Ah,my beautiful submarines.

[Pablius]

I´ve been playing HOI/DD since the first HOI, the way subs are currently modeled is the best since HOI 1.0

The game engine has it´s limits...probably there should be more "missions" or "mission paramaters" and "sub doctrines" to make it more accurate and introduce diversity to sub/anti-sub warfare, but given the historical record of subs performance I feel comfortable with the compromises Paradox has made

Germany AFAIK lost between 70 to 80 % of it´s subs, not even going after warships but after convoys...Japan record was even worst trying to go after warships...Still every major sub force manage to sink some warships...even some capital ships including a few carriers...pretty much like the game works right now...

This is not a simulation but the truth is that subs weren´t an option if you wanted to control the sea...and losses should be high for any sub force in areas where a strong enemy surface fleet is active

 

[blue emu]

You have to keep this up for years to make it worthwhile....remember that the UK STARTED with 1000+ convoys... If you keep up the pressure for a long time then it will make some difference in the IC the UK AI has invested in convoys, ships and so on. If so however, realize that superior ASW doctrines will eventually make your subs a horrible investment as long as you keep building and researching them.

... My post was an arguement that Blue Emu could not keep his miraculous sub vs. convoys and capital ship record forever...

I still feel that you seriously under-estimate the effects of a properly conducted U-Boat campaign... not just in the long term, but in the short term as well. After all, if the British cannot survive the short term, their long term advantages are worthless.

Let's assume that the British start with 1000 Convoys. Let's pretend for a moment that I can't hurt the British much until I destroy all of their Convoys... certainly an exaggeration.

In the first four months of the war, my modest total of 24 U-Boat flotillas has sunk 339 Convoys and 28 Escorts... let's ignore the Capital Ship sinkings completely.

I'm averaging about 85 Convoys and 7 Escorts sunk per month. If the British just ignore my U-Boat activity, that will reduce them to zero Convoys (and also reduce their economy to total chaos) in less than 12 months.

Bearing in mind that Convoys take over two months to build, if they don't want to hit zero Convoys, they must start building Convoys within ten months of the start of the war... that way, the first reinforcement Convoys will hit the water the same day that I reduce them to zero... and they must build them roughly as fast as I am sinking them.

If I'm averaging 85 sinkings per month, they must replace about that many every month (starting in July of 1940 at the very latest)... and with a two-month build period, that means that they must have at least 17 "units" of Convoys in their build-queue at all times... that's 70 ICs devoted to doing nothing but building Convoys.

Meanwhile, I'm spending only 14 ICs per day on Submarines.

Of course, as their ASW Doctrines improve, my average sinkings will drop... but how much will their Doctrines improve in one year?

In the short term, can they even keep pace with my own Doctrine improvements? Wolfpack Tactics is a 1940 Tech, and there is another 1940 Tech that improves my Convoy Raiding efficiency as well... also, Doenitz becomes available as a Naval Minister in January 1940, giving my Subs another +10% efficiency bonus.

This coming spring (1940), I will be taking Republican Spain and closing Gibraltar. That will give me Air and Naval bases right on the flank of their Convoy routes, and will force them to re-route their convoys all the way around Africa... lengthening each Convoy route, and requiring more Convoys for each route, as well as leaving them more exposed to my attacks.

I will be surprised if the British have any Convoys left at all by early summer of 1941... winter 1940/41 might be a better guess... and if they do, it will only be at the expense of truly massive Convoy builds, tying up the bulk of their available ICs for a whole year, while I need only spend 20% as many ICs in order to keep the pressure on them.

I am seriously considering throwing in several extra U-Boat serials... just to step up the pressure.

Looked at from that angle... my Capital Ship sinkings are just icing on the cake...

 

[unmerged(47584)]

It is important to move to a new zone after each time that you hit a convoy. This avoids the ASW forces swarming all over you. Naturally, you also want to flee any time you are engaged by pretty much anything.

Moving your raiding zone is also important as the convoys get re-routed after a successful strike. So if you keep your subs raiding in one zone, they'll hit once and then the convoys will be moved to another zone and your subs will be raiding empty ocean.

 

[Bullfrog]

... plus the ICs and Manpower that they've spent repairing the units that I've damaged. This assumes that they are NOT re-building any of those 200 Convoy losses... if they are trying to replace them, that IC and Manpower also counts.

EDIT: Also... I can't help feeling that your argument contains a logical fallacy. According to your method of keeping score, I would be much better off by sinking one Cruiser that they just now built (since those ICs would count, by your method of scoring) than sinking all of their starting CVs and BBs (since those ICs wouldn't count, by your method of keeping score).

You'll pardon me if I don't find that "logic" very compelling...

