Anyone tried more than 1 sub in a TF?

[HansBolter]

In my current game I have been experimenting with setting up a few sub patrol TFs with 2 subs in them.

I'm seeing surprising results.

I haven't seen one encounter where both subs fire in the same attack, but I have seen quite a few follow up attacks on the same TF by the second sub in the same phase as well as a number of follow up attacks in subsequent phases in the same turn.

anyone else played around with multiple sub TFs?

[oaltinyay]

I did but no visible results. I remember reading that extra subs in a sub TF doesnt do extra work and if u actually place a second third etc sub in the same hex u'll see exactly the same thing.

[sherlock1]

During the later part of the war, when subs are plentiful I use two sub patrols

[decaro]

Wasn't there a penalty for creating "wolf packs" no matter how small?

[HansBolter]

Hey Joe.

Haven't seen ya here in a while.

Don't know the answer, but I am seeing results I interpret as positive.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

In my current game I have been experimenting with setting up a few sub patrol TFs with 2 subs in them.

I'm seeing surprising results.

I haven't seen one encounter where both subs fire in the same attack, but I have seen quite a few follow up attacks on the same TF by the second sub in the same phase as well as a number of follow up attacks in subsequent phases in the same turn.

anyone else played around with multiple sub TFs?

I think this is the master thread on the subject. In it Alfred references another that I didn't check that could have more. But Don Bowen, naval coder on the dev team, said this:

"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. "

tm.asp?m=2889330&mpage=1&key=subs?

[HansBolter]

Thank Moose.

Very insightful info.

I'm likely seeing the second sub in the TF attack in the subsequent encounter in the same phase because it now has more ammo than the sub that initiated the first attack.

I haven't made a doctrine of it.

I've sent out about a dozen 2 sub TFs to various locales to gage the impact.

I'm just experimenting which is one of the benefits of playing the AI.

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Hey Joe.

Haven't seen ya here in a while.

Don't know the answer, but I am seeing results I interpret as positive.

I've been preoccupied of late with following WW I and II sites on Twitter.

Perhaps the "wolf pack" penalty was actually from UV as I can't find anything in the AE (physical manual) that would penalize multiple sub TFs.
However, there was a historical precedent in the Pacific for deploying two subs: the Darter and the Dace.

"... In the outstanding performance of duty which was to bring both submarines the Navy Unit Commendation and Darter's commander, David Hayward McClintock, the Navy Cross, Darter and Dace made contact with the Japanese Center Force approaching Palawan Passage on 23 October. Immediately, Darter flashed the contact report, one of the most important of the war, since the location of this Japanese task force had been unknown for some days. The two submarines closed the task force, and with attacks on the cruisers of Center Force, initiated the Battle of Surigao Strait phase of the decisive Battle for Leyte Gulf. Darter sank the heavy cruiser Atago and seriously damaged the cruiser Takao. With Dace, she tracked the damaged cruiser through the tortuous channels of Palawan Passage until just after midnight of 24–25 October when Darter grounded on Bombay Shoal 9.406°N 116.984°E.

"As efforts to get the submarine off the shoal began, a Japanese destroyer closed, but then sailed on. With the tide receding, all Dace '​s and Darter '​s efforts to get her off failed. All confidential papers and equipment were destroyed, and the entire crew taken off to Dace. When the demolition charges planted in Darter failed to destroy her, Dace fired torpedoes which exploded on the reef due to the shallow water. Dace did, however, score 21 hits with her 3 in (76 mm) gun. Rock was called in and fired 10 torpedoes at Darter with similar lack of success. Finally, Nautilus arrived on 31 October and scored 55 hits with her 6 in (150 mm) guns. Her report states, "It is doubtful that any equipment in DARTER at 1130 this date would be of any value to Japan - except as scrap. Estimated draft of DARTER - 4 feet." Apparently, the Japanese got no use out of her, for her hulk was still remarkably intact in 1962."

http://www.ask.com/wiki/USS_Darter_(SS- ... ap=ask.com

[wneumann]

I frequently use submarine TF with multiple subs when dispatching outbound patrol subs in a group where the subs are intended to operate within the same general sea area. The subs remain together as a group during transit then disperse into separately assigned patrol zones once the multi-sub TF reaches a set destination hex at sea near or in the general sea area where the subs are intended to patrol. I'm mainly doing this for organizational purposes rather than the intent of operating them as a wolfpack. A secondary consideration is masking the number of subs being dispatched until the subs arrive at or near their assigned patrol area.

