Matrix Games Forums

Characters of World War 1Sign of for the Pike and Shot Beta!More Games are Coming to Steam! Deal of the Week: Combat Command Return to the Moon on October 31st! Commander: The Great War iPad Wallpapers Generals of the Great WarDeal of the Week Panzer CorpsNew Strategy Titles Join the FamilyTablet Version of Qvadriga gets new patch
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Submarine Losses

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Time of Fury >> Submarine Losses Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Submarine Losses - 3/14/2013 3:58:08 PM   
Rasputitsa


Posts: 1679
Joined: 6/30/2001
From: Bedfordshire UK
Status: offline
Playing 'Fall Gelb', Axis against the Allied AI, this is a game I started a long time ago and left to one side, whilst the problems with 1.02 and 1.03 where resolved, and has been updated and used through all game versions, up to 1.03 beta v3, but the same effect has been present all the time. The Axis subs have been inflicting regular STP losses on Allied convoys, but have suffered no damage, or loss, themselves. 2 Italian subs have been lost in the Med to CV attack, the reports also show sub attacks on surface ships, sometimes inflicting damage, but no loss to the German U-boats.

Looking through the game files and not seeing anything that would affect the detectability and chance for damage to subs in convoy actions (surely the convoys should be able to hit back occasionally), the CVs are hitting subs, or is this just a symptom of the ineffectiveness of surface fleets and lack of naval engagements pointed out by GW Gardner.

Question - in assessing raider attacks and STP losses in convoy attacks, as listed in the 'Raiders' reports, is there any calculation of possible damage and loss to the attacking subs ?

_____________________________

"We have to go from where we are, not from where we would like to be" - me
Post #: 1
RE: Submarine Losses - 3/14/2013 4:14:33 PM   
gwgardner

 

Posts: 3374
Joined: 4/7/2006
Status: offline
sub losses come from convoy escorts, ie player or AI action, through land-based and sea-based air attacks and surface action. So yes, since surface action is woefully absent, the only way you're going to get rid of the German subs is through air action. I haven't tried modding to make surface action more likely.


(in reply to Rasputitsa)
Post #: 2
RE: Submarine Losses - 3/14/2013 7:12:27 PM   
Rasputitsa


Posts: 1679
Joined: 6/30/2001
From: Bedfordshire UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: gwgardner

sub losses come from convoy escorts, ie player or AI action, through land-based and sea-based air attacks and surface action. So yes, since surface action is woefully absent, the only way you're going to get rid of the German subs is through air action. I haven't tried modding to make surface action more likely.


It's not so much that I want to get rid of the subs, as they are mine , but I confirm that the only losses they are suffering is from air action (CVs). I was wondering that, with raider (that includes subs) against convoy combat calculations, if any losses to the raiders were allowed for, because that should happen. I see the STP losses to the convoys, but nothing happens to the raiders (U-boats).

This part of the game is handled by the AI, so the only way to make it more realistic is to get into the data, but I don't see anything on raider detection, or combat, apart from the convoy loss calculation.

I have been gradually changing the odds on chance for fleet detection and surface naval engagement, but nothing has changed yet in the game, meanwhile the AI Allied fleets are suffering heavy losses from my Axis airpower.

Just trying to balance things out a little in the convoy battles.

< Message edited by Rasputitsa -- 3/15/2013 10:36:41 AM >


_____________________________

"We have to go from where we are, not from where we would like to be" - me

(in reply to gwgardner)
Post #: 3
RE: Submarine Losses - 3/17/2013 4:32:33 AM   
rmonical

 

Posts: 1389
Joined: 4/1/2011
Status: offline
I have very rarely seen CA units get hots on and even sink subs. They are more useful in spotting as moving into a sea zone will frequently cause the sub to be revealed.

(in reply to Rasputitsa)
Post #: 4
RE: Submarine Losses - 3/17/2013 3:48:29 PM   
Rasputitsa


Posts: 1679
Joined: 6/30/2001
From: Bedfordshire UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rmonical
I have very rarely seen CA units get hots on and even sink subs. They are more useful in spotting as moving into a sea zone will frequently cause the sub to be revealed.

Closest so far is Sub on Sub, with a Romanian sub group set as raider, attacking and damaging a Soviet sub group in the Black Sea.

It would be useful if Doomtrader could say whether there is any potential sub loss in the convoy battle calculation.


_____________________________

"We have to go from where we are, not from where we would like to be" - me

(in reply to rmonical)
Post #: 5
RE: Submarine Losses - 3/19/2013 4:09:25 PM   
Rasputitsa


Posts: 1679
Joined: 6/30/2001
From: Bedfordshire UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa
quote:

ORIGINAL: rmonical
I have very rarely seen CA units get hots on and even sink subs. They are more useful in spotting as moving into a sea zone will frequently cause the sub to be revealed.

Closest so far is Sub on Sub, with a Romanian sub group set as raider, attacking and damaging a Soviet sub group in the Black Sea.

It would be useful if Doomtrader could say whether there is any potential sub loss in the convoy battle calculation.


Doomtrader, any comment, in convoy battles where STP losses are being inflicted on convoys, by raider attack, is there any calculation of losses suffered by the raiders ?

Over a series of turns I have been able to acheive 43 STP losses on convoys, with no loss to the raiders (subs), have I just been very lucky, or is there no cost to the raiders, because there should be some risk in attacking convoys.


