Germany HORRIBLY overpowered

[MJF]

Here you go. A 7 x 7 UK SAG fleet gets past my 27 SS IVs first in the West North Sea, then in Skagerrak, to do this to my ASWs:

Note the complete ineffectiveness of the sub stack in this narrow sea zone:

 

[Pang Bingxun]

So what's your point?

The point MFJ made is that submarines fail at being the formal attacker. I second that point.

When a fleet of submarines and a strong surface fleet of the enemy are in the same sea province, than the values for detection and visibility implicate that in most instances it is the submarines that detect the enemy first.

We have told those submarines to attack any enemy. Still they refuse to follow those orders. That is the point.

I coined that as the admirals being too afraid to attack. That seems an appropriate summary because we have already learned that after engaging the enemy those submarines have actually good chances to reach a favourable outcome of the naval battle.

It is quite normal that the stronger fleet is the attacker. However, a more thorough review of that excellent thread "Very Early WW2" shows many instances of the subs being the attacker - once even at a much larger fleet including a CV. (See "Wolfpacks at Hawaii" and the battle at West Murray Fracture Zone where 6 U-boats attack 18 ship SAG having a CV).

None of them seem to include a strong surface fleet as the enemy. The one screenshot you mention explicitly shows a surface fleet that has no org or near zero org and has lost about 70% of strenght already. That is not a strong surface fleet, that is just torpedo fodder.

It is inflicting the first 30% of damage that usually the are hardest to achieve. Destroying an already severely damaged enemy however is something that does not require any special capabilities. Almost anyone can do that. If all capital ships of a fleet are at zero org, than even 3 CA1938 + 3 CL1936 will well suffice to sink the remains of that fleet.

 

[Commander666]

The point MFJ made is that submarines fail at being the formal attacker. I second that point.

Formal means that the subs appear on left side in battle display. Look at "Very Early WW2" again and you will see that about 1/2 of the battles have subs on left side. Don't count the 3 screens all showing same battle at Gulf of Morocco 3 times. It is all same battle. Do count last screen of Gulf of Morocco when it becomes a double battle with that having subs on left side. And those subs have very low org (so there goes the org theory).

Basically you are both wrong. MJF has played his subs comparatively little, and you hardly at all. You are using for your sampling a most skewed quick glance at the screen shots that were published in my story. That is not at all representative because I did not include every sub battle. In fact only a few. In fact that whole story is not even representative of all my very many sub battles in many different games.

It is true that mostly the stronger fleet becomes the formal attacker, and that applies when subs are there too. No surprise. But it is not true that subs "fail at being the formal attacker". In fact, in every attack on TPs including their CLs and DDS in fleet the subs are the formal attacker. No surprise, they are the stronger. And they are seeking to fight. The TPs with escort (even including a capital sometimes) is not.

Alternately, in most (if not all) cases of subs attacked by ASW after subs sunk a convoy, the subs always defend. No surprise. They were convoy raiding and the ASW is looking to attack the subs.

As regards huge fleet battles, I have had it both ways enough times to withhold making any ridiculous statements. Suggest both you and MJF try to just get 27 subs into a fray and see what happens. Maybe when you learn how to stop presenting such a weak U-boat force like "3 subs for bait" or 9 more against a big enemy fleet you might find that the subs occasionally are the formal attacker - sometimes even if outnumbered by 100% org/strength enemy.

On the other hand, yes, I have often lamented that the subs weren't the formal attacker when I was doing naval interdiction simply because they don't get the Donitz bonus then. But other times, in my far greater use of subs than you and MJF combined, I assure you there were enough times that I grinned with glee when my much smaller wolfpack (usually 9) was the formal attacker against a 100% OK fresh SAG of 18 ships. So I know that your sampling to make the suggestion made is just flawed. At the very least you would need to count every sub battle in one or 2 games. But you make judgements on 5% (what you saw published in one incomplete story). That's just very unscientific. Back to that romance novel... … …

 

[Pang Bingxun]

Formal means that the subs appear on left side in battle display. Look at "Very Early WW2" again and you will see that about 1/2 of the battles have subs on left side.

None of which are against a strong surface fleet, but only against clearly inferior fleets.