Causing them IC/resource damage with their original naval OOB can only be through the repairing of damaged naval units (which can't be very much if you are using subs in naval battles) The MP to repair vessels is minimal. The ships that they might put into production after losses is causing them IC loss on a much larger scale. Granted, if you sink a bunch of capital ships from their starting OOB, you are doing a great thing for the war effort. But from strictly an IC point of view, they didn't have to invest in those ships, only supply them and fuel them. With that in mind, the real loss on their part is just the replacements of convoys and capital ships (if the AI is bothering to replace naval losses). I imagine they are making new ships because you are threatening them in the Atlantic and probably because the UK AI is programmed for a naval build up. If for the sake of arguement you had never deployed your U-boats at all I imagine the AI would still be making the same vessels.
As far as causing the UK IC loss you are of course harming them. The question is whether in the end you have not lost or repaired so many u-boats
that the IC's you have used are equal to or greater than theirs. If you can manage to strangle the UK by the end of 41 than you have succeeded, but only after a successful Sealion. Otherwise, what is the point? When the US navy and airforce come into play in the Atlantic, I imagine you will have a much tougher time. So bad in fact you'll probably have to recall most of your u-boats and give up the convoy raiding. So, you will succeed only if you can incapacitate the UK by the end of 41. If you are truly playing historically you'll be nipple deep in Russia and most likely have bigger problems with IC and MP than the u-boat arm replacements.
Something else: Is Italy in the war? If so you are probably in your "happy time" because the British fleet is occupied. Just wait until they decide to really come after your pesky subs. In all the games I've played with GER, I end up with huge sub losses that can not have been worth it, even with 50-60 flotillas hunting all over the Atlantic and with up to date (or later)doctrines.

 

[snoopy1710]

I still feel that you seriously under-estimate the effects of a properly conducted U-Boat campaign... not just in the long term, but in the short term as well. After all, if the British cannot survive the short term, their long term advantages are worthless.

Let's assume that the British start with 1000 Convoys. Let's pretend for a moment that I can't hurt the British much until I destroy all of their Convoys... certainly an exaggeration.

In the first four months of the war, my modest total of 24 U-Boat flotillas has sunk 339 Convoys and 28 Escorts... let's ignore the Capital Ship sinkings completely.

I'm averaging about 85 Convoys and 7 Escorts sunk per month. If the British just ignore my U-Boat activity, that will reduce them to zero Convoys (and also reduce their economy to total chaos) in less than 12 months.

Bearing in mind that Convoys take over two months to build, if they don't want to hit zero Convoys, they must start building Convoys within ten months of the start of the war... that way, the first reinforcement Convoys will hit the water the same day that I reduce them to zero... and they must build them roughly as fast as I am sinking them.

If I'm averaging 85 sinkings per month, they must replace about that many every month (starting in July of 1940 at the very latest)... and with a two-month build period, that means that they must have at least 17 "units" of Convoys in their build-queue at all times... that's 70 ICs devoted to doing nothing but building Convoys.

Meanwhile, I'm spending only 14 ICs per day on Submarines.

Of course, as their ASW Doctrines improve, my average sinkings will drop... but how much will their Doctrines improve in one year?

In the short term, can they even keep pace with my own Doctrine improvements? Wolfpack Tactics is a 1940 Tech, and there is another 1940 Tech that improves my Convoy Raiding efficiency as well... also, Doenitz becomes available as a Naval Minister in January 1940, giving my Subs another +10% efficiency bonus.

This coming spring (1940), I will be taking Republican Spain and closing Gibraltar. That will give me Air and Naval bases right on the flank of their Convoy routes, and will force them to re-route their convoys all the way around Africa... lengthening each Convoy route, and requiring more Convoys for each route, as well as leaving them more exposed to my attacks.

I will be surprised if the British have any Convoys left at all by early summer of 1941... winter 1940/41 might be a better guess... and if they do, it will only be at the expense of truly massive Convoy builds, tying up the bulk of their available ICs for a whole year, while I need only spend 20% as many ICs in order to keep the pressure on them.

I am seriously considering throwing in several extra U-Boat serials... just to step up the pressure.

Looked at from that angle... my Capital Ship sinkings are just icing on the cake...

I would be really interested in a long term (say 12 month) report, whether you will be able to "strangle" the Uk. AFAIK you would be the first person ever to achieve this. Up until now I considered invading the UK the only feasible option (switching doctrines and all).

Snoopy

 

[blue emu]

Something else: Is Italy in the war?

Italy is neutral. So is Japan. My only ally is my Slovakian puppet. Britain is not distracted.

I am planning to bring Italy in only when I am within a month or two of taking Gibraltar... in effect, I will be acting as Italy's "shield", not the other way around.

My current "happy time" is entirely due to my own efforts. Plus luck.

