• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
if the UK started with about half as many transports, (or even a quarter) but let them carry more that would help.

If convoy raiding let subs try and attack/damage/sink/destroy troop transports that would help. If one could implement that any damage a troop transport suffers, the unit within it suffers as well, convoy raiding would be very helpful.

If you put submarines along the path from malaysia you can starve the UK of precious precious oil and rares. I suspect (but don't know for sure) that hte more subs you have the worse the UK's trade efficiency is, meaning they spend more for the resources they get from the US, or the US can't send as many resources.
 
liebgot said:
Yes this is valid tactics.But If you have many sub stacks on sea isnt this to haevy to managed them manualy?

I agree, a successful uboat war is micromanagement hell the way things are now.

One way to help some is when setting the anti-convoy orders put the fallback threshold high so that the fleet gives up and runs early if attacked. Set it to something like 90% instead of the default which is 50% if I remember correctly.
 
There is just 1 issue you all seem to ignore with your calling for an automatic retreat or reduced org, so as to avoid battle.

Most Submarine Commanders will avoid combat (Against Escorts and warships that is), however in ASW operations it is the dedication and determination of the ASW escorts or ships that determine the length and outcome of the engagement. A determined Destroyer commander will do his utmost to seek an engagement.

Now just remember it is a game of balance, you cant complain about the uselessness of submarines, or suggest overpowering them as this would have a direct effect, as soon thereafter you will just have posts about nerfing subs.

As they are they are quite effective in the assigned roles (for the era), which was primarily convoy interdiction. However I do wish that the efficiency of the lower classes (or perhaps a slight increase accross the board) was raised. However the doctrines to me should matter far more, as well as the intelligence and models, so as to represent the cat and mouse game that was the battle of the atlantic.

Yet, one must remember that as the war went on, the U boats were further and further penned into smaller operation areas, and forced to operate under severe operational conditions, sometimes with sparse or little result, after all the U boat service did suffer massive proportional casualties.

I say perhaps, increase the effects of technology, and perhaps a slight increase in efficiency, however dont become overzealous and overpower them, as Naval Bombers already are (to me they can be gamebreakers, especially in MP).
 
Change the whole thing about subs?

It should NOT be possible to group more than 12 or 16-18 "subs" in one GROUP.
There is supposed to be 3 subs in one "flotilla" or whatever you name it. 12 "flotillas" times 3 subs each "flotilla" = 36 subs (in ONE operational group)!

The subs was slower than old British Battleships, BUT in HoI2 we see them grouped together with Battleships, Carriers, Cruisers and Destroyers! As far as I know they never operated in Fleets (in WW2). They where usually on scout missions (as in Norway Campaign - Weserübung), or in merchant hunting missions. OK, some other missions was executed as well during the war, (as Prien's attack on Scapa Flow) but that was not the MAIN FOCUS.

Tactically the sub was a ship/boat for scouting and merchant ship hunting. I know the Japanese built other types and for other missions, but was it many? And the USN built some subs for other types of missions too?

Well, in the game we can use subs as escorts to transport ships... I don't think THAT ever happened in WW2...? Am I wrong here?

I think this should be done:

1. It should NOT be possible to group them in uber-fleets
2. When attacked, they should emediately retreat, dive or whatever!
3. It should NOT be possible to group them together with other ship types
4. Subs should be a lot harder to spot during night time and day time

More changes?
.
 
Cut out the expensive U-Boats and the naval doctrines, and build Naval Bombers. They have a way higher survival rate, as long as they're not flying over the Channel.
Alternately, go for BCs instead.
 
In WWII, some nations did group subs tactically with other surface fleet types. The most notable example would be Japan. Japanese subs were often used as scouts/screens for larger fleets instead of operating independently.
 
Dalwin said:
In WWII, some nations did group subs tactically with other surface fleet types. The most notable example would be Japan. Japanese subs were often used as scouts/screens for larger fleets instead of operating independently.
Yes maybe, but the Germans almost did the same in Weserübung. They spread out subs as scouts all along the Norwegian coast line.

The Japanese had some completely different types of subs than what was usual in WW2. The IJN had some large sub-cruisers that could carry seaplanes. I don't think those types are implemented in HoI2.
.
 
As far as submarines performances, submarines were at the very least highly effective against fleet carriers ; only carrier-based planes have a higher kill tally against carriers. (Taiho, Shinano, Shokaku, Unryu, Wasp, Yorktown, Ark Royal, Courageous, Eagle). Add to that Kongo and Royal Oak, and you've got a decent tally.