Where is the picture where a fleet of 6 SS attacks a fully intact fleet of 9 capital ships and 9 screen? Where is just one screenshot showing that?

The issue was never about attacking fleets that appear inferior. It was the opposite.

You are using for your sampling a most skewed quick glance at the screen shots that were published in my story.

No. I just use them as confirmation of a thesis i formed years ago when i did quite some testing on the subject. I even used nuclear submarines to make the issue even clearer. They are stronger than regular subs and much harder to detect. Yet it was them that were attacked by the enemy and not the other way around as it was intended. I donnot recall a single case where a small fleet of submarines had the courage to attack the kind of (main) surface fleet one would expect from the UK.

 

[Commander666]

Where is the picture where a fleet of 6 SS attacks a fully intact fleet of 9 capital ships and 9 screen?

I won't have any pic of only 6 SS attacking anything. How many times have I said, "Use 3 wolfpacks of 9 each, and in close proximity"? Attacking with wolfpacks of only 6 is a transition stage between attacking convoys with small wolfpacks of 3 AND attacking larger fleets. But when you order a pic of attacking 18 fresh enemy, the Donitz strategy always was to by then be using wolfpacks of 9 that would give mutual assistance.

None of which are against a strong surface fleet, but only against clearly inferior fleets.

You so wrong. In the below all enemy started in pristine condition as the battle started 2 hours before. It opened as 18 SS-4 against 22 (including 7 UK DDs). One newly arrived SS-4 has not yet joined fight. CLEARLY, the enemy is not "clearly inferior". I can send you file "aGER_1941_12_01 RNbattle" if the screens and history below taken upon opening the file fail to convince you.

Where is just one screenshot showing that?

I am not your fiddle and trust you can understand the time and difficulty opening numerous file saves to see who is the formal attacker and discard where enemy is not fully fresh, or perhaps not big enough for your wishes, or running forward previous file saves to find battles that just ended in the file save with appropriate name to get me looking there in the first place. I think the above qualifies for U-boats doing formal attack on stronger fleet which was fully orged 2 hours ago when battle started.

But much more important than all your dismissiveness about subs, and being formal attacker, and your "heavy tests", and etc, etc is the massive destruction my U-boats do on the enemy. I actually do have more screen shots and file saves where you can follow how excellent U-boats can be if played properly.

Maybe you should concentrate that issue... playing subs properly?

Or maybe I should send you the Sunk Ships lists of different games... or file saves would be easier and you can count for yourself what my U-boats achieve.

 

[Commander666]

To conclude, the previous is smaller U-boat force doing formal attack on larger fleet. And all those RN ships are indeed full org. I opened as UK.

And if I still had most of my earlier games (sadly I don't) I could show you 9 Uboats attacking 18 unit fresh USN CTF in Caribbean. Then 2 more wolfpacks (9 each) soon joined. That was published long time ago but then I quit server and all that was lost. But to claim Uboats can not be formal attacker against bigger fresh fleet is just wrong. Yes, it doesn't happen too often, but it actually does happen now and then.

 

[Pang Bingxun]

I won't have any pic of only 6 SS attacking anything. How many times have I said, "Use 3 wolfpacks of 9 each, and in close proximity"? Attacking with wolfpacks of only 6 is a transition stage between attacking convoys with small wolfpacks of 3 AND attacking larger fleets. But when you order a pic of attacking 18 fresh enemy, the Donitz strategy always was to by then be using wolfpacks of 9 that would give mutual assistance.

The issue is mechanics. You are talking about about strategy instead and thereby avoid the relevant issue.

You so wrong. In the below all enemy started in pristine condition as the battle started 2 hours before. It opened as 18 SS-4 against 22 (including 7 UK DDs). One newly arrived SS-4 has not yet joined fight. CLEARLY, the enemy is not "clearly inferior".

The clearly inferior refered to the thread i refered to. Your new pictures are not part of that thread.

Still they are not the relevant 6 sub flotillas vs. a strong surface fleet. But it shows that for similar figures(18 vs. 22) the desired attacking does occur. However that is little relieve as by the time those pictures are taken the build up of experience may be substantial. Thus they may again avoid the relevant issue.

I think the above qualifies for U-boats doing formal attack on stronger fleet which was fully orged 2 hours ago when battle started.

