For countries with limited supplies, they are a great buy. Moreover, the only answer to subs is to research ASW, something that in and of itself is a waste of research points as it has no other utility. If you are Germany or Japan, this is a huge advantage from the start.

It is also very costly to kill subs usually. A German sub can get to many transport fleets in the Atlantic, for example. The WA cannot kill a u-boot with a single light fleet, they need at least 2 and to be sure, 1 air + 2 light fleet. That is a very expensive proposition for the WA until they research ASW since they don't have enough of either early on and thus have to make extended movement to get the CAG and light fleets into range. There are also only 2 realistic ways of killing subs (light fleet ASW and CAG ASW).

Subs with good evasion and torp attack are also great for killing other kinds of ships besides transports. Heavy fleets especially are vulnerable to subs. Carriers as well but that is a bit more risky. On the other hand, subs are the cheapest and faster combat ship to build, so they are a good attrition unit (4 turns versus 6 for light fleets).

I've found 3 ways to use subs that seem to give good returns:

1. Combined fleet. I do this when I play the WA. I will leave my subs with the main fleet for protection and then run them out in packs to attack transports and also use them in combined fleet actions. Torpedos ignore armor ratings and get you a lot of kills. In this roll, I'm not really using subs to kill transports (I do, but that is not their main mission), I'm using them to kill other fleet ships.

2. Wolf packs. Combine your subs into groups of 2-3 to attack shipping. This is safer than using single ships because your subs will have more survivability. Unless the enemy is keeping up with ASW, he will need larger fleets to take out your subs (will need 2:1 odds). You will sink less tonnage this way though cause you are also using 2-3 subs to take out single transports (unless they are grouping multiple transports in single areas). Your enemy will need to expend a lot of supplies to collect a large enough force to take out your subs.

3. Single subs. This is to harass allied shipping for the most part. You can either go out only far enough so you can return to port the same turn or you can send your subs out on suicide missions to make the enemy come after you, expending lots of supplies to do so. The first method will result in diminishing returns as the enemy will simply start protecting his transports, the second way will be more costly for you, but also for him.

Light Fleets - The major roll of the light fleet is to take out subs. The other major roll of a light fleet is to act as a covering force for your heavy fleets and CV groups. Ships like cruisers and destroyers manuever in front of a fleet (or around the fleet) to prevent enemy fleets from closing too soon. This allows heavy fleets to bring guns to bear in an optimal range as well as for CV to launch their CAGs. This is represented in the game by matching light fleets against each other before heavy or CV fleets enter the equation.

In game terms, what this means is that you want at least 1 light fleet for each CV you want to protect (or Heavy fleet). The major function of light fleets in this roll is PROTECTION. In other words, you don't usually want to send them in on the offense because they are easily damaged. Say you are the WA attacking the Japanese fleet in the middle of the Pacific somewhere. What you would do is to get next to the Jap fleet (or as far away as possible depending on the range of your CAG) and then send in your planes and possibly your heavy fleets. This will guarentee that you bring the maximum firepower to bear at the minimum of risk. But don't send in heavy fleets if there is a possiblity of subs around. If you are worried about fleet composition, then send in the CAG first, then followup with an appropriate force.

Heavy fleets - These represent BB and CA ships for the most part. They are the main firepower of a fleet. They also have a torpedo attack that is useful to increase to turn them into real killing machines. On the other hand, they are very expensive and take a long time to build. Probably not worth it unless you are the WA. The best role for a heavy fleet is to take out light fleets and carriers (and other heavy fleets). They are very vulernable to subs, however. I tend to keep them with my CV fleets for added protection. Historically, BB tended not to be grouped with CV in the same task forces. The USA later in the war DID group BB with CV, but generally as enhanced AA platforms. In other words, up their Air Attack to protect from CAG.

I generally never build new heavy fleets, I tend to group them all into a large task force with either a shore bombard mission or to kill enemy fleets. Heavy fleets are very, very expensive to move more than 1 sea area, so plan at least a year ahead of where you want them to be

Carrier fleets - These are the most powerful units historically (not necessarily in game unless you RESEARCH). It is very, very important that if you want to use CV fleets, never allow them to be damaged or, god forbid, sunk. What that means is either you dump a lot of research into stuff like evasion or you never put them in harm's way if you can help it. I prefer the 2nd strategy. What that means is that I tend to use large fleet groupings with a mix of forces (heavy fleets, light fleets and subs). The subs are used to attack any close enemy fleets if possible. This breaks up those fleets and inflicts some damage. If the close fleets are heavy with light fleets, then I don't do that, but then, I'm not really in danger then either.

