Subs a gathering of ideas

[wobbly]

It is my feeling, and I think, due to the lack of new "patch XXX is broken" posts that the game may almost be perfect...

Except, it seems, for the subs issue. Aircraft functionality really does feel about right - there are a few anomalies but this is a war simulation - and war is a gauranteed stuff up.

So, stealing from various sub threads form other posters, these are outstanding issues:

Subs must be in enemy ports to really be effective. This smacks of unreality as ASW assets will know the nooks and crannies of their port's underwater topography better than anywhere else. At current level this leaves the Japs very vulnerable as they have lesser capability to fight back.
Fixes: ASW assets have an increased ability against subs in base hexes - I think this one is a necessity - and includes aircraft on ASW. This, however, causes the subs a greater deal of trouble finding the enemy. I am unsure what conclusion the forum has come to as to whether the subs have a chance to interdict TF's at each movement phase - my understanding was they can. THerefore, to make them a little more effective - how does a "react to enemy" switch, like air and surface groups have. This would have to be added to a scouting function - i.e they have a chance of spotting a TF in an adjacent hex.

Number of attacks in a turn. Some posters have expressed chagrin over the number of attacks a sub can have a turn. I don't altogether think this is that bad, if it becomes too dangerous to attack a base/port then you are going to want to have your subs at reasonable effectiveness if they do manage to intercept a TF. However, in the interests of debate:
Fixes: allow a second attack on a TF in a turn to take place against hightened ASW capability - the ASW assets are awake to your presence so should be more diligent.

Refuel/rearming of your subs. At present they can rearm and refuel (if said supplies/fuel are present) at any of your bases. As in fact can all TF's - for subs this is the most gamey though (they are invisible and unlikely to stay in port so have fast turn around).
Fixes: have a minimum port size required to rearm/refuel subs - and possibly all TF's (personally don't think the last is necessary) maybe of port size 1 (any larger and forward sub bases are nearly impossible to build - you can after all capture a larger port).

Allied SS type subs. Seem altogether too effective, we know they had the older torps with contact fuses but they were also leaky sieves that broke down very easily and often.
Fixes: give them a lower threshhold for system damage.

Sub targets - at present the subs seem to attack destroyers and other ASW assets often - they are the subs primary enemy; why would you shake the hornets nest. I don't know how worried I am about this one - a target is a target after all. Jap sub doctrine not withstanding the subs should have a priority of transport/tanker ships and warships of highest value down. the greater the ASW composition of a TF the harder it should be to get to the desired target.

Information on Sub attacks, now this one is personal, have a little more information in the attack screens - like we now have for aircraft, i.e. sub pierces ASW picket (depends on ASW assets in TF) and attacks convoy/high value assets; sub sights TF cannot get into attack position - TF too fast/ wrong angle of attack etc; sub forced to attack ASW picket.

Sub kill board: when a sub attacks a ship, get hits and on affirmation of a sinking the sub gets a skull for its jolly roger:D

Well I've written a novel, sorry about that, hope I've got everything.

[WW2'er]

Nice Post Wobbly!

[madflava13]

Nice post...
I just have one point I wanted to disagree with. I don't like the idea of limiting multiple allied attacks or allowing them with increased ASW presence. Historically (and I reference books such as Wahoo! and Clear the Bridge by O'Kane) US subs often conducted multiple attacks in the same area in the same day (often on different targets). This was especially true in the areas around Formosa, the Yellow Sea and off of Japan. Remember, ship radiosets were still not common in merchant ships, so the warning didn't always get out right away.

I think to limit such attacks would be contrary to what is historically accurate - that is, if the targets are there, and all other factors being equal, the US subs often did make those multiple attacks...

Just my $.02.

[GunRange]

I don't know for sure, but for instance, Rabaul and Brisbane seem like ports protected with all kinds of ASW weapons not modeled in game. I mean subnets, gates in those and half a million small patrolcraft armed with searchlight and rifle. These would seriously hamper patrols in hi-value ports and reduce survivability dramatically.

