Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Sub vs ASW early years BOA

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> WarPlan >> Sub vs ASW early years BOA Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Sub vs ASW early years BOA - 1/13/2021 9:39:39 PM   
baloo7777


Posts: 1021
Joined: 5/18/2009
From: eastern CT
Status: offline
I have little PBEM experience as I'm on only my game 5 and 6 after taking some time off (to play ATG-GD1938). I am using beta 10u3. My earlier experience was that a BOA with German subs was just too expensive as the allied player would send carriers and they seemed to find and damage my subs regularly (vs 1.07). I've read recent posts that say the subs are very hard to find and damage. But once more I find that in both my current PBEM games, I'm taking unacceptable sub damage/losses. And this is during the "Happy Time" of 1939-1940.
Is this just the vagaries of dice rolls and I am terribly unlucky? Am I doing something wrong with my subs (I try to send 2 or 3 together)? I also thought that the single sub would be harder to detect? Instead, it was found and sunk like it was 1944. (I moved the single sub using 2 OP's to get away from the ASW pursuit on the previous turn, and it was only by itself due to having to send the other two back for repairs last turn as they were damaged).

In most of my games vs the AI, the German subs sink around 10-15 mm and 2-4 escorts by early 1940 with only 2 damage pts on average.
Any BOA strategies for the Axis would be appreciated...
I made a bunch of screenshots (but haven't figured out how to put them all in 1 post):





Attachment (1)

_____________________________

JRR
Post #: 1
RE: Sub vs ASW early years BOA - 1/13/2021 9:40:38 PM   
baloo7777


Posts: 1021
Joined: 5/18/2009
From: eastern CT
Status: offline
next screenshot:




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

JRR

(in reply to baloo7777)
Post #: 2
RE: Sub vs ASW early years BOA - 1/13/2021 9:41:33 PM   
baloo7777


Posts: 1021
Joined: 5/18/2009
From: eastern CT
Status: offline
next screenshot:




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

JRR

(in reply to baloo7777)
Post #: 3
RE: Sub vs ASW early years BOA - 1/13/2021 9:42:43 PM   
baloo7777


Posts: 1021
Joined: 5/18/2009
From: eastern CT
Status: offline
next turn screenshot (with repaired subs out again):




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

JRR

(in reply to baloo7777)
Post #: 4
RE: Sub vs ASW early years BOA - 1/13/2021 9:45:30 PM   
baloo7777


Posts: 1021
Joined: 5/18/2009
From: eastern CT
Status: offline
next turn casualty list... 13 mm and 2 es for 8 sub is too expensive for me...




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

JRR

(in reply to baloo7777)
Post #: 5
RE: Sub vs ASW early years BOA - 1/13/2021 11:33:43 PM   
sillyflower


Posts: 3238
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Back in Blighty
Status: offline
In my only 1.09 game I have lost 61 MM and about 10 escorts (total replacement cost 1000 RPs) before damaging a single sub. I think it's something like 80MM and 12 escorts to 2 sub hits after I got another hit in my last turn which I think was October '40. [I will check the exact numbers when I get the turn back]. This is despite my investing as much as possible into ASW from the start, and the Germans only have 4 subs.

It's all a bit random, by which I mean it's a lot more random than the other combat results. The reason is the low % chance of hitting a sub, and it is now easier for subs to run away from ASW ships (none of which can attack them any more)and still sink MMs. I don't know what the answer is. Just increasing the chance of a hit is a 1-sided solution which most will probably regard as unwelcome, and there is force in the argument that it was a waste of RPs for the bad guys to invest in more u-boats.

@ Alvaro: on a related issue, 1 reason you gave for the .09 change was to reduce allied micromanagement of carriers, but now I have to micromanage the patrol groups as well so I have to micromanage 3 times as many counters T1 going to convoy lane, T2 being useful and T3 back to port. I can't afford to buy oilers every turn as well as more escorts and MM than I have ever needed before.






