Matrix Games Forums

Pandora: Eclipse of Nashira Announced! Deal of the Week: Command Ops goes half price!New Fronts are opening up for Commander: The Great WarCharacters of World War 1Sign of for the Pike and Shot Beta!More Games are Coming to Steam! Return to the Moon on October 31st! Commander: The Great War iPad Wallpapers Generals of the Great WarDeal of the Week Panzer Corps
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Concerning Subs ...

 
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] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> Concerning Subs ... Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Concerning Subs ... - 6/26/2003 3:08:37 PM   
Rainerle

 

Posts: 462
Joined: 7/24/2002
From: Burghausen/Bavaria
Status: offline
Hi,
I had nothing serious to do and decided to play H2H to find out more about subs. Chose Scen 17, placed all subs in single sub TF and send them off to the same hex. Thats a total of 14 subs at the beginning of Scen 17. Six IJN boats, 7 S-Boats and USS Greenling. What shall I tell you those 14 subs remained in the same hex for more than 10 days and not a single sub on sub attack occured (probably the game does not allow those).
To add spice to the situation I moved the allied Replenishment TF (Neosho and Sims) through this sub-infested hex 4 times (at night) and no single attack commenced. O.k. retiring this TF I put a IJN Air TF (Shokaku and Zuikaku) in an adjacent hex with their entire bombers on 80 % ASW. Next turn I'm getting lots of sightings, a little less attacks and 4 reported hits. Turns out; one sub really is hit (77 Flt probably won't make it to port) and three others are very short on fuel.
So what conclusions do I draw?
1.) There is no sub on sub combat but there should be.
2.) It seems unlikely that a TF (even a small one) can move through six subs four times and stay unmolested.
3.) I can see no reason why attacking subs causes them to lose fuel. Either they take damage or they don't. Loosing fuel could be part of taking damage though. I know this is pointed out elsewhere.

I'm using v2.3
Comments ?
Post #: 1
- 6/26/2003 8:57:08 PM   
thantis

 

Posts: 185
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Cooksville, MD
Status: offline
1) Hexes are 30 miles wide, leaving quite a bit of room to hide in (think of the total square mileage - its a lot of sea out there).

2) There were not many sub on sub engagements during the war - and I don't think they are modeled.

3) The loss of fuel is related to all of the maneuvering the subs did to avoid the attacks - high speed, lots of changes in depth, etc.

_____________________________

Never Underestimate the Power of a Small Tactical Nuclear Weapon.....

(in reply to Rainerle)
Post #: 2
- 6/26/2003 9:32:26 PM   
PdC

 

Posts: 1
Joined: 4/9/2003
From: French Riviera
Status: offline
And WW2 sub commanders used to release fuel at surface to make their attacker believe they were hit and had a leak while they were diving.

It may explane the fuel consumption and the fake reported hit.

(in reply to Rainerle)
Post #: 3
- 6/26/2003 9:45:12 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25297
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
There is also a "wolfpack" rule in the game that lowers the effectiveness of subs the more you stack them in one hex. There are two reasons for this, one historical, one game related

the historical stems mainly from the lack of implementation used by both sides during this period and when it was, (by the US) it was not very successful

The game reason is the more pertient one.....pre 2.30, a common player tactic was to stack mass subs in a base hex which usually caused a great deal of carnage way out of preportion to the abilities of the sub arm in question....particularily against the IJN player whose ASW ability is 1/2 that of the Allied player. Having been victim of this tactic (and using S-boats no less) i can attest to it's unbelievable effectiveness in game terms, it was the leader in tonnage damaged and sunk by a wide margin over all other forms of combat damage.

The loss of fuel rule when subs are attacked by air/sea is to represent the fuel that would be burned evading an attack (on the surface) before diving, and/or to represent the fuel burned once the sub comes back up for air and has to reposition itself and/or charge batteries.

(in reply to Rainerle)
Post #: 4
Re: Concerning Subs ... - 6/26/2003 9:47:43 PM   
Drex

 

Posts: 2523
Joined: 9/13/2000
From: Chico,california
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Rainerle
[B]Hi,
I had nothing serious to do and decided to play H2H to find out more about subs. Chose Scen 17, placed all subs in single sub TF and send them off to the same hex. Thats a total of 14 subs at the beginning of Scen 17. Six IJN boats, 7 S-Boats and USS Greenling. What shall I tell you those 14 subs remained in the same hex for more than 10 days and not a single sub on sub attack occured (probably the game does not allow those).
To add spice to the situation I moved the allied Replenishment TF (Neosho and Sims) through this sub-infested hex 4 times (at night) and no single attack commenced. O.k. retiring this TF I put a IJN Air TF (Shokaku and Zuikaku) in an adjacent hex with their entire bombers on 80 % ASW. Next turn I'm getting lots of sightings, a little less attacks and 4 reported hits. Turns out; one sub really is hit (77 Flt probably won't make it to port) and three others are very short on fuel.
So what conclusions do I draw?
1.) There is no sub on sub combat but there should be.
2.) It seems unlikely that a TF (even a small one) can move through six subs four times and stay unmolested.
3.) I can see no reason why attacking subs causes them to lose fuel. Either they take damage or they don't. Loosing fuel could be part of taking damage though. I know this is pointed out elsewhere.

I'm using v2.3
Comments ? [/B][/QUOTE] The lack of sub vs sub warfare has been mentioned before. It did occur in the Pacific War but perhaps not specifically in the UV theater - but it could have. I think it is on a list of improvements to be made but don't hold your breath.

(in reply to Rainerle)
Post #: 5
- 6/26/2003 10:18:57 PM   
AmiralLaurent

 

Posts: 3351
Joined: 3/11/2003
From: Near Paris, France
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by thantis
2) There were not many sub on sub engagements during the war - and I don't think they are modeled.
[/QUOTE]

Actually they were a lot more sub on sub battles than BB vs BB in Pacific War. And the latter are modeled AFAIK.

US subs sank 16 IJN subs and British subs two more during the Pacific War. IJN subs sank at least one Dutch sub and one US. Also 2 U-Boat were sunk in the aera by Allied subs.

IN UV time and aera, USN submarines sank I-28 and I-4 in 1942 (25 % of the IJN losses). In 1943, I-168 and USS Corvina were sunk by submarines. And they were tens of attempted or failed attacks by sub vs sub.

(in reply to Rainerle)
Post #: 6
- 6/26/2003 10:49:06 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25297
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
A large preportion of these sinkings/attacks though were due to codebreaking, which allowed the US to send subs to intercept enemy subs either embarking on a mission or returning.

Since codebreaking is not in UV, there is little chance for a sub vs sub battle.

(in reply to Rainerle)
Post #: 7
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> Concerning Subs ... 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

0.070