As far as causing the UK IC loss you are of course harming them. The question is whether in the end you have not lost or repaired so many u-boats that the IC's you have used are equal to or greater than theirs.

... but if I can force them to spend about 70 ICs per day, by spending only 14 per day myself... the balance would have to shift by more than 5-to-1, and I would have to persist in unprofitably building U-Boats, long after the balance had obviously shifted against me, in order to end up spending more ICs than they do.

Note also that I am spending those 14 ICs per day out of a far larger IC total... the British 70 ICs per day represents a very large fraction of their disposable ICs... my 14 ICs per day is peanuts. If nothing else, I am effectively preventing them from constructing useful forces... their Convoys cannot damage me. Bombers, Tanks and Infantry could.

I would be really interested in a long term (say 12 month) report, whether you will be able to "strangle" the Uk. AFAIK you would be the first person ever to achieve this. Up until now I considered invading the UK the only feasible option (switching doctrines and all).

I will continue with interim reports, month by month, but summarized and condensed.

Even if I fail to accomplish anything signifigant... one likely cause would be the fact that I only started wit 24 Sub flotillas and 1939 Doctrines. Perhaps I will later start a new game with a focus on U-Boats right from the start.

 

[unmerged(58886)]

Hi there!

Emu - thanks for this "AAR" - certainly gave me something to tink about.

As my results certainly always differed alot from Emu`s I started "test" games (maybe I just messed it up in the other games without even noticing)

So my games had the same circumstances as Blue Emu´s - didn´t tech rush subs, only current Doctrines and the same "strategy" to use them.

I started one game , played until mid august 39 and saved. Somehow (only played late at night - sorry ) I ended up with 5 stacks of six boats, - one more as Emu had. Before the war started I moved 2 stacks to the atlantic(lets call them 1st and 2cond fleet) and left the other three in my harbours. From that savegame I went on with several games/restarts.

Game 1: When the war started I send the 2 stacks on night convoy hunting and 2 of the stacks in my ports around UK to reach the hunting grounds.
Within the first week both the stacks marching to the atlantic were caught. - Total 6 subs lost and 4 damaged - so those two stacks were out. I send the 5th stack out of my port to the atlantic - and this one slipped through.
Fleet 1 and two sank 14 convoys and 3 escorts. After changing the "hunting area" fleet one was still caught. Lost one sub, damaged 3 sank one - transport .
Fleet two didn´t find any prey (Western Approaches) for 2 weeks so I moved them to the Coast of Portugal. There doom really struck. There they encountered by a british fleet with carrieers CA´s, DDs etc.. 4 were sunk before the 4 hours were over, The two damaged remaining subs ran away- only to rund into another british group - and sunk both. The 5th fleet sank 5 convoys and one CL before it was attaced with the loss of three subs and three damaged as well.
This covered the total of 3 1/2 weeks.
Game 1 score:
- Convoys sunk: 19
- escorts sunk: 3
- warships sunk: 1 CL, 1 TP
- subs lost: 16
- subs damaged: 10
- subs unharmed: 4
- time: 3 1/2 weeks

Even without calculating - this was not cost effective
But I never had such a bad game before so I started a new one intstantly.
This one was better

Game 2
to speed it up score only:
- Convoys sunk: 106
- escorts sunk: 23
- warships sunk: 2 DD, 1 CL, 2 TP
- subs lost: 14
- subs damaged: 6
- subs unharmed: 10
- time: 8 weeks

So this was alot better!
Next game - the day after

Game 3
to speed it up score only:
- Convoys sunk: 88
- escorts sunk: 14
- warships sunk: 2 DD, 1 CA
- subs lost: 17
- subs damaged: 7
- subs unharmed: 6
- time: 8 weeks

Now - this was worse bit still not so devastating as game 1

In my current " big game " germany, Aggressive/Hard, I`m now in 1947, conquered whole Eurasia+ Africa and just invaded the US. The struggle for britain lasted about 13 months.
I lost 52 subs (only two since then - but did`t use them extensively)
Losses inflicted: approx 190 convoys and 40 escorts, 12TPs, 1DD, 1CV, 1CL (since then I sunk only 2 SS additionallywith my subs).
Not cost effective as well. And the DD+CV were only sunk because they ran together in a Stack of 6 undamaged boats.

So - we can sum it up.

Outstanding good Subs : 1 game (emu)
Subs allright: 1 game (my game "2")
Subs bad: 3 games.

As emu prooved - subs can be good. But IMHO - this is just not the rule.
maybe I made mistakes - but even some should not cause a difference like this ...

What to change - next thread

 

[unmerged(58886)]

What to change in naval combat:
- I will post this as a new topic as well - it just doesn´t fit this topic any more. So just to draw conclusions...