_____________________________

web exchange

Post: I am always fearful that when I put this game down on the table and people see the box-art they will think I am some kind of neo-Nazi

Reply: They already know you're a gamer. What other shame can possibly compare?

(in reply to baloo7777)
Post #: 6
RE: Sub vs ASW early years BOA - 1/14/2021 12:16:40 AM   
Harrybanana

 

Posts: 2372
Joined: 11/27/2004
From: Canada
Status: offline
If you read my AAR with MM where I am the Axis you will see that the BOA has gone back and forth several times. My very first foray my U-Boats took damage. Then after that I had a string of success, followed by another bad time, followed by another Happy Hunting time. So I agree that there is a great deal of luck involved; you just have to hope that over time it averages out or is even in your favour.

One thing I learned the hardway is do not move your subs more than 24 hexes to raid. My understanding is that if you move your subs more than 24 hexes they only deal 50% damage, but still take 100% damage. If I wrong about this Alvaro please let me know. So i would rather only move 24 hexes or less, even if this means that my opponent will have more sub chasers in range.

< Message edited by Harrybanana -- 1/14/2021 12:17:15 AM >

(in reply to sillyflower)
Post #: 7
RE: Sub vs ASW early years BOA - 1/14/2021 12:56:14 AM   
baloo7777


Posts: 1021
Joined: 5/18/2009
From: eastern CT
Status: offline
Just for a laugh... in my 2nd PBEM game, my UBoats got hit hard for 3rd turn in a row... I have sunk 9 mm 1 es and lost 7 sub damage points... and for a real chuckle, in my AI game at the same time period (early Jan 1940) I had my first AI giving my subs damage and it looks more like 15 mm 5 es and 2 sub damage points.
I must just have incredibly bad luck. But it still leaves me wondering if I will be losing too many PP to make the BOA worth it?

_____________________________

JRR

(in reply to Harrybanana)
Post #: 8
RE: Sub vs ASW early years BOA - 1/14/2021 1:10:00 AM   
ComadrejaKorp

 

Posts: 168
Joined: 5/31/2020
From: Sitges-SPAIN
Status: offline
With this latest version I am playing 5 games and I have the impression that BoA is still very weak, I think BoA should be stronger from the beginning.

If it were stronger from the beginning, the UK could not support France so much which would allow the axis to take France on a historical date and this would open the possibility for the Axis to carry out different strategies. A stronger and longer BoA ​​in time would also force the USA to delay its arrival in Europe or at least make it weaker, and would lengthen the life of the Axis in the game as well.

The USA participates little in BoA, it should build 40 minimum escorts as historically, I have rarely seen an opponent build any, and playing as an Ally I bought only once and they were not really necessary.

I do not know if it is possible but I would like the escorts to only protect the merchant marine that their own country sends, they could assign to the USA the protection of the Atlantic and Canadian resources, and to the UK the resources of the Pacific / Persia / Iraq, so that they were not unprotected, the routes of the USA should be invulnerable for diplomatic reasons until Dow.
In this way, the USA should use the + -3000pp obtained before Dow, in something like 30 escorts 1200pp, 50 merchant marine 500pp, 1000 / 1400pp update their fleet and troops, they could not start war in the summer of 42 like now.

If it is not possible to modify BoA my wish: U-boats that are STRONGER and KILLERS that force the UK to prevent a possible U-boat strategy from the beginning of the game and that forces the USA to participate in BoA

Boa must not be an option for Germany, it must be an obligation. I have played several times against Axis who have not made a submarine.

* Note: it could be that I had very bad luck, but it is the feeling I have playing with both sides.

(in reply to baloo7777)
Post #: 9
RE: Sub vs ASW early years BOA - 1/14/2021 4:49:18 AM   
Harrybanana

 

Posts: 2372
Joined: 11/27/2004
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: baloo7777

Just for a laugh... in my 2nd PBEM game, my UBoats got hit hard for 3rd turn in a row... I have sunk 9 mm 1 es and lost 7 sub damage points... and for a real chuckle, in my AI game at the same time period (early Jan 1940) I had my first AI giving my subs damage and it looks more like 15 mm 5 es and 2 sub damage points.
I must just have incredibly bad luck. But it still leaves me wondering if I will be losing too many PP to make the BOA worth it?