Subs certainly killed more big ships than land-based planes (who got...what, again? POW, Repulse, Tirpitz, Princeton, Hiei*...anything else?), yet in the game they're pathetic against fleets, whereas land based navs are the single deadliest threat to ships.

(Note that by big ships i mean BB, BC and CA)
 
Guillaume HJ said:
Subs certainly killed more big ships than land-based planes (who got...what, again? POW, Repulse, Tirpitz, Princeton, Hiei*...anything else?), yet in the game they're pathetic against fleets, whereas land based navs are the single deadliest threat to ships.
(Note that by big ships i mean BB, BC and CA)
Off the top of my head, there was also the Gneisenau and the Roma. Also the Scheer and the Terror. I think the RN lost quite a few cruisers to land-based air too but don't have any stats to hand.

Andrew
 
Last edited:
Should I change the organisation level?

Of subs that is, how do I go about it?
Will it make a difference?
What else should I do alongside/instead of this?
 
Just ran through the entire list of big ships (light cruisers and up) lost by the five major navies of WW II (RN, USN, IJN, RM, KM)

-The killing blow (or, if the ship was scuttled, the crippling blow that brought about scuttling) is considered alone. This advantages submarines at times (yorktown), and disadvantage them at others.
-Ships that were repaired (or under process of being repaired at end of war) to combat conditions, or otherwise not permanently taken out are not counted. This affects carriers especially, who lose several port strike victims from their kill counts (Pearl Harbor - only Arizona and Oklahoma are counted, Taranto, none counted ; most of the victim of the Kure raids are however counted).
-Kamikaze, despite having nothing to do with what HOI2 calls naval bombers, are counted as land-based planes.
-The CL/CA distinction is at time very hazy ; did my best there.
-The CV/CVL/CVE one is just as hazy ; several british and japanesse ships blured the line. I went with CV as the general term with the exception of Chiyoda and Chitose.
-Should be kept in mind that a sizeable count of these plane kills were on anchored ships.

Lost to Subs : 2 BB, 1BC, 9CV, 8CVE, 6CA, 20CL, 46 total.
Lost to Land Planes : 3BB, 3BC, 1CV, 3CVE, 1MT, 4CA, 12CL, 27 total.
Lost to Carrier Planes : 4BB, 1BC, 15CV, 1CVE, 12CA, 8CL, 41 total.
Lost to Surface Action : 3BB, 2BC, 1CV, 2CVE, 12CA, 10CL, 30 total.

Removing CL and CVE from the count and limiting ourselves to capships give us :

Carriers : 32 kills
Subs : 18 kills
Surface : 18 kills
Land Planes : 12 kills

Only CV/BC/BB (per my original line of thought)

Carriers : 20 ships.
Subs : 12 ships.
Surface : 7 ships.
Land Planes* : 7 ships.

*and the VAST majority of the land planes kills in WW II were the work of planes that are best identified as CAS, TACs or STR.

Which all goes to prove the same point. Submarines DID engage warships, and they were very good at it. Conversedly, land planes, except against targets that could not engage into defensive maneuvering (ie, at anchor, busily loading up people to evacuate, etc), were pretty pathetic.
 
Last edited:
  • 1
Reactions:
Guillaume HJ said:
Just ran through the entire list of big ships (light cruisers and up) lost by the five major navies of WW II (RN, USN, IJN, RM, KM)

-The killing blow (or, if the ship was scuttled, the crippling blow that brought about scuttling) is considered alone. This advantages submarines at times (yorktown), and disadvantage them at others.
-Ships that were repaired (or under process of being repaired at end of war) to combat conditions, or otherwise not permanently taken out are not counted. This affects carriers especially, who lose several port strike victims from their kill counts (Pearl Harbor - only Arizona and Oklahoma are counted, Taranto, none counted ; most of the victim of the Kure raids are however counted).
-Kamikaze, despite having nothing to do with what HOI2 calls naval bombers, are counted as land-based planes.
-The CL/CA distinction is at time very hazy ; did my best there.
-The CV/CVL/CVE one is just as hazy ; several british and japanesse ships blured the line. I went with CV as the general term with the exception of Chiyoda and Chitose.
-Should be kept in mind that a sizeable count of these plane kills were on anchored ships.

Lost to Subs : 2 BB, 1BC, 9CV, 8CVE, 6CA, 20CL, 46 total.
Lost to Land Planes : 3BB, 3BC, 1CV, 3CVE, 1MT, 4CA, 12CL, 27 total.
Lost to Carrier Planes : 4BB, 1BC, 15CV, 1CVE, 12CA, 8CL, 41 total.
Lost to Surface Action : 3BB, 2BC, 1CV, 2CVE, 12CA, 10CL, 30 total.

