Subs (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room



Message


ChadS -> Subs (10/3/2012 6:15:22 PM)

Hello!

Quick, simple question on subs--what is the reasoning for not putting subs into packs? I realize it's ahistoric for early in the war, but I haven't seen any comments on putting subs into wolf-packs at all. Is there a penalty? Is there no benefit of multiple subs in a location?

I'll recheck manual--I may have missed something.

Thanks!

Chad S.




Schanilec -> RE: Subs (10/3/2012 6:31:47 PM)

I believe it increases the detection level chances. But I also believe they have a better chance of intercepting enemy vessels. I getting near the point in my game of at least placing two subs into a single task force. About four more months anyway. And that is just me.




Sardaukar -> RE: Subs (10/3/2012 6:45:07 PM)

You only get one attack per TF in hex anyway (though chance of attack may increase with more subs in TF) and with more subs in TF, they are easier to detect.

So, not really worth it, IMHO.




Schanilec -> RE: Subs (10/3/2012 6:55:02 PM)

Bummer about the single attack. But that's the way it goes.




joey -> RE: Subs (10/4/2012 1:56:19 AM)

If I am correct, the Germans used submarine packs. The Pacific war was not about packs; It was about a sub and a convoy. Radar, sonar, leadership were part of the mix, but in the end, it was mano a mano.




Disco Duck -> RE: Subs (10/4/2012 2:12:22 AM)

I believe the U.S. tried Wolf packs late in the war. The problem with Wolf packs is it requires a lot of radio communications. The Germans got away with it early in the war but once four ship hunter killer groups and small flat tops got involved talking on the radio and telling everyone about where you were was fatal.




Puhis -> RE: Subs (10/7/2012 7:49:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

You only get one attack per TF in hex anyway




Not true.

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Jun 13, 43
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack near Sadogashima at 113,55

Japanese Ships
TK Kyokuzan Maru, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage

Allied Ships
SS Harder



SS Harder launches 2 torpedoes at TK Kyokuzan Maru


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submarine attack near Sadogashima at 113,55

Japanese Ships
TK Kyokuzan Maru, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage

Allied Ships
SS Harder



TK Kyokuzan Maru is sighted by SS Harder
SS Harder launches 4 torpedoes


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack near Sadogashima at 113,55

Japanese Ships
TK Sansho Maru, Shell hits 1, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage

Allied Ships
SS Harder



SS Harder attacking TK Sansho Maru on the surface




obvert -> RE: Subs (10/7/2012 8:24:58 PM)

Yeah, I've had a few multiple attacks from US subs lately in the same hex as well. Never 3 though! Yuck!

I'm just working on some sub and air ASW tests, which are interesting not only in how the air ASW works but also in how the detection levels play a part. I have one 2 sub TF, and of the 3 TFs in the area it was detected first, kept a higher consistent DL and was found every turn out of 9 run so far.




Alfred -> RE: Subs (10/7/2012 9:08:55 PM)

1. OK, to the OP and everyone else who has since responded, you should all read/reread this thread on sub operations.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2889330&mpage=1&key=wolfpack�

Don't forget to read all the embedded links to associated threads.

2.. It is good to see the OP in his various threads claims to check up on the manual before opening a thread. The manual is good but is a bit out of date. Searching the forum will usually bring up the threads which update/enhance/clarify what is provided in the manual. Once a problem has been experienced, doing the research for its solution prior to posting is always a more effective learning approach.

Alfred




John Lansford -> RE: Subs (10/7/2012 10:30:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

You only get one attack per TF in hex anyway (though chance of attack may increase with more subs in TF) and with more subs in TF, they are easier to detect.

So, not really worth it, IMHO.


I'm not totally sure of that; I've been putting my US subs in 2 ship TF's, and while on patrol I have seen attacks on the same ship by both subs in the same turn, although not in the same phase. It also helps (it appears) in the subs spotting targets, and in open water I've not noticed much in the way of increased detection by ASW units.




Essex234 -> RE: Subs (10/8/2012 1:02:53 AM)

Having several subs patroling the same hex or hexes in individual task forces may allow for multiple attacks.




Puhis -> RE: Subs (10/8/2012 6:13:18 AM)

One sub can make multiple attacks even in the same phase. My example (post #7) happened during night phase. Same hex, same phase, same japanese TF.




Erkki -> RE: Subs (10/8/2012 6:33:59 AM)

I've also seen a submarine attack multiple times during a phase, even the same target TF... Best was when when one of my subs that was patrolling near Sydney first evaded some DDs, then attacked, hit with 2/6 torpedoes and sunk the Yorktown, and then right away attacked again and fired 6 more torps at Saratoga, but missing.