My understanding is that each sub point costs 10 production points to replace. So from what you say you have caused 139 points of damage and taken 70. Having said that, you don't really get any benefit until you force the Brits to spend production points to replace MS or escorts.

(in reply to baloo7777)
Post #: 10
RE: Sub vs ASW early years BOA - 1/14/2021 5:30:55 AM   
Harrybanana

 

Posts: 2372
Joined: 11/27/2004
From: Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ComadrejaKorp

With this latest version I am playing 5 games and I have the impression that BoA is still very weak, I think BoA should be stronger from the beginning.

If it were stronger from the beginning, the UK could not support France so much which would allow the axis to take France on a historical date and this would open the possibility for the Axis to carry out different strategies. A stronger and longer BoA ​​in time would also force the USA to delay its arrival in Europe or at least make it weaker, and would lengthen the life of the Axis in the game as well.

The USA participates little in BoA, it should build 40 minimum escorts as historically, I have rarely seen an opponent build any, and playing as an Ally I bought only once and they were not really necessary.

I do not know if it is possible but I would like the escorts to only protect the merchant marine that their own country sends, they could assign to the USA the protection of the Atlantic and Canadian resources, and to the UK the resources of the Pacific / Persia / Iraq, so that they were not unprotected, the routes of the USA should be invulnerable for diplomatic reasons until Dow.
In this way, the USA should use the + -3000pp obtained before Dow, in something like 30 escorts 1200pp, 50 merchant marine 500pp, 1000 / 1400pp update their fleet and troops, they could not start war in the summer of 42 like now.

If it is not possible to modify BoA my wish: U-boats that are STRONGER and KILLERS that force the UK to prevent a possible U-boat strategy from the beginning of the game and that forces the USA to participate in BoA

Boa must not be an option for Germany, it must be an obligation. I have played several times against Axis who have not made a submarine.

* Note: it could be that I had very bad luck, but it is the feeling I have playing with both sides.


I don't know CK. In our game it is now almost June 42. I haven't kept track, but I think with the British and Canadians I have built something like 200+ MS and 40 escorts. That is 3600 production. The US has built about 40 MS and 24 escorts. So that is another 1360 production. But the British were given a free ride in North Africa which you abandoned without a fight. Not saying that was a bad idea, just that the British have taken very few combat losses. So in our game at least I don't think you can complain that the British are stronger than historical as that is what you get for going ALL-In in Russia. In any event, I don't think my British or Americans are in total stronger than they were historically. In fact their air force is much weaker than historical. Historically I believe that by mid-42 the RAF was equivalent in size to the Luftwaffe. If you open up the 42 scenario it shows the British as having 285 aircraft (well more than the Germans) and 340 land. In our game my total combined strength is greater than this, but not by that much. So the British and Americans do not have too much production and U-Boats are already (at least early in the War) doing historical levels of damage. It is just that the British and Americans are choosing to spend their production differently than they did historically. The Axis do this as well.

The BOA turns against the Axis as the Allies gain ASW tech. That is as it should be. the problem is that the UK and US gain these advances quicker than historical. If they maximize these techs than they will, on average, have 42 tech by September 41, 43 tech by May 42 and 44 tech by January 43. This means that the BOA starts turning against the Axis earlier than historical.

< Message edited by Harrybanana -- 1/14/2021 5:46:38 AM >

(in reply to ComadrejaKorp)
Post #: 11
RE: Sub vs ASW early years BOA - 1/14/2021 8:38:39 AM   
ComadrejaKorp

 

Posts: 168
Joined: 5/31/2020
From: Sitges-SPAIN
Status: offline
Hi HB! I'm not talking about our current game, I'm talking about my personal experience after 25 PBEM and what I think may be good for the game.