Removing CL and CVE from the count and limiting ourselves to capships give us :

Carriers : 32 kills
Subs : 18 kills
Surface : 18 kills
Land Planes : 12 kills

Only CV/BC/BB (per my original line of thought)

Carriers : 20 ships.
Subs : 12 ships.
Surface : 7 ships.
Land Planes* : 7 ships.

*and the VAST majority of the land planes kills in WW II were the work of planes that are best identified as CAS, TACs or STR.

Which all goes to prove the same point. Submarines DID engage warships, and they were very good at it. Conversedly, land planes, except against targets that could not engage into defensive maneuvering (ie, at anchor, busily loading up people to evacuate, etc), were pretty pathetic.



Thanks for the great work! :cool:

Good proof - and it still does not take into account that most subs were ordered NOT to attac warships if possible (at least atlantic, but also some in the pacific) whereas the other classes were usually bound for enemy warships!
 
Good stats. But now look at the number of submarines that were sunk by convoy escorts and compare that with what happens in the game. It seems that convoy escorts are especially underpowered vs submarines and this is the main inaccuracy in this theatre now.

While submarines had their moments, they seemed to be quite ineffective in a big set-piece battle. The biggest of these was Neptune - the D-Day landings. U-boats made a feeble attempt penetrate the ASW screen in the western Channel and were quite ineffective, despite the latest snorkel technology. Naval bombers of Coastal Command plus RN/RCN destroyers and frigates defeated them quite easily.

Andrew
 
I'm still not convinced that Subs are too weak...

I find them quite cost-effective. In my current Germany game, without any Tech Rushing of Naval Doctrines or U-Boat designs (just my original German Doctrines, and four 6-boat Flotillas of 1938-model U-Boats), I've sunk over 110 British Convoys in the first 12 days of the war... without yet losing a Submarine. This is quite typical of the early-war experiences that I've had as Germany.

Now... 110 Convoys (11 "units" of Convoy) cost 3300 IC-days to produce. That's the equivalent of the IC production cost of seven brand-new Submarines... so even if I had lost an entire 6-boat flotilla (instead of zero losses), I would still be inflicting more IC-damage on the British than I'm suffering myself. As it is, 3300 IC-days damage vs zero, I've accomplished the equivalent of reducing their ICs by 9 ICs per day for a whole year (which also totals about 3300 IC-days)... just in the first 12 days of the war.

If my Subs were also sinking warships... they would be winning the war for me, all by themselves. If Paradox were to boost the Anti-Ship capability of Subs, then they would also have to nerf the Convoy-Raiding capability, to stop them from being too powerful... yes?
 
blue emu said:
I'm still not convinced that Subs are too weak...

I find them quite cost-effective. In my current Germany game, without any Tech Rushing of Naval Doctrines or U-Boat designs (just my original German Doctrines, and four 6-boat Flotillas of 1938-model U-Boats), I've sunk over 110 British Convoys in the first 12 days of the war... without yet losing a Submarine. This is quite typical of the early-war experiences that I've had as Germany.

Now... 110 Convoys (11 "units" of Convoy) cost 3300 IC-days to produce. That's the equivalent of the IC production cost of seven brand-new Submarines... so even if I had lost an entire 6-boat flotilla (instead of zero losses), I would still be inflicting more IC-damage on the British than I'm suffering myself. As it is, 3300 IC-days damage vs zero, I've accomplished the equivalent of reducing their ICs by 9 ICs per day for a whole year (which also totals about 3300 IC-days)... just in the first 12 days of the war.

If my Subs were also sinking warships... they would be winning the war for me, all by themselves. If Paradox were to boost the Anti-Ship capability of Subs, then they would also have to nerf the Convoy-Raiding capability, to stop them from being too powerful... yes?


well roared, lion....errr, emu;)
 
The problem with subs is that the HOI2 engine probably has a very hard time modeling their great vulnerability as well as their deadliness, so they're toned down on all fronts.

The basic problem with a sub is that, essentialy, any hit on a sub at all is a hit below the waterline. Combine that with the fact that they had very little by way of armor, and you had ships that relied almost entirely on stealth for survival.

The way the HOI engine treats them right now - as any other ships - it's hard to model that. They'd have to deal very high damage, but attempt to withdraw almost immediately

And Blue Emu - yeah, IF Paradox cannot boost the efficiency of Convoy Escorts and/or make the AI use them efficiently, then an increase in submarine's anti-warship capacity should be matched with a decrease in anti-convoy capacity.

On the other hand, there is no excuse for the way Naval Bombers are (mis)represented in the game. It's carriers that should be eating other ships for breakfast like that (and, in my experience, they eventually do), not land-based planes.