Are Submarines Worthless?

[Caesar_Augustus]

STRATs are, in fact, pretty good, because of their high Naval Spotting stat. They will FIND (and therefore attack) the target most of the time... but have lower Naval attack stats.

Oh, actually what I was referring to in my earlier post (about strategic vs. naval bombers) was a historical observation that--it seems to me, at least-- strategic bombers were far more ineffectual at attacking ships at sea than naval bomber aircraft. Since default game stats do not model this, in my games this has been duly changed... In order of effectiveness: naval bombers, tactical bombers, strategic bombers and multirole fighters.

 

[DarkSoul1984]

Strategic bombers the best at attacking naval units?

You do realize that STRATs only target stationary objects for a reason right?

 

[blue emu]

Strategic bombers the best at attacking naval units?

No... what I said was: STRATs are the best at SPOTTING Naval units.

I often use them as Naval Cooperation Aircraft... an extremely historical mission for them, considering the real-life success (and importance) of the VLR project. I use them to FIND enemy Task Forces (including Subs) and then send in a suitably-composed SAG or ASW force which gets homed in on the target by the STRATs.

 

[DarkSoul1984]

That was actually directed at henryjai.

I know what you said, and I know how you use them. Your methods I have had the chance to study indepthly.

Honestly, while I disagree with you on some things, I do learn everytime I read something you've written.

 

[SoulStealer]

The medium load bombers were not capable of successfully attacking
any enemy that had a significant AA capability, due to size and speed. "The Genzan Air Corps would attempt a torpedo attack on USS Lexington in early 1942, but they lost seventeen aircraft to the carrier's combat air patrol and anti-aircraft guns." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_Prince_of_Wales_and_Repulse

In-game they can do this easily, as their surface defence and sea attack are far too high. And the sinking of the Prince of Wales was accomplished because of a lack of AA. The medium bomber used in the historical attack could easily be reconstructed in-game by using tactical bombers.



I don't ever use or build them, due to their overpowered and nigh exploitative qualities. I will use TACs or CAS in anti-shipping roles though.



The Germans did this, though only with limited success because of the introduction of escort carriers.
In game actually I lose many convoys to AI naval bombers where I do not have the range to intercept.

They may not be perfectly capable, but I allow their use because I'm not terribly big on the naval management. I've always preferred commanding ground troops, and only in the last year or two have I expanded my interest into the use of aerial combat. Besides which, Japan and Italy, Italy in particular, have very limited industry relative to their enemies, so they can't very well spam naval units like German can. Thus I allow them small concessions in Naval bombers. But not much. I don't build 60 squadrons of them like I did with TAC's as Germany once.

 

[SoulStealer]

To High sea attack? Can 1 group of medium bombers in game sink 2 enemy Battleships/Battlecruisers within in a single attack? Please teach my bombers how to do this

Only around 30 bombers carried torpedoes so one can even argue that 1/3 group of medium bombers should be able to do the job...

I believe that their strenght versus carriers is alot more because only one ship is allowed to fire back (AA = 5% of real strenght in a fleet of 20ships ). And because the mechanics that CAPs can't intercept them. So Underpowered Carriers not overpowered aircrafts...

I still agree that this makes the aircraft somewhat of an exploit, but not unrealistic or a-historical...

And remember that 4 groups of bombers represent around 400 bomber aircraft, A single carrier with 20-30 fighters at max for CAP would not stand a chans in reality and don't do it in game either.

Its not uncommon at all for me to lose 17 strenght (17aircraft) in Nav squadrons attacking carriers. Even with the unfavorable rules for carrier defense that the game have currently.

Or maybe underpowered fleets in general when it comes to AA activity?

Perhaps smaller groupings of aircraft represented by less cost and reduced stats would help resolve this? Along with perhaps an increase in stacking ability and grouping?

 

[rich-love]

No... what I said was: STRATs are the best at SPOTTING Naval units.

I often use them as Naval Cooperation Aircraft... an extremely historical mission for them, considering the real-life success (and importance) of the VLR project. I use them to FIND enemy Task Forces (including Subs) and then send in a suitably-composed SAG or ASW force which gets homed in on the target by the STRATs.

Let's explore this further. Does anyone know if adding more planes to a group makes it more likely that they'll spot naval units, or is it one "roll of the dice" per group?

 

[SoulStealer]

I agree that a purpose built weapon should be more effective than a general weapon like the TAC. But in this case it is too much. And I guess the ranges of anything naval in the game are off. I think however that the naval attack must represent torpedo bombers...even the attack on the defenseless Prince of Wales and Repulse was only effective when the torpedo carrying planes arrived. In this case I must refute the naval attack of the NAV. They are far too big and slow to accomplish a low speed, low altitude approach to a warship without being shot down. The small CAG torpedo bomber has some hope of survival, but the lumbering medium bomber has little. I would increase the sub attack, convoy attack and sea detection of NAVs, because that was their main mission. I would decrease the naval attack and surface defense, because these planes are currently (as you seem to agree)too effective naval combat aircraft.

No... what I said was: STRATs are the best at SPOTTING Naval units.

I often use them as Naval Cooperation Aircraft... an extremely historical mission for them, considering the real-life success (and importance) of the VLR project. I use them to FIND enemy Task Forces (including Subs) and then send in a suitably-composed SAG or ASW force which gets homed in on the target by the STRATs.

Then maybe the NAV's should be reduced to a reconnaissance unit to represent those kinds of aerial task forces, and any real bombing of enemy shipping should be left to the other bombers. STRAT's are rather costly, after all, and it couldn't hurt to have a cheap, general purpose recon. unit in-game.

at least strategic bombers can bomb without risking being hit by ship flak, but they are ineffective against moving targets...

Is it possible to miss with Carpet Bombing?

 

[blue emu]

Let's explore this further. Does anyone know if adding more planes to a group makes it more likely that they'll spot naval units, or is it one "roll of the dice" per group?

Not sure... I tend to use them in pairs for Naval spotting... as a compromise between covering as many ocean areas as possible, and keeping the stack defense high in case I should encounter enemy fighters or AA-Cruisers. Don't know how that affects my spotting rolls.

 

[SoulStealer]

Let's explore this further. Does anyone know if adding more planes to a group makes it more likely that they'll spot naval units, or is it one "roll of the dice" per group?

Grouping naval units together makes them more visible, so I think it would seem reasonable to assume grouping air units together increases the overall detection of the force. But that is by no means a real answer to your question....

 

[henryjai]

Is it possible to miss with Carpet Bombing?

not when you are flying so high! and the target is moving ....

think of it mathematically and you will realize it's quite hard to hit unless you got many bombers/they got many ships


here's a simple diagram drawn by me with my simple physics.

i am not sure about the bombing altitude that a bomber flies when bombing a ship, but this is a estimation...

i try to make it simple already! (sorry i didn't include the z velocity of the bomb...)

 

[SoulStealer]

not when you are flying so high! and the target is moving ....

think of it mathematically and you will realize it's quite hard to hit unless you got many bombers/they got many ships


here's a simple diagram drawn by me with my simple physics.

i am not sure about the bombing altitude that a bomber flies when bombing a ship, but this is a estimation...

i try to make it simple already! (sorry i didn't include the z velocity of the bomb...)

So, basically.... "Air squadron" + "Naval fleet" = carpetbombingdeathzomfgzrun! :wacko:

 

[Gormadoc]

Is this analysys useless ?

He he now that Armageddon 1.2 have fixed the ASW missions so the AI actually can defend against convoy raiding is this intire tread useless ?

I think you guys will have to start from scratch and do it all over. Looking forward to reading about it and compare outcome with the old Doomsday test

 

[blue emu]

Yes... when I get the time (from my current "Anschluss of Everybody" test-game), I'll have to do this again under v1.2

 

[Draigh]

He he now that Armageddon 1.2 have fixed the ASW missions so the AI actually can defend against convoy raiding is this intire tread useless ?

Well, not exactly, as when executed properly the subs should be out of the range of ASW vessels.

 

[unmerged(54763)]

"proper recognition of "wolfpack" by game logic is I think more important change in 1.2.than ASW.
ASW makes small stacks of subs more vulnereable.
But "wolpacks" makes subs dangerous for ships when acting togeteher,in wright circumstancs.
Marvelous.
As I am concern this brought balance.
Subs arent wothless now,far from that.
And still "submarine-haters" can chase them more efectively by fixed ASW now.
Isnt that-genial?