I presume that subnets etc. were used in this region, pls correct me if I am wrong.

[madflava13]

I know nets were used by the Allies all over the place... I'm not sure about Rabaul, because I know one US Sub did penetrate into Rabaul harbor (its a bay of sorts - several miles long). The sub got a few miles up, close enough to see shore installations, before skedaddling from intense ASW presence (planes and Chidoris)... Also, the Wahoo penetrated Wewak harbor in Dec. 1942, I believe. No nets there.

When the subs are in Rabaul's hex in the game, I think that means they're in the approaches to the harbor, sitting off the bay...

[wobbly]

madflave - i agree - i think multiple attacks are fine - some don't hence the "add for debate" quote. I especially agree with you if we follow on from GunRange's post that the bases should really not be as condusive for sub activity as they are now (due to anti-sub ddevices not modeled), therefore we really do want to have every opportunity to hammer a TF we do find in the open.

[jcjordan]

The thing I would like to add would be to have a chance of an attack whenever ships are in the same hex not just if they're in the same hex at the end of the turn or beginning as it seems to be now.

[rough44]

Totally agree with Wobbly that beside the "sub issue" the game is pretty much beautifull in all respects.

However the allied subs, if employed aggressively (as most human players do) tend to parylize the Japanese player. One must set many of his air units to ASW duty and strip most task forces of its DD escorts to create sub-hunting TFs just to keep the traffic going through the major bases.

Also allied sub commanders' fearlessness is disturbing... as noted, fully funtional destroyer or damaged 3 knots transport seem to be all the same meat to them.

Also as noted by Wobbly and other players. early allied torpedo problem doesn't seem to be simulated.

A sub, bomber, and surface ship kill board would be nice.
It'd be nice to know Yuzuki sunk that damned S-44 on May 10 1942...

[popejoy1]

Hi!

The lack of multiple or reaction attacks by submarines doesn't seem ahistorical to me, based on the accounts of submarine warfare I have read. Various submarine histories are replete with reports of submarines that heard contacts but were unable to get close enough to engage, or that saw them but were unable to catch the target.

In thinking about submarine "reaction" and "multiple" attacks, I would consider two things:

1. The hexes in UV are 30 miles wide (per the manual). That's a lot of ocean to search using a low-slung platform like a submarine. The earth's curvature limits the submarines' search radius to a few miles or so, depending on whether the submarine is surfaced or submerged, and whether it has radar or not, weather, day/night, etc.

2. Submarines had very limited search and attack ranges.

Submarines tended to operate submerged during the day. A submerged submarine can see ships within a few miles, and hear things at somewhat greater distances, but its slow submerged speed limits its ability to catch the target. A surfaced submarine at night can move much more quickly, but its diesels deafen the sonar and nighttime limits visibility. Radar increases the submarines detection radius, but it can't cover an entire UV hex. If the enemy TF falls within that small detection and tactical engagement circle, the sub can attack; otherwise, it has to wait for another day.

BTW, should we change the rule on "inherent" ASW values of ports? According to the manual, submarines are prohibited from attacking TFs or ships in harbor if the port value is 3 or more. The "three" limit is presumably modelling the combined effect of submarine nets, base ASW patrols, etc.

One other note: based on my experience in playing the non S-class submarines (the non S-class ones use the defective Mk. 14 torpedoes), I would say the Allied submarine torpedo deficiencies are modelled fairly well.

Just my $0.02!

[GunRange]

Originally posted by popejoy1

BTW, should we change the rule on "inherent" ASW values of ports? According to the manual, submarines are prohibited from attacking TFs or ships in harbor if the port value is 3 or more. The "three" limit is presumably modelling the combined effect of submarine nets, base ASW patrols, etc.

Doh! RSRMM (Really should read manuals more).

