Are Submarines Worthless?

[blue emu]

Well, I doubt very much that the sub strategy would be possible against a human player either.

Certainly the Submarine strategy would have no such decisive effect in a Multi-Player game as it has had in this test Single-Player game. No argument there.

On the other hand... if Doomsday is a reasonably "historical" game, then between equal Human opponents, the Axis should lose the Battle of the Atlantic in the long run, whether they build Submarines, or Battleships... or nothing at all.

In a Single-Player game, it's entirely feasible for a Human Germany to plan to cripple an AI-Britain with U-Boats. In a Multi-Player game, the goals would be more limited. If I could force the British to spend more ICs than I'm spending... including those ICs spent on Dissent reduction for releasing Colonies to serve as over-seas supply sources... out of a smaller IC total, then I am showing a profit.

My more limited goals in a Multi-Player game would include:

1) Force the British to spend ICs (and time) building ASW forces, which will be entirely wasted once the U-Boat threat has been eliminated.

2) Force them to operate their ASW forces within Air range of my French and Spanish bases, leading to disproportionate losses since surface ASW assets are far more vulnerable to Air attack than Submarines are.

3) Tie up the British build-queue with ASW, Convoy and Escort builds... thus delaying the build-up of land and Air strength for a return to the continent.

4) Degrade the ability of the British to trade with neutrals, or to support their Allies with free resources. Hurt them financially, to limit their Diplomatic and Espionage spending.

Note that my 90-unit Submarine force only cost me about as many IC-days as three Bismarcks would cost. Suppose that I had built three Bismarcks instead... the British could have countered them perfectly well with their starting Naval forces. There would have been no need for any reactive builds by the UK. No so for a U-Boat strategy.

The oceans would be swarming with DD's.

But if the oceans are swarming with DDs, then I've already succeeded, yes? Britain has been forced to spend ICs and time building massive ASW forces which will be entirely useless once the U-Boat war has been won. Their spending has surely been higher than mine... out of a much smaller IC total... and with my NAVs attacking any ASW forces that venture within reach of my Air bases, their losses have also surely been higher than mine.

Against a Human opponent, the point of the U-Boat campaign would not be to cripple Britain completely, as it was in this game... it would be to attrition their ICs on favorable terms (perhaps very favorable) and to soak up their offensive potential for the first few years of the war, sharply limiting the size of the Air, Armor and Infantry forces that they could field.

Essentially, it would serve as a covering operation for "the main event" on the Eastern Front.

@Meir: Yes, I've hit the same bug in an even more serious form... when I retreated four Subs from a small Naval battle, they briefly showed "Embarked" as their orders, then vanished from the game. They were not under Air attack, and were not sunk by the opposing force. I had them selected at the time, to see what was wrong... and three of them were at full strength at the instant they vanished. That bug accounts for nearly half of my losses in the whole game (four out of the nine U-Boats lost).

 

[blue emu]

Update: 00:00 hours, May 1st, 1940.

In this two week period, a further 27 Convoys and 6 Escorts have been sunk, bringing the running total of British Merchant Ship losses up to 964 Convoys and 139 Escorts sunk in nine months. The original goal of the operation... sinking a thousand-odd Convoys in less than a year... appears to be within reach.

British Naval losses have reached 71 ships, about 2/3rds of them ASW vessels. The Italians have lost three small ships (1 SS, 2 DD). German losses remain at 5 U-Boats lost in combat and 4 more missing and presumed lost. It has been half a year since the Kriegsmarine last lost a U-Boat.

Greece has been annexed, with all territory going to Italy... thus removing the Balkans as a theater of operations. We will see if this success inspires the Italians to make greater efforts to finally push the British back from Suez. Norway is within an ace of annexation... one VP province to go. All available Heer forces are redeploying to the German/Russian border, with Barbarossa tentatively scheduled for the middle of June, 1940. The Non-Aggression Pact with Russia has expired, and will not be renewed.

======== ========== ========== ========= ======== =========

Update : 00:00 hours, May 15th, 1940.

In the second half of May, Convoy losses continue to wind down as Britain scrapes the bottom of the Merchant Shipping barrel... 22 Convoys and 8 Escorts being sunk in this two-week period, bringing the total losses to 986 Convoys and 147 Escorts in nine and a half months.

British Naval losses stand at a running total of 73 warships, most of them ASW vessels... while Italy and Germany have suffered no further losses.

