I am still new to the game and have no experience with the editor, so am probably speaking out of turn and perhaps these are things you have considered.
Other than for realism why do you want submarines?
One way I see of modeling submarines is to consider what effects they might have on the battlefield.
1) Limiting supplies to certain areas.
2) The loss of certain naval units to sinking or damage.
3) The slowing of naval units as they must avoid certain areas or go slower in order to detect and defend against submarines.
4) Possible random bombardments against military units reducing their effectiveness.
If you want a unit that the player could move around.
1) It would have to do all of the above.
2) It would have to be able to disappear and not be able to found.
3) It would, in my opinion, have to be a unit with a very high hitting power, but very little defense. Modern submarine warfare is not so much a warfare were units are damaged and return to port, but one where units are destroyed.
In my mind, again with my very limited experience, this sounds like a low defensive air unit, that is not required to base at an airfield, that stays at sea, and is not able to be on land and has a limited range from any coastal hex to land targets.
If that is not possible, I think the low defensive air unit with an very long extensive range might be the way to go. This would also allow the Nato navy a chance to engage and destroy the submarine (air unit) when it attacked. I would however, factor in some high attrition against the Soviet submarine forces to represent those submarines that are at sea and are unable to get away from Nato forces.
Thanks Incbob for the feedback. Here is a slightly lengthy (sorry) reasoning for the possibility of adding them to my scenario. The Soviets have a disproportionate number of subs to surface vessels. In 1979, the Northern and Baltic Fleets combined have about 156 attack submarines (116 torpedo subs/40 cruise missile subs). This dwarfs NATO numbers. Without them included, NATO surface ships of US, UK, Neth., Belgium, and France would have a clear advantage. Non-US NATO ships that would normally be tied to ASW roles in the English Channel areas, and unavailable for surface action would be able to leave these responsibilities and attack without consequences.
As my scenario stands now, the bulk of naval warfare is conducted off-map thru Events that is called 'The Battle of the Atlantic (BOA)'. The results of this Event may delay US reinforcements and reduce supplies to Europe. Submarines would not have to be added here since it is already modeled thru the Event Editor.
But it is my on-map concern in the Norwegian and North Seas that subs need to be addressed. If I presume that the majority of them are fighting the BOA, let's say 75%, then that leaves 25% or about 40 Soviet subs available for attack roles on-map. Of course NATO subs would need to be added roughly in the same proportion.
It's a mystery to me and I am miffed how to proceed with this. You added some excellent observations that I need to consider if I move forward.
Maybe I could break this down by function:
- Fleet action: subs directly supporting surface ships could be added as a combination of another class of surface unit, and/or generic Naval Air units?
- Anti-convoy: add more events thru the Event Editor to keep NATO ships tied to their patrol areas?
Anyway, thanks for your ideas!
The long arm of the law - "The King of Battle"