As subs penetrating harbours go, it doesn't mean that there were no nets. U-47 penetrated Scapa Flow and sunk HMS Royal Oak, and there were about as many nets and other ASW systems you could find anywhere in world.

[bilbow]

Agree with pretty mush everything. Good summary, Wobbly.

I would emphasize the need to deter subs congregating port hexes. It should be a lot more dangerous than it is.

The s-boats are much too effective. For the Allied player they become the preferred platform. In reality they were leaky old crates. Maybe they should start with about 20 system damage to relflect this. Even with the better torpedo, they shouldn't be more effective than the new fleet boats.

[rough44]

Actually U-47 got to Scapa Flow on the one night that the sub net was removed ( on 13-14 Oct. 'cause it was rusted and new one was to be installed the next day).

Just like the Brits don't like to mention that Poles helped to crack the Enigma, they don't like to mention that Germans could read early UK navy comms. and it is most likely that Wilhelm Tranow's cryptologists from B-Dienst deciphered the messages that specified when the net in Kirk Sound will be removed.

As for the UV sub problem, even if the subs can't attack level 3 ports they still seem to be too effective lurking in the harbour and attacking anything that goes through while Jap escorts just watch the fireworks.

[loader6]

Subs are by far the thing I fear most the the Japanese player. For some reason whenever they hit a convoy, my DD commander's are too afraid to attack the sub, or too stupid, not sure which. Actually, they're probably afraid since the subs love to sink DD's. I find it really riduculous that one of my planes has spotted a sub, and then that sub puts a torpedo into a well guarded convoy. Maybe not all merchant ships had radios, but I'm guessing the destroyers did and word would be passed to them. I definately think something needs to be done about the subs and how effective they are.

Also, are we sure that subs can't attack TF that move through as opposed to stop in their hex? From my experience it seems like they do attack TF's passing through their hex, but I may be wrong.

[madflava13]

Originally posted by rough44

However the allied subs, if employed aggressively (as most human players do) tend to parylize the Japanese player. One must set many of his air units to ASW duty and strip most task forces of its DD escorts to create sub-hunting TFs just to keep the traffic going through the major bases.

I'm not jumping on rough44 here, but he happened to say this most clearly of all the sub detractors - those of you who take the point of view that Allied subs are too effective - I ask you, what happened historically? Subs paralyzed the Japanese.

I know early war torp problems and all are good counter-arguments at first blush, but even from the beginning, US subs were sinking a couple japanese ships per week. I don't have the book with me (I'm at school until May), but Roscoe's book on US Submarine operations has a list in the back of losses to US subs by week -- there's more than a couple per week throughout the war.

In addition, I don't think the S-boats are overly effective. They did have a better torpedo than the fleet boats at the beginning of the war, so the higher kills are not an impossibility. S-39 put down the CA Kako following Savo Island, a sinking many on this board would consider proof of improperly tweaked sub ratings. As the saying goes, the sun even shines on a dog's *** every once in awhile...

And in my games, while the S-boats lead the kill totals at first, they're all dead within a few months if I use them aggressively (and effectively). They're light-skinned in the game, trust me.

Ok, well I've let my obsession with subs rant on long enough... As always, just my $.02

[Grumbling Grogn]

...I disagree that the "issue" with subs is the biggest thing against UV... But we won't go there.

As for the torps problems I think they are pretty close from what I have seen in UV and what I have read.

As for ports they are fine. Just because your sub is in the port hex that does not mean your sub actually enters the port :rolleyes:

Rather the subs are lurking just outside the port (the hexes ARE 30 freakin miles across ) and the subs are trying for ships as they come and go. Every book I have read about sub tactics suggests this is exactly the place where subs would lurk. Close enough to ports to get passing traffic, yet far enough out to sea to be able to avoid the harbor-bound ASW. No, harbors are fine IMHO.

Also, subs did not generally submerge during the day as a rule unless in a very dangerous location. It was pretty rare that a good sub crew could be caught on the surface in daylight by aircraft (let alone a tin can) before RADAR. And that is not an issue for USN subs VS IJN planes and ships during this time period (AFAIK).

