I think he means that he's playing Australia, Military Controlling the UK into doing something stupid, then playing the UK and being baffled by the stupid dispositions he placed himself in. But I could be wrong.
-
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.
lol Well that could be interesting! Sometimes the AI does some really funny things but other times they can be of assistance, by taking islands in the Pacific or dropping off units in your invasion areas and then giving them to you as expeditionary forces. Sgt Nic has a twisted streak I think he he or he likes to punish himself 
As it is I have my hands full fighting the enemy without having to worry about my Allies doing crazy things deliberately
As it is I have my hands full fighting the enemy without having to worry about my Allies doing crazy things deliberately 
Have been thinking about the original question posed in this thread.
So here is some data quickly collected from a variety of sources and may not be terribly accurate, but gives an idea. Am sure the CORE team have better data than this.
'39-45 U-boat losses caused by: (not including missing, scuttled etc)
Ships 260
Aircraft 250
Aircraft & Ships 37
Air raids on ports 43
Mines 35
%losses inflicted by aircraft (total losses all sources)
1939 0% (9)
1940 13% (23)
1941 11% (34)
1942 44% (84)
1943 63% (235)
1944 33% (215)
1945 20% (124)
Of the aircraft about 50% of the kills were by B-24, Catalina and Sunderland aircraft – all used to close the mid-Atlantic air gap. Interestingly, only about 10% of the air losses were because of carrier based air. The greater aircraft effectiveness was because of the ability of the allies to pin-point U-boat locations. While ASW clearly got better with better techs (huff-duff radar etc) which allowed air power to become more potent, perhaps the biggest difference historically was the capture of U-110, its enigma machine, and the subsequent deciphering of Heimisch. Did this account for the improved long range aircraft intercepts because the allies knew where the subs were going? At the very least, I think it is safe to argue that the high historical U-boat losses by aircraft after '41 were due to more than just improved tech.
So are subs too hard to kill in CORE? No, I think CORE does it pretty well. The low losses that aircraft are capable of inflicting early on is clearly historical – as is the large number of aircraft required to bring about substantial losses in port. Some very big raids were conducted against U-boats in port, and with comparatively little success (only 43 over the course of the war) – this is reflected in game by the low damage caused by even Shadowarrior’s 2 000 tactical bombers!
So I guess, after all that, my main point is that the current CORE system is not too bad and that the big historical ASW successes seen were probably because of a combination of excellent intelligence from code-breaking (in the pacific as well) and improving technology. Haven’t played a lot as UK so don’t have a feel for how much electronics research (representing code-breaking) affects ASW outcomes…
Cheers,
M
So here is some data quickly collected from a variety of sources and may not be terribly accurate, but gives an idea. Am sure the CORE team have better data than this.
'39-45 U-boat losses caused by: (not including missing, scuttled etc)
Ships 260
Aircraft 250
Aircraft & Ships 37
Air raids on ports 43
Mines 35
%losses inflicted by aircraft (total losses all sources)
1939 0% (9)
1940 13% (23)
1941 11% (34)
1942 44% (84)
1943 63% (235)
1944 33% (215)
1945 20% (124)
Of the aircraft about 50% of the kills were by B-24, Catalina and Sunderland aircraft – all used to close the mid-Atlantic air gap. Interestingly, only about 10% of the air losses were because of carrier based air. The greater aircraft effectiveness was because of the ability of the allies to pin-point U-boat locations. While ASW clearly got better with better techs (huff-duff radar etc) which allowed air power to become more potent, perhaps the biggest difference historically was the capture of U-110, its enigma machine, and the subsequent deciphering of Heimisch. Did this account for the improved long range aircraft intercepts because the allies knew where the subs were going? At the very least, I think it is safe to argue that the high historical U-boat losses by aircraft after '41 were due to more than just improved tech.
So are subs too hard to kill in CORE? No, I think CORE does it pretty well. The low losses that aircraft are capable of inflicting early on is clearly historical – as is the large number of aircraft required to bring about substantial losses in port. Some very big raids were conducted against U-boats in port, and with comparatively little success (only 43 over the course of the war) – this is reflected in game by the low damage caused by even Shadowarrior’s 2 000 tactical bombers!
