Subs make a mess of fleets when you strip away their destroyers, I think someone should test a LC + sub Zerg fleet because I suspect that this can strip the screens for the loss of LCs then watch as the subs whack capitals
How are you supposed to use subs?
- Thread starter Riekopo
- Start date
-
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.
Do you worry about assigning an Admiral to your small groups? Germany only starts with 4 decent Admirals and two old guard. . .
@Axe99 do you think that a minimum of alterations (a hotfix, if you will) would be a "modified" version of the armor/piercing mechanic, only for detection/visibility? So, the first check is do those fleet units have a higher detection than the sub's visibility? If DD-Detect < Sub-Viz, then the subs get to attack faster and hit harder. If DD-Detect > Sub-Viz, the opposite happens. And if they're == then we have a reroll as both sides get closer.
My intent would be a scaling system that as the range closes the viz of the Sub increases, and as the range opens, the detect capability goes down. Dunno if that works.
My intent would be a scaling system that as the range closes the viz of the Sub increases, and as the range opens, the detect capability goes down. Dunno if that works.
You don't need an admiral on sub fleets. You can use them, but they work just fine without them.
No need to scrap them. They're essentially free IC. You put them in a sea zone raiding, whatever they kill is free. It's not like you're paying any sort of upkeep on them. They have a negligible impact on their home port's supply region.
- Cost. They're the cheapest ships. It's alot easier to put 1 submarine into a great number of sea regions across the globe and still have plenty left over to pile larger groups into your TAC covered zones.
- Surface Detection. Best available in the game. Only light cruisers match their base detection, but since you're certainly investing in trade interdiction doctrine, submarines get the +100% bonus that outclasses the light cruisers +60%. They also get the best raiding coordination bonus and org bonus from trade interdiction doctrine. They're simply the best ship for the job of detecting and sinking convoys.
- Stealth. They're more likely to survive engagements with superior convoy protection by virtue of their option to go invisible. Which makes them cheap to maintain as well as build up front.
- Slow speed. This is a virtue when combined with Tactical bomber support. Takes them longer to reach combat range, which buys more time for TACs to do work against any convoy protectors, potentially driving them off to allow the subs to work unmolested against the convoys once it reaches combat range. Destroyers or light cruisers will reach combat twice as quickly, and thus be vulnerable to enemy convoy protectors earlier.
Last edited:
And then Japan joins the war, and unloads a horde of their own sub III's with long lance torpedos + TACs, devastating all the smaller trade and supply routes the allies have scattered across the Pacific ocean.
Correct me if I am wrong but as far a Germany is concerned their submarine warfare was most effective at the end of the WW1 and the beginning of WW2. It lost it effectiveness as WW2 went on. The reason it lost effectiveness is the expanding air cover of shipping lanes, the increase in the number of convoy escorts, and the adaption of ship borne radar. Also the braking of German codes allowed for the rerouting of shipping around German subs. The German doctrine and sub design was focused on commerce raiding and attack of opportunity.
On the other hand you have American subs (specifically in the Pacific) as an example. The American navy never had a large fleet of subs. Their doctrine and design was focused on fleet support. They were design to be large and fast enough to keep up with the surface ships. Their were to be used as a screen for the fleet and to clean up any enemy surface ships after a battle had finished. If I remember correctly they where never very effective in this role mostly due to design deficiencies. There was also the "small" issue of the effectiveness of their torpedoes. They were eventually sent out to patrol Japanese sea routes from Indonesia and the sounding waters. By the end of the war the Japanese no longer had a merchant fleet.
On the other hand you have American subs (specifically in the Pacific) as an example. The American navy never had a large fleet of subs. Their doctrine and design was focused on fleet support. They were design to be large and fast enough to keep up with the surface ships. Their were to be used as a screen for the fleet and to clean up any enemy surface ships after a battle had finished. If I remember correctly they where never very effective in this role mostly due to design deficiencies. There was also the "small" issue of the effectiveness of their torpedoes. They were eventually sent out to patrol Japanese sea routes from Indonesia and the sounding waters. By the end of the war the Japanese no longer had a merchant fleet.
Donitz started work on the idea during WWI, according to his memoirs.
(The idea didn't get very far at the time, because he was defeated and captured at one point.)
As far as I can tell, the main issue with losses is navies continuing to fight when horribly outnumbered, rather than the length of the battle (this has other issues, like every ship in the hemisphere ending up in it if it goes long enough).
I'm no developer, but even playing around with the base stats to get a better balance of things takes a fair bit of time and effort (for example, I've found my initial tweaks work alright at the start of the war, but once I start rolling out SS_3s in numbers, they're taking down the RN a tad too easily, for not enough losses). I'd think a new system more like the air warfare system would be easier to balance, as there's no need to test battles individually (so you need a lot of tests, with lots of different situations, to see how everything is working).
If I had to suggest a hotfix for the game, I'd suggest that when a convoy battle starts, subs appear next to the escorts and convoys (so they appear in range of both), and then get the 'opening shot', before the escorts retaliate, and once the escorts retaliate the subs attempt to disengage immediately (but DDs have a chance to have a shot at them). I'd also have it so that every single sub didn't show up for the battle (it works this way for surface fleets, so there's something set up for this). It wouldn't really allow for big convoy battles, but it would allow for a 'tussle' between DDs and SS, allow escorted convoys to be attacked and sunk, allow escorts and subs to have a go at each other, but hopefully could be balanced such that neither convoys nor escorts would be entirely wiped out.