Facts:
- Bombers crush surface ships but don´t harm subs
- Subs will only very rarely sink a surface ship - even if they get into combat range
- Subs are quite effective against Convoys
- escorts do not harm subs

Comparison to "reality"
- Bombers are effective against surface ships - but would also suffer heavy losses. And carriers would effectively defend..
- Planes are no1 threat to subs
- I think we all agree that a sub in a good shooting position can and will sink everything from CV to DD (eg. royal oak, ark royal etc.) The point is - is the sub good enough to reach shooting position?
- subs are effective against Convoys
- escorts harm subs

Solution (maybe possible in a patch)
- rise the ships air defense - esp for carriers. But the plane´s surface ship attac value shuold not be lowered too much

- rise the sub attac/detection value of planes signifecantely

- as a patch can´t change the naval war model only the subs stats can be changed.
-- rise attac value of subs beginning with e-boats (better subwhater speed etc.)
-- lower subs org - so they will break off earlyer, but also rise the morale
-- maybe additional sub doctrines to accomplish these changes
-- give subs a higher chance to come into shooting range in the first rounds of battle - but this should decrease as the battle goes on

- can escorts get a better sub attac value in a patch? Their strength could be linked to the DD tech and naval doctrines

Solutions in HOI3

- naval war model esp for subs
- escorts sould be something like destroyer "brigades" for convoys

(EDIT: I do not claim that I had the ideas to all my suggestions )

 

[unmerged(58104)]

I find convoy raiding a bit comparable to strategic bombing.
Surely you can hurt your enemy's IC by taking his resources (or bombing his factories), but isn't the UK going to need less and less convoys as I move through all their territories?

Especially the loss of the Home Isles would seem enormously convoy-reducing for the UK, that is ofcourse without a Stornoway fortress that needs to be supplied. If the British capital is in Karachi, wouldn't the British hardly need resource convoys at all?
Perhaps a few from Africa/Singapore to India and ofcourse their supplyconvoys would still be necessary. Instead of resource convoys going 3/4 across the world, they would only have to go a few thousand km's at most.

 

[Chaim Kaufmann]

Good ideas

What to change in naval combat:
- I will post this as a new topic as well - it just doesn´t fit this topic any more. So just to draw conclusions...

Facts:
- Bombers crush surface ships but don´t harm subs
- Subs will only very rarely sink a surface ship - even if they get into combat range
- Subs are quite effective against Convoys
- escorts do not harm subs

Comparison to "reality"
- Bombers are effective against surface ships - but would also suffer heavy losses. And carriers would effectively defend..
- Planes are no1 threat to subs
- I think we all agree that a sub in a good shooting position can and will sink everything from CV to DD (eg. royal oak, ark royal etc.) The point is - is the sub good enough to reach shooting position?
- subs are effective against Convoys
- escorts harm subs

Solution (maybe possible in a patch)
- rise the ships air defense - esp for carriers. But the plane´s surface ship attac value shuold not be lowered too much

Or at all.

- rise the sub attac/detection value of planes signifecantely

- as a patch can´t change the naval war model only the subs stats can be changed.
-- rise attac value of subs beginning with e-boats (better subwhater speed etc.)
-- lower subs org - so they will break off earlyer, but also rise the morale
-- maybe additional sub doctrines to accomplish these changes

This probably isn't needed.

-- give subs a higher chance to come into shooting range in the first rounds of battle - but this should decrease as the battle goes on

Can't do this by editing text files, but giving subs yet higher detection and positioning bonuses and yet lower ORG would have much the same effect

- can escorts get a better sub attac value in a patch? Their strength could be linked to the DD tech and naval doctrines

Can do this in the text files.

[/QUOTE]
- naval war model esp for subs
- escorts sould be something like destroyer "brigades" for convoys

(EDIT: I do not claim that I had the ideas to all my suggestions )[/QUOTE]

Sounds like mostly good stuff to me. My only qualms would be that subs can't often get to a firing position against surface ships that are fast, and it is hard to attack if the escort is thick and competeht.

I'm writing another mod right now, but if you do this I will use it.

CK

 

[unmerged(54763)]

Correct... if you can sink 1.7 convoy "units" for each Submarine lost, you are inflicting more IC damage than you are investing in the Submarines.

October 12th, 1939... less than six weeks into the war:

Six of my Subs vs a 22-unit British stack = a 6,570 IC-day sinking... that just paid for my entire Submarine fleet, plus a profit.

I'm being viciously counter-attacked after that, though... my first Sub losses coming right up... not that it matters, even if I lose all six, I'm left way, way ahead of the game.

EDIT: October 13th, 1939... the very next day:

Any questions?

EDIT #2: The battle in the Channel has run it's course.

