AFAIK it was difficult to coordinate a large number of subs--when your enemy can't see you, it's hard for your friends to see you either.
-
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.
Speed and doctrine.
Subs were not there to engage enemy fleets, they were there to engage merchants, at least in the Atlantic. This combined with the speed of surface fleets meant that Capital Ships were only really engaged when they happened to fall into the path of a sub. Subs didn't have the speed or fuel capacity to go chasing after reports of Capital Ships.
Subs were not there to engage enemy fleets, they were there to engage merchants, at least in the Atlantic. This combined with the speed of surface fleets meant that Capital Ships were only really engaged when they happened to fall into the path of a sub. Subs didn't have the speed or fuel capacity to go chasing after reports of Capital Ships.
The historical reason large groups off subs was not good versus fleets was twofold as have been mentioned.
1.) Their low speed meant that the valuable targets could easily escape leaving a few fast cheap DDs to deal with the subs. Once the first torpedo is sighted their largest advantage (that of surprise) is lost and further subs won't be as effective.
2.) There was no way to communicate between subs, so strictly speaking there was never such a thing as a fleet off subs, at least not after the initial attack (that sometimes was coordinated). Once the battle was raging it was every sub for themself. Adding more Subs would only mean Depthcharges hit another sub instead or that they accidently hit eachother with torpedoes or even collisions.
Taking these into consideration, I think stacking would be fairly good and historical compromise, IF you must have subs in fleet battles at all.
Hmm... no torpedo boni for Subs / DD / CLs that get close enough to use them? Or even a seperate upgradable torpedo strength modifier for escorts? Possibly too much for a patch.
Regarding stacking penalty: an easy way to increase it would be to change it so that each sub unit only represents a single sub, instead of a flotilla, and divide the costs and stats accordingly. (I understand this was tried in HoI2 but did not work so well, but I imagine the new Hull stat would help matters.)
Has the bug with no messages of sunken subs been looked at, see bug forum for description.
Because Paradox already knows this, I doubt they make the same mistake twice
They already made it 3 times, So I'm guessing you mean they won't make the same mistake 4 times in a row, right?
Thanks.
Please note that you are choking forum with 1.4 separate anouncements,which could be counter-productive.
There was never such intensive patch announcements occupying hall first page of forum,allmost blocking general debate.
I am not against possibility that 1.4 will be revelation and salvation and one day maybee considerred as fifth gospel ,but let the time show is 1.4 so special,denying need for truly required addon.
Give us 1.4 to be judged in gameplay.
EDIT- I am French and I cant restrain maself to say whats on my heart, sorry.
Please note that you are choking forum with 1.4 separate anouncements,which could be counter-productive.
There was never such intensive patch announcements occupying hall first page of forum,allmost blocking general debate.
I am not against possibility that 1.4 will be revelation and salvation and one day maybee considerred as fifth gospel ,but let the time show is 1.4 so special,denying need for truly required addon.
Give us 1.4 to be judged in gameplay.
EDIT- I am French and I cant restrain maself to say whats on my heart, sorry.
Last edited:
Would you prefer one thread which would already be 20 or more pages of confusing misunderstandings and flame wars about intertwined opinions? That serves no one.
The addon is months away and will include lots of the work that has been done for 1.4. I personally stopped playing the game til 1.4 arrived since it will address so many of the issues I was finding frustrating. I don't want to wait another half a year.
From my opinion U-Boat War is currently not what it should be:
intelligence war.
U-Boats never attacked in fleet encounters, even the shoot of Prien was just an single event, planned by Dönitz himself.
U-Boats where slow moving fragile nut shells, they only have to shoot at convoys. I think just because of a few lucky shots at capitals we dont need any sea attack at all on a sub.
The Reality was that U-Boats where nearly invisible to fleets just cruising arround. In Late War only the Radar where a big issue for them.
That is why the early years of war where called "the happy times" for U-Boats.
The other big threat to U-Boats are Planes. A Plane is much much more dangerous to an U-Boat as any DD can be. The only thing a U-Boat can do against Planes is dive really really fast. Just a single hit from the Gun of a Plane into the Hull and a U-Boat cant dive anymore. And then the Bombs of course, directly at the top of a sub. As in Real Life, the main Sub Killer where Planes. In Early War land based, later based on Escort Carriers.
So my suggestion is:
make Submarines cheaper and faster to build.
remove Sea Attack from subs.
give them more convoy attack.
lower the possibility of subs to be detected.
make planes much better sub hunters.
And then we can talk about the impact of submarine warfare to the industry...
intelligence war.
U-Boats never attacked in fleet encounters, even the shoot of Prien was just an single event, planned by Dönitz himself.
U-Boats where slow moving fragile nut shells, they only have to shoot at convoys. I think just because of a few lucky shots at capitals we dont need any sea attack at all on a sub.
The Reality was that U-Boats where nearly invisible to fleets just cruising arround. In Late War only the Radar where a big issue for them.
That is why the early years of war where called "the happy times" for U-Boats.