For unescorted convoys, perhaps give the subs three (or some other multiple) times as long to attack before retreating? And then balance the time/sub attack values to get sensible numbers of convoys/escorts/subs sunk with technology and doctrines over time.
At the moment, DDs use both torpedo and sub attack to attack subs - it's not a big issue in vanilla as sub attack is larger than torpedo attack, but it does make balancing DD strength vs subs and DD strength vs surface ships tricky, so having it so that sub attack was all that DDs (and CLs) used when going after subs would also help getting things balanced.
That's just thinking off the cuff though (although based on a fair bit of testing and tinkering with what can be adjusted). If I was able to play with those things, but not change the system overall that's probably what I'd try first - then see how it turned out, and adjust as appropriate.
That makes sense, although by using subs you're giving up a degree of power projection capability. Subs are working here mostly for the wrong reasons - subs having better surface detection than surface vessels and the slow speed thing are painfully historically implausible - but that does sound like a sensible strategy in game, as long as longer-term naval power projection isn't of interest.
On this, as far as I've read the late-war the type XXIs would have tipped the scales more in Germany's favour (how much is all theorycrafting and counterfactuals, but they would have been a positive factor), as would the Japanese fast underwater boats and some of Germany's torpedo research, so there was the potential for a bit more of a see-sawing battle had technology advanced at a different rate on either side (including the possibility of Germany starting in a far worse position). Air cover was definitely a biggy.
On the US subs, I'm going from my ever-shaky memory, but I'm fairly sure the US declared 'unrestricted submarine warfare' against Japan fairly early on in the Pacific War, and got to it pretty quickly. They definitely built and had thoughts of fleet submarine use in the interwar years, but my recollection (shaky, so could well be wrong) was that this had gone out of favour by the outbreak of war. Japan, on the other hand, was still very much focussed on sub-fleet coordination.
Donitz started work on the idea during WWI, according to his memoirs.
(The idea didn't get very far at the time, because he was defeated and captured at one point.)
Thanks for the info, always appreciated
. That said, I asked a question here:So it wasn't strictly a statement of fact, and I'm not sure that a question can be factually (as opposed to morally or socially) wrong
. I'm also fairly confident Donitz did continue to develop the doctrine in the interwar period, so even if it was a statement rather than a question, I'm not sure it's "wrong" per se. For example, if we said single seater fighters were developed in the interwar period, this would still be correct even though there was single-seat fighter development during WW1 (and WW2) as well, wouldn't it? It's a similar story with night surface attacks with u-boats iirc (first used in WW1, developed further for WW2) - noting my recollection is, as ever, a bit wobbly.I've also read it's best to be a little careful about taking Donitz' memoirs at face value, but I'd expect on something like this his memoirs would be reliable
.Normally I'd let this go through to the keeper (the info is useful and interesting
), but I don't think much of Donald Trump as a thinker and I couldn't let the meme go unanswered . I do, however, hold you in high regard .
The best way to use a sub is to sail it underwater. When your sub detects an enemy ship, go up near the surface, and fire at the enemy ship with some torpedoes. Then make it go underwater again.
I haven't really messed around with sub warfare recently. Is it still optimal to attach a couple DD and/or CL to your sub fleet?
I get where you are coming from, but I feel like my suggestion would be an idea for a quick and dirty way to alter the calculus quickly with a way to make subs better at things they were historically good at. Namely, coming across poorly or even unescorted capital ships and convoys and getting kills. Taking the values that matter, adding a certain amount such that the DDs/CLs/SS have a rate that could handle the low numbers would be nice as a quick and dirty way which wouldn't introduce any "new" mechanics.
The US and Japan had a similar doctrinal approach, that is, subs kill fleet units. The Americans did however, also encourage UNRESSUBWAR, and it was the Japanese failure to immediately respond defensively which condemned them to the slaughter they wound up with.
I've also read it's best to be a little careful about taking Donitz' memoirs at face value, but I'd expect on something like this his memoirs would be reliable
I agree. I also think Donitz would agree, too.
The edition of his memoirs I have has an introduction by his historian friend (whose name eludes me for the moment) detailing their conversation upon the revelation of ULTRA's role in the war in the 70s (Donitz was still alive). Donitz's response was something along the lines of "Well, you'll have to rewrite the entire history of the war." He was fully aware of how much he didn't know.
He's also the kind of guy who would blame Hitler for a lot of mistakes that maybe weren't Hitler's to make. And his feud with Raeder while they were in prison together is the stuff of legend.
Aye, sorry, I wasn't trying to take away from your suggestion - I'm just not sure how quick it would be in the context of the current system (which is something only someone that knows how the engine works behind-the-scenes would be sure of, so I may be way off the mark here). What you're suggesting would involve the introduction of new way of managing the mechanics (detection and visibility), balancing them via tech and all of that. But for all I know, what I suggested could be harder, not easier, so you're way might be better
. Either way, I'm quite sure we're on the same page that we're hoping for better mechanics in the future .
I tend set fleets of 100+ subs on Search and Destroy. On chokepoints, like that one seazone between South America and Africa, or around Japan. As long as one full yard pumps replacements into the fleet they'll endure.
Mostly a way to farm navy XP, occassionally you'll bag a fleet.
Mostly a way to farm navy XP, occassionally you'll bag a fleet.
Why do you need carriers for Seelöwe? Carriers are good for the deep sea but not so much useful in coastal waters as i understand.
You would think so... if you have a coast line why wouldn't you just use an airfield?
You might want to project power somewhere else in the world. The US coast, for example.