So I guess, after all that, my main point is that the current CORE system is not too bad and that the big historical ASW successes seen were probably because of a combination of excellent intelligence from code-breaking (in the pacific as well) and improving technology. Haven’t played a lot as UK so don’t have a feel for how much electronics research (representing code-breaking) affects ASW outcomes…
Cheers,
M
My largest air raids, versus the IJN as the RN, was with 31 bomber groups (over 3000 planes).mangers said:
I agree. I think that CORE does an outstanding job in accurately modeling ASW operations.mangers said:
I found that near the end of my game in late 1942/early 1943 I was starting to sink more subs (better ASW techs researched as well as ASW radar brigades, 1942 Destroyer tech etc.). I think my main gripe is that when an even number of subs are attacked by an even number of destroyers, the destroyers are decimated, including DD4 which have a reasonable sub detection and attack ratings. Surely they would be able to sink 1 or 2 before being annhillated themselves. If this matches historical facts from the early war years then I'm happy to accept it, but I wont be sending out any more Sub Killer fleets - too damn risky. Instead I'll just group a few Naval Airgroups together and pummel the subs from the air at a lot less risk. As the UK, I can't afford to have my destroyers getting repaired in ports every time they come across a sub fleet.
The naval planes seem a much more cost effective way to combat the U-boat menace. I'll keep an eye on sub losses in my new UK campaign.
The naval planes seem a much more cost effective way to combat the U-boat menace. I'll keep an eye on sub losses in my new UK campaign.
Only have some very 'rubbery' numbers on destroyers v's subs (couple of different books and web give different numbers) - am sure someone else has a much better idea. But RN lost something like 150 destroyers '39-45. About 75 in the Atlantic/European theatre (excluding med), 30 odd to submarines.
cheers,
M
cheers,
M
This may or may not be relevant to this discussion, but the NAV unit represents 25 planes, rather than the normal 100. Just thought I'd add that in.
baylox said:
always imagined it as a bit of an abstraction as well. While I could envisage bomber and fighter groups all flying at once, I have always thought of NAV as small groups on a rolling patrol and not all in the air at the same time?
Hope that arm is improving
.Cheers,
M
I would like to add to this subject with my observations from my Russia-Japaneese war.
Background:
Playing Russia, alternative route by refusing the purge and editing the game to simulate a removal of Stalin. Paternal Autocrat. Gave myself 40% dissent to deal with.
The new government, in strong need of peace to restore Russias might to prevent a counter revoultion, tried to create a ring of buffer-states. But instead of stabilizing the situation it turned the opposite way when our new allied Sinkiang a few days later ended up in war with Japan while forging the unified front with Nat Chi. Damn! I should have been more suspicious when they where so happy to my invite to the alliance (57% chance). Most of the former Red army was scattered in the turmoil during the coup, and the NKVD had sinked its own ships and some subs in the Pacific Fleet. Our “White army” consisted of a few professional armour units and a handful of infantry divisions. The only ships in the pacific I possessed was some 50 subs type I and II.
So the naval war consisted of my naval interdiction in the seas between Vladivostok-Japan, and around Korea. The Japs patrolled the area with more or less their entire navy, including transports that I assume was about to put troops on Russian soil.
Observations
For about 9 months this battle has raged and with at least one encounter every or every two days. I’ve lost 6 subs, and got about 12 damaged. The Japanese have lost 2 old CL, about 15 DD and 10 TP.
There are four types of battles:
1. Often: JAP huge CV/BB fleet vs. between 1-20 of my subs: No damage or losses on either side, range always +100 miles. (The CV:s keep the range and hit nothing)
2. Quite often: 1-20 of my subs vs. some JAP TP:s and a few old (lvl V) destroyers. Their fleet gets severly mauled from time to time. Close range.
3. Sometimes: A lot of JAP destroyers and CL:s vs. 1- 20 of my subs. Often significant and sometimes severe damage on both sides, but mostly on the JAP side. Close to medium range.
4. Sometimes: 2 JAP destroyers or lonely TP:s vs. 1-30 of my subs. The die.
Of course all battles just keeps going for 4 hours and then we flee. I mostly sail with one Sub/fleet to simulate bad coordination techniques, but it’s a rather closed arena so my subs are often 6-10 in the same sea zone anyway. Outside Vladivostok I have a giant (20) lvl I subgroup posted on defence meaning battles with up to 30-40 subs on my side, including others on the way in or out from port.
Conclusions and questions:
a) Less subs then I would have expected has been damaged or destroyed. I believe our naval war is rather intense compared to similar situations in history, but there is a lot at stake for both sides, close to home ports and neither side has anything else to use its naval resources on. Even if I can imagine that Japaneese ASW techniques was rudimentary at the time – wouldn’t one expect a bit more RU casualties since our technical level is also low? Wouldn’t al lot of subs get caught on surface cause of they are old types that couldn’t be submerged that much? Does the AI research ASW doctrines now?
b) I didn’t think I was going to be able to do this much with my old and obsolete vessels and stone age doctrines (thou the latter was improved along the fight trough “experience” = research). But I find it very positive though, for game experience, that I can do something with my 50 subs.
c) I think it is odd that I never gets even one shot on their CV fleets. I think it is realistic that the Japanese protect the capitals and don’t risk them in a fight purely against subs. But since they pass from time to time I would expect some of my sub to be lucky and stumble upon an opportunity to fire against a BC/BB or CV. Like that German sub in the med that suddenly found BB Barham in its sights. This might be HoI engine related but is it possible to tweak or do you believe it to be WAD? (I think subs should have a different combat model more rare-critical-hit type of thingy, but that’s Paradox stuff).
d) I know it isn’t CORE:s fault, when the AI often sails a single TP or 2 DD into my 20 subgroups in Vladivostok bay. I know the JAPs historically were bad at protecting their transports, but I thought it was about its supply and resource ships rather then their troop transports. My conclusion is that it is good of CORE that JAP has so many transports, cause that compensates for their lack of skill in using them.
Don’t know if this gives you any useful input, but I thought that a full scale RU-JAP war in 37-38 is less common and therefore its higher chance that the observations might be interesting.
About this game: It is very fun to suddenly be dragged into a war I neither had planned or wanted. It really brings life to the game. Now, I have to go and talk to and plan the war-campaign with my unexpected friends and allies Nat Chi and Xbe-san-ma or whatever that little country is called.
/Nic
Background:
Playing Russia, alternative route by refusing the purge and editing the game to simulate a removal of Stalin. Paternal Autocrat. Gave myself 40% dissent to deal with.
The new government, in strong need of peace to restore Russias might to prevent a counter revoultion, tried to create a ring of buffer-states. But instead of stabilizing the situation it turned the opposite way when our new allied Sinkiang a few days later ended up in war with Japan while forging the unified front with Nat Chi. Damn! I should have been more suspicious when they where so happy to my invite to the alliance (57% chance). Most of the former Red army was scattered in the turmoil during the coup, and the NKVD had sinked its own ships and some subs in the Pacific Fleet. Our “White army” consisted of a few professional armour units and a handful of infantry divisions. The only ships in the pacific I possessed was some 50 subs type I and II.
So the naval war consisted of my naval interdiction in the seas between Vladivostok-Japan, and around Korea. The Japs patrolled the area with more or less their entire navy, including transports that I assume was about to put troops on Russian soil.
Observations
For about 9 months this battle has raged and with at least one encounter every or every two days. I’ve lost 6 subs, and got about 12 damaged. The Japanese have lost 2 old CL, about 15 DD and 10 TP.
There are four types of battles:
1. Often: JAP huge CV/BB fleet vs. between 1-20 of my subs: No damage or losses on either side, range always +100 miles. (The CV:s keep the range and hit nothing)
2. Quite often: 1-20 of my subs vs. some JAP TP:s and a few old (lvl V) destroyers. Their fleet gets severly mauled from time to time. Close range.
3. Sometimes: A lot of JAP destroyers and CL:s vs. 1- 20 of my subs. Often significant and sometimes severe damage on both sides, but mostly on the JAP side. Close to medium range.