_____________________________

"We have to go from where we are, not from where we would like to be" - me

(in reply to Rasputitsa)
Post #: 6
RE: Submarine Losses - 3/19/2013 9:07:13 PM   
Rasputitsa


Posts: 1679
Joined: 6/30/2001
From: Bedfordshire UK
Status: offline
First loss for the German U-boats, a whole flotilla lost, but to aircraft carrier attack, still no losses from actual convoy battles. So is this how it works, sub losses can only come from the separate action of opposing naval forces and not from fighting the convoys themselves ?

< Message edited by Rasputitsa -- 3/20/2013 11:08:24 PM >


_____________________________

"We have to go from where we are, not from where we would like to be" - me

(in reply to Rasputitsa)
Post #: 7
RE: Submarine Losses - 3/20/2013 3:47:30 PM   
Numdydar

 

Posts: 1764
Joined: 2/13/2004
Status: offline
Historically, I would guess the majority of sub losses came from air and TFs that were not specificly tasked with escorting a convoy. Since the escorts could not spend a lot of time looking for a sub while the convoy sailed on without them. So for simplification of the game mechnics, this seems to be accurate.

If you want something that represents the sub wars more accurately, you will need a different game like WitP AE

(in reply to Rasputitsa)
Post #: 8
RE: Submarine Losses - 3/20/2013 10:49:50 PM   
Rasputitsa


Posts: 1679
Joined: 6/30/2001
From: Bedfordshire UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Numdydar
Historically, I would guess the majority of sub losses came from air and TFs that were not specificly tasked with escorting a convoy. Since the escorts could not spend a lot of time looking for a sub while the convoy sailed on without them. So for simplification of the game mechnics, this seems to be accurate.

If you want something that represents the sub wars more accurately, you will need a different game like WitP AE

Agree that in the later war years the Allies established sub hunting groups, including CVEs, working independently of the convoys and also roving escort groups, which could join and support the normal convoy escort, as they passed through high risk areas. I was questioning whether, after inflicting 43 STP losses on convoys, there was no damage, at all, to the subs from the normal convoy escorts. Still waiting for Doomtrader to confirm whether I have just been lucky, or whether this is WAD.

I would have thought that in the convoy battle calculation it would not be too difficult to add a potential loss to the raiders, if such a calculation is not there already. The odds would depend on the tech level reached by the submarines and the tech level achieved by the opposing surface fleet.

There are two components to the convoy war, the battles around the convoys (starting early in the war) and the actions of the hunting groups that came later (from about 1943 onwards), it would be nice to see both elements in the game.

What I like about the game, is that it not as fiendishly complicated as WiTP-AE, but even with some features abstracted and combat calculation taking place in the background AI, it can still be challenging and even more so, the more elements that can be taken into account.

< Message edited by Rasputitsa -- 3/20/2013 10:58:50 PM >


_____________________________

"We have to go from where we are, not from where we would like to be" - me

(in reply to Numdydar)
Post #: 9
RE: Submarine Losses - 3/26/2013 10:11:12 AM   
Rasputitsa


Posts: 1679
Joined: 6/30/2001
From: Bedfordshire UK
Status: offline
Any comment Doomtrader, the reason for mentioning this issue is that submarine/convoy battles should be more attritional. As the convoys suffer STP losses, there should be some chance of damage to the subs, the losses inflicted by independent enemy naval fleets would be additional damage to the subs. The odds would be modified on the tech levels of each side's subs and surface units.

At the moment the subs seem to be able to inflict significant STP losses on convoys with not loss, then wham, lose a whole sub group to a CV attack. I suppose it works out in the long run, but it doesn't seem to portray the realism of the U-boat war.

You don't have the chance for strategy, such as deciding whether to leave your raiders at sea when they suffer damage, or do you bring them in for repair and when to do that. The way the game runs now, you place your raiders and have little further influence (except time at sea limitations), with sudden death if they run into a CV fleet.

_____________________________

"We have to go from where we are, not from where we would like to be" - me

(in reply to Rasputitsa)
Post #: 10
RE: Submarine Losses - 4/4/2013 10:57:50 AM   
Rasputitsa


Posts: 1679
Joined: 6/30/2001
From: Bedfordshire UK
Status: offline
Bump

_____________________________

"We have to go from where we are, not from where we would like to be" - me

(in reply to Rasputitsa)
Post #: 11
RE: Submarine Losses - 4/4/2013 2:33:48 PM   
gwgardner

 

Posts: 3374
Joined: 4/7/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa

Any comment Doomtrader, the reason for mentioning this issue is that submarine/convoy battles should be more attritional. As the convoys suffer STP losses, there should be some chance of damage to the subs, the losses inflicted by independent enemy naval fleets would be additional damage to the subs. The odds would be modified on the tech levels of each side's subs and surface units.

At the moment the subs seem to be able to inflict significant STP losses on convoys with not loss, then wham, lose a whole sub group to a CV attack. I suppose it works out in the long run, but it doesn't seem to portray the realism of the U-boat war.

You don't have the chance for strategy, such as deciding whether to leave your raiders at sea when they suffer damage, or do you bring them in for repair and when to do that. The way the game runs now, you place your raiders and have little further influence (except time at sea limitations), with sudden death if they run into a CV fleet.


Also, I see no indication of the effect of the new 1.4 feature, whereby a player can use escort fleets in sea zones. Anyone know if that is working?

(in reply to Rasputitsa)
Post #: 12
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Time of Fury >> Submarine Losses Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.082