On the diplomatic front... more bad news for Churchill:

... he must be feeling pretty bummed-out at the moment.

Norway has been annexed, and all available Heer forces are headed for the Russian border. A unit-strength report will be issued just before Barbarossa begins... still tentatively scheduled for mid-to-late June. Perhaps on the 22nd, just for verisimilitude...

 

[meirlon]

Quick update on my game emu - with constant bombing on the UK mainland my UK has filled its queue with radar anti air and DD's. It currently has 7 (yes 7) convoy's left. The indian forces ran out of supples a few months ago and japan is rolling over what was a hard fought battle. The african forces seem to produce enough supples to keep them going, however the italians are steadily making progress and have taken all of western africa, and are currenty working in the congo (with no help from me). This has happened in a little over a year (15 months). It probably has to do with the fact that I only built around 60 subs total, i stopped some queues later in the game because I thought i had enough, but more and more are being sunk by US DD's. I'm down 7 total, 4 in the last month alone. I should have enough time however to work my way into russia, and theres no point of a blockade once the soviets are down =).

I think the best part of this is that since the US has been in the war from the start, they have been pumping out DD"s as well and have only 6 carriers while my good friends the japs have 12. The summer of 42 i plan my soviet attack through the newly formed Scandinavia, and as you read this I have 14 shiny new semi modern carriers in the works.

Your strategy is by far the best in terms of historical views (whoever plays this with germany just to bunny hop to the uk mainland with 10 transports and takes it over should be shot =p, that would never happen).

 

[blue emu]

Update : 00:00 hours, June 1st, 1940.

Convoy losses doubled in this two-week period, to 44 Convoys and 6 Escorts sunk, bringing the running total up to 1030 Convoys and 153 Escorts sunk in ten months. This achieves the goals set at the start of the war: 1000+ Convoys in less than a year. Doenitz has been awarded the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross, with Crossed Torpedoes.

Many of the sinkings have taken place in the Red Sea, which is reachable from Brest despite the fact that Suez is still in British hands.

British Naval losses now total 78 warships since the start of the war, nearly all to Air attack. 49 of the ships were ASW vessels. German and Italian losses remain as before.

Final redeployments for Barbarossa are underway. A breakdown of Heer strength returns as of June 1st, 1940:

154 Infantry, 41 of them in the West.
4 HQs, 1 of them in the West
22 Motorized, all in the East
14 Armor, all in the East
3 Mountain Troops, all in the East
1 Cavalry, on Anti-Partisan duty
30 Garrisons, most in the occupied zones (Spain, Yugoslavia, Norway)

20 Interceptors, half in the West.
9 Stukas and 12 TACs, all in the East.
9 NAVs, all in the West.

======== ======== ========= ========= ========= ========

So... it seems that Doenitz's "300 U-Boat" plan has achieved its goals. 1000+ Convoys sunk in 10 months, an average rate of more than 100 per month.

British forces are out-of-Supply in many locations... the 2 Divisions in Malta and the 5 Divisions in Crete are starving-down, for instance. Italy is doing much better than usual, both on land and at sea. Japan, when they enter, will no doubt enjoy similar benefits.

Should I continue to report progress in the game, to assess the effects that my big U-Boat builds had on Barbarossa and Sealion, and to see what happens when the USA enters the war?... or is this enough?

 

[unmerged(58571)]

It would be interesting to see you in an actual alliance with the Japanese and rebasing a few dozen subs to the Pacific once the USA enters the war.

 

[Acheron]

I believe you cannot invite Japan to join the axis, because it starts out right with an alliance with Manchuko, disallowing them to join another alliance.

 

[unmerged(58571)]

But the Allies, Axis and Comintern leaders can invite leaders of lesser alliances to merge their whole alliances, or so I have been told... if that is, in fact, not possible, I see no harm in a little save game editing to allow for a continued experiment, or at least a cheat-aquired military access through Japan and Siam if the Russian front is still undecided.

 

[blue emu]

I believe you cannot invite Japan to join the axis, because it starts out right with an alliance with Manchuko, disallowing them to join another alliance.

They hate me anyway... -200 Relations

England has 39 Convoys left. With Gibraltar closed, it requires 58 Convoys to reach Mombasa, 74 Convoys to reach Bombay, and 70 Convoys to reach Tel Aviv.

They can no longer supply any of their forces, except those in the Home Islands. After nine months of U-Boat war (September 1939 to May 1940), Britain is no longer a world power.

 

[Kanitatlan]

One caveat to bear in mind is that Sea Power... and especially Under-Sea Power... is inherently slow to take effect.

Rather than acting as a blow-torch for quickly cutting through the enemy (as Tank and Air units do), it acts like a hot summer sun... slowly drying up and shrinking the resources of the enemy, while invigorating and refreshing friendly forces. As a response to a sudden USA DoW and invasion, it would take several months to reach full effect, since they would start with all of their pre-war Convoys intact.

Whilst uboat warfare is slow the USA is also slow to move into the phase where they actually invade anywhere significant. This should give plenty of time to decimate their supply convoys across the Atlantic. The sad side is that the best place to start decimating their merchant marine is in the Pacific. For the USA the main use of convoys is for supplies. Where they do acquire raw materials in is via trade and whilst submarines can interdict this trade they don't sink convoys in the process.

Remember that a Convoy Route requires at least one Convoy Ship per Sea Area that it passes through. By closing Gibraltar, and thereby forcing the British Convoys to go all the way around Africa in order to reach the Med, I added thirty or so Sea Zones to the route, effectively reducing the number of Convoy Routes that they can operate at any one time... and also bunching up the ships into fatter targets.

Also, most of the 57 British Naval vessels sunk (35 of them ASW vessels, remember) were sunk by Air Attack from Spanish bases. I feel that the Spanish campaign made a real contribution to the U-Boat war.

This fits with my experience. Holding Spain makes a huge difference to British exposure to friendly air power (look at Edge of Darkness - the main hunting ground for Soviet air power was around Spain). It is also very useful for naval bases since it allows uboats to operate close to base and still cover an awful lot of ground.

I'm STRONGLY tempted to try this out in my current USA game vs. Japan - let them run wild, and then unleash the subs. I'm not sure it'd work as well as in reality; in game you can hop islands much more quickly, and sink enemy fleets much more reliably.

I have tried this strategy a long time ago in HOI1 and whilst it was effective it was tedious compared with a more direct approach. I suspect it would work find in DD and would be an excellent supplement to a Europe first strategy. Take Europe by direct action whilst depleting and destroying Japanese forces outside the home islands entirely by submarine warfare.

Submarines could be used as an effective strategy by Japan against the USA. Again, I have only done this in HOI1 but was successful in destroying the US convoy fleet rendering them impotent. They still come out and land on islands but then decay and die. This would probably have to be done without air superiority but the AI is probably too disorganised for effective air based anti-submarine warfare.

..... But from a gaming perspective, is it really worth it? All those resources spent over a long, long time to eventually starve Britain.
.....

I think the real issue is that it represents an investment of very few resources. This is what makes it an attractive strategy. The all uboat strategy is cheaper than the historical German fleet build up and many times more effective. It is certainly cheaper than the usual naval build up for an early Sealion and hence is having less impact on forces available for Barbarossa. I suspect that the ability to reduce garrisons in western Europe yields more forces than the cost of the uboats making this a highly cost effective solution to the Western Allies problem.

 

[Grishnak]

... Doenitz has been awarded the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross, with Crossed Torpedoes.

:rofl: I suppose the Torpedos are made of oak leaves and diamonds?

Should I continue to report progress in the game, to assess the effects that my big U-Boat builds had on Barbarossa and Sealion, and to see what happens when the USA enters the war?... or is this enough?

Well at least you still owe us the sub vs. surface fleet battles ... I would love to hear about how your subs further contribute to your war effort (do they help against the US? do they eventually meet their doom in 43+? ...). I have a tendancy to quit the game as soon as russia is beaten ... therefore I haven't had much sub action vs. US or decent ASW doctrines ...

 

[froglegs]

Update : 00:00 hours, June 1st, 1940.

British forces are out-of-Supply in many locations... the 2 Divisions in Malta and the 5 Divisions in Crete are starving-down, for instance. Italy is doing much better than usual, both on land and at sea. Japan, when they enter, will no doubt enjoy similar benefits.

It is my experience that if Britain is involved in major land wars in North Aftica and Burma, all of their island garrisons will eventually starve regardless of U-Boat activity. The 1000 convoy ships they start with in 1936 are simply not enough. The other problem is that there is no way for USA or anybody else allied with UK to lend or give convoy transports to them. The UK AI simply does not build enough convoys. As UK myself I always start building 2 lines of 99 convoys at the start of 1936.

Anymore, when I start the 1936 game I edit the UK AI file to change the convoys from 1000 to 3000 at the start.

 

[Galleblære]

Certainly the Submarine strategy would have no such decisive effect in a Multi-Player game as it has had in this test Single-Player game. No argument there.

On the other hand... if Doomsday is a reasonably "historical" game, then between equal Human opponents, the Axis should lose the Battle of the Atlantic in the long run, whether they build Submarines, or Battleships... or nothing at all.

In a Single-Player game, it's entirely feasible for a Human Germany to plan to cripple an AI-Britain with U-Boats. In a Multi-Player game, the goals would be more limited. If I could force the British to spend more ICs than I'm spending... including those ICs spent on Dissent reduction for releasing Colonies to serve as over-seas supply sources... out of a smaller IC total, then I am showing a profit.

My more limited goals in a Multi-Player game would include:

1) Force the British to spend ICs (and time) building ASW forces, which will be entirely wasted once the U-Boat threat has been eliminated.

2) Force them to operate their ASW forces within Air range of my French and Spanish bases, leading to disproportionate losses since surface ASW assets are far more vulnerable to Air attack than Submarines are.

3) Tie up the British build-queue with ASW, Convoy and Escort builds... thus delaying the build-up of land and Air strength for a return to the continent.

4) Degrade the ability of the British to trade with neutrals, or to support their Allies with free resources. Hurt them financially, to limit their Diplomatic and Espionage spending.

Note that my 90-unit Submarine force only cost me about as many IC-days as three Bismarcks would cost. Suppose that I had built three Bismarcks instead... the British could have countered them perfectly well with their starting Naval forces. There would have been no need for any reactive builds by the UK. No so for a U-Boat strategy.

But if the oceans are swarming with DDs, then I've already succeeded, yes? Britain has been forced to spend ICs and time building massive ASW forces which will be entirely useless once the U-Boat war has been won. Their spending has surely been higher than mine... out of a much smaller IC total... and with my NAVs attacking any ASW forces that venture within reach of my Air bases, their losses have also surely been higher than mine.

Against a Human opponent, the point of the U-Boat campaign would not be to cripple Britain completely, as it was in this game... it would be to attrition their ICs on favorable terms (perhaps very favorable) and to soak up their offensive potential for the first few years of the war, sharply limiting the size of the Air, Armor and Infantry forces that they could field.

Essentially, it would serve as a covering operation for "the main event" on the Eastern Front.

This assumes an MP game; My view of this is sort of the opposite. You have sacrifised a lot of IC to fight in the atlantic instead of gearing up for a war against the USSR. Naturally, this is a moot point against the AI, as any half-decent player should be able to defeat them even with smaller numbers. But to make this strategy effective against a human UK player, you need more subs, a LOT more. And thats gonna hurt your other forces, as stated.

But let us say this is in a MP game, can you really afford to use all those resources on subs, even if the USSR is AI controlled? With fewer land forces, you are spread thin, and with military control, the english player can really give you a hard time on the western front.

I really like this strategy, but IMO it is better suited for Single player games where you play by house rules and want a more "realistic" Sealion like you are planning. Nothing wrong with that of course, and you did say that in your opening post!

 

[ComradeOm]

By the way, don't I know you from Rev Left?

It’s a small internet

Should I continue to report progress in the game, to assess the effects that my big U-Boat builds had on Barbarossa and Sealion, and to see what happens when the USA enters the war?... or is this enough?

While the campaign has clearly achieved its primary goal, I'd imagine that there are two major factors remaining that have a bearing on the effectiveness of this strategy.

1) The impact that US entry into the war will have on the submarine blockade
2) The impact that the Atlantic campaign has had on Barbarossa

I'm particularly interested in the latter and am looking forward to seeing how you deploy your limited armour assets.

 

[unmerged(18427)]

Though the investment in subs here has been heavy, and as such has hurt in IC and army, he have been sinking convoys at a staggering rate. Is there really any need to eliminate the UK's convoys that quickly? It seems to me that, unlike most other cases, owerwhelming force is not the ideal here, since the the subs don't really have many other fields of use afterwards.

Is it not possible to cripple the UK with half the number of subs? Even if it takes three times as much time it would still be sufficient, and the investment would not reduce Germany's IC and army as much.