I had only one instance of two subs in a multi-sub TF attacking in the same game turn which occurred as two separate attacks at different points during the turn - the incident unplanned and unexpected. I wouldn't expect multiple combats by different subs in a multi-sub TF to happen very often.

My overall opinion on this question pretty closely follows Bullwinkle's.

[uncivil_servant]

Everything I say is anecdotal of course.

I have had massive submarine tonnage and I have almost exclusively used multiple SS in a TF. I generally use two - of same speed.

I not only often get multiple attacks on enemy TFs from a single SS TF but I seem to do really well at spotting enemy TF's.

(Naturally I do not have much to go on for later opinion) but in my game my SS kills, just in the Java sea alone are:
Reported IJN loses due to JAVA defenders (in and around Java itself) by 4/42:
CV Akagi - Damaged... was hit by a Java sub torpedo
CVE Hosho - dutch submarine torpedoes

CA Myoko - dutch submarine torpedoes
CA Kumano - dutch submarine torpedoes

DD Kagero - scuttled after torpedo attack and mine collision
DD Isokaze - 45cm torpedo from Allied Java SCTF
DD Mishisho - 21in Mk 14 torpedo - American sub/ Java SCTF
DD Asakaze - 21in Mk 15 torpedo - Allied Java SCTF

2 CM's

72 xAK/xAkl, (torpedos)
AK

3 xAP's - torpedos

[witpqs]

Andav is using two-sub TFs quite a bit lately in our game. He said he felt he was getting better overall results, but that was a while ago so I don't know his current opinion.

BTW, regarding multiple attacks - when it comes to single-sub TFs, they can attack multiple targets in the same combat. One of Andav's subs (in a single-sub TF) attacked and sank 3x AO in one combat. Documented in my AAR, it was a while back in game time. (Yes, they had good escort and there were ASW TF running through the area plus good air search! [:D])

[JeffroK]

I'm lazy and always use 2 SS per TF.

I dont know it works any better, but also dont feel they are found or damaged more often.

A couple of times I have had 1 sunk but the second is still on station.

[pontiouspilot]

I have used them in multiple TFs for mine laying and resupply. I was told by one of the "wise guys" on here that it doesn't work well for regular ops since damage to 1 adversely effects the performance of others ie. functions at lowest common denominator I guess.

[LoBaron]

Fact is, consistently confirmed by devs, there is a clear disadvantage of a 2 sub TF as compared to 2 1 sub TFs in the same hex. So if one wants to use the available resources to maximum effect there is no way around 1 sub TFs.

There are some advantages of 2 sub TFs over 1 sub TFs (ammo count and it usually stays operational even if one sub is sunk) but since this is a comparision of 2 ships vs. 1 ship effectively thats comparing oranges to apples.

Minaying and sub transport missions are the exception to the rule of course...

[JeffroK]

ORIGINAL: pontiouspilot

I have used them in multiple TFs for mine laying and resupply. I was told by one of the "wise guys" on here that it doesn't work well for regular ops since damage to 1 adversely effects the performance of others ie. functions at lowest common denominator I guess.

Damage does cripple the TF, but at that point you send the damaged sub home and still have a sub on station.

[rustysi]

compared to 2 1 sub TFs in the same hex

I do this often and it seems to work well.

[witpaemail]

The more subs/TFs you have in a hex, the easier it is to spot them. Its been that way all the way back to the original PacWar (the subs part goes back to UV as sub TFs werent in PacWar).

The more subs you have in a TF the more likely they are to spot something. Again, goes all the way back to UV.

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: witpaemail
The more subs you have in a TF the more likely they are to spot something. Again, goes all the way back to UV.

No.

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
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.

[HansBolter]

Regardless of all the details of what nuance of search has a greater impact I AM seeing positive results.

Saw them again this weekend. A pair of subs off the HI had the first attacking sub put two fish in a tanker.

I didn't get the sinking sound audio cue.

A moment later a follow up encounter occurred wherein the second sub in the TF put another fish in the stricken tanker and sent it to the bottom.

[LoBaron]

Noone is disputing what you see Hans. [:)]

But:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
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.

For the record: I witness the same sub TF re-contact the same enemy TF for a 2nd attack as well - with single sub TFs.