-
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.
I also agree that Subs are too weak in this game compared to real life.
Another ship that was not listed on the kill list for subs is the Shinano, the largest aircraft carrier of the time.
Another thing that i think needs to be fixed besides the stats of the subs (lower costs please), is how much they affect the national unity of the nation their targeting. To the British and Churchill himself, who stated many times how great the threat of the u-boats were, the attacks by the u-boots were hugely terrifying.
Also a little fun fact that i found during my research for my senior thesis paper as a history major. The Anglo-German Naval Agreement brings in some funny insights on how much backstabbing there was but also how much the British feared the U-boats in combination with a cruiser fleet.
"In December 1934, a study done by Captain Edward King, Director of the Royal Navy's Plans Division suggested that the most dangerous form a future German Navy might take from the British perspective would be a Kreuzerkrieg (Cruiser war) fleet. Captain King argued that guerre-de-course German fleet of Panzerschiffe, cruisers, and U-boats operating in task forces would be highly dangerous for the Royal Navy, and that a German "balanced fleet" that would be a mirror image of the Royal Navy would be the least dangerous form the German Navy could take. A German "balanced fleet" would have proportionally the same number of battleships, cruisers, destroyers, etc that the British fleet possessed, and from the British point of view, this would be in the event of war, the easiest German fleet to defeat."
The thing is the German admiralty actually wanted to build such a Kreuzerkrieg, but Hitler said no and wanted to go with a balanced fleet. From tactics that have derived from many naval experts on how a cruiser-sub fleet would work, I think there should be techs in the doctrine tree that give subs a combined arms bonus while working with other ships. The reason for doing this is because if a wolf pack is working with a surface fleet, the enemy their engaging will be too focused on the surface ships to notice the subs, and if they do ASW tactics while in the middle of a fire fight they will be sitting ducks to the other ships as it takes precision and timing for ASW, which is hard to due when dodging enemy shells.
Another ship that was not listed on the kill list for subs is the Shinano, the largest aircraft carrier of the time.
Another thing that i think needs to be fixed besides the stats of the subs (lower costs please), is how much they affect the national unity of the nation their targeting. To the British and Churchill himself, who stated many times how great the threat of the u-boats were, the attacks by the u-boots were hugely terrifying.
Also a little fun fact that i found during my research for my senior thesis paper as a history major. The Anglo-German Naval Agreement brings in some funny insights on how much backstabbing there was but also how much the British feared the U-boats in combination with a cruiser fleet.
"In December 1934, a study done by Captain Edward King, Director of the Royal Navy's Plans Division suggested that the most dangerous form a future German Navy might take from the British perspective would be a Kreuzerkrieg (Cruiser war) fleet. Captain King argued that guerre-de-course German fleet of Panzerschiffe, cruisers, and U-boats operating in task forces would be highly dangerous for the Royal Navy, and that a German "balanced fleet" that would be a mirror image of the Royal Navy would be the least dangerous form the German Navy could take. A German "balanced fleet" would have proportionally the same number of battleships, cruisers, destroyers, etc that the British fleet possessed, and from the British point of view, this would be in the event of war, the easiest German fleet to defeat."
The thing is the German admiralty actually wanted to build such a Kreuzerkrieg, but Hitler said no and wanted to go with a balanced fleet. From tactics that have derived from many naval experts on how a cruiser-sub fleet would work, I think there should be techs in the doctrine tree that give subs a combined arms bonus while working with other ships. The reason for doing this is because if a wolf pack is working with a surface fleet, the enemy their engaging will be too focused on the surface ships to notice the subs, and if they do ASW tactics while in the middle of a fire fight they will be sitting ducks to the other ships as it takes precision and timing for ASW, which is hard to due when dodging enemy shells.
Fixed that for you.
Fair enough. The last battleship ever completed was laid down in 1941. Battleships, at the fastest, are designed laid down and completed in 3-4 years. Battleships were only really tested in the Pacific in early 1942. (the European naval war was essentially a decade behind the Pacific one.) Once that happened no battleship was built anymore. Completed the ones already under construction, as that was cheaper, but they didn't build new ones. The development cycle of a sub is a bit faster, and they kept designing and building new ones as the war went on.
Battleships were tested and proved cost ineffective in their primary role and navies stopped building new ones.Submarines were proved to be very effective and all navies increased production and designed new classes. (excepting the Italians, because they essentially stopped building anything after 1939.)
Subs put the enemy in a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. If they defend against the subs, it's a huge amount of resources to expend. If they don't defend, then the subs cause the loss of a lot of resources. Subs are essentially the evolution of the fleet in being doctrine. They're very existence causes the enemy to make a choice between equally unpalatable options. Right now, there's an a historic third option of just building convoys without ever having to sink the subs.
I'd be willing to argue that battleships proved themselves to be most versatile in the Pacific in their supporting role as fire support for troop landings and AA cover for US carriers.
Were more needed? Not really, but you can bet if the US would have had no battleships at all after Pearl Harbor, they would have built some anyways just for those exact roles.
Were more needed? Not really, but you can bet if the US would have had no battleships at all after Pearl Harbor, they would have built some anyways just for those exact roles.
For some history: The most important reason why no Battleship construction was started after 41 was mostly because the war was expected to be over or at least decided since long back before they could be finished.
As for subs, they could be constructed faster then any other ship and were still lethal against all other ship given the right circumstances. This is the main reason Germany switched production in 39 for example. The long construction times.
fattymac: Combined arms for subs and cruisers sounds like a really silly Idea, history gives no proof of this tactic taking place at all (that I know off), and the subs couldn't even coordinate among themself.
The main thing behind combined arms is frequent, clear and reliable communications. Why do you think combined arms tactics was not developed until radios were put in all tanks & airplanes?
Submarine are lone weapons, even when working in Wolfpacks they don't communicate between eachother, but with the base in order to keep stealth.
As for subs, they could be constructed faster then any other ship and were still lethal against all other ship given the right circumstances. This is the main reason Germany switched production in 39 for example. The long construction times.
fattymac: Combined arms for subs and cruisers sounds like a really silly Idea, history gives no proof of this tactic taking place at all (that I know off), and the subs couldn't even coordinate among themself.
The main thing behind combined arms is frequent, clear and reliable communications. Why do you think combined arms tactics was not developed until radios were put in all tanks & airplanes?
Submarine are lone weapons, even when working in Wolfpacks they don't communicate between eachother, but with the base in order to keep stealth.
Then they should make it so that once a sub was engaged in a fleet battle, then it would go torpedo crazy randomly, maybe on enemy ships or your own.
I think i read some place that also happened during the war. When it was dark and rainy nights and hard to see through that periscope whatever some boat there probably very dangerous. So lets Laaaauuuunch! :rofl:
Edit:
On a more serious matter, subs had some sort of communication but with encrypted morse code i think. They had to send info to naval base to translate and orders where sent back same way. It was then printed out by a communication officer inside the sub with a crypto device and given to sub commander for decisions. HQ at the base could send this info to other subs so they got an idea where the friendlies were. I think it worked only to a certain degree because it was a bit cumbersome and took so long to get this inexact information.
Last edited:
They were useful in those roles but not at the cost. There are better and cheaper options for all the roles that battleships filled. It's like how the US nowadays uses F-18's to strike targets in Afghanistan. They're undoubtedly good at the job, but they're not what you would build if you were designing them for that task.
Warship costs increase exponentially by size. An Iowa class battleship cost 125 million on paper and significantly more when actually built. A Fletcher class destroyer cost 10 million to actually build. It's the Panther vs. the Sherman argument. The Panther was a better tank all around, but for everyone of those you could build 50 Shermans. Once you get rid of the need to put them in ship to ship engagements the need to concentrate all of that firepower on one ship disappears as well as the need for such heavy armor.
The only thing you lose by scaling a battle ship down is the range of the guns. And it's certainly not cost effective to pay tens of millions of dollars extra to get 6 more miles off of 9 guns. That's some expensive artillery.
Although the Iowa proved to be a cheaper alternative to an aircraft carrier when one was not needed and the US still wanted a force multiplier in a region.
I was trying to say that they should give that option in the tech tree. Have it under the submarine warfare tree and have the requirements be be a huge investment into radios.
And yes this tactic was tried numerous times, but the major battle that it was used in proved the tactic was not worthy due to inferior underwater radios. It worked overall by surprising the enemy, but failed slightly due to the fact the subs couldn't communicate with the other ships properly.
I'm just giving an option that could be added in since right now the subs are quite worthless. If this would be added in, it would give them a greater role in fleets. I'm not saying it has to be in, but more options for the roles that subs can be used in would make them slightly more worthwhile.
also, subs were already used in major fleet engagements in the pacific in a similar role, but their primary role being scouts (as in roles for being apart of fleets not convoy raiding). Take the battle of midway for example, the US used the subs in their fleet to scout out for the Japanese fleet which it did. A funny instance in this battle was when the Japanese spotted the scout sub and sent a destroyer off to kill it, which they were unsuccessful, that trailing destroyer turned around and went back to rejoin the fleet unknowing that Combat Air Groups from the carriers spotted the destroyer and followed it to the fleet. The reason the planes had to follow that destroyer is because the fleet had to move because their position was reported by that sub and the when the planes arrived at the destination the fleet was already gone besides that destroyer. This has been considered the major point in the battle of midway for the US out of sheer luck as that destroyer brought our planes right on the Japanese fleet who were not prepared for a air assault.
However the major change that needs to be done to subs, is to lower their cost and building time.
And yes this tactic was tried numerous times, but the major battle that it was used in proved the tactic was not worthy due to inferior underwater radios. It worked overall by surprising the enemy, but failed slightly due to the fact the subs couldn't communicate with the other ships properly.
I'm just giving an option that could be added in since right now the subs are quite worthless. If this would be added in, it would give them a greater role in fleets. I'm not saying it has to be in, but more options for the roles that subs can be used in would make them slightly more worthwhile.
also, subs were already used in major fleet engagements in the pacific in a similar role, but their primary role being scouts (as in roles for being apart of fleets not convoy raiding). Take the battle of midway for example, the US used the subs in their fleet to scout out for the Japanese fleet which it did. A funny instance in this battle was when the Japanese spotted the scout sub and sent a destroyer off to kill it, which they were unsuccessful, that trailing destroyer turned around and went back to rejoin the fleet unknowing that Combat Air Groups from the carriers spotted the destroyer and followed it to the fleet. The reason the planes had to follow that destroyer is because the fleet had to move because their position was reported by that sub and the when the planes arrived at the destination the fleet was already gone besides that destroyer. This has been considered the major point in the battle of midway for the US out of sheer luck as that destroyer brought our planes right on the Japanese fleet who were not prepared for a air assault.
However the major change that needs to be done to subs, is to lower their cost and building time.
Before we start adding other different benefits to subs, we should get what they were historically used for down right.
The point of Strategic Warfare is always to inflict more Industrial cost damage to the enemy then invested yourself. Or to at least force him to spend more resources combating your threat then you did.
Strategic Warfare is considered to be both bombers attacking industry right on, or submarines attacking the flow of resources to or from industries. Since its impossible to disrupt this flow of resources enough for IC to be lowered in the current HoI3 patch, this cost could just aswell be added into the cost of building new convoys instead for balance. But sure, having more limited resource stockpiles and requiring alot of convoys to haul home resources would be a slightly more realistic way to do it.
I don't think players really care if the cost is direct through convoy replacements, or indirect through IC lowered by resource lacks, the main point is that submarines should be able to be more effective.
The indirect cost to combat submarines are also neglected in the game, neither techs nor escorts are expensive to build. At 72 escorts per sub flotilla all able to damage and sink tech XXI subs with no tech investment of their own it doesn't take a genius to realize something is very wrong.
Also, arguable strategic bombers were much less effective then submarines were. Look at German production output numbers during 42-44 when the allies really started picking up speed and force in their Strategic bombing campaign. Then compare this to the result the strategic submarine campaign had on the Japanese industry long before bombers could reach Japan (Winter 44).
fattymac: "inferior underwater radios" are you serious?
The last thing you want to do when you are below the surface is starting to send out signals, do you know how they detect (and kill) submarines? By listening from sounds their propellers make, or sounds pulses from DDs bouncing off the sub hulls.
Sending out communication from below the waves would yell to all listening Destroyers & Escorts within 50km "HELLO HERE I AM!" and would be impossible for a friendly Cruiser taskforce speeding ahead to pick up due to larger engines drowning the noise.
Here we can agree somewhat. But I tend to think that convoys and escorts would be more suited for a cost increase instead because subs shouldn't cost that much less then destroyers do. I wouldn't argue for lowering sub cost to more then 2-3 times less then they cost now, looking at historical figures.
This is backwards. Strategic bombers are the less effective (and cost effective) tool in IRL.
I'd say the development cycle for subs if considerably shorter. As in close to same as aircraft.
A large part of the problem is that many things are not implemented in the game that were real effects on supply capacity that the very existence of subs impacted in the war.
For example the allies built more tonnage in warships to fight the German submarines than the Germans built in submarine tonnage. This obviously means that these ships were a significant threat and difficult to deal with.
Things that happened and real life relative to convoy raiding that we don't see in the game include the loss of effective transport capacity cause by the need for ships to "wait" until enough ships are ready to depart to form a convoy. Another thing is the effect of convoy anti submarine tactics (like the zigzagging maneuvers to avoid torpedo attacks) that slowed down convoys(loss of effective transportation capacity) and also used up more fuel.
On a strategic level if you force Britain to build and extra 20% convoys(because of the lost effective transport capacity vs what they would have had in peace time) and have their entire operation burn up 15% more fuel that is HUGE in terms of resources on a strategic level.
Britain and Japan should be particularly vulnerable to this since massive amounts of raw materials need to be shipped to the home island for war production and then the equipment has to be shipped back out to the battlefield.
But really I think the problem right now is that submarines are too expensive and convoys too cheap to make the battle of Britain work realistically.
For example the allies built more tonnage in warships to fight the German submarines than the Germans built in submarine tonnage. This obviously means that these ships were a significant threat and difficult to deal with.
Things that happened and real life relative to convoy raiding that we don't see in the game include the loss of effective transport capacity cause by the need for ships to "wait" until enough ships are ready to depart to form a convoy. Another thing is the effect of convoy anti submarine tactics (like the zigzagging maneuvers to avoid torpedo attacks) that slowed down convoys(loss of effective transportation capacity) and also used up more fuel.
On a strategic level if you force Britain to build and extra 20% convoys(because of the lost effective transport capacity vs what they would have had in peace time) and have their entire operation burn up 15% more fuel that is HUGE in terms of resources on a strategic level.
Britain and Japan should be particularly vulnerable to this since massive amounts of raw materials need to be shipped to the home island for war production and then the equipment has to be shipped back out to the battlefield.
But really I think the problem right now is that submarines are too expensive and convoys too cheap to make the battle of Britain work realistically.
Well, I'm glad someone's posting figures.
But let's say you sink double that, 16 per week forever. Let's go even higher. 80 per month. That'll cost the UK something like 20 IC to replace, right? Plus maybe some repairs to damaged ships and even a few kills from the subs That's quite annoying, but in no sense a serious threat.
The question is whether that 20+ IC loss for the UK is worth its cost to you. I don't see it.
That leaves aside the question mentioned upthread about national unity losses. It's hard to evaluate a system for balance when it has never actually worked, though.
Ditto. Then why did someone mention to "pay them back" ? Why do you seem to disagree with me while you're actually agreeing ?
We aren't talking of what *you think* is cost effective in reality. In reality, the least cost effective thing human beings came up with is war and all that's connected with war, this on a general scale. Of course for the war industry, war is convenient.
But like I said we don't care, because we are speaking of a game called Hearts of Iron, where as Germany you can build strategic bombers to lower the IC capacity of the UK. Plain and simple, no need to look at reality, just look ingame and you'll find it out easily. Hence my suggestion for strategic bombers...
@Alex
you persist with your biased views and restricted analyses. Fine, but don't expect answers from me. First include resource losses and post #120 and similar ones in your maths, then we can discuss what could be the best solution to improve the all but useless subs.
Btw, the purpouse of Strategic Warfare differs from that of Tactical Warfare from certain aspects that in my book have little to do with cost efficiency or industrial costs. Can you point me to an interesting read about strategic warfare goals which is not a book, and that of course backs up your theory ?
I'll bite. More numbers are good.
Saying that your losses don't count because your subs aren't going to sink is similar to a UK player saying his losses don't count since he has a surplus of convoy transports. It's only true because of the boundary conditions on the experiment.
155 convoys in 120 days represents about a 10 IC loss, pus some for the escorts. That's actually pretty significant for Nationalist China. If the AI is stupid enough to try to keep building convoys -- and I think it probably is -- this is helpful.
I'm just not sure that this can be generalized to other nations.
Wait, I didn't say that at all
I even posted the exact damage to subs so that someone willing to nitpick could factor that in. I, personally, didn't really care to calculate the loss because it seemed evident to me that my subs were doing just what I'd expected from them. Or anyways, the point was to show that they aren't useless And I didn't spend a single tech slot or IC to build them (just to repair).
speaking of this, I actually think that in the first 2 months I didn't sink any escort because they weren't using them. My stupid convoy AI, also wasn't using them.
That was exactly my point. Most players are basing their crusade against sub efficiency SOLELY based on German subs feedback.
I think the main problem is with stockpiles. And it's also the easiest to fix problem. These stockpiles are totally unrealistic, plus from a strategic point of view, which is what we care about in the game, they make convoy raiding ineffective in certain situations. For example, GER subs sinking UK convoys (but not ITA subs sinking UK convoys. Remember that there aren't only resource convoys).
If resource stockpiles would be lowered by a huge deal as it would seem appropriate, then I'd guess you could generalize the above to other nations.
Wait, I didn't say that at all
I even posted the exact damage to subs so that someone willing to nitpick could factor that in.
But that isn't a nitpick -- it's the substance of the issue. The point is that submarine campaigns must fail unless you have substantially more IC invested in them than the defender.
It still wouldn't help against a power that can build escorts and convoys. You can't build enough subs to stop their convoys. Unless, of course, you have so many more IC that it doesn't matter what strategy you follow, as in the case of China.
The only way to make it work would be to not only have no stockpiles, but to also have nations operating at the edge of their resource supply all the time, so sunk transports cause a real production effect. I don't have any objection to this in theory, but I'm not at all certain the AI could cope with it.
I think I have linked this read a few times before, not sure if you catched it though. Imho its a very good read on strategic submarine warfare, from a Industrial cost perspective.
http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87/history/wwii-campaigns.html
I do agree with you on certain points about the resources though. One thing I think might be the missing link is how the core mechanics of practicals & Industry works. Just think about it, with max Practicals you are building 4 times the weapons (half cost & half time), with the same amount of resources. As speed and output goes up, so should resource consumption!
I won't take credit for this realization though, that goes to the AoD Team and their work on improving HoI2.
The other part of the coin is as you say stockpiles. Especially the resources that were rare IRL and are not consumed at great amount in HoI3 (like rares & oil/fuel) need much much smaller stockpile limits.
I also believe the best way to balance the game is to use history as a guide. This math exercise should prove that convoys are too cheap currently if a game balance argument doesn't work but you rather want a historical balance argument:
UK Historical merchant fleet 1939: 17,430,000 tons.
HoI3 UK 1939 Convoys: 398
Tonnage each convoy represents: 43,800 tons
Steel needed to build it (factor 30% of "cargo tonnage"): 13,100 tons
Cost factor using HoI3 buildcost (warship:civilian cargo):
5000 : 1,768,500 (135 x 13,100) or
1 : 354
Historically warships were only 5 times as expensive to build, not 354 times.
Thus by using the Historical UK merchant marine numbers we can conclude that convoy shipping in HoI3 patch 1.3 are roughly 71 times too cheap to build in comparison to submarines. Ofcourse it could just aswell be the UK starting merchant marine that have too few convoys in HoI3 1.3, but I somehow doubt Paradox intended them to have 28,000 convoys at the start of the war...