4. Sometimes: 2 JAP destroyers or lonely TP:s vs. 1-30 of my subs. The die.
Of course all battles just keeps going for 4 hours and then we flee. I mostly sail with one Sub/fleet to simulate bad coordination techniques, but it’s a rather closed arena so my subs are often 6-10 in the same sea zone anyway. Outside Vladivostok I have a giant (20) lvl I subgroup posted on defence meaning battles with up to 30-40 subs on my side, including others on the way in or out from port.
Conclusions and questions:
a) Less subs then I would have expected has been damaged or destroyed. I believe our naval war is rather intense compared to similar situations in history, but there is a lot at stake for both sides, close to home ports and neither side has anything else to use its naval resources on. Even if I can imagine that Japaneese ASW techniques was rudimentary at the time – wouldn’t one expect a bit more RU casualties since our technical level is also low? Wouldn’t al lot of subs get caught on surface cause of they are old types that couldn’t be submerged that much? Does the AI research ASW doctrines now?
b) I didn’t think I was going to be able to do this much with my old and obsolete vessels and stone age doctrines (thou the latter was improved along the fight trough “experience” = research). But I find it very positive though, for game experience, that I can do something with my 50 subs.
c) I think it is odd that I never gets even one shot on their CV fleets. I think it is realistic that the Japanese protect the capitals and don’t risk them in a fight purely against subs. But since they pass from time to time I would expect some of my sub to be lucky and stumble upon an opportunity to fire against a BC/BB or CV. Like that German sub in the med that suddenly found BB Barham in its sights. This might be HoI engine related but is it possible to tweak or do you believe it to be WAD? (I think subs should have a different combat model more rare-critical-hit type of thingy, but that’s Paradox stuff).
d) I know it isn’t CORE:s fault, when the AI often sails a single TP or 2 DD into my 20 subgroups in Vladivostok bay. I know the JAPs historically were bad at protecting their transports, but I thought it was about its supply and resource ships rather then their troop transports. My conclusion is that it is good of CORE that JAP has so many transports, cause that compensates for their lack of skill in using them.
Don’t know if this gives you any useful input, but I thought that a full scale RU-JAP war in 37-38 is less common and therefore its higher chance that the observations might be interesting.
About this game: It is very fun to suddenly be dragged into a war I neither had planned or wanted. It really brings life to the game. Now, I have to go and talk to and plan the war-campaign with my unexpected friends and allies Nat Chi and Xbe-san-ma or whatever that little country is called.
/Nic
Hi,
This is indeed an interesting alternative campaign. Here are my reactions:
A) On the ASW note, yes the general AI does research ASW techs, but JAP purposely does not do much of this so they are apt to be very poor at ASW. But most of the events you are describing aren't actually "ASW" mission encounters so that may not matter much.
b) While I am gald your SS units were useful it does appear to be that the balance still favors the SS excessivelly. In an attempt to make SS possible at killing larger ships we've ended up with DD being extremely vulnerable to them. Probablly need to reduce SS sea defence values further.
c) That is almost completely Paradox hard code. I've also weished for a completely different naval combat system where critical hits would play a big role.
d) Hard code again. That is exactly why I added back in a bunch of TP for all of the maritime powers.
mm
This is indeed an interesting alternative campaign. Here are my reactions:
A) On the ASW note, yes the general AI does research ASW techs, but JAP purposely does not do much of this so they are apt to be very poor at ASW. But most of the events you are describing aren't actually "ASW" mission encounters so that may not matter much.
b) While I am gald your SS units were useful it does appear to be that the balance still favors the SS excessivelly. In an attempt to make SS possible at killing larger ships we've ended up with DD being extremely vulnerable to them. Probablly need to reduce SS sea defence values further.
c) That is almost completely Paradox hard code. I've also weished for a completely different naval combat system where critical hits would play a big role.
d) Hard code again. That is exactly why I added back in a bunch of TP for all of the maritime powers.
mm
Yes, sub sea defense needs to be seriously reduced. In my current USA game (it's now Jan. 1940), almost every sub vs. DD encounter between the UK and Germany leads to 1 or 2 UK DDs getting sunk. The UK is losing DDs at an ahistorical, unbalanced, and highly unsustainable rate.dec152000 said:
Thanks for the info guys. @Dec152000 thanks, I was aware the naval air groups are about 25 aircraft (I read the very useful CORE manual), which I think CORE has represented especially well. It is a much more realistic approach to naval air, rather than super stacks of thousands of aircraft blasting navies out of the ocean (a la Vanilla HOI-DD).
It seems that the AI sends out DD in groups of 2, which are basically dead meat when they encounter the usual AI sub groups of 10. You make a very valid point about critical hits not playing a major role in naval combat. When a sub is hit with a depth charge the results are more often than not catastrophic. Instead in the game SS lose a small amount of strength which is usually shared between the group, which unfortunately isn't quite how it would happen in real life. Conversely a torpedo from a sub would also create some kind of critical hit upon a small surface ship, and quite possibly on capital ships. I guess we can only hope that the naval combat is given an overhaul in the next version of Armageddon. Until then a few tweaks to the sub defence values will be a useful step in balancing the Destroyer/Sub war.
Cheers
It seems that the AI sends out DD in groups of 2, which are basically dead meat when they encounter the usual AI sub groups of 10. You make a very valid point about critical hits not playing a major role in naval combat. When a sub is hit with a depth charge the results are more often than not catastrophic. Instead in the game SS lose a small amount of strength which is usually shared between the group, which unfortunately isn't quite how it would happen in real life. Conversely a torpedo from a sub would also create some kind of critical hit upon a small surface ship, and quite possibly on capital ships. I guess we can only hope that the naval combat is given an overhaul in the next version of Armageddon. Until then a few tweaks to the sub defence values will be a useful step in balancing the Destroyer/Sub war.
Cheers
Funny.
Playing as Germany, I've had my U-boats get into naval battles that nearly destroyed them many times. They were rarely sunk outright, but they often suffered heavy damage.
But I have noticed that I am far more likely to sink a destroyer than a destroyer is to sink a U-boat.
Playing as Germany, I've had my U-boats get into naval battles that nearly destroyed them many times. They were rarely sunk outright, but they often suffered heavy damage.
But I have noticed that I am far more likely to sink a destroyer than a destroyer is to sink a U-boat.
Hi,
Sea Defence for SS units can't go much lower. Right now the basic model is set at 2, while the best is at 7. Though considering things reducing it a notch or two may be in order. But IMO the main cause of the imbalance is the SS Sea Attack compared to the DD Sea Defence.
mm
Sea Defence for SS units can't go much lower. Right now the basic model is set at 2, while the best is at 7. Though considering things reducing it a notch or two may be in order. But IMO the main cause of the imbalance is the SS Sea Attack compared to the DD Sea Defence.
mm
We will leave it in your very capable hands dec152000. When the next version arrives you can be sure there will be a few of us who will playtest the new stats and offer any advice to help balance things further, if necessary. After all we are all striving for the same thing - a great mod that fully models the strengths and weaknesses of the nations involved and to recreate WW2 as realistically as possible. Once a few glitches are fixed - SS vs DD combat, Greece, Spain and Portugal joining the Axis when USSR declares war, USSR and China underpowered - it should be a very enjoyable gaming experience playing CORE!
Cheers
Juz
Cheers
Juz
el alamein said:
well said - mind you though, it's pretty damned good right now
!Cheers,
M
he he of course...when the bugs/fixes are done it will be more enjoyable than it is now
Hi,
We will definitely be looking for some more Betas to test the next release. It will still be awhile, but in the interim I'd encourage all of you to check in at www.terranova.dk and post a bit. we tend to choose our Betas from contibutors on that site and a lot of the feedback we've received here has been excellent.
mm
We will definitely be looking for some more Betas to test the next release. It will still be awhile, but in the interim I'd encourage all of you to check in at www.terranova.dk and post a bit. we tend to choose our Betas from contibutors on that site and a lot of the feedback we've received here has been excellent.
mm