Now, what makes a CV important and powerful is the CAG that is on it. If you don't upgrade your CAG, then it isn't worth building CV. Otherwise you have CAG sitting in the production queue all the time and your CV sitting there doing nothing. The most important thing to research on a CAG is evasion. This alone forces the enemy to do a lot of research to be able to hit your CAG. They either have to start researching ship to air or air to air on THIER CAG. Getting to range 4 will allow your CAG to fly 2 double bar sea zones away. That is huge because it leaves your main fleet relatively safe and it is costly to engage in (supplywise). Air-to-air makes sure your CAG survives the initial air-to-air fight to fire at enemy ships. Finally, torp attack is the best bang for the buck for taking out ships. Researching ship-to-ship and ASW is less important, but if you have the points, do ship-to-ship first. That will make your CAG able to sink ships in a single round of combat.

So, now that we have an overview of what ships do and what missions they fulfill, how to best use them and what to research? This is where country-specific strategies come into play. Lets say up front that only the WA can afford a "real" navy comprised of all different ship types. While other countries might be able to squeeze some heavy fleets or CV out, they can't keep up in the research. So what to do as Japan or Germany? The best idea for both of those countries is to focus on a few areas of research and only a few ship types. As noted above, submarines are the best bang for the buck. If you build enough submarines (fewer, upgraded ones are better) then the WA are forced to respond with either dispersed fleets (making them more vulnerable to your big fleets) or a lot more ASW and light fleet research. For new builds, it is probably better to just focus on light fleets that have upgraded torp and evasion. They will get hit a lot but also do some damage on their own.

Another thing to consider as an Axis player is to upgrade your land-based air unit range and torp attacks and then always leave your fleets in range of your air bases and then use your end of turn movement to place those planes in sea areas protecting your fleets. In this way, you are leveraging units you already need and build (land-based air) and also protecting your fleets without a large navy build and research investment. It is very important to keep your main fleets together for support because you cannot compete with the WA on the seas, it is always a defensive strategy.

The best use of subs, given the way the retreat rules work, is to surround an area so if you win, none of the survivers can retreat and are destroyed. It carries the added benefit that you can often cut the Allied fleets off from supply (if he has not prepositioned supplies in the fleet) so they are severely handicapped in ability to defend. Since teh Axis goes first, Allied fleets that can be isolated are always "out of supply" in addition. In teh Axis turn, becasue they have moved, the Alliies don't have the same option. One sub (or light fleet) is all it takes. Even if you don't win initially it pins the enemy inplace so your ships that didn't shoot in the first attack don't have to chase the enemy down

I'd like to see the issue addressed on grounds of "gameyness", but in the mean time "surrounded" naval battles can be decisive!

It carries the added benefit that you can often cut the Allied fleets off from supply (if he has not prepositioned supplies in the fleet) so they are severely handicapped in ability to defend. Since teh Axis goes first, Allied fleets that can be isolated are always "out of supply" in addition. In teh Axis turn, becasue they have moved, the Alliies don't have the same option.

Paul,

Could you elaborate on this?

Supply is judged at the moment of combat - as long as you have supply in the area, you are always OK, hence the "Area supply" setting. IF you can isolate an area (land or sea) from its supply sources, and the players turn has not yet occured, his units are automatically "unsupplied". They then get the -1 evasion and -1 to return fire for being surrounded. Once you have moved or "been supplied" using the "supply unit" button, it is supplied in all future turns regardless of being able to trace supply at the moment of combat.

In naval combat it just takes one unit (subs come in handy casue they can sneak through enemy occupied areas) to do this, so if there is a large fleet that is not adjacent to a port (they can retreat into prot if one abuts the area) then move a sub into each of the surrounding areas - kill any transports present (thoguh I think the unit may block supply even if you wait to resolve teh attack, or just move on - i'm not certain about that but i think that happened...) and if you are teh Axis, you can attack the now out of supply fleet and all with be destroyed if you win.

Like I said, it spoils an otherwise decent naval system, and is difficult to "house rule away" becasue sometimes you have a congested area and it seems silly to force a move to "open an escape route..."

I'd love to here of workarounds - keeping a transport with a few supplies with your fleet helps the "out of supply" issue - but is trickey as loading anything on a transport ends its move. OR other sorts of counters. So far it has been a pretty significant "exploit" in recent pbem games - both with me on the dealing and receiving end.

Like I said, it spoils an otherwise decent naval system, and is difficult to "house rule away" becasue sometimes you have a congested area and it seems silly to force a move to "open an escape route..."

How about permitting surrounded naval units to stay in place with a -2 evasion penalty?

Paul,

Thanks! [:)]

I knew those basics for land, but the application of supply to sea tripped me up.

