U-boats ...

[firepowerjohan]

This is a pseudo example with FoW off just to show the positions. As can be seen, the new convoys always appear on edges of map, Axis Subs are placed so that they can spot (again not evident since FoW is off) them and you see the mid and the south convoy can here be attacked by at leist 2 subs. If Axis here attacks the Sub in the South edge of map there is just one BB within reach and after losing like 20 PP from 2 attacks the BB comes in and do maybe level score with the Sub and the total economic cost is in the example clearly larger for Allies.

Allies also here have almost all their navy in the Atlantic yet cannot reach any edge with more than 1-2 ships and this means that for this strateggy Italian navy would be uncontested in the Mediterranean providing good support for their units in Africa. Quite usually Allied navy travel to Mediterranean to help out and this mans tghe escort lines are so thin that sometimes even a incoming escort can be outnumbered and sunk by Subs so there are several ways the Sub wars can happen

http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtop ... 4100#34100

If we are to simulate realistic hit areas of real WW2 as Hans suggest then we also need to consider that movement rates, size of the Atlantic also need to be changed and then we would not have a 150x72 map but perhaps a 220x72 map and with movement rates where a ship moves 60 hexes so it all has to be compromised into gameplay somewhere to make it playable. We could have some special Sub rules in addition to their invisibility and we will see what is done about it in the future.

The problem is, we have received very little detailed reports from screenshots and AAR from players so means it takes longer time before sorting out exactly why problems occur and someone saying "I attack a convoy and then all my subs are sunk" does not explain the cause of it hence we do not jump to conclusion until we have more facts but we are working on it. But I would not say that Subs are totally useless as is now just very hard to learn and further improvements are just fine tuning. I have seen successfull sub strategies in tcpip used.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: firepowerjohan

This is a pseudo example with FoW off just to show the positions. As can be seen, the new convoys always appear on edges of map, Axis Subs are placed so that they can spot (again not evident since FoW is off) them and you see the mid and the south convoy can here be attacked by at leist 2 subs. If Axis here attacks the Sub in the South edge of map there is just one BB within reach and after losing like 20 PP from 2 attacks the BB comes in and do maybe level score with the Sub and the total economic cost is in the example clearly larger for Allies.

Have you added the economic cost in oil to Germany of moving the subs to the south edge of the map? After doing this, is the economic cost to the for the action you described still greater for the Allies?

The link doesn't work. I was actually curious to see what you mean about the convoys and the edge of the map. Your written description is a little cryptic to me.

I'm afraid I have to agree with the Judge's approach as it is exactly the approach I took. The main convoy route between the U.S. and Britain is the naturally intuitive location for early sub operations. In the early part of the war, before the Alies put together an effective convoy escort system the uboats raped the Allied merchant marine along this route. This is the natural approach most players will take.

It appears the convoy escort system is far, far too effective in the early game. The Germans didn't disperse to make their emphasis on the periphery until after the convoy escort system started to dominate the central lanes. Players, at least some of us, aren't ever going to be willing to accept the answer "you have to attack the periphery". We shouldn't HAVE to attack the periphery to be effective until 1943. Up until then we SHOULD be able to implement a viable strategy attacking thye central lanes. This is what the game mechanics need to reflect.

[JudgeDredd]

Well, I'm not really interested in "historically this happened" or "historically that happened" and so don't want to get into that.

What I would liek is a workable "sub" solution, either in the form of workable tactics with the game as is, or with a change where it is workable because, as I've been playing it, it isn't workable. But I will give what Johan says a go and see what the results are.

[firepowerjohan]

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd

Well, I'm not really interested in "historically this happened" or "historically that happened" and so don't want to get into that.

What I would liek is a workable "sub" solution, either in the form of workable tactics with the game as is, or with a change where it is workable because, as I've been playing it, it isn't workable. But I will give what Johan says a go and see what the results are.

I hope you find the way to make em work [:)]
p.s I managed to link in the screenshot now.
http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtop ... 4100#34100
Anyone who knows how I post the screen directly here on Matrix instead of link, help would be appreciated

[Vypuero]

Subs can spot navies without any concern for being attacked until they are ready.  Just attacking anything you see is yes, a waste.  You need to plan and make sure the allied ships are out of range, or not get greedy and make a single pass, then run and wait for the next convoy or move elsewhere when the escorts come around.  It is quite possible as the navies cannot cover everything.  If they spread out too much, then a larger group of subs can even smash them as well. 

[JudgeDredd]

From that screenie, johan, it looks like you have positioned your subs way south of the convoy lanes though (where I would expect the convoy lanes to be between the US and UK)...so how would they be effective in an attack?

[firepowerjohan]

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd

From that screenie, johan, it looks like you have positioned your subs way south of the convoy lanes though (where I would expect the convoy lanes to be between the US and UK)...so how would they be effective in an attack?

The north convoy appear in the northwest edge of map.
Mid convoy appear on US east coast or abit below.
South Convoy appear on the south edge of map.

Since you can use Subs spread out to scout large areas being invisible you can soon have an impression whether there are areas with few Allied ships around.

[SeaMonkey]

Why not allow subs a shoot and scoot option.  Give them the benefit of attack->move, or move->attack->move->attack up to the exhaustion of there movement allowance which allocates some movement to the attack action.
 
In this manner subs can get that surprise first attack in(perhaps multiple attacks allowed) and then hopefully move away and hide.......   unless of course warships are in the vicinity/adjacent or get bumped into revealing the subs and stopping their movement that phase.
 
The allied player will be aware of the subs movement allowance and be able to compute a known area where the sub could possibly move to which instigates, "The Search" by the allied vessels and air units(CV spotting)(landbased operated in to spot).  This will also guide the Allied player to use his warships as escorts.
 
Institution of a mechanic like this might require adjustments to all naval vessels' movement allowances and air unit spotting, but that should be easily moddable.

[Syagrius]

It would make the subs too powerfull, I think subs are balanced as it is.

[JudgeDredd]

Ok Johan.

I tried a "sub" strat and it kind of works.

It's currently 2nd week in May 1940, I taken Poland, France and I have 8 subs...all sitting spaced out in the NA from the top of the map to the top of North Africa and I can, with some success, attack the odd convoy...but I have to be very careful, because if any allied shipping is present I am dead meat.

One problem that does exist though (and I think it's brought to light in this thread tm.asp?m=1591246 )...an allied battleship stumbled into my sub hex and a battle ensued....funny thing is, even though the battleship was the surprised one  and I lost 2 sub points to the battleship 1 (my sub had not attacked anything for a couple of turns and was just sitting in a hex...also it had moved AFTER it had attacked about 3
turns previously)

Now from what you say, I wouldn't mind losing 2, 3 maybe even 4 subs to a normal attack by a destroyer....but a surprised battleship? I do not like coming off worse in that scenario.

Anyway, I will keep testing the sub theory, because I have to try and attack more convoys and see the results...I have a sneaking suspicion I could lose all my subs by the end of 1941/42.

Another issue....it's not really worth the "distance and oil" to get a damaged sub back to base for repairs...so I suspect, at this stage, that the sub issue still needs a little bit of tweaking to be viable...

Anyway, I just wanted to post my findings.

Oh, and also, I am playing with max axis benefit

[davetheroad]

Why do convoys have 100% efficiency? When my subs attack it might give me a potential convoy loss of 13-14 but the actual combat never achieves this!
 
dave

[SMK-at-work]

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd

Well, I'm not really interested in "historically this happened" or "historically that happened" and so don't want to get into that.

pffttt....why bother with a "WW2" game in the first palce then??

What I would liek is a workable "sub" solution, either in the form of workable tactics with the game as is, or with a change where it is workable because, as I've been playing it, it isn't workable. But I will give what Johan says a go and see what the results are.

how do you define a "workable" solution if not by comparing it with history plus assumptions of what might be reasonable alternatives??

[Major Victory]

ORIGINAL: Joe 98

ORIGINAL: Major Victory

By the time any 1 sub is destroyed, you will hopefully have attritioned enough build points to justify the loss,

The thing is its not possible because the allied naval counterattack will badly damage or destroy the sub immedaintly.
-

If your attacking convoys in the South Atlantic, theres no way the allies have that many ships to attack your subs the next turn! between the fall of France and US entry, the Brits only have so many ships and even if they use all available BB & CV units, more than likely its to guard the larger North Altantic convoys, so if you notice this large ASW commitment, move on South,

Not to mention in this scenerio, your Italians must be having a field day in the Med, and Norway might be tempting!

[SMK-at-work]

it only takes a couple of cruisers to make the Sth Atlantic uneconomic - it's a long way back to Germany to repair wounded U-boats before France falls, and even after that happens the RN can spare cruisers and still leave BB's and CV's to take care of the Italians without tmuch bother.

[Major Victory]

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

it only takes a couple of cruisers to make the Sth Atlantic uneconomic - it's a long way back to Germany to repair wounded U-boats before France falls, and even after that happens the RN can spare cruisers and still leave BB's and CV's to take care of the Italians without tmuch bother.

If Britain's got "spare" cruisers in 1940-41, then I would assume that every build point they have received to that point has gone to building them, I might also assume that the Axis are kicking their butt everywere else on the board.

My expierence (human play only) is that usually 3 cruisers are on board on average in that period, they cannot be everywere at once.

[SMK-at-work]

 they don't have to be everywhere at once - their only job in life is u-boat hunting - they should not be anywhere except the Atlantic. 

[firepowerjohan]

Since there are 3-6 convoys on map at most times, I do not see how 3 DD can cover them and especially if 4 subs is attacking somwhere if just one DD is withing range that is no trouble it might even get sunk by the other subs before new DD's arrive. If you have 4 subs, and you used 2 of them to sink the damaged DD then you can place the remaining 2 to protect your flanks and being invisible they can almost match the nest turn incoming DD. If all 3 DD are withing range though, then the 4 subs will be in deep trouble as should be.

The toughest job for the Subs is if UK decide to put all their navy in the Atlantic but then they are also giving up on Africa.

[Vypuero]

People are making assumptions without enough playing experience - esp. Hans, for example.  You cannot just try a few times and decide it does not work when in fact it is simply a matter of better strategy.  The allied fleets can be spotted by the uboats, and the uboats are invisible to the allied fleets, and the convoys are not under their control either.  If you can't use that to your advantage, you are not trying hard enough.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: Vypuero

People are making assumptions without enough playing experience - esp. Hans, for example.  You cannot just try a few times and decide it does not work when in fact it is simply a matter of better strategy.  The allied fleets can be spotted by the uboats, and the uboats are invisible to the allied fleets, and the convoys are not under their control either.  If you can't use that to your advantage, you are not trying hard enough.

That is probably a fair assesment. I actualy stopped "trying" a long time ago as I haven't played this game since my hiatus from posting here started some time ago. I routinely pointed out from the get go that the game can be won easily by the Axis, playing against the AI, with absolutely no participation in the "naval game" at all. SMK threw down the gauntlet and challenged me to "prove" I could win against him while ignoring the naval game. What he persistently failed to realize is that I was predicating all of my criticisms on games against the AI. I would have been terribly disappointed if he COULDN'T have done better against me than the AI, which wouldn't have proven anything regarding my criticisms of play against the AI. I'm not trying to slam him here, I just guess he missed my point.

In light of the release of a patch, I decided to "look in" here again and found myself drawn into the discussion because I now see so many other people coming around to the very same conclusions I arrived at from the start. I find it rather ironic that the Judge is making the same critical assesments I made several months ago when no one seemed interested in listening to me.

All of the "the enemy can't have that many ships and they can't be everywhere" contentions seem to overlook the fact that we have been told by the designers if we want to play against the AI we should be giving the AI advantages which automatically means they WILL have "that many ships" that do seem to be able to be everywhere. FPJ already alluded to that caveat somehwere above.

The simple fact is the designer can't "have his cake and eat it to". It isn't fair to players playing against the AI to tell them that viable naval strategies only work against human opponets with neither side having an advantage while at the same time telling players playing against the AI that they have to give the AI advantages that will preclude a viable naval strategy. I can only hope you see my point.

[JudgeDredd]

It's probably fair to say that because I didn't/don't know how to use subs in this game that I made assumptions that something needed changing.

However, as I pointed out above, the way the mechanics have been explained, it does not work that a battleship can be surprised by my sub by inadvertantly entering the sub hex only for the sub to suffer a hit of 2 to the battleships 1.

Also, I play with fog of war on (always), so perhaps I have to play with fog of war off for a while, because I'd swear the allies have more naval units than those described. Certainly in my example above, the allies managed to get to a sub of mine and damage it to the point where it wasn't worth taking it all the way back to Germany (a good 3 or 4 turns + oil + cost of fixing + lower effectiveness due to replacements?)

I have placed my subs in a "line" north west to south east Atlantic so they can see what's coming and going and another 3 (8 in total) sitting behind this "wall" for interception...but I rarely see a convoy which doesn't have some sort of escort up it's arse.