I had 2 whole flotillas disapear heading from portugese coast to brest. They just vanished. I wasnt watching them when it happend, but i know for certain that they were not sunk. The log doesnt even say so.
Really, just plain odd.
-
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.
- Status
I had 2 whole flotillas disapear heading from portugese coast to brest. They just vanished. I wasnt watching them when it happend, but i know for certain that they were not sunk. The log doesnt even say so.
Really, just plain odd.
liebgot said:
Based on my reading of Blue Emu's report, it's very possible to build that many submarine flotillas and not lose them just as quickly. Of the 9 flotillas he lost total, 4 were due to a bug in the game rather than enemy action.
liebgot said:
More expensive and stronger flotillas would have reduced Blue Emu's campaign significantly- a large submarine fleet was necessary to sufficiently cover the Atlantic convoy routes, so there was a defined lower limit on the number of subs required to wage an effective U-boot campaign based on the number of sea regions through which British convoys passed. Assuming Blue Emu wanted to match his land and air builds, he would have been forced to build fewer submarines, resulting in a less effective net for convoys.
liebgot said:
It is indeed possible to play a full game without losing any air divisions, but I would like to see how easy that would be if no bombers had escorts attached, and no interceptors or fighters were used. Currently, it is as unwise to use submarines offensively against capital ships as it is to use bombers against interceptors. Blue Emu's tactics- set missions at night, use 2x3 submarine flotillas per sea region to avoid detection and maximize coverage, retreat from encounters with capital ships before losses occur- made it easy for him to sustain submarine numbers in the Atlantic. Again, only 5 flotillas were lost to enemy combat. At no point were flotillas lost faster than they could be replaced, as they are in most games. Blue Emu's submarine tactics enable submarines to work more or less as they did in real life.
liebgot said:
Well, I suppose you could edit the game to give submarines a 100 value in everything from Air Attack to Speed... That should make gameplay a bit easier...
Seriously, just don't fight capital ships with them and you should do fine with submarines.
dublish said:Based on my reading of Blue Emu's report, it's very possible to build that many submarine flotillas and not lose them just as quickly. Of the 9 flotillas he lost total, 4 were due to a bug in the game rather than enemy action.
More expensive and stronger flotillas would have reduced Blue Emu's campaign significantly- a large submarine fleet was necessary to sufficiently cover the Atlantic convoy routes, so there was a defined lower limit on the number of subs required to wage an effective U-boot campaign based on the number of sea regions through which British convoys passed. Assuming Blue Emu wanted to match his land and air builds, he would have been forced to build fewer submarines, resulting in a less effective net for convoys.
It is indeed possible to play a full game without losing any air divisions, but I would like to see how easy that would be if no bombers had escorts attached, and no interceptors or fighters were used. Currently, it is as unwise to use submarines offensively against capital ships as it is to use bombers against interceptors. Blue Emu's tactics- set missions at night, use 2x3 submarine flotillas per sea region to avoid detection and maximize coverage, retreat from encounters with capital ships before losses occur- made it easy for him to sustain submarine numbers in the Atlantic. Again, only 5 flotillas were lost to enemy combat. At no point were flotillas lost faster than they could be replaced, as they are in most games. Blue Emu's submarine tactics enable submarines to work more or less as they did in real life.
Well, I suppose you could edit the game to give submarines a 100 value in everything from Air Attack to Speed... That should make gameplay a bit easier...
With sorrow I must say you didnt understand one single word from my post.I am afraid my English is so bad.
And I must say you didnt I think played any serious submarine capaign till now.You dont need to atack warships,they will found you wery easy,dont worry.
Submarine losses are horrible.And are replenished trough annatural building of new flotillas instead of reinforcing existed and fiew newly built flotillas.
It was impossible to destroy hall wolfpack of subs entirely in real world.At least one of them wil dive before onslought to tell the story,even in worst days for subs.
To fix this,players are using EXPLOIT,called manual retreat.Its sad that something like that was not implemented by automatisation by now.
And it was not implemented because neglection of us,players,and becouse of anawarenes of such problem.
And becouse fiew of us realy ever are trying to seriously play "Atlantic battle".
By the stupidity of game,you are not obliged to produce one single submarine during entire game,becouse the results are roughly the same.
I am afraid Blue Emu has a role here to convince us that submarine warfare is wright in game.
It isnt.
liebgot said:
The real Problem ist, that Players think a sub can easily sink a Battleship every day.