My losses: four of the six Submarine Flotillas engaged. Total IC-day cost = 2,064 IC-days, including the estimated cost of repairing the two survivors.

British losses: one BB-III, one BB-II, one CA-III. Total IC-day cost = 14,270 IC-days, NOT including their repair cost for damaged units.

... a seven-to-one profit margin... and the war is still less than six weeks old.

I must be honest,this results are strange,like playing HOI2 ruther than Doomsday.

I want you and all observers of this post to note that you are started you sub activity in 1939.And your situation on the battlefield is totaly non-historical(German tanks in Belgium in 1939?).So I sopose British naval AI acitivity(weak in 1939 allredy when playing historicaly) is properly messed up now.I sopose in your game British AI response is so messed there that it sends now its BBs without escorts on ASW duties.So i think your early agressive strategic advance resulted in such naval performance ruther than performance of subs itself.And allso bitish naval-bomber activity i sopose dosent exist there.Later in game it counts for many sub losses.So this gives us no clue about subs in Doomsday i think.

Please make an experiment.Act historicaly and then in early 1941 send around 30 flotillas in stacks 5x6 and then report to us.
Historicaly U-boats ruled atlantic then,in DD they are easy prey you will see and you will lose them non-historicali quickly.( without manual retreating which i consider exploit).

To completly test my opinion.Please be fee to cheat and made your level 4 subs all to be level 5-s.An advanced Electrobotes.
The rusults will be allmost the same.If models 1,2,3,and 4 of subs are somehow bareable, those advanced peaces of machinery,Electrobotes,are here represented poorly,like some 5-10% more poferful level 4-s.So it is not worth to develop them.

 

[blue emu]

I must be honest,this results are strange,like playing HOI2 ruther than Doomsday.

I agree that my results were rather lucky, and my score better than average. I am not trying to convince you that U-Boats are "uber"... only that they are not "useless". As usual, the truth lies somewhere in between these two extremes.

I want you and all observers of this post to note that you are started you sub activity in 1939... Act historicaly...

Are you sure that you know how (and when) the U-Boats were used historically?

On September 3rd... the same day that Britain and France entered the war... the 13,580 ton liner Athenia was sunk by Lemp in U-30. U-29 sank a British CV less than three weeks into the war (September 17th, 1939). In the September alone (the first month of war), 41 Merchant ships and 150,000 tons of shipping were sunk by U-Boats. Gunther Prien in U-47 sank a Battleship the next month, on the night of October 13th/14th... and so did I, in my game... the very same night, the very same class of Battleship, oddly enough... act historically, you say? Perhaps you're just hard to please...

By starting my U-Boat attacks right from day one of the war, I am acting historically.

And your situation on the battlefield is totaly non-historical (German tanks in Belgium in 1939?). So I suppose British naval AI acitivity (weak in 1939 already when playing historicaly) is properly messed up now. I suppose in your game British AI response is so messed there that it sends now its BBs without escorts on ASW duties. So i think your early agressive strategic advance resulted in such naval performance ruther than performance of subs itself. And allso british naval-bomber activity i suppose dosent exist there. Later in game it counts for many sub losses. So this gives us no clue about subs in Doomsday i think.

I tackled France right after Poland, yes. Why woud that mess up the Naval AI? You are claiming that an experiment only counts if I remain passive for the first eight months of the war (October to May)? Why? Hitler intended to attack France in the late Fall of 1939... that's the way the plans were made. He was persuaded otherwise by the Generals and by the weather. I wasn't.

One of the points to attacking France early was to increase the effectiveness of the U-Boats... by making available to them the Naval bases on the Bay of Biscay, and by gaining Air Bases along the French Atlantic coast for Naval Cooperation Aircraft. Also, it speeds up the timetable for the capture of Republican Spain and the closure of Gibraltar... both of which will further increase the pressure on the British Convoys.

Those two British BBs that I sank were NOT un-escorted. There were ten Capital ships and twelve Screens in that British task force. I sank two BBs in one battle because I got lucky... that was, historically, the only way that U-Boats ever sank major Capital ships in real life.

Where did you get the idea that the British Naval Bombers were inactive? My Submarines were attacked from the air eleven times in the first two months... and most of my U-Boat activity took place out of their range, off the coast of Spain and Portugal.

...(without manual retreating which i consider an exploit)...

You can't be serious... you mean that in real life, when U-Boats were attacked by Anti-Submarine vessels, they never tried to evade? They just let the escorts sink them? Look up the definition of "Exploit"... it refers to a tactic that would never work... or even be used... in a real life situation; a "trick" of the game mechanics. Breaking off the battle to avoid ASW forces is NOT an exploit. It's just common sense.

