Matrix Games Forums

I am loving the game and this is becoming my favorite wargame.
Compared to WitP there are few problems.
WPO still have scores of minor issues and one major problem.

I am going to lay out a few of them and maybe tanker and others will comment on them.


1. The British need a base to do merchant conversions.
I am not even sure if British ships can convert, I have never sailed one all the way to Mare to try.
Assuming they can, there needs to be a base to do this at.
Karachi or Columbo or Diamond Harbour or Trincomalee would work
Trincomalee gets my pick
If British ships cannot conver then it would be nice for a future patch to let them convert.

2. If at all possible there needs to be a scout and shadow mission type.
It is very hard to scout in this game given that it is the spawn of WitP which relied on airplanes.
A scout mission would enter into combat to identify ship types and numbers and break off ASAP, most of the time before shots were fired.
A shadow TF would hook itself to an enemy TF and follow it never entering into combat.
It would be based on ship speeds, commanders, weather etc etc

3. The Dutch need repair facilities, makes no sense for them to have a navy but not the facilities to repair and mantain it.
I would give Soerabaja a 25 repair port and Batavia a 15


Now the one major issue.
I hate to use the word broken, but right now that is what sub combat is.
Completly
In playing my own games and reading AARs
Sub are overpowered and are in no way resemble 1920s combat subs.
They simply do not attack on the surface. And they are able to get into attack posistion way too often.
Subs should get their share of kills. But at the moment they are the equal of battleships in power.
Plus since they never attack on the surface they are pretty much invulnerable.
A major reworking needs to happen.
Three things need to happen.

1. They must attack on the surface more often against every from DD level on down.
This is true 1920s sub doctrine

2. They need to have accidents. Random battery explosions, random malfunctions.
etc.
Subs need to be damaged or lost. That is how most subs pre-WW2 were lost

3. They need to have fewer attack chances.
Subs were good scouts. This should not be reduced. They should enter the combat screen and be able to identify ships for scouting purposes.
But more often than not a message needs to appear saying something to the effect of
'Sub cannot posistion itself for attack'
Subs underwater were slow and could not oftentimes get into posistion to launch an attack.
95/100 sub combat routines should be on the surface.
Underwater attacks against warships should be rare but should still happen.

Surface commanders who are not mindful of subs should pay. But subs should not be the godlike weapon they are now.


Those are the biggest issues I see.
Feel free to comment

Are you playing with Sub Doctrine on or off? In my PBEM against Bill Durrant, we're playing with them on, and submarines haven't been much of a factor for the first four months or so.

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Are you playing with Sub Doctrine on or off? In my PBEM against Bill Durrant, we're playing with them on, and submarines haven't been much of a factor for the first four months or so.

Yes
It helps but there are still way too many attacks. Plus subs can sit in high traffic areas and have no fear because ASW is useless. Since they do not attack on the surface there is no chance of damage.

But that is the secondary problem. The biggest problem is that subs simply do not attack on the surface.
This is completly against 1920s sub doctrine and the single largest problem with the game.

1. They must attack on the surface more often against every from DD level on down.
This is true 1920s sub doctrine

Falls...

I hear you ... but if you had been through the past 18 months with WITP like I have ( maybe you have - but by your comments I assume not ) ...

I think subs ( in WPO ) are NOT broke. Whereas they are hopelesses broke in WITP. I'd call current WITP "Glug-boats-in-the-pacific". In WPO I feel like subs act like subs and I am ecstatic !!!

Now, I'm willing to leave the question open as to whether the correction has gone too far ( vis-a-vis WITP )... I've played 6 months of Scenario 1 against AI as Allies and then restarted and played 6 months of Scenario 1 as Japanese. And then 2 Jutland PBEMs and now just starting Scenario 7 ( my variant ) PBEM campaign. In the one game I played as the Allies ( with doctrine off ) I did hit a pile of merchant ships but got very few sinkings ... in none of the other games, have I seen subs do much, though if you camp them in the enemy ports you do get a lot of attacks, but very few hits and no sinkings.

So I'm not seeing subs rule. I've played with doctrine OFF in all games except one of the Jutlands. In that Jutland I was playing the Japanese and I was camping in and near the enemy ports and I got a fair number of attacks, and a few hits but again, no sinkings.

At least one of my opponents ( PKPOWERS ) agrees with you .. so you aren't the only one. But at least for now, I will stay on the other side of the line on this issue. PKPOWERS did tell me that the game he had been playing where he thought subs were over powered was with doctrine OFF. So turning doctrine ON is at least one step that will further retartd sub effectiveness, I that is what you desire.

As to real doctrine. You and I have agreed in the past that subs would attack on the surface, throughout the entire history of the "submersible torpedo boat" ... surface attacks were the vast rule,, submerged attacks were made, but they were the exception. This is not to say "doctrine" might have been otherwise. US subs started WWII with a wrong headed idea about making submerged sonor only attacks. But in real wars, doctrine will not necessarily survive contact with the enemy. And this was especially true for the "submersible torpedo boats" ... all nations had a doctrine of not attacking merchant ships with their submarines. All the major submarines powers ( US, Japan, Britain and Germany ) abandoned this doctrine one the war started. Sub skippers will do what works. But what worked in both WWI and WWII was surface attacks. This is not to say that submerged attacks cannot be made. Most attacks against warhips, were probably submerged attacks. And most attacks against TFs containing warships probably should be submerged attacks ( unless at night ). But most attacks were not against warships, but instead were against merchantment and these were on the surface in the vast majority of cases, for both wars.

But for now turning on doctrine and making house rules about not putting subs in each others ports, might improve things, if you haven't tried either of those. I have seen some folks out here on the forum doing both of those however. For me,, at least for now, I'm gonna keep on playing with doctrine off and enjoy watching subs be subs !!!

I think the problem is escorting.... I've seen subs attack on the surface. Are you using single ships, unescorted small convoys, or large convoys? I've noticed subs NEVER attack large convoys on the surface.

I even had Mike alter the code so subs do attack more on the surface, though I think he could enhance the effect of it.

1. The British need a base to do merchant conversions.
I am not even sure if British ships can convert, I have never sailed one all the way to Mare to try.
Assuming they can, there needs to be a base to do this at.
Karachi or Columbo or Diamond Harbour or Trincomalee would work
Trincomalee gets my pick
If British ships cannot conver then it would be nice for a future patch to let them convert.

This isn't really an issue, but a wish. While I would like it to be done, I realistically don't see Britain expending the effort since her main convoy lanes aren't affected (i.e., they aren't U boats in the Atlantic). That said, British merchantmen I do believe can be converted in the US. Which makes sense, because in the stock game there are only one kind of Allied Q ships, and they have US armaments and as such would require a US base to convert. So I don't really see this happening, as to add such a feature would require a restart, unless Mike could create a thing to interject new ship classes into save games.

2. If at all possible there needs to be a scout and shadow mission type.
It is very hard to scout in this game given that it is the spawn of WitP which relied on airplanes.
A scout mission would enter into combat to identify ship types and numbers and break off ASAP, most of the time before shots were fired.
A shadow TF would hook itself to an enemy TF and follow it never entering into combat.
It would be based on ship speeds, commanders, weather etc etc

Again, not an issue per se, but a really good idea. We have covered (in the tutorials I believe), how to create scout TFs. The key is using low aggression commanders and fast ships. If any TFs get added, I am putting the commerce raider TF at the front of the list.

3. The Dutch need repair facilities, makes no sense for them to have a navy but not the facilities to repair and mantain it.
I would give Soerabaja a 25 repair port and Batavia a 15

As far as I can tell, all repair facilities in the NEI where for light, small craft (Yachts, maybe torpedo boats, and small submarines(. All major repair of cruisers, destroyers, and coast battleships would probably have to be done at Singapore. PLus, for those who have WitP and WPO, it makes no sense that the DEI have better ports in the game set 20 years earlier. Rather than let all ships be repaired, it made more sense to me to have Dutch ships repair at Singapore or Manila.

1. They must attack on the surface more often against every from DD level on down.
This is true 1920s sub doctrine

Agree to an extent. Remember, post 1920's US Sub doctrine was to fire torpedoes from 100 feet by sound only. They should attack more often on the surface, but not exclusively. That said, I think they should attack far more than they do now.

2. They need to have accidents. Random battery explosions, random malfunctions.
etc.
Subs need to be damaged or lost. That is how most subs pre-WW2 were lost

I would like ot see it done, but I don't see it happening anytime soon. Many WW2 boats were lost this way (Tang, Squalus, etc), and we haven't yet seen it in WitP. I've come up with an idea or two on how to do it, but nothing can happen until Mike can revisit the game's code.

3. They need to have fewer attack chances.
Subs were good scouts. This should not be reduced. They should enter the combat screen and be able to identify ships for scouting purposes.

This I agree with, but what needs to happen here is that the torpedoes should have a significant;y reduced chance of hitting/detonating. Many times in WW1 subs fired torpedoes, often that were wasteful shots.


I am strongly thinkin gof implementing my pre beta torpedo idea, where torpedoes would be worthless, and would probably bring down sub kills significantly.

THe original idea, as it was.

All torpedoes have a base 60% dud rate. This represents 4 things: 10% chance to not leave the tube, 30% chance of not exploding, 10% chance of running deep, and a 10% chance of running erratic.

Then, on a torpedo by torpedo case, add 10% more dud rate for age, 10% for increased dud rate, 10% for ranges over 7,000 yards, or 10% more of a known problem with the torpedo (such as a known dud rate, known running deep, lack of a good firing system, etc).

Under this system, no torpedo can have over 90% dud rate, but also not less than 60%. This means 3 out of every 5 torpedoes fired can not explode or hit, nevermind a case by case chance. In combat, this can be assumed the torpedo jammed, ran erratic, ran deep, hit but didn't explode, or various other things.

I proposed this idea during the beta phase, but the beta's weren't too enthusiastic about it (they felt it too high). I am willing to listen to player comments on it now. (Trying to judge. Some of you think its "broken", some think it is "perfect", others are neutral. I have yet to have a major issue with subs while playing the game.)

Subs should make surface attacks even if DD and Q ships are present.
A convoy is a very large and very spread out thing.
A sub could surface and make an attack and dive again before a armed ship could be on the scene.

I laid it all out in another thread. But the chances of attack on the surface (and getting away with it) should be based on commander skill, agression, size of convoy, number of armed ships in the convoy, weather and speed of the sub.
A timid commander would hardly ever make surface attacks in the face of opposition. Only unescorted or very light escorted convoys would he attack.
An agressive commander would attack almost no matter what. If he was good and had some luck he would get away with it.
Most torpedo attacks should be on the surface.
As it is now deck guns are completly worthless. This is simply out of line with doctrine.

Most attacks should occur like so.
1. Make out the convoy
2. Judge escorts
3. Runs the checks above
4. Choose whether or not to surface/try a submerged attack or break off
5. Choose a target
6. Fire torpedos based on doctrine. Merchants and DDs only get 1-2
7. If time and saftey permit finish off the target with the deck gun
8. Submerge and make escape

I may finally have to disagree here. While we can't say what a particular sub commander might do ... it would be significantly less likely for sub commanders to attack warships, on the surface, during the day. So, if you are saying subs should attack warships on the surface during the day, I would say that would be extremely rare. In these cases the sub would most likely let the target go.

Also, in WWI sub commanders learned to be extremely wary of approaching merchant ships on the surface, because they wanted to check them out first. The Q-Ships did go to great lengths to disguise themselves ( carrying extra crew members who would put away in the boat(s) while other remained hidden and manned the guns ) ... so if a sub commander "fails" his "Q-Ship Detection" die roll .. then yes I'd agree he would "attack" on the surface ( usually he had already attacked, but to complete the process with the deck gun and allow himself to be "caught" on the surface by the Q-Ship ). But if he "passes" his Q-ship detection check, then he would finish with another torpedo, so as to avoid exposing himself to the Q-Ship. WWI submarines accounts contain numerous examples of these types of behaviors.

Between the wars, most ( at least the important submarine ) nations accepted something equivalent to "The submarine is a weapon of position and surprise" ... what this meant was the submarine was to position itself ( submerged ) along the likely path of the warship ( position ) and when the warship hove into view, launch its submerged, daylight, torpedo attack. Even as late as 1935 when Doenitz took command of the U-boat force, this was the "official" concept. However, we can wonder about that because night, surface torpedo attack training was a frequent requirement for new commanders. But officially, even the German Navy indicated that submarines were supposed to attack warhips ( not merchant ships ) during the day, submerged.

It just turned out that both the Germans and the Americans figured out that night surface attacks were much more effective. Daylight surface attacks against warship task forces though, I won't say it was zero .. but I think the number of such attacks we could count on the figures of our hands ...

My assumption is that in any war happening during our period, either the nation or the submarine commanders figure out ( either before or during the war ) that night surface attacks are the way to go, and they go that way. Regardless of doctrine before the war. Reality will intervene. I even prefer to assume that both sides decide it is ok to shoot at merchant ships ( this is more debateable - but for example the IJN sank about 60 merchant ships in the first 6 months of WWII ... you can't do that in WITP with doctrine on .. in fact it is very hard to do it with doctrone off ... in other words, the Japanese didn't follow their own doctrine ! And as for the Americans, there were ordered to execute unrestricted submarine warfare against Japan even before our declaration of war !!! So we didn't wait too long to give up the "immoral" attacks against merchant ships idea ! )

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

I may finally have to disagree here. While we can't say what a particular sub commander might do ... it would be significantly less likely for sub commanders to attack warships, on the surface, during the day. So, if you are saying subs should attack warships on the surface during the day, I would say that would be extremely rare. In these cases the sub would most likely let the target go.

A sub should NEVER attack anything CL or above on the surface.

Based on aggression level and number of escorts there should be attack where Q ships, DDs, PGs etc are present.

ORIGINAL: Fallschirmjager

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

I may finally have to disagree here. While we can't say what a particular sub commander might do ... it would be significantly less likely for sub commanders to attack warships, on the surface, during the day. So, if you are saying subs should attack warships on the surface during the day, I would say that would be extremely rare. In these cases the sub would most likely let the target go.

A sub should NEVER attack anything CL or above on the surface.

Based on aggression level and number of escorts there should be attack where Q ships, DDs, PGs etc are present.

Ok fair enough, so can we say that you are speaking about convoy attacks only ?

If so, does this mean you think attacks on warships are modelled ( more or less ) correctly ?

One reason I ask is because if I remember correctly PKPOWERS was concerned primarily about warships being attacked/hit too easily. So your concern about convoy's being the primary issue would be ( similar but ) different.

I guess I'm trying to zero in on what you are saying the problem is, so that we all understand exactly what you are saying.


So I think you're saying the problem is that you are seeing too many merchant ships hit by the submarines and that the game is telling you that these attacks are submerged attacks, is this correct ? Could you also clarify which side you're seeing get the hits ? Or have you seen both sides do this.

Thanks.



So the next issue to discuss is day light versus night.

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

ORIGINAL: Fallschirmjager

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

I may finally have to disagree here. While we can't say what a particular sub commander might do ... it would be significantly less likely for sub commanders to attack warships, on the surface, during the day. So, if you are saying subs should attack warships on the surface during the day, I would say that would be extremely rare. In these cases the sub would most likely let the target go.

A sub should NEVER attack anything CL or above on the surface.

Based on aggression level and number of escorts there should be attack where Q ships, DDs, PGs etc are present.

Ok fair enough, so can we say that you are speaking about convoy attacks only ?

If so, does this mean you think attacks on warships are modelled ( more or less ) correctly ?

One reason I ask is because if I remember correctly PKPOWERS was concerned primarily about warships being attacked/hit too easily. So your concern about convoy's being the primary issue would be ( similar but ) different.

I guess I'm trying to zero in on what you are saying the problem is, so that we all understand exactly what you are saying.


So I think you're saying the problem is that you are seeing too many merchant ships hit by the submarines and that the game is telling you that these attacks are submerged attacks, is this correct ? Could you also clarify which side you're seeing get the hits ? Or have you seen both sides do this.

Thanks.



So the next issue to discuss is day light versus night.

Yes, if a sub attacks a group of 4 DDs, it should do so under the surface.

I do have a problem with warship attacks. They are numerous and sucessful.
One problem is that players are way way more agressive than any real life commander.
Even the most timid player will have a bloodier game than any real life war.
Why do you think there was only one Jutland? Neither side was eager to mix it up with.
Tens of thousands of lives were at stake, thousands of manhours to build the ships and tens of millions of millions of dollars were at stake.
In WPO a player does not have to face the families when 4 of his BB are under the bottom of the ocean.
They simply yawn and eat another handful of chips at their desk.

So we may be seeing alot of attacks due to the fact that players are never really concerned with areas of high submarine activity.
I think subs should be toned down in the number of attacks they are able to get off, and number of sucessful attacks.

But my #1 issue I want to see fixed is that subs attack on the surface the vast majority of the time.
Believe it or not, my ideas would actualy make subs more powerful in some respects.
Subs on the surface would be much faster and able to get into a better attack posistion.
I would also like to see Tanker make torpedo attack on the surface have a better success rate than the baseline 40%
If a surface attack happens the sub would be in at close range and be very close to the 90 degrees that torpedos work best in.

It would decrease their power vs warships but give them better odds against light escorts and cargo ships.
They would be able to fire torpedos on the surface and get their deck gun into action.
This would give them more ammo and allow them to stay out to sea longer.

I do have a problem with warship attacks. They are numerous and sucessful.
One problem is that players are way way more agressive than any real life commander.

Could you give us some data about these warship attacks ? How many warships ( especially dreadnought BB/BC ) were sunk ( unassisted ) by submarines in your games so far ?
( so far in my games - to my knowledge it is zero ). I have seen one Brit BC sunk by sub attack, but the Brit BC had been beat up in two prior surface battles and was running ( well maybe crawling ) for home when the sub provided the coup de grace. Other than that, I believe I've seen 2 DD sunk by subs ( and I just sank one of those tonight ! ).

I agree that players may be more agressive than real commanders - remember Churchill's statement about Jellicoe - something to the effect of "He is the only man who can lose the war in a day" - quite a weight on ones shoulders ! So not just having to face the parents - but also having to face everyone in the nation if you "lose the war in a day". But interestingly Jellicoe was finally canned ( as First Sea Lord ) for failing to beat the german submarines ! So back to submarines, maybe you're saying the players are more aggressive with their submarines than in real life ? Remember these are "60 miles hexes" ( how many times have we seen that excuse in WITP forum ! ) but really, I should be able to drive my subs around the enemy ports. It does not mean I am inside the port trying to steal some fuel from the dock. I am just somewhere inside the ( 60 mile ) hex ... I don't consider that to be overly aggressive ( if this is what you were referring to ).

But my #1 issue I want to see fixed is that subs attack on the surface the vast majority of the time.
Believe it or not, my ideas would actualy make subs more powerful in some respects.
Subs on the surface would be much faster and able to get into a better attack posistion.

I guess one thing is that I was trying to distinguish "what we want" from "what we see as problems" .. two step process in my book ... (1) ID the problem ... (2) Discuss possible solutions .. just want to make sure we don't skip step (1).

Subs should attack on the surface most of the time, if it is advantageous for them to do so. If a sub commander is facing a heavily escorted convoy in daylight, then the sub commander will not necessarily commit suicide by attacking on the surface. It this case, the commander may let the convoy go. The cdr could do as many German and US commanders did, try an "end around" if the sub is faster than the convoy and then attack after sun down ( on the surface ! ).

But I thought somewhere in here, you were advocating for subs to be attacking more on the surface to increase their vulnerability to the return gun fire of either armed merchant ships or the escorts. If we can convince ourselves that the subs really are attacking too often, then something may need to be done. I agree that subs should attack on the surface when that is to their advantage, but if the sub does not perceive this to be to their advantage ( like in most daylight situations ) then the sub would not attack unless it is in a "perfect" ( due to luck ) position. This is still possible, but perhaps ( I don't have enough data yet ) it happens to much in the game currently.

Well I can now report that I have seen one dreadnought ship sunk ( unaided ) by submarines. This is from a Jutland Scenario ( doctrines off ). The ship in question, BB Monarch was hit multiple times by submarine torpedoes over multiple turns, so this was not a one shot-Boom-gone scenario.

Ouch - is that my ship?

If you remind me the real-life date it was sank on, I'll post a screenshot of its damage just before the attack.

I don't remember exactly .. but it was about 3 turns ago in the Jutland scenario ...

My memory may be faulty but it looks kind of fishy: it sank *at* Honk Kong? I have a feeling the ship did walk away from that sub and sank maybe a turn or two thereafter... I lost a couple of ships like that - right next to the repair pier... But I may be wrong.

Anyways, here's something similar. A BCs takes 3 torpedo hits and... take a look.

The only opponents it met were Mitsubishi B1M1s (2 hits) and a SS (1 hit). It had no damage from enemy surface units.

5 torpedo hits, fewer if shell damage taken, is the magic formula?

I agree that subs are still hitting too much. My only real game features an Allied Invasion of Formosa, so there is an undue concentration of subs and BBs in a small area. I have hit at least a dozen BBs with sub torpedoes (in about two weeks time). But like I say, I have been concentrating my subs there.

As for the subs themselves, might I suggest that as a quick fix, have submarines accumulate operational sys damage a lot quicker than other ships. This will force both commanders to rotate their subs and guarantee that quite a lot of them are in the yards for refits. An ideal situation would be where only half to a third of all submarines could be a sea at any one time without totally wearing out the force-This would also give a commander the option of sending subs on routine patrols or holding them in port for big operations. Submarines were delicate, leaky, balky things during the interwar period and this would simulate this very well.

I would also like to see a slightly higher miss (dud) rate against warships. Seems Ok against merchants.

I very much like the idea of a "scout or shadow" command if it could be worked into the present framework of the game.

(the ship sank the next night with no further damage added)

I would also like to see a slightly higher miss (dud) rate against warships. Seems Ok against merchants.

I'm still having to disagree ... in a PBEM campaign I have yet to hit anything larger than a DD with subs ... I've missed 8 times out of 8 against dreadnought class ships so far in 6 weeks of one game. I'll vote for less misses at this point.

I'm not sure I've counted all the misses ( but I have counted "ALL" the hits ) ... but in one of my ( 2 current ) PBEM campaign games ... I think we have now 9 misses for 9 shots ( 0 for 9 ) against warships larger than DD ... here is another ... my opponent missing this time - at least showing that it isn't just Japanese subs that can't hit anything ! But looks like we've"optimized" things so that subs can't hit warships already !!! ( larger than DD anyway ! )

I did have a BC hit by a sub. I think I had some of my BBs hit too. That's in Jutland. 1924.

Most of your tests are from 1922, correct? When subs have night experience of 20-30? Let's wait a year...