The submarine has one job, sink convoys. If you begin early (August 1939) and attack the Empire, the UK has in the beginning of 1941 no Convoys left. Just build 30-60 submarines. An effective way to deal with submarines is at the beginning only to send Aircraft. Without aircraft your submarines are safe at the beginning. After the Allieds Forces discoverend ASW your subs are turkeys.
What i mean to say is, at the beginning the submarines are usefull, later than 1941/1942 there a turkeys... (like in real world)
liebgot said:
I think I understood your post fairly well. I was not aware that you didn't retreat your subs after 4 hours of combat. If you consider this an exploit, then very well, but I think telling ships to retreat is probably the last think most players would consider an exploit. You say that at least one submarine would typically escape an enemy attack by submerging and retreating- why can't you tell your submarines to do this? An easy way to fix this is modifying the ORG of submarine flotillas. Reduce it enough, and submarines will retreat automatically after 4 hours because they won't have any left. This has already been done in egslim's DD Naval Combat Mod, which I think you are already familiar with. Regardess, Blue Emu has shown that it is possible achieve significant results against UK with a submarine navy, and without constantly replacing sunken flotillas.
dublish said:
Agreeed about lowering their org.level.I should try this.Maybee I am pushing to radicaly against current sub model,but obviously it is a poor model.
And I cant believe that Blue-Emus submarines are so vital.I cant believe,my losses are horrible.I send them all at night convoy raiding.
I call retreating an Exploit,becouse i hate to do this,it is painful if you have on sea 10 or more stacks of subs,and watching them.I hate to do that,becouse game should do that allredy.Subs should work on"lounch and forget" principle.It is stupid to asume Donitz from his chair in Hamburg will oversee every single battle of its subs thousand of miles away on the ocean.
What is even worse,developing of level 5 subs is total dissapointing in game.Blue Emu didnt jet came to this stage in his experiment.
I played in late 1943 with level 5-subs,and suffered crazy losses.Level 1/2 destroyers can obliterate Electrobotes as quickly as any older model.Totaly misinterpreted and misunderstood model this Electrobote is.In game it is improved level 4,historicaly it was a "step of four miles",first modern "hunter-killer" submarine .Germans didnt have time to introduce them though,but USA an USSR submarines were based on their desingn even 30 years later.
If submarines are not totaly worthles in Doomsday before 1942,after 1943 they are worthles. Yes,historicaly Level 4 subs should become obsolete by 1943,but level 5 should deliver a balance again.In game model 5 and model 4 are shearing allmost the same doomed desteny in 1944.
P:S I even developed in one game model 6 in 1944 and produced them massively,only to watch them being raped by Allied ASW.And then i bult as i mentioned eary,even fiew Nuclear submarines in 1945.They ended(commanded by level 7 Sea Wolf) on the bottom of Central Atlantic in one day.Argh.
Last edited:
I just read through the whole thread and found it fascinating. I don't have DD yet, and my HOI2 has bugged up on me (old computer). But my best game ever was played on normal settings with no cheats or mods (I never do), and I played starting in 1941, where the game has all the U-boats already set up in the water all over the Atlantic. I capitalized on this and used my U-boats like mad, and with tactics similar to Emu's. I concentrated on my navy to the expense of army and AF, but I rolled up the SU like a rug regardless. At that time, I built surface ships as well as subs, and used them for surface raiding also. I ended the game with total global conquest in 1947. (Axis powers, that is). I took control of my Axis allies' troops and used them mainly for mop-up, back-up, and APD. I took control of most of SU, India, and all of British Isles, Australia and North America with German troops. I look forward to playing DD when I get a better computer. But I can't overemphasize the importance of using those subs. My subs conquered first the North Atlantic, then South Atlantic, then Indian Ocean, then Pacific through interdiction. By the end of the game it was getting boring, the mopping up I was doing in South America, etc.
And, uh, Emu, if you're planning to play your scenario on out, I think we would like to see how it ends.
Lowering the ORG level and slightly raising the Firepower of Submarines would perhaps make them more realistic... they would get one good shot "from ambush", and then dive and disengage. I do feel, however, that Manual Retreats are not, in any sense, an exploit. They are, in a sense, a way to simulate that low ORG.liebgot said:
Exploits are cheap tactics that would never work... or even be tried... in real life. The tactic of disengaging from surface forces (especially from ASW forces) was not only used by Subs on Convoy Raiding missions... it was standard procedure.
