Subs in 1.06

[WarDog]

Plenty of improvements!! But:
I don't like how the new patch has changed the effects of convoyhunting with subs. Now taking out unescorted transports cost strenght and org.
Strenght? Well guess the bolts on the subs gets tired after shoting torpedoes constantley.
BUT org??? Unescorted convoys is a walk in the park, was so IRL, and should be so in HOI. If UK doesn't build DDs it should loose. Starved out.
Now the subs spend 11 out of 12 mounths rebuilding and reorging.

 

[unmerged(11439)]

i think losing strength on unescorted convoys is a bad feature too. Today playing HOI my subs sunk convoy after convoy until i relized my subs were down to 0 org and much lower strength. I then tried to return to Hamburg (via Denmarck Straits) and every passing ship would send me retreating in the opposite direction.

very aggravating

 

[unmerged(13914)]

I'm not sure how the new rule works but consider this:

First, something like half of all U-boats sunk were destroyed by planes. There is no provision in HOI for using aircraft to escort convoys, but in fact they were given direct protection by long-range air and even blimps. So some level of self-protection is reasonable to represent air escorts.

Second, HOI only shows destroyers, and only gives you escort points for destroyers. In reality, the UK had literally hundreds of additional ASW-capable ships smaller than a destroyer -- minesweepers, subchasers, trawlers, motor launches. These did in fact escort convoys. Ignoring sinkings by corvettes, of which there were dozens, here are some small-ship successes:

Sloop Fowey sank U-55, Jan 1940.
Minesweeper Gleaner sank U-33, Feb 1940.
Sloop Weston sank U-13, May 1940.
merchant ship Mijdrecht rammed and damaged U-70, Mar 1941
Trawler Visenda sank U-351, Mar 1941
Trawler Lady Shirley sank U-111, Oct 1941
Sloop Rochester sank U-204, Oct 1941.
Coast Guard cutter Icarus sank U-352, May 1942.
Coast Guard cutter Thetis sank U-157, Jun 1942.
Sloop Rochester sank U-135, Jul 1943.
PC624 sank U-375, Jul 1943
Trawler Imperialist heavily damaged U-732, Oct 1943.
Soviet subchaser MO-124 sank U-679, Jan 1945.

Damage to U-boats from these small patrol craft is harder to track statistically, but clearly there must have been quite a lot of it.

Also, merchant ships were not entirely unarmed. They had no depth charges or ASDIC, but they did have impressive surface armament added, typically 4-6 guns of at least 4" caliber. At the start of the war, U-boats sank a number of merchant ships using guns, to save their torpedoes for later. When the U-boats started being damaged in duels with armed merchants, they gave that up.

And finally, consider the fate of U-132, sunk when she hit the ammunition ship Hatimura and was caught in the resulting explosion, Nov 1942. Or U-377, sunk by her own malfunctioning acoustic torpedo, Jan 1944.

Again, I'm not sure exactly what level of damage the rule inflicts, it might be too much, but I am not unhappy that "unescorted" convoys get some level of self-protection and U-boats get some damage for going in.

 

[unmerged(16832)]

A lot of subs got rammed by larger boats without ASW capability.

 

[LewsTherin]

In another thread I made a comment about this issue. MathGuy, I understand your point. But right now the losses for the subfleets are too harsh for convoy hunting. Plus, in a way you could argue that since HoI abstracts so many things some of the effects of ships smaller than destroyers are abstracted into destroyers.

Maybe a slight org/strength loss for each convoy sunk but not as much as it is now. Perhaps 1/4 of what it is now. I spend way too much time in port repairing.

Anyway, this whole issue led me to build naval bombers with which I have more or less wiped out the Royal Navy.

 

[unmerged(13914)]

It may be too much, I don't know. That's something to experiment with. However, what bothers me more is that there ARE any unescorted convoys, for any length of time. There shouldn't be, especially not for the Royal Navy. The AI is just sitting around when it should be assigning escorts and/or converting destroyers to the purpose.

The convoy escorts actually did too much damage in 1.05c, and I complained, and you can see it's listed in the README that they tweaked down how much damage the escorts do. So we shall see how things work out there.

As for your air strategy, well, yes, if the Luftwaffe and the Kriegsmarine had ever made a serious effort at cooperation, the Royal Navy would have had a much tougher time. So I'm not surprised.

 

[unmerged(16682)]

Some of your sub-fates are not the same as I have seen them...

Ignoring sinkings by corvettes, of which there were dozens, here are some small-ship successes:

Sloop Fowey sank U-55, Jan 1940.

Together with British destroyer HMS Whitshed, the French destroyer Valmy and Guépard, and by depth charges from a British Sunderland aircraft (228 Sqdn.)

merchant ship Mijdrecht rammed and damaged U-70, Mar 1941

According to my sources it was Sunk 7 March, 1941 south-east of Iceland, in position 60.15N, 14.00W, by British corvettes HMS Camellia and HMS Arbutus. 20 dead and 25 survivors.

Trawler Visenda sank U-351, Mar 1941 .

Again, I have different story: Scuttled on 5 May, 1945 at Horup Haff in position 54.53N, 09.50E.

Sloop Rochester sank U-204, Oct 1941.

together with British corvette HMS Mallow

Sloop Rochester sank U-135, Jul 1943.

Together with the corvettes HMS Mignonette and HMS Balsam and an American Catalina aircraft (VP-92). 5 dead and 41 survivors.

PC624 sank U-375, Jul 1943

(US submarine chaser to us unfamiliar with US-naval nomenclature)

Trawler Imperialist heavily damaged U-732,

and sunk by the destroyer HMS Douglas at the same occasion. 31 dead and 18 survivors

Damage to U-boats from these small patrol craft is harder to track statistically, but clearly there must have been quite a lot of it.

Also, merchant ships were not entirely unarmed. They had no depth charges or ASDIC, but they did have impressive surface armament added, typically 4-6 guns of at least 4" caliber. At the start of the war, U-boats sank a number of merchant ships using guns, to save their torpedoes for later. When the U-boats started being damaged in duels with armed merchants, they gave that up. .

I haven't seen much reported of uboat-losses in surface action against merchant ships. What I'we read was that some 550(?) men were lost due to accidents and action that didn't involve the loss of the uboat during WW2 - Although surprisingly quite a few uboats had trouble with the guns - for instance U47, U105, U110, U118, U443, U156 (were they forgot to remove the water plug from the gun barrel killing one, wounding 2? - The commander decided to saw off the ruined portion of the gun barrel, and using this shorter barrel, on 27 February 1942 U-156 sank a 2,498-ton British steamer.)

And finally, consider the fate of U-132, sunk when she hit the ammunition ship Hatimura and was caught in the resulting explosion, Nov 1942. Or U-377, sunk by her own malfunctioning acoustic torpedo, Jan 1944.

Yep, there were a lot of fatal accidents I feel this one should be included in fatalities with merchant vessels: U 57, 3 Sep, 1940 The boat sank after an accidental collision with the Norwegian steamer SS Rona, taking 6 of its crew with her.

Again, I'm not sure exactly what level of damage the rule inflicts, it might be too much, but I am not unhappy that "unescorted" convoys get some level of self-protection and U-boats get some damage for going in.

I agree to that - or maybe the org. loss for sub-fleets in convoy action should be greater - At least the smaller subs had to return to base quite frequently after action (to refuel and stock up)?

 

[WarDog]

MathGuy, I agree with you on the need to have some damage inflicted. There where incidents as you list. But, there is a reason why the uboot-guys in KM referes to 39/40 as "the happy days". UK had forgotten what they learned in WW1 and took a harsh lesson.
Yes, sinking 20-30 transports a day should cost some damage, but not 3-5 strenghtpoints a day! What I find plain wrong is a org-loss of 5-10 points a day. Moral has never been so high in KM/uboot as in those early days.

The other side of this is as you point out the AIs inability to buid and assign DDs to convoy duty. I'm no programmer, but I hope this can be looked at in an upcoming patch. Maybe UK also should get a boost in escorts with the lend/lease-goodies? It would be histoically correct.

By the way, how great is this game becoming!?! More than a year since I brought it back home, and it's sleepdeprevation and workproblems all over again!!!

 

[LewsTherin]

However, what bothers me more is that there ARE any unescorted convoys, for any length of time.

I agree with you about this. The British AI should be set to divert some destroyer production to escort duty and actually assign them. Don't know how to do this, but doesn't seem too hard.

Having transports inflict damage isn't a good way to get around this issue, or at least not this degree of damage. Human players could use this to hurt enemy fleets since they are invisible. Although this would certainly be a wasteful way of going about it. :wacko:

 

[kionas76]

Althought its not the best sollution to take damage from unprotected convoy it is still much-much better that the previous 1.05c.The reason is that before you could station a sub group in the middle of Allied lines and live them there untill the end of war assuming nobody attacked them.It seems that since there was no way to simulate the fuel and torpedo losses in convoy combat now they have found a way to force players take them back to base.Maybe not the best but it is something.
What i cant understand is why the sub commanders are not getting exp. when engaging convoys?

 

[WarDog]

Subs sitting for months/years in mid-atlantic is just as wrong, yes.
I see this as an attempt at forcing the subs in to refuel and rearming. But it was taken way to far. The ratio of in-port/patrol is now something like 15-1. All it needs is a tweaking in 1.06b. Maybe a ratio of 5-1 is more historical.
If the "Powers to be" also could make AI assign escorts to their convois too. Hmmmm....

 

[kionas76]

The capacity for a sub group to hit against aconvoy is dependable from a lot of factors and i dont agree to a specific ratio,but dont know whether it is possible for the needed complexity as the game is.
What about the no-exp. for u-boat leaders hiting convoys?

 

[WarDog]

Yes, The ancient mar, as long as they take damage and inflict pain, sub-leaders should gain exp. This has been a reacurring topic. IIRC this is impossible since subs vs convoys is delt with differently ingame then normal unit vs unit battle. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[unmerged(24690)]

How do you know they weren't escorted

i think losing strength on unescorted convoys is a bad feature too. Today playing HOI my subs sunk convoy after convoy until i relized my subs were down to 0 org and much lower strength. I then tried to return to Hamburg (via Denmarck Straits) and every passing ship would send me retreating in the opposite direction.

very aggravating

Just because you didn't sink any doesn't mean there weren't any

 

[unmerged(17501)]

Just because you didn't sink any doesn't mean there weren't any

Most often you will kill a escort after a few weeks of damaging the same convoy everyday. Especially if he has a large stack of subs.

 

[unmerged(14102)]

It may be too much, I don't know. That's something to experiment with. However, what bothers me more is that there ARE any unescorted convoys, for any length of time. There shouldn't be, especially not for the Royal Navy. The AI is just sitting around when it should be assigning escorts and/or converting destroyers to the purpose.

The convoy escorts actually did too much damage in 1.05c, and I complained, and you can see it's listed in the README that they tweaked down how much damage the escorts do. So we shall see how things work out there.

As for your air strategy, well, yes, if the Luftwaffe and the Kriegsmarine had ever made a serious effort at cooperation, the Royal Navy would have had a much tougher time. So I'm not surprised.

MathGuy;

I tend to support the current adjustment, not based upon protection, but based upon the wear and tear action did to the equipment of the time.

Subs of this era had limited stores. Remember that a convoy attack wasn't just fire and go away. They were night attacks, and the cycle repeated itself several times, with the sub chasing on the surface. So a load of torps could be expended in one engagement.

The subs had little capability to repair battle damage. As stated, merchants and their escorts were armed. A holed hull is a VERY bad thing for a sub, even a little one.

With their lack of stores, they could not replace parts. And things tend to break when pushed hard such as in battle. Yes, they had ocean tenders [and that is modeled in the game with additional ORG], but there comes a point where the work requires a port for space or skill reasons.

So far, i am pretty happy with my WolfPacks! Yes they take some damage, but they still put down a lot of shipping. And with the number of 'free' transports reduced [THANK YOU!!], you can now have a substantial impact upon supply. The losses now hurt.

PS: the one thing i'm not sure of is if a convoy is sunk, are the proportional resources lost from the pool or not. I have never actually seen a resource loss.

 

[Chaplain]

MathGuy;

I tend to support the current adjustment, not based upon protection, but based upon the wear and tear action did to the equipment of the time.

Subs of this era had limited stores. Remember that a convoy attack wasn't just fire and go away. They were night attacks, and the cycle repeated itself several times, with the sub chasing on the surface. So a load of torps could be expended in one engagement.

The subs had little capability to repair battle damage. As stated, merchants and their escorts were armed. A holed hull is a VERY bad thing for a sub, even a little one.

With their lack of stores, they could not replace parts. And things tend to break when pushed hard such as in battle. Yes, they had ocean tenders [and that is modeled in the game with additional ORG], but there comes a point where the work requires a port for space or skill reasons.

So far, i am pretty happy with my WolfPacks! Yes they take some damage, but they still put down a lot of shipping. And with the number of 'free' transports reduced [THANK YOU!!], you can now have a substantial impact upon supply. The losses now hurt.

PS: the one thing i'm not sure of is if a convoy is sunk, are the proportional resources lost from the pool or not. I have never actually seen a resource loss.

Agreed.

 

[unmerged(15826)]

Also has the ammount of new transports that say the UK generates been reduced to ballance the losses that the U Boats will take because if they have not then it will not be worth the effort?

 

[unmerged(10750)]

Also has the ammount of new transports that say the UK generates been reduced to ballance the losses that the U Boats will take because if they have not then it will not be worth the effort?

Yes. It's MUCH harder to maintain convoys and supply lines now.

 

[unmerged(8351)]

I guess my worry is not that the loss rates are non historical, but that building subs is just not cost effective anymore. I think IRL it was a very cost effective way to hurt the UK. It seems to cost you a lot more than you gain in sunk ships (with 30 lvl IX subs, I would sink maybe 50 transports a month and lose several subs) 5 transports costs only 20 IC to rebuild and a short buildtime.