Normally, how may submarines should I put in each fleet to maximise the convoy raiding efficiency? And what stance (engage/not engage) should I set to them? Thank you!
Question on convoy raiding as Germany.
- Thread starter him_15
- 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.
Convoy raiding efficiency is determined by the number of task forces on mission relative to the number of sea regions that need to be covered. The actual number of submarines, either total, or in each assigned task force, does not matter. Therefore you can have 1 submarine in each convoy raiding task force and still get 100% efficiency.
Convoy raiding efficiency is calculated as follows (excerpted from the Wiki): Each raiding task force can only efficiently cover 1.5 strategic regions. If a fleet does not have enough raiding task forces for the area it covers, their efficiency will be reduced. What the Wiki doesn't tell is that this can be improved by doctrine or minister.
For example, if you want to cover 3 sea regions with one fleet, you need at least 2 convoy raiding task forces in that fleet.
As to the number of submarine in a task force, I really don't know what's "optimal". I usually put 6 subs in. I think the more subs there are the more convoys they can target and sink in one encounter. But, don't take my word for it.
Lastly, if you put a convoy raiding task force on "do not engage", it's not going to achieve much raiding at all - that goes without saying. The game is actually helpful and user-friendly for once: it indicates the issue by red and yellow exclamation marks in the naval map mode:
I don't know if the aggressiveness level (from low risk to always engage) has any effect against convoys. I just set it to medium risk.
HTH.
Convoy raiding efficiency is calculated as follows (excerpted from the Wiki): Each raiding task force can only efficiently cover 1.5 strategic regions. If a fleet does not have enough raiding task forces for the area it covers, their efficiency will be reduced. What the Wiki doesn't tell is that this can be improved by doctrine or minister.
For example, if you want to cover 3 sea regions with one fleet, you need at least 2 convoy raiding task forces in that fleet.
As to the number of submarine in a task force, I really don't know what's "optimal". I usually put 6 subs in. I think the more subs there are the more convoys they can target and sink in one encounter. But, don't take my word for it.
Lastly, if you put a convoy raiding task force on "do not engage", it's not going to achieve much raiding at all - that goes without saying. The game is actually helpful and user-friendly for once: it indicates the issue by red and yellow exclamation marks in the naval map mode:
I don't know if the aggressiveness level (from low risk to always engage) has any effect against convoys. I just set it to medium risk.
HTH.
- 3
- 1
I have seen others on this forum state that you need to put your subs on at least "engage at high risk" is you want them to attempt to sink escorted convoys. Otherwise, your subs will run away from the fight if there is even a token force of prewar destroyers guarding those convoys. I'm not sure what low or medium risk settings due to convoy raiding.
If you're feeling lucky, you can also put your subs on "always engage", though I wouldn't recommend that until you have leveled your units up to seasoned, and have an admiral with lots of sub buffing traits.
If you're feeling lucky, you can also put your subs on "always engage", though I wouldn't recommend that until you have leveled your units up to seasoned, and have an admiral with lots of sub buffing traits.
Not quite true, because subs fire torps while retreating as well (and they are as effective when running away compared to staying).
Of course by going risker on engagement settings mean they will delay retreating, so the can fire torps for longer, but if the convoys are adequately screened then its worthless as well.
Are you sure? Because if I have say 100 subs separated into 10 fleets, I can raid say 20 zones, so 100% efficiency for up to 20 zones.
But if I only have 10 subs separated into 10 fleets, I can defo not raid 20 zones (maybe up to 5 only), so I can only get like 50% efficiency for 10 zones and even less for more zones.
Here's what I do to obliterate the British merchantmarine in around 6 months.
I put 30 submarines under a single admiral. Donitz first (with traits taken), then others as I build them. I allocate them in groups of 3, so that Donitz (or whoever) is leading 10 taskforces under his fleet. (They can't command more without penalties.) I make as many of these 30 submarine fleets as I can with available submarines, giving Donitz the best ones first.