Sardaukar -> RE: Subs (10/8/2012 10:19:23 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis

One sub can make multiple attacks even in the same phase. My example (post #7) happened during night phase. Same hex, same phase, same japanese TF.


AFAIK, Sub TF will not attack multiple TFs, but it can attack same one as above.




Cannonfodder -> RE: Subs (10/8/2012 9:02:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis

One sub can make multiple attacks even in the same phase. My example (post #7) happened during night phase. Same hex, same phase, same japanese TF.


I have had one IJN submarine take out two CVEs that way. Poor bastards got depthcharged to the stoneage at seabottom after the initial succes though...




Atilla60 -> RE: Subs (10/8/2012 9:17:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar


quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis

One sub can make multiple attacks even in the same phase. My example (post #7) happened during night phase. Same hex, same phase, same japanese TF.


AFAIK, Sub TF will not attack multiple TFs, but it can attack same one as above.


Actually, I have seen a sub (Dutch) engage 2 of my taskforces, not only during the same turn, but also in the same phase.
It was a SCTF first, then a CVTF set to follow by a distance of 2




John Lansford -> RE: Subs (10/9/2012 10:05:32 PM)

Just last night I had two subs in one TF attack the same ship. The first sub got a hit on a tanker off the coast of Japan, and the very next phase the other sub attacked the same tanker. I think it's clear from the comments here that having more than one sub in a TF does increase the possibility of multiple attacks.




jmalter -> RE: Subs (10/10/2012 6:39:05 AM)

my analog to pack ops, is to make a TF of 3 sister-subs out of a port, let's say they're all at Midway, having completed the latest upgrade. i check each boat's captain for decent Nav skill, then send the TF off to their ops-area, at cruise speed, remain on station.

when they arrive there, i create new sub-patrol TFs, and set them all to the same patrol zone hexes in a staggered fashion, so that the 3 subs cover each hex in order 1-2-3, 3-1-2, & 2-3-1. each TF is now set to mission speed, react=1, return allowed.




LoBaron -> RE: Subs (10/10/2012 6:58:38 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

1. OK, to the OP and everyone else who has since responded, you should all read/reread this thread on sub operations.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2889330&mpage=1&key=wolfpack?

Don't forget to read all the embedded links to associated threads.

2.. It is good to see the OP in his various threads claims to check up on the manual before opening a thread. The manual is good but is a bit out of date. Searching the forum will usually bring up the threads which update/enhance/clarify what is provided in the manual. Once a problem has been experienced, doing the research for its solution prior to posting is always a more effective learning approach.

Alfred


I think Alfred your post was missed by quite a few. From what I am reading the discussion is repetetive.

There are some other relevant posts in Alfreds link, but here are quoted the ones holding the most important information:


quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


There are several general issues with single/multiple sub TFs.

Chance to find the enemy - each TF has a chance, without regard to number of subs in the TF. So 3 TFs with one sub are more likely to encounter the enemy than one TF with three subs.

Which sub attacks - Only one sub from each TF will attack. In a single sub TF there is no option. In a multiple sub TF the "best" sub will be selected. This is based on damage, ammo, (and fuel?) Basically the least damaged with the most ammo. I think fuel is also considered in the spirit of "one more attack before I have to run home to refuel". Once that single sub attacks, the engagement is over. There is no code to support multiple attacks.

Multiple attacks - There is, however, a chance that the same sub TF will re-contact the same enemy TF. If that happens a different sub from a "wolf pack" might be chosen to attack. This could look like coordinated attacks in the combat report but it is really just a series of attacks.

Detection - I do not know is multiple subs increases the chance of detection of the "wolfpack", but I suspect so. I don't think there is special-circumstance code either way, so whatever the general detection code does... In most circumstances, more ships in the the TF means higher chances of detection.

For the record - I never run wolfpacks. I prefer "line" patrol zones - two points fairly close together so the sub bounces back and forth in the targeted area. Multiple sub TFs can be placed in the same area, with patrol lines crossing.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Yep, that's the one. Guess no need to pay a ransome now.[:)]

I do think it is definitive. The only benefit you adduce in favour of wolfpack tactics is reaquiring contact in the same phase. But that is actually not a by product of employing wolfpacks.

1. Any TF, be it comprised of a single submarine or 25 destroyers potentially can aquire multiple contacts in the same phase. The odds of it occuring are not improved (or for that matter nor are they decreased) by having more or fewer vessels in the TF.

2. In the case of submarines, there is no code to allow multiple different subs from launching their weapons in the same contact. Only the best submarine launches.

3. With the introduction of split tubes,a single American fleet submarine all by it's lonesome, could be able to persecute as many as 3 different contacts in the same 12 hour phase. I don't know about your praxis but I don't often see the same submarine TF acquiring 3 contacts in the same 12 hour phase, let alone 4 or more contacts.

4. Just because a submarine TF acquires a contact it doesn't mean it will actually persecute it. So in theory relying upon one's submarine TF being comprised of only a single submarine instead of multi subs will only result in missed opportunities to launch weapons if 4 or more contacts are made in the same 12 phase and all 4 contacts are fully persecuted.

So in theory, there is a very small statistical possibility of a wolf pack having a benefit. Against that theoretical benefit, the disadvantages of employing wolf packs need to be taken into account.

A. Increased vulnerability to being detected.

B. A considerably smaller potential area to come within the purview of submarine patrols.

C. Fewer patrol areas means the enemy can concentrate its naval and aerial ASW assets.

D. The speed of a wolf pack will be determined by the speed of the most damaged submarine. A major factor in determining the success of a submarine getting into position to successfully persecute it's attack is the spped of the submarine TF compared to that of it's target.

E. Each naval attack consumes endurance. If the best "determined" submarine in a wolf pack is consistently the same boat, then its endurance (=fuel) will be depleted quicker than the others and the TF will return to base to refuel even though the majority of boats in the TF retain plenty of fuel. The same issue arises with regard to depletion of torpedoes.

F. As pointed out by Don a wolf pack composed of 3 submarines has fewer eyes than 3 single submarine TFs in the same hex.

G. You will only need a single submarine in a wolf pack to meet the triggers for return to base for repairs. Remember the damage threshold is much lower than that required to split damaged ships into their own "Escort" TF. So when your wolf pack comprised of 3 (or 4 or 5 or 6...) subs meet that Japanese E type and the lone attacking submarine receives 40% damage, everyone goes home, just as if the sub had suffered only 10% damage.

these are not just theoretical disadvantages, they are very practical damages which seem to me to far outweigh the tiny theoretical advantage.

There are two other points to be made, one slightly in favour of using wolf packs, the other against their use.

Some Japanese submarines can carry float planes. If a Japanese wolf pack is formed comprised of float plane carrying submarines, it's chances of finding enemy TFs will be better. Not because of the additional boats in the TF but because of the additional planes out searching. Of course heavy radio traffic in the middle of nowhere might just more easily alert the Allied player that something significant is out there.

I am very reliably informed that old dolphins intensely dislike any suggestion that they used Nazi naval tactics. Certainly the historical record demonstrates that wolf pack tactics was essentially employed only by the Kriegmarine in the North Atlantic. Personally I would find it very ironic were Allied players who quickly denounce non historical tactics employed elsewhere, were to use this unhistorical tactic.

Bottom line, within the constraints of the AE game engine, use of wolf pack tactics is very inefficient and will very rarely be more effective than using single submarine TFs.

Alfred




It is pretty obvious when reading this that the only advantage of grouping subs into a single TF is: it is less work intensive. Thats it. All other advantages are
purely fictional when compared to multiple sub TFs in a single hex.




jmalter -> RE: Subs (10/10/2012 7:07:24 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron
It is pretty obvious when reading this that the only advantage of grouping subs into a single TF is: it is less work intensive. Thats it. All other advantages are
purely fictional when compared to multiple sub TFs in a single hex.

i agree. i put subs in 3-boat TFs only for transit to their ops-area, when they arrive, i split them into single-sub TFs, 'cos it's easier to do it there, than it is to do it all from the home-port (far less screen-scrolling).




LoBaron -> RE: Subs (10/10/2012 7:18:44 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jmalter

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron
It is pretty obvious when reading this that the only advantage of grouping subs into a single TF is: it is less work intensive. Thats it. All other advantages are
purely fictional when compared to multiple sub TFs in a single hex.

i agree. i put subs in 3-boat TFs only for transit to their ops-area, when they arrive, i split them into single-sub TFs, 'cos it's easier to do it there, than it is to do it all from the home-port (far less screen-scrolling).


Good solution.

The reason why I donīt use it because I donīt scroll too much. I use the minimap for map movement, so for me it is just one klick.

And also because I tend to forget about when which subs arrive where, so I got a pretty high chance that my multi sub TFs would stay crowded in a single hex doing nothing
for quite a while. [;)]




Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.0234375