submarines too powerful

[kstanb]

I am playing as Germany, it is Januar 1940, and I have sunk at least 4 BBs, 1 BC, 1 CV, 1 CVL, 5 CA and many CLs and DDs; most capital ships were French, most screens British.

research: all the techs expected in 1940, but nothing more

production: all event submarines + running continuosly 4 lines of type VII and 2 lines of type IX since I researched them (sometime in 1937)

fleet composition: 3 fleets: long range (between 8-10), med range (12) and short range (20s)

missions: Always sent them to raid convoys, and they have done that relatively well, but realistically; no more than 10 to 12 ships sunk per patrol usually sinking 1-2 ships per battle

 

[Tegetthoff]

Things till change when you are at war with the US. We still have to find out why the US is so powerful against subs.

Subs will be modified in future versions, most likely by making them easier to sink rather than making them less powerful.

 

[Serenissima]

Personally, I think submarines are too weak as it is, at least in the hands of the AI - as discussed in the other thread, a player can just wipe them with ASW destroyers effortlessly.

 

[Tegetthoff]

This is possibly due to the AI not putting the subs to sea but piling them up in harbour. This is at least true for the GER AI. I have seen ENG and JAP conduct pretty deadly sub wars with a couple of hundred convoys sunk.

We are currently rewriting the GER naval AI with mixed, but encouraging results.

 

[kstanb]

I think the point is that submarines should have only a small chance of success when attacking surface task forces. Not knowing how to mod, iI don't know if this is possible, but they should have a one-shot opportunity to do massive damage, and then they should loss any capability to attack for a long time

Also, any surface task force that is not in "ASW" mission should have a dim chance on spotting submarines unless they are attacked first; this again, I don't know if possible to mod

Submarines should only be successful in convoy raiding and in surprise attacks

 

[Tegetthoff]

There we have to wait for hard-coded changes, maybe with the mystical patch 1.08.

 

[kstanb]

Is it possible to make them lose org quickly?

 

[Blecky]

Is it possible to make them lose org quickly?

Subs usually have org of less than 10. They start retreating soon after the battle began.

 

[Tegetthoff]

In Core they have an org of 3 - 5 to get this effetc.

 

[kstanb]

have you think about reducing the # of fleet an admiral can control? I think 10 for rear, 30 for vice, 70? for Adm is way too much

because 30 subs (even with CORE's low org), under vice adm Donitz can still fight for a long time and sink many BB, CVs, etc in one battle

 

[Blecky]

have you think about reducing the # of fleet an admiral can control? I think 10 for rear, 30 for vice, 70? for Adm is way too much

because 30 subs (even with CORE's low org), under vice adm Donitz can still fight for a long time and sink many BB, CVs, etc in one battle

Since you can promote your admirals without any penalty, reducing the number of fleets an admiral can control wouldn´t change anything. Besides, large fleets are less effective/effeicient than smaller ones. The best fleet size for subs is about 5 (or so we´ve been told ).

 

[Serenissima]

Fleets would be ridiculously small - the reason for the high command limits is presumably because of the 1:1 ship representation CORE has, which individually represents every ship down to the smallest. Reducing fleet command limits would mean having hundreds of small groups of ships going around seperately... a bit of a nightmare.

 

[kstanb]

Since you can promote your admirals without any penalty.

I didn't know that :excl:

question: if a "super stack of doom" of 30 DDs attacks a size-5 fleet, would it have the same chances of survival than a size-30 fleet?
because if the outcomes are:
size-5 fleet -> 5 subs sunk
size-30 fleet -> 1 sub sunk, 29 somehow damaged
I will still go with the less efficient, more survivable 30-fleet submarine fleet