I then allocate them to areas in the ocean where the convoys are, preferably outside the range of British air power and RADARs. Raiding the Channel or the British coast is generally painful, but there's plenty of places to raid. I allocate them to sea zones up to the point where they start to lose convoy raiding efficiency. Generally, this will be 10 sea zones, but there are situations where oddly placed zones might change this. Important safety tip: Convoy raiding efficiency in the naval view sometimes doesn't update until the subs are in place. It might seem like their efficiency is low, but wait a bit until they get into place.
There are several reasons I cast my net like this:
1) I want to cover large portions of the ocean so that there is no way to get convoys to Britain without at least passing through 1 sea zone being patrolled by the subs.
2) Submarines in combat cannot attack other convoys. That means if a giant stack of 30 submarines get into combat with a dinky 2 convoy fleet, the other routes in the sea zone aren't getting hit. They are locked in combat until they sink those ships or combat ends. To be efficient, you want to hit multiple routes in the same sea zone (if multiple routes are going through the area).
3) DDs locked in combat can't protect other convoys, either.
If my subs have 10 DDs locked in a death struggle with convoy route A, those DDs can't save convoy route B or C. 4) Depending on your repair settings for the subs, you want more numerous, smaller groups of subs so that when subs retire to port for repairs, there's another task force already there to continue attacks.
If you have 1940 submarines, you may consider swapping to highly aggressive behavior on the subs. They will then stick around to sink DDs in addition to convoys. With the right techs and doctrines and admirals in place, older DDs are prey to torpedo fire just as assuredly as the convoys.
- 7
- 1
- 1
Yes I'm sure. But I can understand if you're doubtful, as it may seem counter-intuitive. That's just the way the game works. You can see for yourself with some simple tests.
In the following screenshots, pay attention to the 'Active in Regions' number displayed in the Fleet header, to the 'Average Convoy Raiding Efficiency' number in the tooltip, and to the 'XXX can raid convoys in up to NN (100%) different regions efficiencly' info in the tooltip. In these tests I used one fleet of task forces containing only 1 submarine each.
Starting with 1 TF (of 1 sub) assigned to 1 region:
Then 2 TFs (of 1 sub each) assigned to 3 regions:
And so on and so forth... Finally 10 TFs (of 1 sub each) assigned to 15 regions:
But if you put 10 subs in 1 TF assigned to 2 regions, efficiency falls down:
Put into words: one TF of 10 subs in 2 regions performs worse than 2 TFs of 1 sub each in 3 regions.
This demonstrates that convoy raiding efficiency is based on the ratio of number of task forces by number of assigned sea regions. The number of submarines isn't a factor.
Last edited:
- 3
Thanks for posting screenshots (i've always been too lazy for that), but Im afraid you misunderstood my comment. I fully agree that spreading subs to more task force is better for efficiency.
I am questioning your original comment "The actual number of submarines, either total, ... , does not matter.", because if you have a 100 subs v 10 subs spread out in 10 task forces, you will get a better efficiency if you raid more zones than 15.
(That said, on hindsight, it's maybe a bit of a dumb comment for me to make in the first place as you probably dont mean that having 100 subs wont outperform having 10 subs.)
It's quite possible that my wording is poor or that I'm not explaining well enough
I'm not sure what you mean by "because if you have a 100 subs v 10 subs spread out in 10 task forces, you will get a better efficiency if you raid more zones than 15."If you have 10 task forces in the fleet, no matter how many submarines you put into them, you will get worse and worse convoy raiding efficiency the more regions they have to cover beyond the maximum of 15. The limit of 15 being based on the number of 10 task forces. This is true whether there are 10 subs total or 100 subs total in the fleet of 10 task forces.
That's when considering convoy raiding efficiency exclusively - ignoring other aspects such as the ability to defend or attack against surface ASW, where the number and type of submarines in the task force is the primary factor.