Perhaps our game is not a good example because your investment justifies your results, but you must admit that even if the USA had not spent a penny on BoA the result would be the same, it is June 42, the USA has lost 14MM and 1 escort, it has no planes destined to protect convoys, the USA does not participate in BoA.

Since the beginning of our game I have invested everything in research and shipyards in U-boats until buying 8 units (+ 3 initial), 11 units attacking as long as possible, and I think that if an Axis player does All-in in BoA he should have better results at least the first years and make the Allies fearful.

I like your option to delay technological advances a bit, another solution could be that Allies did not receive as many MM from the countries that Axis invades, this would also encourage Axis players to invade Norway and Netherland.

Making BoA harder I think would be good for the game, it would balance it more, but I could be wrong.

This is not a complaint or a demand, it is what I think, although Alvaro will not make a single change, I would continue playing Warplan.

(in reply to Harrybanana)
Post #: 12
RE: Sub vs ASW early years BOA - 1/14/2021 11:27:40 AM   
ComadrejaKorp

 

Posts: 168
Joined: 5/31/2020
From: Sitges-SPAIN
Status: offline
quote:

@ Alvaro: on a related issue, 1 reason you gave for the .09 change was to reduce allied micromanagement of carriers, but now I have to micromanage the patrol groups as well so I have to micromanage 3 times as many counters T1 going to convoy lane, T2 being useful and T3 back to port. I can't afford to buy oilers every turn as well as more escorts and MM than I have ever needed before.


+1

(in reply to sillyflower)
Post #: 13
RE: Sub vs ASW early years BOA - 1/14/2021 12:39:09 PM   
AlvaroSousa


Posts: 7472
Joined: 7/29/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ComadrejaKorp

quote:

@ Alvaro: on a related issue, 1 reason you gave for the .09 change was to reduce allied micromanagement of carriers, but now I have to micromanage the patrol groups as well so I have to micromanage 3 times as many counters T1 going to convoy lane, T2 being useful and T3 back to port. I can't afford to buy oilers every turn as well as more escorts and MM than I have ever needed before.


+1


Turn 1....
Grab a patrol + CV group plop them in the North Atlantic.
Grab a patrol + CV group plop them in the South Atlantic.
Now you don't have to touch this for 3 turns.

Turn 4...
Swap out what you can

Better than each turn having 2-3 fleets chasing subs around the map.

_____________________________

Games worked on

Designer of the Strategic Command 2 products
- Brute Force (mod)
- Assault on Communism
- Assault on Democracy

Designer of the Strategic Command 3 products
- Map Image Importer

(in reply to ComadrejaKorp)
Post #: 14
RE: Sub vs ASW early years BOA - 1/14/2021 12:41:21 PM   
MorningDew

 

Posts: 1081
Joined: 9/20/2006
From: Greenville, SC
Status: offline
Issue is you have to micromanage them being within 24 hexes.

_____________________________


(in reply to AlvaroSousa)
Post #: 15
RE: Sub vs ASW early years BOA - 1/14/2021 12:47:51 PM   
AlvaroSousa


Posts: 7472
Joined: 7/29/2013
Status: offline
My 2 games....

July 1943 - Me Axis
Axis going heavy subs
MM lost 5,080 PPs
ES lost 1,520 PPs
SS lost ~1,600 PPs

May 1942 - Opponent Axis
Axis going historical subs
MM lost 2,220 PPs
ES lost 640 PPs
SS lost ~1,368 PPs

The difference is that I do the sub war better than my opponent. He failed to buy enough stuff early. But his game as the Axis had fairly good average results of my mid war a ratio of 2:1 losses.