The other big threat to U-Boats are Planes. A Plane is much much more dangerous to an U-Boat as any DD can be. The only thing a U-Boat can do against Planes is dive really really fast. Just a single hit from the Gun of a Plane into the Hull and a U-Boat cant dive anymore. And then the Bombs of course, directly at the top of a sub. As in Real Life, the main Sub Killer where Planes. In Early War land based, later based on Escort Carriers.
So my suggestion is:
make Submarines cheaper and faster to build.
remove Sea Attack from subs.
give them more convoy attack.
lower the possibility of subs to be detected.
make planes much better sub hunters.
And then we can talk about the impact of submarine warfare to the industry...
You guys nag on the historical all the time, what about the WHAT IF scenario that makes this game so great.
Finally i can do the WHAT IF scenario and produce my 250 XXI uboats by 1940 and not some crappy type VII shit and strangle britain in 1940 when she just have the lvl 1 destroyers in FEW numbers. And to add on that i will use 200 FW Condors protected by fighters just to be sure that nobody makes it to port.
I know i will suffer on other fronts, but that is my choice
Finally i can do the WHAT IF scenario and produce my 250 XXI uboats by 1940 and not some crappy type VII shit and strangle britain in 1940 when she just have the lvl 1 destroyers in FEW numbers. And to add on that i will use 200 FW Condors protected by fighters just to be sure that nobody makes it to port.
I know i will suffer on other fronts, but that is my choice
If anything we should learn from HOI III so far is to be caucious.My own euforia about initial HOI III release costed me allmost my nerves.
And now 1.4 is announced euphoricaly as salvation by taking the space of entire first page of the forum.
Lets we see 1.4 on the field, I have enough of someone telling me its great pach on 10 separate threads about 1.4 patch.
I sough three HOI III great paches so far.This is fourth.
If I am not wright, tell me.
Damed if they do and damed iff they don't. Others would bitch if they didn't provide all this information.
So the ship that sunk the most WARSHIP tonnage in the entire conflict should not be given a single point off sea attack. Great thinking there mate *smack head*.
Submarines sunk 9 Carriers btw, hardly a "few lucky shot" you need to read up on history...
will the assigned leaders still "die" if...
all the submarine units in a stack are sunk?
all the submarine units in a stack are sunk?
Give the subs a large stacking penalty. They used to hunt alone or in small packs, which already is in the game because "one sub" is actually a flotilla.
Give the subs large sea attack, enough to sink the largest BB or CV.
Once the sub is in position to attack, the game should check whether the escorts can see the sub (according to the technology levels of both and perhaps some randomness). Then one of two things will happen:
1. If escorts detect the sub, the sub will not attack, but will receive random damage and retreat if survive.
2. If escorts don't detect it, or there are no escorts, sub will attack. Once it does, it should quickly lose all its organization, so that it can't stay in combat too long. It should regain the org within few hours, enough to allow the enemy fleet to escape.
Give the subs large sea attack, enough to sink the largest BB or CV.
Once the sub is in position to attack, the game should check whether the escorts can see the sub (according to the technology levels of both and perhaps some randomness). Then one of two things will happen:
1. If escorts detect the sub, the sub will not attack, but will receive random damage and retreat if survive.
2. If escorts don't detect it, or there are no escorts, sub will attack. Once it does, it should quickly lose all its organization, so that it can't stay in combat too long. It should regain the org within few hours, enough to allow the enemy fleet to escape.
i thought the patch was going to reduce cost of subs and make them more effective against convoys not the extact opposite. add in increased sea attack and i'm really confused
IMX subs are plenty good at sinking convoys in 1.3, it's just that it doesn't mean anything due to how cheap convoys are.
Subs were only a close second to carriers in terms of sinking capitals throughout the entire war. 8 CVs were sunk by subs, compared to 9 by aircraft (land and carrier), and 1 by BB; and I know there were at least 3 English BBs sunk by U-boats as well. A bunch of escort carriers too. That might be a few lucky shots, but that's still an entire navy's worth of capital ships they put on the bottom.
By ~1944, British ASW had improved to the point where German subs were making massive detours just to avoid detection by British destroyers and planes; and focusing most of their efforts on surviving, with actually sinking anything a very distant second. There were a number of techs involved (hedgehogs, leigh lights etc), there was the codebreaking, and a big part was just the brits getting their acts together doctrinally.
I don't know about American and Japanese subs, but 264 U-boats were sunk by ships, 250 by planes (at sea). If anything, relatively more were sunk by ship in 1945 than 1943 (and planes weren't really terribly effective vs subs until the invention of the leigh light anyway).
The other thing about effects on industry is that, sure, the German U-boat war failed in its objective of strangling British supply, but the American submarines absolutely decimated the Japanese merchant marine and were probably equally if not more instrumental than the carriers in winning the Pacific War. They were really good.
Convoys are much more expensive now and subs are a bit cheaper so it should even out to be a significant net plus for subs.
The increased sea attack mirrors the historical effectiveness of subs against large warships caught at the right time.