To completly test my opinion.Please be free to cheat and made your level 4 subs all to be level 5-s.An advanced Electrobotes.
The rusults will be allmost the same. If models 1,2,3,and 4 of subs are somehow bareable, those advanced peaces of machinery,Electrobotes,are here represented poorly,like some 5-10% more poferful level 4-s.So it is not worth to develop them.

I'm not planning to "cheat" myself better Subs, no... my next test will be an "Alternate History" test... I will have Germany build the U-Boat fleet that Doenitz actually requested in real life... 300 or so Submarines (60+ flotillas) by "Danzig or War".

I am considering making Doenitz available as a Naval Minister one year earlier than the game allows... again, as part of the "Alternate History" test: if his "300 U-Boat" plan had actually been adopted, then it's quite possible that he (rather than Raeder) would have been put in charge of it.

 

[unmerged(54763)]

I agree that my results were rather lucky, and my score better than average. I am not trying to convince you that U-Boats are "uber"... only that they are not "useless". As usual, the truth lies somewhere in between these two extremes.



By starting my U-Boat attacks right from day one of the war, I am acting historically.

I tackled France right after Poland, yes. Why woud that mess up the Naval AI? You are claiming that an experiment only counts if I remain passive for the first eight months of the war (October to May)? Why? Hitler intended to attack France in the late Fall of 1939... that's the way the plans were made. He was persuaded otherwise by the Generals and by the weather. I wasn't.

One of the points to attacking France early was to increase the effectiveness of the U-Boats... by making available to them the Naval bases on the Bay of Biscay, and by gaining Air Bases along the French Atlantic coast for Naval Cooperation Aircraft. Also, it speeds up the timetable for the capture of Republican Spain and the closure of Gibraltar... both of which will further increase the pressure on the British Convoys.

Those two British BBs that I sank were NOT un-escorted. There were ten Capital ships and twelve Screens in that British task force. I sank two BBs in one battle because I got lucky... that was, historically, the only way that U-Boats ever sank major Capital ships in real life.

Where did you get the idea that the British Naval Bombers were inactive? My Submarines were attacked from the air eleven times in the first two months... and most of my U-Boat activity took place out of their range, off the coast of Spain and Portugal.

You can't be serious... you mean that in real life, when U-Boats were attacked by Anti-Submarine vessels, they never tried to evade? They just let the escorts sink them? Look up the definition of "Exploit"... it refers to a tactic that would never work... or even be used... in a real life situation; a "trick" of the game mechanics. Breaking off the battle to avoid ASW forces is NOT an exploit. It's just common sense.

I'm not planning to "cheat" myself better Subs, no... my next test will be an "Alternate History" test... I will have Germany build the U-Boat fleet that Doenitz actually requested in real life... 300 or so Submarines (60+ flotillas) by "Danzig or War".

I am considering making Doenitz available as a Naval Minister one year earlier than the game allows... again, as part of the "Alternate History" test: if his "300 U-Boat" plan had actually been adopted, then it's quite possible that he (rather than Raeder) would have been put in charge of it.

Agreed with many things you sad.Still those your subs had "silver torpedoes" loaded onboard I am sure.

You want to play Donitz ?
You can not create a valid what if scenario on long term(after 1944).Your navy ,acording to Dooomsday will around 1944 have Electrobotes,crampy model slightly better than long range sub.
Historicaly Electrobote was revolution,not an evolution.Long range,fast sub,and able to stay many days under the sea,praying cargoes and warships with advanced targeting sistem and new gen. of torpedoes.!First true modern sub that will be real chalenge for allied ASW,as well as for its warships.
This Game however gives you no option for this historical "large tehnological step" ,actualy a revolution of sub wafrare that Ger. enginiers did before the end of war.So your losses around 1943 will become anbarable(without Sea Lion of course).
Electrobote should be 100 % more powerful vessel than long range sub,in game is just slightly more powerful.

And even after you fiew subs survive until 1945,your next natural step will be Nuc-sub.

Nuclear sub is story for itself ,represented in Doomsday in the way i can not describe without affending anyone from developer team,so i will no further talk about them.

 

[blue emu]

Agreed with many things you said. Still those your subs had "silver torpedoes" loaded onboard I am sure.

I certainly agree... it was pure luck.

Then again, the first WW-II U-Boat sinking of a Capital Ship in real life... the sinking of the British CV Courageous by U-29 on Sept 17th, 1939... was also pure luck. The U-Boat Captain was in that area searching for a Convoy that had been reported; he had been completely unaware of the presence of a CV until he raised his periscope and saw it. The Courageous had just sent HALF of its screening Destroyers away to help a Merchant Ship that was under attack... so its own screen was reduced to only two Destroyers instead of the planned four... allowing U-29 to move in to a favorable attack position. Luck.