I think perhaps the AI for subs just needs to be tweaked so that they are not quite as agressive. And maybe the VP value of subs should be adusted as well in order to make players think twice about setting 4 subs around Truk.

[bradfordkay]

I find that I have had very good luck (so far playing as the US) in setting subs on the approaches to enemy bases. I have sent the occaisional sub into a port to go after a particularly important convoy or invasion force, but I prefer to keep them in deep water on the approaches. This has resulted in a lot of attacks with a lower ratio of sinkings, but far greater survivability for the subs.

[popejoy1]

Hi!

Grognard - your are correct that submarines did not submerge during daylight except in dangerous locations; however, from my reading of submarine histories, such as RADM (ret) O'Kane's Wahoo and Clear the Bridge, and Blair's Silent Victory, anywhere within search range of an enemy airbase was considered a "dangerous location." Since a goodly piece of the UV map seems to be within range of Japanese search planes (in my games they've been reported as spotting ships just outside of Brisbane), it seems to me the rule of submerged operations in daylight would apply. Besides, you never know when an enemy battlegroup will be nearby with its search planes out...

Here's a brief excerpt from Wahoo, describing its approach to the Solomons in late 1942:

"Towards noon on November 14, we came within aerial search of Mili Atoll and dived for the rest of the day. Again on the fifteenth we dived for the day.... Only seabirds came within view, so on the sixteenth Wahoo continued on the surface, with Mili ... about 120 miles distant. The seabird warning was correct, and a plane at six miles on the SD [air search radar] sent us down for another day."

I believe the "seabird warning" is a reference to the idea that if you're close enough to shore for seabirds to find you, you're close enough for land-based aircraft to find you.

Just $0.02 more!

[Grumbling Grogn]

I hear you and I have read the same books as well ("Warfish" about the Wahoo got me started on autobiographical stuff in middleschool).

But you also know from reading those books that many times they were within search plane range (almost the entire area of UV) and they did not dive for the entire day.

Also note from your own quote that the sub does not dive until after it spotted a plane on radar.

If a sub routinely dived at dawn it would be basically screwed for a good portion of each day should it even be lucky enough to find a target because before dusk and all of early evening the sub would be working off of reduced batteries. Never a good idea when you might have to spend the entire night running from DDs (not to mention perhaps the next day as well).

But, also a submerged sub can not spot anything nearly as well as it can when it is on the surface. The extra height provided by the conning tower when on the surface (esp. if the periscope/radar is used extened at full height when while the sub is on the surface) makes spotting targets while on the surface much more likely.

From what I have read it was pretty rare for a sub to spot something on radar before they spotted it visually in WW2. The old coal/oil fired engines put out a lot of smoke that was visible over the horizon by a well trained lookout.

[wobbly]

The main didfficulty over this (attacks in port) problem is, as always, the difference between historical facts and game playability.

I now know, unfortunately I haven't had the pleasure of reading these autobiographies, that subs did venture into ports or the entrances to ports. However, i am pretty certain you would agree that doing so was considered by the commander as being of teh highest risk.

From my perspective, parking 4 subs in a base hex for turn after turn does not emulate this risk closely enough.

In history they used ports or their approaches to hunt, but in the game doing so seems to be too on the profit side of the ledger rather than the loss.

[Yamamoto]

If you don’t like the concept of subs sitting within 30 miles of a port (i.e. the same hex) then think of them as being within a 12-hour movement of that hex. Since you can’t intercept ships in transit, you can think of those subs as really being several hexes away and intercepting the ships in one of those hexes. It’s just because of program limitations that we have to actually put the sub in the port hex.

Anyway, my Japanese subs sure aren’t invulnerable. When I place them in enemy ports they often get damaged or sunk. I’d be happy to place them farther out if I could intercept ships in transit.

Yamamoto