Just my two cents.

 

[Pablius]

I think it is worth it to see this to the end...that would probably mean answering the question "can I implement a sub strategy and beat the SU?"

Because if the answer is "no", the sinking of the British mechant fleet would have been a pirric victory...Or a big help the soviets once they go after the british empire after they roll over Berlin....

Beating the USSR is after all the true measure of any strategy as Germany, eventually they will come after you

As of now, the tactical question is probably already answered, subs can deliver and survive if used properly...the strategic question remains unanswered...but maybe this is out of the scope of this particular experiment and would require a new start that takes into account the experience collected by now.

 

[blue emu]

I think it is worth it to see this to the end...that would probably mean answering the question "can I implement a sub strategy and beat the SU?"

... Beating the USSR is after all the true measure of any strategy as Germany, eventually they will come after you

As of now, the tactical question is probably already answered, subs can deliver and survive if used properly...the strategic question remains unanswered...but maybe this is out of the scope of this particular experiment and would require a new start that takes into account the experience collected by now.

I am fully prepared to try and beat the Soviets with the Army I have now.

It's true that I've learned quite a bit from this experiment... that was, after all, one of the main objectives: to collect data. If I were to do it all again, there are several things that I would do rather differently, among them:

1) Establish solid blockade-lines between Brazil and Africa earlier than I did in this game.

2) Send U-Boat Rudels to the East coast of Canada and the US earlier.

3) Split up into 3-Sub flotillas, two per Sea Area, right from the start.

... note that all three of these points were suggested to me by other Forum members who replied to the thread. Had I thought of them myself, I would have used those tactics right from the start.

 

[Yoy21]

Woah...So, I guess the only way to make subs work is to use them the way they were built for.

 

[meirlon]

to the person talking about fewer subs for a longer period of time - time is a huge thing here. Without immediate effects japan takes much longer or worse fails in india, and the italians normally are nothing but free xp for brit troops. In mine i allied with the japs as soon as i could (before war) and pearl harbor happened the day i invaded poland in early 1940, you wouldnt believe what effect my convoy raiding had on them. Its now 1942 and they only have 4 aircraft carriers (japs have 10 now!), the japs are actually winning the war in the pacific sinking a ton of ships, meanwhile there are fleets of american DD"s running around the atlantic trying to stop the wolfpacks.

 

[unmerged(54763)]

So can enyone answer me isnt that punishing from Paradox that we must built so many sub flotiilas just to lose them quickly?

As Blue Emu showed there are arguments that they are not worthless.

But should it be done in the way of more expencive flottillas that will be hard to destroy entirely. And therefore to represent submarine production trough reinforcements of damaged flotillas?

Did enyone noticed that it is possible to complete game without lossing one air division and still use air divisions ofensively..
Jet player must built sub divisions like mad to sustain losses of entire flotillas.
If statisccs showes their results and impact(Blue-Emu) still stays the fact of hard Sisifs yob to mantain numbers of subs.
Ok let their losses stay the same,and all other values,but lets have submarine divisions that will last for more time,thus having more use of expirienced ones.Their reinfocement cost should be higher to represent building new subs.

Can it be fixed in favour of easier gameplay?

 

[Brasidas]

So can enyone answer me isnt that punishing from Paradox that we must built so many sub flotiilas just to lose them quickly?

As Blue Emu showed there are arguments that they are not worthless.

But should it be done in the way of more expencive flottillas that will be hard to destroy entirely. And therefore to represent submarine production trough reinforcements of damaged flotillas?

Did enyone noticed that it is possible to complete game without lossing one air division and still use air divisions ofensively..
Jet player must built sub divisions like mad to sustain losses of entire flotillas.
If statisccs showes their results and impact(Blue-Emu) still stays the fact of hard Sisifs yob to mantain numbers of subs.
Ok let their losses stay the same,and all other values,but lets have submarine divisions that will last for more time,thus having more use of expirienced ones.Their reinfocement cost should be higher to represent building new subs.

Can it be fixed in favour of easier gameplay?

I'm sure I'm missing some of the meaning of your message due to translation problems, but no, I don't get the impression of inappropriately large u-boot losses due to operations.

The problem is the bug that Blue Emu and Kanitatlan outlined - the subs disappearing due to a defect in the program, not an inappropriate combat disadvantage.