< Message edited by AlvaroSousa -- 1/14/2021 12:48:20 PM >


_____________________________

Games worked on

Designer of the Strategic Command 2 products
- Brute Force (mod)
- Assault on Communism
- Assault on Democracy

Designer of the Strategic Command 3 products
- Map Image Importer

(in reply to AlvaroSousa)
Post #: 16
RE: Sub vs ASW early years BOA - 1/14/2021 1:20:15 PM   
ComadrejaKorp

 

Posts: 168
Joined: 5/31/2020
From: Sitges-SPAIN
Status: offline
In your game as Axis, how many SS did you produce? you have sunk 38 escorts and 508 MM !! and lost approximately 230 SS points of force.
I must have very bad luck or be a very bad player, with 11 SS (9 attacking and 2 repairing) I have sunk 11 escorts and 235 MM and I have lost 130 SS strength points, I have one year to go until July 43, my numbers will be disastrous, Allied escorts are becoming more powerful!

Should we assume that BoA has a very high random factor? And that it will not always work no matter how much is invested? or am I missing something. . .

(in reply to AlvaroSousa)
Post #: 17
RE: Sub vs ASW early years BOA - 1/14/2021 1:38:49 PM   
ComadrejaKorp

 

Posts: 168
Joined: 5/31/2020
From: Sitges-SPAIN
Status: offline
I have done the calculations and in my game so far (July 42) they are 2: 1 in favor of Axis, in this game this ratio will not improve, we will see in the next one, thanks for listening.

(in reply to AlvaroSousa)
Post #: 18
RE: Sub vs ASW early years BOA - 1/14/2021 1:46:18 PM   
AlvaroSousa


Posts: 7472
Joined: 7/29/2013
Status: offline
11 subs in total filling the shipyards.

Any sub 3 strength or less I send back to port for repairs.

_____________________________

Games worked on

Designer of the Strategic Command 2 products
- Brute Force (mod)
- Assault on Communism
- Assault on Democracy

Designer of the Strategic Command 3 products
- Map Image Importer

(in reply to ComadrejaKorp)
Post #: 19
RE: Sub vs ASW early years BOA - 1/14/2021 1:48:04 PM   
squatter

 

Posts: 585
Joined: 6/24/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ComadrejaKorp

quote:

@ Alvaro: on a related issue, 1 reason you gave for the .09 change was to reduce allied micromanagement of carriers, but now I have to micromanage the patrol groups as well so I have to micromanage 3 times as many counters T1 going to convoy lane, T2 being useful and T3 back to port. I can't afford to buy oilers every turn as well as more escorts and MM than I have ever needed before.


+1


I would be in favour of further abstraction of sub war. Change convoy routes into boxes where assets are allocated. Certain boxes only accessible from units based in certain ports etc. Units return from a box after a few turns to resupply, unless recalled, etc etc.

Let's face it, this game has many extremely enjoyable aspects, but I can't say I find the sub warfare component - while v important - much fun.

(in reply to ComadrejaKorp)
Post #: 20
RE: Sub vs ASW early years BOA - 1/14/2021 2:26:42 PM   
ago1000


Posts: 694
Joined: 8/6/2004
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: squatter


quote:

ORIGINAL: ComadrejaKorp

quote:

@ Alvaro: on a related issue, 1 reason you gave for the .09 change was to reduce allied micromanagement of carriers, but now I have to micromanage the patrol groups as well so I have to micromanage 3 times as many counters T1 going to convoy lane, T2 being useful and T3 back to port. I can't afford to buy oilers every turn as well as more escorts and MM than I have ever needed before.


+1


I would be in favour of further abstraction of sub war. Change convoy routes into boxes where assets are allocated. Certain boxes only accessible from units based in certain ports etc. Units return from a box after a few turns to resupply, unless recalled, etc etc.

Let's face it, this game has many extremely enjoyable aspects, but I can't say I find the sub warfare component - while v important - much fun.


-1
Don't do that. Having Axis U-boats having to cross the Atlantic to attack Pan American route is somewhat historical and give a good feel to the game. U-boats will only be able to stay out there a short time unless the Axis buys oilers.