Here's a quick fix that comes to mind:

Analogous to torps on subs, how about allowing exactly one "mini-supply" to be indicated for any combat ship:

1. If used defensively, ALL surviving ships lose that "mini-supply" at the end of the attacker's turn.

2. Automatically reset at the beginning of owner's turn if in the supply network (like area supply on land).

well I don't see anything wrong with something being "trickey" [:)]

so you would need to bring a minimum of 1 supply (if i understand correctly all the units use just one supply total if defending) and hopefully have a way to bail them out next turn if needed. If done at the end of the turn I don't think it would be that difficult. But I would like to hear some other counters as well [:)]

At this point I think it best to play with an eye to "exploiting the exploit" and seeing how truely decisive it is.

What are the tactics to combat it within the given rules? The supply thing can be dealt with by ending your turn in an area with an island with supply. The problem with with "just keeping a supply with your fleet" is the problem with transports "being locked" when you add a supply to them, so it sort of defeats the purpose of the "supply network"
model. No to mention forcing you to play with auto-supply off, or the game will keeping "stealing" the supply you have with your fleet.

there is a difference between "tricky" and being simply a "pain in the ass" to no advantage other than frustrating the player. Teh mechanics of everything else are elegant and fairly streamlined. Keeping a fleet supplied with a "carry along transport" seems to be problematic.


The surrounding thing has me stumped.

I purposely avoided surrounding sea zones and poofing units that way. For myself, I consider that a very serious design flaw and most definately a game-breaking exploit. The only time naval units should have a possibility of poofing is if they are in port and lose combat. Shrug, my opinion

the surrounding issue is definitely gaming the game, but there is part of it that requires careful planning. I think part of it needs to be rewarded. the one that really gets me is the attack on pearl when it is frozen, this is really an exploit (that I'll still probably be using myself, sorry). if the units aren't frozen, then you have to plan a defense ahead of time. essentially you're both able to do it equally to each other, so be prepared.

one suggestion would be to make the retreat path simply a second battle, but at -2 evasion for the retreating units. it still gives a big reason to surround units, but you can't just surround them with a single sub and expect them to lose their entire armada to it.

ORIGINAL: Graymane


3. Single subs. This is to harass allied shipping for the most part. You can either go out only far enough so you can return to port the same turn or you can send your subs out on suicide missions to make the enemy come after you, expending lots of supplies to do so. The first method will result in diminishing returns as the enemy will simply start protecting his transports, the second way will be more costly for you, but also for him.

[&:] More a question how the game works: You can move, then attack and when you have movement points left, move again? It seems that this simple mecanism escapes me.

OK I researched this issue some more it doesn't seem to be as big a problem as it seemed at first blush (It turns out the units that I thought were damaged and unable to retreat and destroyed were "warped" out of teh 'surrounded situation to a port that was then cpatured. So it appeared that "they vanished out of teh battel" when in fact had teh port not been taken, they would have been damaged and rebuildable.

I also had one case where it looked like a US CV that was "retreated" in a surrounded situation "warped" back to Seattle - but I have not been able to recreate this.

So teh state of teh "surrounded naval combat issue" is that units damaged while surrounded do "warp home" unlike land combat. What still needs to be determined is what happens to surviving UNDAMAMGED unit that are surrounded.

Do they warp back to a port, or are the "destroyed unable to retreat" - the vagueries of naval combat make it a bit of a challenge to recreate specific situations - in may medium sized test battel either the defender fleet was all damamged or killed or teh attack bounced...

On the supply front - I finally found the use fo the "Supply Units" button... IF you move naval units, then they will remainsupplied until THEIR NEXT TURN so if you move, the exploit can't be made. The issue is if you DON'T move then despite being in a "situation where you look to be in supply" you are not supplied - UNLESS you use teh "supply unit" button. Pay a single SP per unit (per unit - NOT AREA) that doesn't move but that you want to remain in the area they are in and in supply.

They will then be "supplied" until their next turn and enemy action to surround them won't matter!

Hope that helps straingten the situation with naval combat out! Any help verifying what happens to undmamged units that are displaced from an area and are surrounded by enemy naval units would be appreciated!

ORIGINAL: Sombra

ORIGINAL: Graymane


3. Single subs. This is to harass allied shipping for the most part. You can either go out only far enough so you can return to port the same turn or you can send your subs out on suicide missions to make the enemy come after you, expending lots of supplies to do so. The first method will result in diminishing returns as the enemy will simply start protecting his transports, the second way will be more costly for you, but also for him.

[&:] More a question how the game works: You can move, then attack and when you have movement points left, move again? It seems that this simple mecanism escapes me.

Yes, each naval unit has a default movement value. For the WA, for example, they start with 12 for their CV and light fleets and 10 for their heavy fleets and I think 8 for their subs. Now, each space costs 1 movement point and double-sided boxes cost 2 points. So if the transports are 2 double-sided boxes away (4 movement points), you can attack them then return to port cause you still have 4 movement points left on your subs.

OK, I've played this game for one night, so this idea is new to me.

But in general terms, I don't see where using subs to interdict the rear areas and supply lines of a fleet is such a gamey idea.

The Japaneese did some of this. Their doctrine for using subs was to go after naval ships instead of merchant shipping. Sometimes they put their subs in the way of where they thought the USN would advance, but they also put subs in the path behind them after a battle. Wasn't there at least one case where a sub put torpedoes into a damaged CV and sunk it after the carrier fight?

Actually, from your second post, I'd be disappointed if the subs don't get an Op fire attack on the "warping" damaged ship units.

And putting subs out to intercept the oilers and tenders that would be coming out to a fleet that was operating far from home doesn't sound like a gamey tactic either. If a fleet is operating far enough from home base that it needs a supply tail, then that's a legitimate target.

Sounds like the latter would give the natural advantage to a fleet that was operating adjacent to its ports... which sounds ok to me.

OK, these are the comments of someone who just realized this game was finally ready last night and got his copy, so take them with a grain of salt.... or more likely about 5 lbs of salt.

ORIGINAL: marc420

OK, I've played this game for one night, so this idea is new to me.

But in general terms, I don't see where using subs to interdict the rear areas and supply lines of a fleet is such a gamey idea.

The Japaneese did some of this. Their doctrine for using subs was to go after naval ships instead of merchant shipping. Sometimes they put their subs in the way of where they thought the USN would advance, but they also put subs in the path behind them after a battle. Wasn't there at least one case where a sub put torpedoes into a damaged CV and sunk it after the carrier fight?

Actually, from your second post, I'd be disappointed if the subs don't get an Op fire attack on the "warping" damaged ship units.

And putting subs out to intercept the oilers and tenders that would be coming out to a fleet that was operating far from home doesn't sound like a gamey tactic either. If a fleet is operating far enough from home base that it needs a supply tail, then that's a legitimate target.

Sounds like the latter would give the natural advantage to a fleet that was operating adjacent to its ports... which sounds ok to me.

OK, these are the comments of someone who just realized this game was finally ready last night and got his copy, so take them with a grain of salt.... or more likely about 5 lbs of salt.

I don't think the complaint is that using subs this way can cut off supply and give the defenders of the main battle a penalty. I think most are willing to accept that.

The problem as I see it is that a fleet that is forced to retreat but is surrounded just surrenders (I think). One sub in your rear should not be a death sentence to a stack of CVs and heavy fleets.

I don't think the complaint is that using subs this way can cut off supply and give the defenders of the main battle a penalty. I think most are willing to accept that.

The problem as I see it is that a fleet that is forced to retreat but is surrounded just surrenders (I think). One sub in your rear should not be a death sentence to a stack of CVs and heavy fleets.

Why would subs be able to cut off a fleet from supply?
(a) The Pacific is big. Mind bogglingly big. If you think it is a long way to the corner store... well, that's nothing compared to the Pacific. (i.e. hard time even finding shipping that isn't on a normal shipping lane & that is moving in military ships (i.e. in transports that are as fast or faster than the sub!)
(b) There are no supply ships for fleets. Fleets carry their supplies with them.
They have big bunkers of fuel, and by and large, in this era, didn't rely on fleet
oilers/ammo ships too much.

the idea that subs can somehow cut supply to a fleet is just plain silly.

Can't you ensure that a fleet has supply on defense by stacking a transport with it, and loading a truck onto that transport?

In any case, I don't do the "surround and destroy at sea" thing. Actually, it hadn't occurred to me to try.

One further question: how does one counter subs that leave port, zap a transport, and return to port the same turn? I have been using this tactic incessantly in my PBEM game against Rome (poor soul), and I've been wondering what I would do if I were him to stop it. He has responded by escorting his transports, but even so he can't escort everything. Will Port Attacks (by aircraft) hit subs in port?

Subs OP-Fire on ships right? If so, stack two subs on sea zones in likley places where the subs will go. Provided its FOW, hell get locked in, right?

Grotius;

You can stop subs at sea by two ways;

1) have light fleets with 2 or more in ASW escort transports - it will make it painful to attack with subs

2) have Combat Air Patrol units with 2 or more in ASW patrol over transports. This is also painful and are cheaper units than light fleets. Plus, the subs cant fire back at the CAP


Maginot;

Subs cannot fire on other subs, ever. So this would not work. Only units with ASW can fire on subs. The best, and cheapest units for anti-sub war are air units. Plus they have a long, supply inexpensive, range whereas fleets require lots of supply to go hunting subs.

Mike

Mike,

Can you Port Attack subs in port?

Also, I've used light fleets as escorts, but I've had bad luck flying CAP over anything. It seems if the ship goes down, so does the CAP. Maybe it's just being teleported somewhere that I don't see? E.g., I flew CAP over a transport in the Black See; the Russians sank the transport only; but the fighter disappeared.