U-boats hunting down DD's

Moderators: firepowerjohan, rkr1958, Happycat, Slitherine Core

gerones
Captain - Bf 110D
Captain - Bf 110D
Posts: 860
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2008 9:51 pm

Post by gerones »

I have often seen italian fleets of submarines of 8 sub units. And now that they are cheaper I am afraid that it will be possible to build even larger submarine fleets. I see an issue here with a MTO with such italian submarine fleet.

I like task force rule. It will help the players to move their naval units without being so "afraid" at port because of the submarine threat.
    Kragdob
    2nd Lieutenant - Panzer IVF/2
    2nd Lieutenant - Panzer IVF/2
    Posts: 683
    Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2011 7:55 pm
    Location: Poland

    Post by Kragdob »

    I'm for 'task force' rule.
    Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few.
    rkr1958
    General - Elite King Tiger
    General - Elite King Tiger
    Posts: 4264
    Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2007 2:20 am

    Post by rkr1958 »

    I have to say that I'm not a fan of the task force rule. What about something simpler ...

    When a u-boat attacks a DD or even when a DD attacks a u-boat (or sub) the DD fires first, the sub takes its damage and loses effectiveness and the sub return fires using the reduced strength and effectiveness.
    Blathergut
    Field Marshal - Elefant
    Field Marshal - Elefant
    Posts: 5882
    Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 1:44 am
    Location: Southern Ontario, Canada

    Post by Blathergut »

    rkr1958 wrote:I have to say that I'm not a fan of the task force rule. What about something simpler ...

    When a u-boat attacks a DD or even when a DD attacks a u-boat (or sub) the DD fires first, the sub takes its damage and loses effectiveness and the sub return fires using the reduced strength and effectiveness.

    This is a good idea, if possible to implement.
    Morris
    Major-General - Tiger I
    Major-General - Tiger I
    Posts: 2294
    Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 11:00 am

    Post by Morris »

    I just came back & found this topic . Although I am the sub blob maker , I do agree to do some adjustment about it . It is really rediculous to meet a situation of DD escort DD & all RN stay in the port & let all convoy sunk by subs ! But I don't agree to let the DD to have ability to attack sub after move , It will be too hard for the sub .
    Peter Stauffenberg
    General - Carrier
    General - Carrier
    Posts: 4745
    Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 4:13 pm
    Location: Oslo, Norway

    Post by Peter Stauffenberg »

    Someone came with a suggestion where the DD (only) would fire BEFORE the sub fires in combat instead of at the same time. That means that going after DD's for subs can be devastating because the subs will only fire with their reduced strength instead of their full strength.
    Peter Stauffenberg
    General - Carrier
    General - Carrier
    Posts: 4745
    Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 4:13 pm
    Location: Oslo, Norway

    Post by Peter Stauffenberg »

    An even simpler solution could be that DD's (only) have +2 survivability against sub attacks. That would lower the damage on DD's from subs.
    pk867
    Sr. Colonel - Battleship
    Sr. Colonel - Battleship
    Posts: 1602
    Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 3:18 pm

    Post by pk867 »

    Hi I like the idea of the plus survivability addition, but I also believe that DD's should start with a base ASW value of 5 instead of 4.

    DD's was the preferred platform to be used in WWI against subs so not a lot was changed between the wars when war broke out in 1939.
    Kragdob
    2nd Lieutenant - Panzer IVF/2
    2nd Lieutenant - Panzer IVF/2
    Posts: 683
    Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2011 7:55 pm
    Location: Poland

    Post by Kragdob »

    Stauffenberg wrote:An even simpler solution could be that DD's (only) have +2 survivability against sub attacks. That would lower the damage on DD's from subs.
    Which was my initial idea :)
    Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few.
    gerones
    Captain - Bf 110D
    Captain - Bf 110D
    Posts: 860
    Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2008 9:51 pm

    Post by gerones »

    I vote yes to increase starting DD ASW level from 4 to 5 and also vote yes to increase DD´s survivability +2 against sub attacks. With such changes DD´s should be able to start escorting right from 1939 as it was in the real war. Subs should be effective against convoys and unescorted capital ships but subs should much less effective against DD´s as they are now in the game. DD´s were the main way to fight against the sub threat as Paul has pointed.

      Morris
      Major-General - Tiger I
      Major-General - Tiger I
      Posts: 2294
      Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 11:00 am

      Post by Morris »

      Stauffenberg wrote:Someone came with a suggestion where the DD (only) would fire BEFORE the sub fires in combat instead of at the same time. That means that going after DD's for subs can be devastating because the subs will only fire with their reduced strength instead of their full strength.
      I vote yes
      Peter Stauffenberg
      General - Carrier
      General - Carrier
      Posts: 4745
      Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 4:13 pm
      Location: Oslo, Norway

      Post by Peter Stauffenberg »

      If we increase the start ASW for DD's from 4 to 5 then we need to lower the tech advances with ASW by 1 so the end level doesn't get too high.
      Morris
      Major-General - Tiger I
      Major-General - Tiger I
      Posts: 2294
      Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 11:00 am

      Post by Morris »

      Stauffenberg wrote:If we increase the start ASW for DD's from 4 to 5 then we need to lower the tech advances with ASW by 1 so the end level doesn't get too high.
      Yes,sir . But actually the Allies DD was already very effective after late 1943 . The Axis sub should be only a threaten during the 1940-1941 .
      gerones
      Captain - Bf 110D
      Captain - Bf 110D
      Posts: 860
      Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2008 9:51 pm

      Post by gerones »

      Stauffenberg wrote:If we increase the start ASW for DD's from 4 to 5 then we need to lower the tech advances with ASW by 1 so the end level doesn't get too high.
      Sounds reasonable to lower the tech ASW advances if we have more effective DD´s from the start both by setting 5 as the initial tech level and by increasing survivability +2.

        richardsd
        Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
        Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
        Posts: 1127
        Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 5:30 am

        Post by richardsd »

        I think survivability is the way to go of we think its broken. The tech change is back to 'normal' right?
        Diplomaticus
        Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
        Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
        Posts: 447
        Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2008 4:10 pm

        Post by Diplomaticus »

        richardsd wrote:I think survivability is the way to go of we think its broken. The tech change is back to 'normal' right?
        But can we change the code so that the survivability is only vs. subs? We don't want DD's to be tougher to sink than BB's.
        pk867
        Sr. Colonel - Battleship
        Sr. Colonel - Battleship
        Posts: 1602
        Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 3:18 pm

        Post by pk867 »

        Actually DD's should be harder to sink than BB's and CV's. That is why if the change is made only DD's will gain the advantage.

        The DD's are the hunter's of U-Boats they are faster can accelerate and turn quicker than the large Capitol ships. The DD's are on the look out with the Hydrophones and later when radar is upgraded which for naval vessels it can be Radar or Sonar depending upon unit.

        It may also add survivability because the enemy can be detected and defensive measures taken.
        rkr1958
        General - Elite King Tiger
        General - Elite King Tiger
        Posts: 4264
        Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2007 2:20 am

        Post by rkr1958 »

        Diplomaticus wrote:
        richardsd wrote:I think survivability is the way to go of we think its broken. The tech change is back to 'normal' right?
        But can we change the code so that the survivability is only vs. subs? We don't want DD's to be tougher to sink than BB's.
        I agree what Paul wrote on this. We want DD's to be tougher for subs to sink than BB's. The change that Borger is proposing will accomplish this.
        Kragdob
        2nd Lieutenant - Panzer IVF/2
        2nd Lieutenant - Panzer IVF/2
        Posts: 683
        Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2011 7:55 pm
        Location: Poland

        Post by Kragdob »

        But I'm thinking why adding +1 ASW at the beginning? Won't it make DDs too powerful? I think the concept is that they are hard to sink but cannot retaliate much early in the war.
        Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few.
        joerock22
        Captain - Heavy Cruiser
        Captain - Heavy Cruiser
        Posts: 928
        Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 12:38 am
        Location: Connecticut, USA

        Post by joerock22 »

        I'd be on board with doing ONE of the following, not both:

        1. Giving DDs +2 survivability against subs
        2. Letting DDs fire first when they are attacked by subs

        From my own (admittedly limited) experience and reading the AARs, it seems like we need a relatively minor fix, not a major overhaul. That's why I think we should start with only one change and see how it goes.

        One more thing - neither of these rules should apply when a sub manages to ambush a DD while it's moving. The DD is caught completely unawares, so the sub should be able to fire first and the DD shouldn't get a survivability bonus either.
        Post Reply

        Return to “Commander Europe at War : GS Open Beta”