Only problem is that this great thread ,from my perspective has no such strong subject of its existance anymore.Only as memorabilia of Dark Times for subs,that are behind us!

 

[unmerged(72831)]

Now someone must install ARMA 1.2, start a game as Germany and post a new thread "Are submarines worthless in ARMA 1.2?"

 

[unmerged(54763)]

Now someone must install ARMA 1.2, start a game as Germany and post a new thread "Are submarines worthless in ARMA 1.2?"

Believe to old sea wolf.They are fine now..

http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?t=346308

I am actualy expecting someone to start thread "Are subs to powerfull".
There is certainly someone who dont expetcts to see his polished battleships and even carriers perforated by torpedoes of subs in 1.2.
look.. one wolf, two wolfs, ,3,4,5,...oh no, It is a.."Wolfpack"!

 

[MartinBG]

liebgot, do you have any observations if "wolfpack" size has any impact on convoy raiding results, more precisely does submarines recieve a bonus depending on their count when hunting convoys?
The same is in question about naval battles too. Is this "wolfpack" a bonus (modifier)? If - yes, then what is its impact?

When I finish with my current tests (see Another bug in 1.2? Analysis of "convoy_def_eff" and "convoy_raiding") I am thinking about new test to see is there any "wolfpack" bonus in convoy raiding and naval battles. A lot of modifications will be needed, but I think it is possible to be done. Something like this:

Test 1 : 1 Sub - convoy raiding = 30 , naval attack = 30, nav. def = 30
Test 2 : 2 Subs x convoy raiding = 15 , naval attack = 15, nav. def = 15 each
Test 3 : 3 Subs x convoy raiding = 10 , naval attack = 10, nav. def = 10 each
Test 4 : 6 Subs x convoy raiding = 5 , naval attack = 5, nav. def = 5 each
Test 5 : 10 Subs x convoy raiding = 3 , naval attack = 3, nav. def = 3 each
Test 6 : 30 Subs x convoy raiding = 1 , naval attack = 1, nav. def = 1 each

May be Nav. def. is not needed in this tests at all. I'll know more about that after I run few of them.

Any comments?

 

[unmerged(54763)]

liebgot, do you have any observations if "wolfpack" size has any impact on convoy raiding results, more precisely does submarines recieve a bonus depending on their count when hunting convoys?
The same is in question about naval battles too. Is this "wolfpack" a bonus (modifier)? If - yes, then what is its impact?

When I finish with my current tests (see Another bug in 1.2? Analysis of "convoy_def_eff" and "convoy_raiding") I am thinking about new test to see is there any "wolfpack" bonus in convoy raiding and naval battles. A lot of modifications will be needed, but I think it is possible to be done. Something like this:

Test 1 : 1 Sub - convoy raiding = 30 , naval attack = 30, nav. def = 30
Test 2 : 2 Subs x convoy raiding = 15 , naval attack = 15, nav. def = 15 each
Test 3 : 3 Subs x convoy raiding = 10 , naval attack = 10, nav. def = 10 each
Test 4 : 6 Subs x convoy raiding = 5 , naval attack = 5, nav. def = 5 each
Test 5 : 10 Subs x convoy raiding = 3 , naval attack = 3, nav. def = 3 each
Test 6 : 30 Subs x convoy raiding = 1 , naval attack = 1, nav. def = 1 each

May be Nav. def. is not needed in this tests at all. I'll know more about that after I run few of them.

Any comments?

To be honest I didnt observed closely convoy sinkings. I was under impression of how big Wolpacks(20 subs) can hurt surface fleets now.
They certainly are sinking convoys significantly but I dont know is wolfpack more efective in that.
I dont understzand numbers, I am just playing and observing behavior of units, in this case subs.

Big stacks of subs are now realy more powerfull than before,and are more dangerous for surface fleets.It is andenieable this fact.
I dont know why but I guarantee concerning my long expirience in playing with subs that subs in big stacks are now more powerful in naval combat.

Whatabout atack range of Wolfpack?