If you're saying that with 100 subs in the same fleet, you can create many more task forces (theoretically up to 100 task forces) than with 10, and thus can cover many more regions at 100% efficiency, then I completely agree with you.
If that's not what you're saying, please provide an example to illustrate your point
It's quite possible that my wording is poor or that I'm not explaining well enough
If you have 10 task forces in the fleet, no matter how many submarines you put into them, you will get worse and worse convoy raiding efficiency the more regions they have to cover beyond the maximum of 15. The limit of 15 being based on the number of 10 task forces. This is true whether there are 10 subs total or 100 subs total in the fleet of 10 task forces.
That's when considering convoy raiding efficiency exclusively - ignoring other aspects such as the ability to defend or attack against surface ASW, where the number and type of submarines in the task force is the primary factor.
If you're saying that with 100 subs in the same fleet, you can create many more task forces (theoretically up to 100 task forces) than with 10, and thus can cover many more regions at 100% efficiency, then I completely agree with you.
If that's not what you're saying, please provide an example to illustrate your point
Granted, I have full convoy raiding doctrine researched, dont know how it would affect things. Oh and some of the task forces havent even moved to those zones yet.
Thanks for the screenshot.
Which doctrine tree did you research? The right side of Trade Interdiction provides up to +50% (when fully researched) convoy raiding efficiency bonus to submarines. The right side of Fleet in Being and the middle of Base Strike provide up to +15% convoy raiding efficiency bonus to submarines.
Example of doctrine bonus:
The increased limit on the number of regions that can be covered at 100% efficiency, like in your example, comes from those doctrine bonuses, or from your military staff, or possibly some national spirit, or a combination thereof. It doesn't come from the number of submarines you are using.
For instance, base limit for 10 task forces of submarines is 15 regions. A +50% doctrine bonus would increase the limit to 22.5 regions.
- 1
Yea, TI right side fully. That would explain why! Thanks for clearing things up!
- 1
It's my understanding that Task Forces with 8 submarines is the optimal size for being least likely to be detected - please correct me if I'm wrong.
Snorkel vs Radar. It is also my understanding that snorkels reduce detection and radar increases detection (of the submarine) and the opposite for detection of targets.
Snorkel vs Radar. It is also my understanding that snorkels reduce detection and radar increases detection (of the submarine) and the opposite for detection of targets.
Add to that the positioning penalty of having the larger formation, which also applies in purely subs versus convoy fights. A large stack of subs trying to finish off that last convoy can have a quite severe targeting penalty. Especially now that multiple partially damaged convoys can still result in sinkings, making it less important to deal huge amounts of damage in a single battle.
Only when the majority of TFs sit idle because there are not enough different targets would I consider consolidating them.
Ew, where are you taking this realism from? The spotting chance against a particular sub task force depends on its average stats only, so it is independent from the number of ships. But as the spotting chance is rolled against each TF individually, the same number of subs spread across multiple, smaller TFs are always more likely to be detected without a sweet spot. So purely in terms of minimum detection by patrols (https://hoi4.paradoxwikis.com/index.php?title=User:Bitmode/Naval_warfare&oldid=27678#Spotting) or naval bombers (https://hoi4.paradoxwikis.com/Air_missions#Naval_strike_mission), you want a single TF.
I think maximizing the threat against convoys with many small TFs is more effective than minimizing detection though.
In TF-vs-TF spotting, visibilities and detections of both sides are respectively compared against each other. So reducing visibility and increasing detection are equally valuable here.
Against naval strikes only visibility (sub or surface, whichever is greater) counts.
- 2
- 1
It is, unless you are in some weird situation where the target of your convoy raiding has basically one route. But I can't think of when that would be applicable in any situation where you would also be specializing in submarines and facing some kind of difficult enemy.
The closest I can think of was the one time our German player in MP tried sneaking resources from Japan. And even in that case, I just posted surface ships along the route instead of submarines in a place where the KM and Luftwaffe had no range. :shrugs: