Another thought on subs

Gary Grigsby’s World at War is back with a whole new set of features. World at War: A World Divided still gives complete control over the production, research and military strategy for your side, but in this new updated version you’ll also be able to bring spies into the mix as well as neutral country diplomacy, variable political events and much more. Perhaps the largest item is the ability to play a special Soviet vs. Allies scenario that occurs after the end of World War II.

Moderator: MOD_GGWaW_2

Post Reply
SGT Rice
Posts: 448
Joined: Sun May 22, 2005 3:05 pm

Another thought on subs

Post by SGT Rice »

I think the US entry effects from sub attacks are a good idea; they reflect a very important historical condition that helped push the US closer to war. On the other hand, they have made the German strategy of building and teching-up subs to interdict the convoy routes rather impractical; every time you get a US entry hit it's basically giving the WA 19 production points by advancing their gear-up by a turn.

Perhaps it would be possible to allow the Germans to engage in restricted sub warfare. This could be simulated by halving their torpedo attack rating (fractions rounded) up AND by lowering their evasion rating by one when attacking during the German turn. Once per turn Germany could select/deselect unrestricted sub warfare: selecting it would kick German subs up to full attack & evasion values; deselecting would lower them again.

When employing restricted sub warfare Germany would completely avoid US entry hits, simulating that the sub commanders are positively identifying targets, boarding them, allowing crews to evacuate, etc., thereby reducing the subs effectiveness and making themselves more vulnerable.
GG A World Divided Playtester
User avatar
Lebatron
Posts: 1625
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 4:27 pm
Location: Upper Michigan

RE: Another thought on subs

Post by Lebatron »

As you know, I have already addressed this fundamental problem in UV2.0 by reducing the chance of a WR bump and giving some space in the US WR scale for assumed bumps from sub action. I cover this in more detail in the readme. Other than those changes, I don't think reinventing the system is necessary because the US hits FM2 within +-1 of the Winter 42 turn on average. In our current game, I hit FM2 on the Fall 41 turn. Only one turn ahead of average. Plus you did take Norway and moved into China as well. 
Jesse LeBreton, AKA Lebatron
Development team- GG's WAW A World Divided
Lucky1
Posts: 383
Joined: Mon Oct 30, 2006 8:31 am

RE: Another thought on subs

Post by Lucky1 »

I think more work is needed. Simply put, subs are not 'rational' choices in the context of GGWAWAWD and do not adequately reflect their actual impact on England. In terms of their cost, and the costs of research required to make them useful, they are simply a drain on resources that Germany and/or Italy can ill afford (their opportunity cost is too high vis a vis the damage they actually cause). In both WWI and WWII they might have been able to starve England into submission, this is not really modeled in the game mechanics. Simply put, it is not possible to have a vigorous sub campaign contribute directly to AV. In this view, a lowly militia is more effective because he / she can occupy a land space (with victory points). Perhaps this is technically accurate, but I simply see the impact of subs on England as not being very significant at all -- especially after the US enters the war.

In terms of possible soultions, it might be useful to decrease a seazone's transport ability (supply and otherwise) by 1/2 for one turn for a power if a sub were to SINK a transport in the seazone. More controversially, one might even go further and have the AV threshold drop (or increase as Allies use subs vs. Japan) by 1/2 for one turn. This would make the allies use convoys (destroyer escorts) more often (historically accurate) and punish those who did not (as Japan never really did in WWII).

I am also a proponent of the suggestion that there be a chance for subs to be hidden if their evasion exceeds ASW. I do not see this as a massive disadvantage as was previously suggested, as it would simply have allies use convoys as actually occurred in WWII. Similarly, one might also factor in SIGINT (which is justifiably under-used as it does not deliver an awful lot of benefits) in detecting subs (reflects Ultra being compromised as well as developments in radar etc).

My $.02 for what it is worth.... I only wish that I had some programming ability so as to be able to attempt to mod some of these factors.

Kudos to the active members on this forum (you know who you are) and for the updates / mods that breath new life and renew interest into the game.
User avatar
Lebatron
Posts: 1625
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 4:27 pm
Location: Upper Michigan

RE: Another thought on subs

Post by Lebatron »

Lucky, thanks for the $.02 [:)]

Cost effectiveness of subs in UV2.0 is better than the stock scenarios. I feel it's very close to perfect at this point. Since your new, I would have to assume that you haven't played many by PBEM yet. Therefore you probably have not seen a good German player use U-boats very successfully. I'm sure if you had been the victim of a total blockade that shut British production down your opinion of U-boats would change.
Jesse LeBreton, AKA Lebatron
Development team- GG's WAW A World Divided
Lucky1
Posts: 383
Joined: Mon Oct 30, 2006 8:31 am

RE: Another thought on subs

Post by Lucky1 »

Although I have been around longer than you might think (oh, you are talking about the game....), I will admit that I have yet to encounter an axis opponent (rather than WA opponent vs. Japan) where subs were not a total fiasco. While this could have been a function of the calibre of my opponents, I am not so sure that it was. Until someone teaches me the lesson the hard way, I rather think that the same financial expenditure on armor, infantry or bombers (usable against naval, land and strategic/industrail targets) reaps higher dividends.

Tonight, I will try to download UV 2 and give it a shot. I enjoyed some of the changes in global glory (air attack distance 1 across straights, longer purchase times for strat bombers and fighters) so I am interested in giving your mods a shot. I should also try to get a PBEM going.... If there are any takers, we can try UV 2!

On a completely unrelated matter, I hope the next patch will look at the very annoying buy whereby the Russian AI is able to attack and then move (I presum strategically) all its units out of the territory. It is rather irritating...

Cheers,

Sean
User avatar
christian brown
Posts: 533
Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 6:10 pm
Location: Vista, CA
Contact:

RE: Another thought on subs

Post by christian brown »

Original: Lucky1
If there are any takers, we can try UV 2!

Try this: UV2.0 2x2 PBEM!! : )

Have fun with that ; )
"Those who would give up a little liberty for a little security deserve neither and will lose both."
~ Thomas Jefferson
Post Reply

Return to “Gary Grigsby's World at War: A World Divided”