_____________________________


(in reply to squatter)
Post #: 21
RE: Sub vs ASW early years BOA - 1/14/2021 2:38:09 PM   
squatter

 

Posts: 585
Joined: 6/24/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ago1000

-1
Don't do that. Having Axis U-boats having to cross the Atlantic to attack Pan American route is somewhat historical and give a good feel to the game. U-boats will only be able to stay out there a short time unless the Axis buys oilers.


This could still be easily modelled with boxes. For example - Send your uboat from French ports to raid N Atlantic routes and they can linger in that box for 3 turns before returning for resupply. Send them to Pan American box from French port and they can linger for 2 turns. Or something similar. The strategies will be the same, just less micro.





(in reply to ago1000)
Post #: 22
RE: Sub vs ASW early years BOA - 1/14/2021 3:08:10 PM   
ComadrejaKorp

 

Posts: 168
Joined: 5/31/2020
From: Sitges-SPAIN
Status: offline
Realistically there is little micromanagement, although it can always be improved, but as Axis if I build a fleet of 12 SS I enjoy moving it at every turn, as an ally I don't like moving my escorts and DD so much but I enjoy trying to guess where the SS will go.

(in reply to squatter)
Post #: 23
RE: Sub vs ASW early years BOA - 1/14/2021 3:13:42 PM   
ago1000


Posts: 694
Joined: 8/6/2004
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: squatter


quote:

ORIGINAL: ago1000

-1
Don't do that. Having Axis U-boats having to cross the Atlantic to attack Pan American route is somewhat historical and give a good feel to the game. U-boats will only be able to stay out there a short time unless the Axis buys oilers.


This could still be easily modelled with boxes. For example - Send your uboat from French ports to raid N Atlantic routes and they can linger in that box for 3 turns before returning for resupply. Send them to Pan American box from French port and they can linger for 2 turns. Or something similar. The strategies will be the same, just less micro.






Ya. I get it. I don't have to agree with you and you can disagree with me. With the removal of CV chasing and DD having to be in a lane, a lot of micro is gone. I think as it stands it gives the game a level of immersion/realism with no real micromanagement. The only difference you've mentioned is instead of 2 moves to get to Pan Am route, I move once into the box. Depends the type of feel Alvaro is trying to make, if he wants to make a game that is simply an electronic board game (look and feel) where people simply play HvH then go for it. However, there is a whole other market out there that simply play the AI, they like the immersion factor and design of the map of this game as is.

_____________________________


(in reply to squatter)
Post #: 24
RE: Sub vs ASW early years BOA - 1/14/2021 3:19:43 PM   
MorningDew

 

Posts: 1081
Joined: 9/20/2006
From: Greenville, SC
Status: offline
My preference would be that the fleet has to be in "patrol mode" to contributed, in which case it would cover the entire convoy line it sits on but not be available for anything else.

_____________________________


(in reply to ago1000)
Post #: 25
RE: Sub vs ASW early years BOA - 1/14/2021 3:30:35 PM   
ComadrejaKorp

 

Posts: 168
Joined: 5/31/2020
From: Sitges-SPAIN
Status: offline

(in reply to MorningDew)
Post #: 26
RE: Sub vs ASW early years BOA - 1/14/2021 3:53:28 PM   
baloo7777


Posts: 1021
Joined: 5/18/2009
From: eastern CT
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana

quote:

My understanding is that each sub point costs 10 production points to replace. So from what you say you have caused 139 points of damage and taken 70. Having said that, you don't really get any benefit until you force the Brits to spend production points to replace MS or escorts.


Am I misunderstanding the PP's for repair of subs? I thought it was 10% of original 1939 PP total to purchase, so 12 pts (my 39 subs cost 120 PP and 40 sub cost 132 PP)... and really, I.m going to upgrade to latest tech asap, so cost is either 12 pp/sub point or more (if newer tech)? And to replace a sunk sub costs the latest tech which is 132 PP (12 pp more).
BTW, my mistake on my 2nd PBEM game as it was 8mm 0es with 7sub points lost. ie. 129 PP to 84 PP... and the newest tun (Feb 40) I sunk 3 mm and lost 1 sub point... so 162 to 96. Not exactly a "happy time" of 1939-1940 BOA for Germans.



_____________________________

JRR

(in reply to Harrybanana)
Post #: 27
RE: Sub vs ASW early years BOA - 1/14/2021 4:06:02 PM   
baloo7777


Posts: 1021
Joined: 5/18/2009
From: eastern CT
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AlvaroSousa

My 2 games....

July 1943 - Me Axis
Axis going heavy subs
MM lost 5,080 PPs
ES lost 1,520 PPs
SS lost ~1,600 PPs

May 1942 - Opponent Axis
Axis going historical subs
MM lost 2,220 PPs
ES lost 640 PPs
SS lost ~1,368 PPs

The difference is that I do the sub war better than my opponent. He failed to buy enough stuff early. But his game as the Axis had fairly good average results of my mid war a ratio of 2:1 losses.

quote:

My 2 games....

July 1943 - Me Axis
Axis going heavy subs
MM lost 5,080 PPs
ES lost 1,520 PPs
SS lost ~1,600 PPs

May 1942 - Opponent Axis
Axis going historical subs
MM lost 2,220 PPs
ES lost 640 PPs
SS lost ~1,368 PPs


Not having played 20+ PBEM games, I am relying on others' more experienced views on the BOA exchange for its viability for the Axis against similarly matched players. I realize that examples of any single game are not empirical data, so hoped for an overall impression from the players. However, seeing that the dice rolls can lead to wildly disparaging results, I wonder if any overall impressions will be valid, except over a long game... in other words, if I continue to lose PP's on a 3:2 exchange in the early years, should I immediately change my plans to operate 9 subs in 3 groups of 3, and put the savings another area? Hard to know if this is a serious drain on Axis's chances to win. (I never resign a game without first asking my opponent if they agree that there is no point in continuing, and certainly not before I see if an alternative strategy can turn it around).

_____________________________

JRR

(in reply to AlvaroSousa)
Post #: 28
RE: Sub vs ASW early years BOA - 1/14/2021 4:17:41 PM   
AlvaroSousa


Posts: 7472
Joined: 7/29/2013
Status: offline
This data runs the same in all the games we played. The balance is realizing how much to commit to the BoA

_____________________________

Games worked on

Designer of the Strategic Command 2 products
- Brute Force (mod)
- Assault on Communism
- Assault on Democracy

Designer of the Strategic Command 3 products
- Map Image Importer

(in reply to baloo7777)
Post #: 29
RE: Sub vs ASW early years BOA - 1/15/2021 5:39:52 PM   
baloo7777


Posts: 1021
Joined: 5/18/2009
From: eastern CT
Status: offline
It's really hard to believe that the sub/asw is working well. It's March 1940 and in a pbem game I just had the 5th turn in a row where I took damage to my UBoats. Lost 2 factors to one of my 2 remaining UBoats (had 1 sunk previously). For 20 mm and 2 es I've lost 10 sub factors including a sub sunk. He only has 11 escorts but I have to repair a sub every turn and so I can only send them out (together) every other turn AND they only reach either the North or South Atlantic... so he guesses and has a 50% chance of guessing correctly to put 10 escorts and +3% sub hunter bonus. The guessing game would be tolerable if this was late 41... and builds for the attack on France took most PP's so not really any new subs for a while. Have been researching subs at the max tech level since the beginning, but still very far from 41 tech (slower than usual maybe?). If I was using an Ultra machine to talk with Doenitz and it had already been broken, I could probably understand. The only time I played as the Allies, it seemed that I chased subs with carriers and only found them or damaged them rarely... and the subs were averaging 5-6 mm per turn.

_____________________________

JRR

(in reply to AlvaroSousa)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> WarPlan >> Sub vs ASW early years BOA Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
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

0.186