This is especially true in Doomsday, where Manual Retreats are not guaranteed to work... sometimes you try to disengage but get "trapped" in melee. That has happened to me several times, and in fact, accounts for the only enemy capital ships that I've sunk. I wouldn't have stuck around to sink them, if I had been allowed to disengage.
If ORG were drastically lowered (say... to 15 or so) then Subs would automatically disengage after taking one or two hits, making manual retreats unneccessary. I would be happy either way... it would not have affected the outcome (or even the tactics used) in this campaign.
The Russian campaign will be starting in less than a month... I will keep you posted on its results. The campaign against British shipping is effectively over... they no longer have enough convoys to run even a single route, thus putting all of Africa, India and the Far East out-of-supply, as soon as current stocks are used up.
As to questions on the cost-efficiency of my Submarine builds... over the next few months, all of the British forces in Africa, India and the Far East are going to "starve-off" and die. The IC-total value of these forces probably greatly exceeds the IC-total value of my Submarine fleet... 30 or 35 Infantry would cost as much as my whole fleet, in IC-days, and would greatly exceed it in Manpower cost... and my fleet is still substantially intact.
blue emu said:
I'm sorry I didn't read the entire thread. But do you mean sometimes you cannot retreat manually after the 4 hours of combat period? Does this only happen with subs? Because it never happened to me so far.
Exactly... you select the fleet, right-click on an adjacent area, and it says "Retreating" (or sometimes "Embarked") but nothing happens. You do not get the "gray arrow" indicating a retreat to the new sea-zone, nor do you get a "We lost the Battle" pop-up... and combat just continues.Donnervogel said:
It seems to happen most often when your fleet is substantially slower than that of the opponent... and Subs are among the slowest Naval units in the game, so it happens fairly frequently to them.Donnervogel said:
Personally, I feel that it adds to the "realism" aspect of the game... a slower fleet really should sometimes have problems disengaging, at least if the opponent is determined to fight to the finish.
I admit I am not correct, manual retreating is not an exploit.I opologize.
Still i found very difficult to controll all subs manualy.Remember that I like to send max 3 sub-stacks,which I consider more efective and protective for subs.So I could have 10 or more such units on sea.
I think,this consumes time and my wrist by clicking mouse like playing some FPS game.Game of this caliber should give some dicency to this aspect of game.
Still i found very difficult to controll all subs manualy.Remember that I like to send max 3 sub-stacks,which I consider more efective and protective for subs.So I could have 10 or more such units on sea.
I think,this consumes time and my wrist by clicking mouse like playing some FPS game.Game of this caliber should give some dicency to this aspect of game.
I also feel that stacks of 3 Subs, with two such stacks per Sea Area, is the best deployment for Anti-Convoy warfare. It minimizes enemy detection, and spreads the net wider to catch more Convoys.liebgot said:
Lowering the base-ORG of Submarines in the /db/units/divisions directory, and the ORG bonus given by Doctrines in the /db/tech directory is probably the easiest way to get the results that you want... Subs would fight strongly for the first four hours, then quickly break off the battle and retreat automatically.
If you make those changes, you should probably also boost the Surface Attack slightly (but NOT the convoy attack) to make up for the shorter combat time... and perhaps lower the Surface Defense a bit.
Great thread and awesome demonstration.
BTW, if there´s a new patch, I vote for an "automathically disengage" order for subs as an enhancement. Cos when I go "subs" as Germany, it turs out to be a micromanagement hell.
Thanks, Blue Emu.
BTW, if there´s a new patch, I vote for an "automathically disengage" order for subs as an enhancement. Cos when I go "subs" as Germany, it turs out to be a micromanagement hell.
Thanks, Blue Emu.
It is worthwhile to try to define this lower limit, below which Convoy-Raiding effectiveness would drop off dramatically.dublish said:
I found that at any one time, about 15% to 25% of my Submarines were either under repair, regaining ORG in Port, or else either heading home for repairs or heading back to combat stations. Suppose that we require a 25% reserve of Submarines, to allow for repair and replenishment.
I also found that each Sea Area should be covered by two groups of three Submarines. This allows for the AI-driven random movement between Sea-Zones of that Sea Area, making it less likely that a wide hole will spontaneously open in the blockade net... while also making the Submarines harder to detect, increasing their survivability.
The number of Sea Areas that need to be covered is open to debate... at the very least, Gibraltar must be blocked and the gap between South America and Africa must be sealed. That would total at least four Sea Areas (Cap St Vincent, and Coast of Bissao - Cap Verde - Coast of Recife).
The absolute minimum number of Submarines for an effective blockade would then be 2 packs x 3 Submarines x 4 areas x 125% reserves = 30 Submarines.
I would much prefer, though, to have a double cordon... thus making it even less likely that a hole will open to allow the Convoys through un-molested; and also halving the chance that a spotting failure will let them slip past.
A double cordon would require two extra Areas for the Gibraltar run (Azores and Portugese Coast)... both lucrative hunting grounds, and both within range of Air support from Spanish bases... and two extra Areas for the Atlantic blockade (The Seamounts - The Grand Banks)... these last two would also degrade British trade efficiencies with Canada and the USA.
Doubling the number of Areas covered (from four to eight) would also double the minimum force required... from 30 Submarine flotillas to 60 flotillas. The force that I actually built... 90 Flotillas total... would seem to have over-shot the mark by about 50%.
======== ========= ========= ========= ========= =========
Interim Report : June, 1940.
Preparations for Barbarossa move into their final stage. All Armored and Motorized Divisions have been reorganized into 3-Division Combined-Arms Corps, providing me with 12 such Corps... 10 composed of (1 Arm + 2 Mot), 2 composed of (2 Arm + 1 Mot). The two stronger Corps have been renamed SS Panzer Corps.
Tentatively, I have assigned 2 Panzer Corps to Army Group North, 3 Panzer Corps and an SS Panzer Corps (4 total) to Army Group Center, and 5 Panzer Corps and an SS Panzer Corps (6 total) to Army Group South. This concentrates the bulk of the mobile forces in the center and south, where the terrain is more favorable to large-scale mobile operations. Extra Infantry have been assigned to the Northern and Central Army Groups, since the Forest, Swamp and River terrain in those areas will favor leg-Infantry.
Each Army Group (North, Center and South) has been assigned one HQ... the fourth HQ should arrive from France by rail shortly before the campaign opens, and will be assigned to Army Group South.
As to the timing of the operation... there are arguments for attacking either earlier or later. The Soviets have not yet occupied the Baltic States, and if we could beat them to the punch and annex them ourselves, this would relieve the Germans of some OTM overhead during the push into Russia... slightly reducing the TC overload... and also allow us to build our new units closer to the Front.
On the other hand, it will be far easier to get Romania into the Axis if we wait for the USSR to demand Bessarabia and Northern Bukovinia before declaring war on them... thus giving Romania a clear reason to fight the Soviets by our side.
Given the demands of the U-Boat war, my forces for Barbarossa are rather smaller than usual, and those Romanian Divisions would be very useful, whether used in the Front Line on quiet sectors, or on Anti-Partisan Duty in the rear areas.
I think it is worth reinforcing a few points here.
Firstly, it is important to understand that the AI automatically reroutes convoys away from uboats that have been sighted. This makes it absolutely critical to have a complete cordon of uboats across all the possible convoy routes. This has been beautifully demonstrated by blue emu with the issue of the south america to africa cordon and the move into the US and Canadian east coast coastal waters. As blue emu has explained this puts a minimum level on uboat numbers. If you have less than this number or you don't block all possible routes then your uboat force will be relatively ineffective.
I have demonstrated this in the past (to myself) by trying to operate small uboat forces on anti-convoy duty when they had nothing else to do. I n reality I had a few uboats solely for reconnaissance duties. When assigned to convoy work they were almost totally ineffective. Every time they had any sort of encounter (convoy sinking or meeting a fleet) I had to redeploy to another area. After patrolling a few days they need to be moved on. To get any sort of affect they needed constant attention and after a bit the shear pointlessness of it gets to you and you don't bother.
This shows that for successful convoy warfare it is absolutely critical to manage your submarines correctly. Follow blue emu's tactics and you should achieve the effective. Drop the same number of uboats randomly round the Atlantic and you will get a fraction of the effect.
Secondly, the complaints about uboats being badly treated later in the war simply reinforces the conclusion that the game does model them correctly. Once the allies build up an effective ASW force you should be in really big trouble. Being beaten up in 1944 is the game working right.