You want to play Donitz ?
You can not create a valid what if scenario on long term(after 1944).Your navy ,acording to Dooomsday will around 1944 have Electrobotes,crampy model slightly better than long range sub.
Historicaly Electrobote was revolution,not an evolution.Long range,fast sub,and able to stay many days under the sea,praying cargoes and warships with advanced targeting sistem and new gen. of torpedoes.!First true modern sub that will be real chalenge for allied ASW,as well as for its warships.
This Game however gives you no option for this historical "large tehnological step" ,actualy a revolution of sub wafrare that Ger. enginiers did before the end of war.So your losses around 1943 will become anbarable(without Sea Lion of course).
Electrobote should be 100 % more powerful vessel than long range sub,in game is just slightly more powerful.

And even after you fiew subs survive until 1945,your next natural step will be Nuc-sub.

Nuclear sub is story for itself ,represented in Doomsday in the way i can not describe without affending anyone from developer team,so i will no further talk about them.

Again, I agree.

Elektrobootes are very poorly modelled in this game, considering that in real life, they set the standards for a whole generation of post-war Submarines... and Nuclear Submarines are even worse.

Still... my efforts were directed towards demonstrating that the early-war U-Boats are not just "steel coffins", but can actually be a moderately useful tool if properly handled... and with a little luck (or perhaps a lot of luck) can even duplicate the historic record of sinking enemy Capital Ships; as well as performing their main job of destroying Convoys and attritioning the British ICs on favorable terms.

Personally, I feel that U-Boats as a whole do not really fit into the game's combat model... and might be better handled if their effects were totally abstracted...

In other words, the U-Boat war should really be conducted off-map, just as Convoys are. The German player should build U-Boats (of different year-models) the same way that the British player builds Convoys and Escorts... and the U-Boats should only be represented on-map by "U-Boat Patrol Lines", the same way that Convoys are only represented on-map as "Convoy Routes".

Wherever "Convoy Routes" intersect "U-Boat Patrol Lines", off-map combat would occur, with losses to the Convoys, Escorts and U-Boats. ASW forces would cause losses to "U-Boat Patrol Lines", the same way that Surface Raiders cause losses to "Convoy Routes". Naval Task Forces which pass through "U-Boat Patrol Lines" might have a random change of suffering (or inflicting) losses... which, over the run of a whole game, would lead to a certain number of lucky sinkings of Capital Ships.

Of course, changes of this scope are not the sort of thing that we will get in a patch... too much coding. It's a suggestion for HOI-3.

Thoughts?

 

[Pablius]

I agree that sub warfare is poorly represented in the HOI engine, but I´m not sure that it should be moved off-map in a future game...basically it is fun to build things and play around with units in the map...even in a strategic level game

I´d prefer to whole new layer of naval warfare, perhaps with it´s own map and interface...IMO the root of many issues with the naval and air war aspects of the game lays in the attempt to implement everything in a single real time map/engine...It is the way Paradox has alway made things work, but for modern warfare it lacks depth...

Can you imagine a present day setting working with this set of rules? Either you move too many things off map or you diversify the rules and the interface...We could have multiple windows...3D maps where depth and altitude are meaningfull variables (I´m not asking for Doom graphics and a rocket luncher, of course)...User define theaters of war treated as semi separate entities to simplify management...lots of things

A totally abstact game can be a lot of fun too, but I vote to keep subs "visible" in HOI3

 

[unmerged(14249)]

Personally, I feel that U-Boats as a whole do not really fit into the game's combat model... and might be better handled if their effects were totally abstracted. In other words, the U-Boat war should really be conducted off-map, just as Convoys are.

The trouble is that you'd still have on-map convoy raiders - surface ships and aircraft - and so you'd have to have two systems in parallel.

It would be better to go the other way and bring the convoys onto the map. This would model convoys much better because they were quite discrete fleets of merchantman. This was the big idea of convoys - to concentrate the merchant shipping so that it could be escorted. It also made the shipping very difficulty to find.

So, abstract convoy/escort points wouldn't exist. You'd assemble convoys out of transports and whatever you wanted to escort them with - from destroyers to battleships and escort carriers. You'd then give them a convoy mission and they would then automatically sail from depot to depot.

Once nice benefit of this is that their cargo would be explicitly recorded and it would go down if the convoy was sunk. This would be especially good in the case of Sealion, which is currently far too easy because the off-map supply convoys always get through.

You could also give the convoys names then. Winston's Special, Tiger, PQ17. Yummy...

Andrew

 

[unmerged(58886)]

Wherever "Convoy Routes" intersect "U-Boat Patrol Lines", off-map combat would occur, with losses to the Convoys, Escorts and U-Boats. ASW forces would cause losses to "U-Boat Patrol Lines", the same way that Surface Raiders cause losses to "Convoy Routes". Naval Task Forces which pass through "U-Boat Patrol Lines" might have a random change of suffering (or inflicting) losses... which, over the run of a whole game, would lead to a certain number of lucky sinkings of Capital Ships.