The battlescreen is about 70% vs. 30% in your favour. If I take that battle screen as evidence, than the enemy does not have the stronger fleet, but rather is still clearly inferior.

To conclude, the previous is smaller U-boat force doing formal attack on larger fleet. And all those RN ships are indeed full org.

Still their average Org is way below yours. And the enemy has taken moderate strenght damage before.

And if I still had most of my earlier games (sadly I don't) I could show you 9 Uboats attacking 18 unit fresh USN CTF in Caribbean. Then 2 more wolfpacks (9 each) soon joined.

That would be relevant evidence.

But the picture changes a bit with meaningful reinforcements so close nearby. The admirals decision to engage or not to engage the enemy may be influenced by that. If so, than it does not refer to the question i refered all along: Do small fleets of submarines ever attack (seemingly) stronger surface fleets when ordered to do so?

 

[Commander666]

The issue is mechanics.

That is YOUR issue.

You are talking about strategy instead and thereby avoid the relevant issue.

You miss the real issue by not realizing that strategy to win is the issue with subs. All the rest is just you moving goal posts.

The battlescreen is about 70% vs. 30% in your favour. If I take that battle screen as evidence, than the enemy does not have the stronger fleet, but rather is still clearly inferior.

"Let's move the goal posts again!".

Still their average Org is way below yours.

Now I can't show you any more screen shots because in all cases my subs are "better" than the AI because I have strategy with my research also - to be ahead of the enemy so I have higher org. Again you reveal esoteric arguments limited to your parameters versus practical strategy to win.

But the picture changes a bit with meaningful reinforcements so close nearby. The admirals decision to engage or not to engage the enemy may be influenced by that. If so, than it does not refer to the question i refered all along: Do small fleets of submarines ever attack (seemingly) stronger surface fleets when ordered to do so?

Probably never if YOU order them. No problem when I order them.

 

[MJF]

… or have a Fallschirmjäger standing by to drop on Portsmouth IMMEDIATELY AFTER combat won.

Not working. And he is getting heavily counterattacked:

 

[MJF]

Not working. And he is getting heavily counterattacked:

I stand corrected -- In Port!!!:

It would appear that, even though the province display count said only 1 unit in Plymouth, they had gotten another 7 units in there. 16 divisions in my attack: 4 MAR divs, Von Rundstedt with an HQ + 3 INF, along with 2 x 4 more INF divisions, from all 4 adjacent sea zones, did the trick. My 8 TACs and 8 CASs lost 1/2 their strength. I don't care. Won't need them full strength for 3-4 months, til I hit Stalin. Base Strike. Only 4 CV IVs, 6 BC IVs, 5 CA IVs, and - ready for this - 6 SS IIs under Donitz, Forced Engagement.

Once I achieved a second "Victory in Plymouth," the PARs instantly possessed the province. Since only 1 TP stack was by the navy base, it was a real rush. The 8-stack trying to distract Portsmouth were among the first to arrive.

This is on Hard/Normal, BTW. Otherwise, it wouldn't be anything special.

 

[Commander666]

This is on Hard/Normal, BTW. Otherwise, it wouldn't be anything special.

Well, I can't agree.

Your first frantic post of "Not working. And he is getting heavily counterattacked" shows no counter-attack at all on the PAR but rather a PAR that landed in on a battle which he never should have entered. No, the enemy did not get 7 more units in there. Rather there are 7 units in Portsmouth and Bristol supporting the defense of Plymouth, best I can tell.

Next, you should not have flown the PAR while the Plymouth province display said only 1 enemy unit. As long as any enemy unit is still defending in the province , then the addition of a PAR will immediately introduce to the defense all enemy currently moving to reinforce that defense, or supporting defense. You are lucky you had a very good offense from the amphibs (and that there weren't more enemy moving towards Plymouth) or you might have lost that PAR.

Next time wait until YOU WON THE BATTLE before flying in the PAR. Now it can happen that new enemy reaches Plymouth after 1st battle is won but just before PAR arrives - and you will get same that seems to have possibly happened to you. That is bad luck, or poor timing, or just slow to get the PAR airborne.

HOWEVER, there is a crucial check you make the hour before your guys jump out of the plane. You assure Plymouth is still empty (retreaters don't matter). Because - if not - you can cancel the airborne drop as long as it has not yet reached over Plymouth. NEVER jump a PAR onto ongoing battle unless you certain no enemy can be moving to reinforce defense. Or only do it if indeed you know what you are doing, have the power, and purposefully want to destroy everything the enemy can throw at you in one single battle.

Play it at very slow speed if you must. But cancelling airdrop is no problem. Plane returns to base, and paratroopers remain aboard so your TRA is not zero-orged.

Better luck next time!

And I guess that your next fright might be when a single PAR is alone in Plymouth; and he actually is being attacked by many units, and the enemy red combat bar is near its maximum while you have no TPs nearby. DON'T PANIC. That PAR can survive far more than you probably might imagine - if you remembered to add OS. But I don't see OS on the PAR you show... and that can be a serious mistake because your PAR is on just 10% ESE. So - if he had to defend alone - he would not last as long as is possible if you go in prepared.

 

[MJF]

Well, I can't agree.

Next time wait until YOU WON THE BATTLE before flying in the PAR.

That is EXACTLY what I did. I dropped the PAR after I got "Victory in Plymouth!"

Now it can happen that new enemy reaches Plymouth after 1st battle is won but just before PAR arrives - and you will get same that seems to have possibly happened to you. That is bad luck, or poor timing, or just slow to get the PAR airborne.

Maybe that was it.

 

[Commander666]

So then that one enemy division appeared soon after the 1st victory - just before the PAR got landed.

The only thing I can suggest is do what I usually do. Slow down game speed. Pause just before TRA is about to be over target. Check no new defender has arrived. Unpause, and hope no new defender appears in the hour or 2 more it will take PAR to land.

If enemy are moving towards target province, and PAR has jumped, PAR will not land until that counter-attack has been lost by the enemy. Province will not turn German grey but instead you will get continuous animation of parachutes dropping. Once battle ends, then PAR can land, and province becomes German controlled. Immediately set up supply convoy and give it abundant merchantmen even if the convoy shows green. That way you can get in supply sooner than if letting auto-convoys do it. Set that province's repair on priority and cancel other province priorities so the new target will get max repair to improve the ESE.

After that, of course, any further counter-attacks could be started by enemy but PAR with OS have really good ability to resist for several hours (and a few days if not too big an enemy).

 

[MJF]

So then that one enemy division appeared soon after the 1st victory - just before the PAR got landed.

It was 7

The only thing I can suggest is do what I usually do. Slow down game speed. Pause just before TRA is about to be over target. Check no new defender has arrived. Unpause, and hope no new defender appears in the hour or 2 more it will take PAR to land.

What happened to that guy who, years ago, said "Pausing is for Sissies!" Maybe KIA? I did all the above except check for new defenders. Too stressed. Fortunately Von Rundstedt's now 17 attacking divisions ousted them in a day or so, and I killed 1/2 my airmen & planes pounding off the others from Portsmouth & Bristol. I didn't even check to see if 'Ol Gerd lost his bonuses, but since my attack count was under 12 x 2 divisions, he shouldn't have.

BTW, do PARs bypass Costal Forts? Do they neutralize them for the other, landing divisions?

If enemy are moving towards target province, and PAR has jumped, PAR will not land until that counter-attack has been lost by the enemy. Province will not turn German grey but instead you will get continuous animation of parachutes dropping. Once battle ends, then PAR can land, and province becomes German controlled. Immediately set up supply convoy and give it abundant merchantmen even if the convoy shows green. That way you can get in supply sooner than if letting auto-convoys do it. Set that province's repair on priority and cancel other province priorities so the new target will get max repair to improve the ESE.

After that, of course, any further counter-attacks could be started by enemy but PAR with OS have really good ability to resist for several hours (and a few days if not too big an enemy).

I can't stand sprites, except with rocket attacks, so I don't see landings. Apparently, what you describe was happening.

I prioritized the province, but did not undo the others, as I wanted the airbases rebuilt ASAP in Brest, Cherborg & Paris.

 

[Commander666]

BTW, do PARs bypass Costal Forts? Do they neutralize them for the other, landing divisions?

I never use PAR to attack coastal forts. I only land them there after marines have won the battle to prevent enemy reinforcements reaching province... and so begin a repeat of the amphibious assault.

I can't see how PAR in attack would neutralize a coastal fort for other attackers.

 

[Commander666]

I prioritized the province, but did not undo the others, as I wanted the airbases rebuilt ASAP in Brest, Cherborg & Paris.

All in all, this is telling me that the wrong pilots were drinking all the beer. If you got enemy bombers so active over France, what is wrong with your Luftwaffe INTs and FTRs?

 

[Pang Bingxun]

BTW, do PARs bypass Costal Forts? Do they neutralize them for the other, landing divisions?

PAR are not (negatively) effected by forts in their province. Forts work only against troops trying to reach the province, not those already in it.

In other words the forts are not neutralised by them, only bypassed. Also taking a provinces reduces military installations by 90%. So after that has happened the PAR have little fort to use against enemies trying to reach the province.

 

[Commander666]

Also taking a provinces reduces military installations by 90%. So after that has happened the PAR have little fort to use against enemies trying to reach the province.

In practical terms (Sea Lion) the PAR have zero coastal fort to use for their defense against enemies trying to reach their province as all enemies will be attacking from inland. It would have to be a case of "land fortifications" for this special rule to apply. Perhaps a PAR landing on Strasbourg or Metz and being counter attacked.

But it is interesting that PAR "bypass forts". I understand that to be both coastal forts and land fortifications. Unfortunately, their use to assist ongoing combat is far more problematic than any worth they might provide even with giving bonus to the angles of attack and (probably) recent changes for PAR in latest version. The problem is that PAR assisting attack immediately increases the defenders by all enemy not in province but have intentions to reinforce the battle. Maybe that has been fixed now? If so, it still leaves the other issue of enemy "supporting defense" and how PAR affect that. I confess I don't understand all the mechanics, and simply would never use PAR to assist attack (except in the most isolated cases) in order to avoid "horrible surprises".

PAR are fantastic at landing UNOPPOSED to maximize strategic options. That's plenty good enough for me because the range of TRA makes for extremely efficient ways to win over enemy when combined with a blitzkrieg. A PAR can be like closing the lid on a problem… or an instant solution to a big difficulty which mobiles might not easily achieve, or not achieve quick enough to capitalize on the enemy's predicament.

 

[MJF]

MJF said:
"I prioritized the province, but did not undo the others, as I wanted the airbases rebuilt ASAP in Brest, Cherborg & Paris."

All in all, this is telling me that the wrong pilots were drinking all the beer. If you got enemy bombers so active over France, what is wrong with your Luftwaffe INTs and FTRs?

The reason to have level 10 airbases is to "recharge" my planes faster for/during Sealion attacks, obviously. Also, I face Australian fighters, not just British ones. I don't have the time to eliminate all enemy fighter resistance.

Since I have started building around 9-10 radar stations and 20+ extra AAs, I face less, but still too persistent, enemy bomber attacks. Maybe forgetting those, and just building an extra 4-stack of INTs, like I used to do, is better.

You can't relocate ground AAs. Too bad.

 

[Commander666]

The reason to have level 10 airbases is to "recharge" my planes faster for/during Sealion attacks, obviously.

I was saying that a proper Luftwaffe insures they don't get destroyed in the first place. By Sea Lion you should be stopping enemy over the English Channel. If they are getting into France it is because of shortage of your INTs, tactics, or both.

Also, I face Australian fighters, not just British ones. I don't have the time to eliminate all enemy fighter resistance.

You might also have some Canadian and even an Iraqi later on. The fact they are not RAF is a bonus in your favor. You also have more Hungarian INT than all non-RAF INT combined.

Maybe forgetting those, and just building an extra 4-stack of INTs, like I used to do, is better.

Don't necessarily drop air defense installations for more INT for solving this problem. But forgetting some economic builds in lieu of a proper air force by 1939 so you are capable of defending your air space would be better. Sounds like you need far more than 1 extra stack.

When do you start INT construction, and how many lines? And are your aircraft even upgraded to latest standard based on a 100% research budget that prioritizes INTs? Or are you treating that same as you indicated earlier about your not upgraded land forces?