Firstly, it is important to understand that the AI automatically reroutes convoys away from uboats that have been sighted. This makes it absolutely critical to have a complete cordon of uboats across all the possible convoy routes. This has been beautifully demonstrated by blue emu with the issue of the south america to africa cordon and the move into the US and Canadian east coast coastal waters. As blue emu has explained this puts a minimum level on uboat numbers. If you have less than this number or you don't block all possible routes then your uboat force will be relatively ineffective.
I have demonstrated this in the past (to myself) by trying to operate small uboat forces on anti-convoy duty when they had nothing else to do. I n reality I had a few uboats solely for reconnaissance duties. When assigned to convoy work they were almost totally ineffective. Every time they had any sort of encounter (convoy sinking or meeting a fleet) I had to redeploy to another area. After patrolling a few days they need to be moved on. To get any sort of affect they needed constant attention and after a bit the shear pointlessness of it gets to you and you don't bother.
This shows that for successful convoy warfare it is absolutely critical to manage your submarines correctly. Follow blue emu's tactics and you should achieve the effective. Drop the same number of uboats randomly round the Atlantic and you will get a fraction of the effect.
Secondly, the complaints about uboats being badly treated later in the war simply reinforces the conclusion that the game does model them correctly. Once the allies build up an effective ASW force you should be in really big trouble. Being beaten up in 1944 is the game working right.
Update : 00:00 hours, June 15th, 1940.
Preparations for Barbarossa are virtually complete. When the last HQ arrives from the West on the 16th, I will have 158 Divisions ready to storm into Russia... excluding Garrison forces. The total comprises 14 Armor, 22 Motorized, 3 Mountain, 1 Cavalry, 4 HQs and 124 Infantry Divisions. This concentration of troops has been achieved by stripping the West-Front forces to the bone, relying on the inability of the UK to actually supply any invasion operation that they might mount.
Convoy losses continue to tail off, with 24 Convoys and 9 Escorts being sunk in this two-week period. This brings the total losses to 1054 Convoys and 162 Escorts in nine and a half months... by my estimate, the UK has about 15 Convoys left, unless they have recently built more.
A quick look at the "Ships Sunk" page shows that German Aircraft operating out of the Spanish bases have sunk 44 (with 4 more "probables") of the 79 British ships lost... nearly all of them ASW vessels.
Russia attacked Lithuania on the 9th of June. It would now be an exploit to attack the Baltics myself, since it would automatically force the USSR into an unplanned war against the Allies... I will refrain from such cheap tactics, and wait for the Bessarabia - Northern Bukovinia demands.
Preparations for Barbarossa are virtually complete. When the last HQ arrives from the West on the 16th, I will have 158 Divisions ready to storm into Russia... excluding Garrison forces. The total comprises 14 Armor, 22 Motorized, 3 Mountain, 1 Cavalry, 4 HQs and 124 Infantry Divisions. This concentration of troops has been achieved by stripping the West-Front forces to the bone, relying on the inability of the UK to actually supply any invasion operation that they might mount.
Convoy losses continue to tail off, with 24 Convoys and 9 Escorts being sunk in this two-week period. This brings the total losses to 1054 Convoys and 162 Escorts in nine and a half months... by my estimate, the UK has about 15 Convoys left, unless they have recently built more.
A quick look at the "Ships Sunk" page shows that German Aircraft operating out of the Spanish bases have sunk 44 (with 4 more "probables") of the 79 British ships lost... nearly all of them ASW vessels.
Russia attacked Lithuania on the 9th of June. It would now be an exploit to attack the Baltics myself, since it would automatically force the USSR into an unplanned war against the Allies... I will refrain from such cheap tactics, and wait for the Bessarabia - Northern Bukovinia demands.
Do I get that right?
By attacing the baltics they would join the allies - and thus the allies would fight the ussr??
WOW :wacko: Wierd
cheap....
blue emu said:
I attack the Baltics all the time as Germany, without the Baltic states joining the Allies. I'd thought that they were hard-wired to remain unaligned.
When I attacked Nationalist Spain (who are also Paternal Autocrat) in this same game, they immediately joined the Allies... placing Republican Spain at war with Britain.Brasidas said:
Republican Spain sank a UK CV with a Battleship the next day!
If you like, I can save my game and declare war on Lithuania, just to see if they do, in fact, join the Allies and put UK at war vs USSR... I will reload right afterwards, though, because I want this to be a "clean" game... no exploits.
- Status