This would lead to the total abolition of subs as a threat to surface ships. Which they definitely are ...

I like this much better:

It would be better to go the other way and bring the convoys onto the map. This would model convoys much better because they were quite discrete fleets of merchantman. This was the big idea of convoys - to concentrate the merchant shipping so that it could be escorted. It also made the shipping very difficulty to find.

So, abstract convoy/escort points wouldn't exist. You'd assemble convoys out of transports and whatever you wanted to escort them with - from destroyers to battleships and escort carriers. You'd then give them a convoy mission and they would then automatically sail from depot to depot.

Once nice benefit of this is that their cargo would be explicitly recorded and it would go down if the convoy was sunk. This would be especially good in the case of Sealion, which is currently far too easy because the off-map supply convoys always get through.

Sounds like mostly good stuff to me.

thx

Can't do this by editing text files, but giving subs yet higher detection and positioning bonuses and yet lower ORG would have much the same effect

good idea!! Ill play around with that..

My only qualms would be that subs can't often get to a firing position against surface ships that are fast, and it is hard to attack if the escort is thick and competeht.

right.... The strength of the sub attac should be proportional weakened to the number of escorts - to simulate "being pressed under whater".

I'm writing another mod right now, but if you do this I will use it.

Ill toy around with it - lets see if I get it balanced
What mod do you write?

 

[unmerged(54763)]

Proposition of Blue-Emu se brilliant.Although hard to change by patch.

Altogether my conclusion is that sub-warfare should be changed and rewrited .

High-skilfull players like those you guys on this tread can overcome weaknes of current sub-models and representation and catch some results,with manouvers and exploits.But bunch of us average players(I am just curious observer,but average player ) can not extract joyful results from current sub model.

It is very dificult to build and constantly manage so many flotillas of subs,while playing another theatres simultaneously(espetialy if GER).
Can it be done to make their losses representetd trough reinfocements of flotillas ruther than producing masses of flotillas?Like air-divisions that are reinforcing but rarely totaly destroyed.This will ease gameplay alot.

Expirience gaining of subs,and importance of expirience of subs should be much more important .We all know that problem of German sub flotte later in the war was lack of expirienced sailors.Gaining of expirience for subs should be extremly important therefore.So expirienced sub flotilla with high skilled Sea Wolf should be potent units,and their potential much greater than of newly produced flotillas.

Upgrading of sub flotillas should be therefore nedeed,i think it is absolutely nedeed anyway, much more than for every other wessel in this game.

Sub flotilla itself should be more expensive to produce,but more dificult to be destructed entirely(like air wing).

Its potency agains surface warships can stay the same.But there should be one aditional tipe mission for them."Capital ship hunting",or something like that.And then,only expirienced subs with high skill admiral should have significant capabilities on this matter.Expirience should rise capital ship hunting significantly.

And,finaly,sub tehnology should have significant step-mark.A step between longe range model( 4) and electrobote(5) should be important,giving electrobote high level of capabilities.This tehnology should be very time consuming and expencive to research though,and GER should have absolut supremacy in this field of research(maybee trough blueprint event),of course not before 1944.

 

[blue emu]

I've started a new Germany game, and I'm currently trying out Doenitz's "300 U-Boat" plan.

I will have 63 U-Boat flotillas ready by "Danzig or War", with 9 more under construction... at five U-Boats per flotilla, that represents 315 U-Boats in commission, with 45 more on the way... and I have swapped in Doenitz as my Chief of Naval Operations (+10% to U-Boat efficiency).

Currently researching Commerce Raider Doctrine, as a prerequisite to Wolfpack Doctrine... which should be ready by late 1939 or early 1940.

I will attack France in the fall of 1939, and then Spain and Gibraltar as soon as seems reasonable afterwards... to improve my strategic position for the U-Boat war.

 

[unmerged(58886)]

I've started a new Germany game, and I'm currently trying out Doenitz's "300 U-Boat" plan.

I will have 63 U-Boat flotillas ready by "Danzig or War", with 9 more under construction... at five U-Boats per flotilla, that represents 315 U-Boats in commission, with 45 more on the way... and I have swapped in Doenitz as my Chief of Naval Operations (+10% to U-Boat efficiency).

Currently researching Commerce Raider Doctrine, as a prerequisite to Wolfpack Doctrine... which should be ready by late 1939 or early 1940.

I will attack France in the fall of 1939, and then Spain and Gibraltar as soon as seems reasonable afterwards... to improve my strategic position for the U-Boat war.

Poor AI
:rofl: