Slitherine

Posted: **Mon Dec 26, 2011 6:56 pm**

I think increasing the DD cost back to 60 PP's and reduce the start ASW back to 4 (from the increased 5) could be a good idea. Then ASW tech 1 should also affect destroyers.

We compensated a lot trying to get the effect we wanted and we found it. So it's not a bad thing to compensate slightly back.

Posted: **Mon Dec 26, 2011 7:03 pm**

I disagree in raising the cost of DD's. They are 50 right now insincere with
The cost of Subs. Right now the Italians at a cost of 50
Can create a large sub force early ie 1940 mid to late ( 5 subs)
And easily have 7 in 41. With out DD's at least 3 the Med fleet stays in port because they are out numbered by the Italians. It is now fall 42 and my DD's can have 8 if I can get them to port.
But they are busy escorting and protecting capital ships.

Posted: **Mon Dec 26, 2011 9:58 pm**

Kragdob wrote:Can UK build lots of DDs early? Well, if Axis Player sees UK building lots of DDs in 1940 he can try to do Sealion as it means UK didn't invest in defending the Homeland. So if UK build lots of DDs from start it means that Axis allows it.

On the other hand - Axis will not be able to control the Atlantic with starting 3 subs but they can invest in that by building sufficient number to find the wholes where DDs are not present and hunt there.

Right now both sides needs to make and investment but UK seems to be able to do it later so German can get their happy hours but only when they invest into it.

In my opinion current setup works fine except that starting ASW should not be increased (only survivability). Increasing ASW allows single DDs to hurt a sub significantly if you keep it as it was subs will have it harder to sink DD but DD will not be able to sink a sub that easily as well which seems optimal for me.

I just wait until the threat of Sea Lion has reasonably passed (e.g., axis go after the Balkans and use invasion points in Greece) and start building DD's like crazy. The screen shot below is from my game with Joe. By the way, I lost 1 UK DD in the Med to the Italian surface fleet. Joe set a wonderful trap.

5 of the 11 DD's are in the build queue. Do these numbers look right. 11 UK DD's to 7 German subs?

Posted: **Mon Dec 26, 2011 10:01 pm**

Yes considering some need to go to the
Med. the air units are not effective yet

Posted: **Thu Dec 29, 2011 1:08 pm**

Stauffenberg wrote:I think increasing the DD cost back to 60 PP's and reduce the start ASW back to 4 (from the increased 5) could be a good idea. Then ASW tech 1 should also affect destroyers.

We compensated a lot trying to get the effect we wanted and we found it. So it's not a bad thing to compensate slightly back.

Increased ASW performance of destroyers units should be reflected in an increased cost for buying those naval units, indeed. 60 PP´s cost sounds good.

Posted: **Thu Dec 29, 2011 1:43 pm**

We do not have enough data to support the change to a higher DD's cost. We just changed the cost of Subs and Destroyers to 50.

The old way prior to v2.01.24 (I do not remember the exact point) allowed sub blobs and lost naval vessels and convoys because the naval units had to hide in port. Changing the DD's to a higher cost will swing the balance back toward the Axis.

Even with the lower cost of DD's, and the reduced rate of ASW tech increases are very slow even with max labs. The UK DD's finally become deadly late 42', but the Air units, BB's and CV's are still very weak with not much effect against sub's.

The US DD's are still a year behind in tech.

Saying that a DD costs some much and a sub costs less can not be compared to a production game as CEAW is. We do no have an exchange rate for one country compared to another and the Euro does not exist (sarcasm).

The blob occurred and the navies hiding in port because we placed an escort rule to control the players from emptying the Atlantic to fill the Med and go after the Italians.

So we increased the damage by subs and reduced the convoy points so of course the Axis players will go after their opponents weak point.

Now to compensate we dropped the cost of both. Now you see the Italians employing a sub blob, but if the Allied player plans correctly

it can be taken care of easier than if there was a German blob. This still does not prevent the Germans from employing 12 or so subs in the Atlantic which is 120 PP's cheaper.

Also we have the change that units should not be at see very long or their effectiveness is reduced. So you have to escort them to England, unload at ports to get your PP's back so you can load up again for OverLord. If you do not have enough escorts you will delay

the invasion which is a plus for the Axis.

(back to work)...

So my take is to leave this the way we have for the RC releases. I believe this better represents the struggle for the Atlantic.

Posted: **Thu Dec 29, 2011 2:34 pm**

Yes....i agree to that
I had the same problem, the axis player had 7 italian u-boats...delayed the invasion of Sicily until 44
And the german had around 9 u boats...destroyed almost 80% of the pp to UK and about 90% for the Soviets.
I've lost 4 destroyers and he didnt lose anything.

Posted: **Sat Dec 31, 2011 1:57 pm**

You know the more I play with the increased survivability for DD's against subs the more I like it. It forces subs, even in a wolfpack, to run from DDs of 3 or more in a group. Also, the allied player builds more DD's to gain control of the Atlantic. So that part in my experience so far seems to play out historical. I wonder if the only tweak we need to make is to make subs more lethal against convoys. I also wonder if this lethality should be independent of sub tech. That is, the ability to sink convoys is the same at the beginning as it was at the end of the war. Increased sub tech would help subs better evade DD's. So here are my questions/comments:

(1) Increase the firepower of subs against convoys? Forget whether of not a convoy has an escort adjacent of not. This is handled by the increased effectiveness of DD's versus subs. Keep sub firepower against warships and transports the same as it is now, which is a function of sub tech and warship tech.

(2) If Yes to 1, Should sub firepower be independent of tech? What should sub firepower be? For example, an expected loss of 15 PP's +/- 5 PP's per attack? My thoughts is that a three flotilla wolfpack should kill 45 PP's on average per turn. Of course, they would have to flee if the RN or USN rushed destroyers to that area. That seems historical to me.

(3) With this what about keeping everything as it is now the same (i.e., cost of subs, DDs and the increased effectiveness of DDs against subs)?

(4) My objective is to make subs throughout the war lethal to convoys, transports and capital warships (i.e., BBs/CAs/CLs & CVs) but vulnerable to DD's. This forces the axis player to hunt for unescorted (or lightly) escorted convoys and transports. Also, if they operate in wolfpacks these packs could bring down unescorted capital warships or a lone DD squadron. For the allies, this would force the allies to build enough DD's to patrol and protect their vital Atlantic shipping lanes (i.e., protect convoys) and escort transports and warships in sufficient strength to protect them against u-boats. Another thing is that u-boats would flee from a strong force of 3 or more allied DD's (as I believe they should). What do you think?

Posted: **Sat Dec 31, 2011 3:13 pm**

rkr1958 wrote:You know the more I play with the increased survivability for DD's against subs the more I like it. It forces subs, even in a wolfpack, to run from DDs of 3 or more in a group. Also, the allied player builds more DD's to gain control of the Atlantic. So that part in my experience so far seems to play out historical. I wonder if the only tweak we need to make is to make subs more lethal against convoys. I also wonder if this lethality should be independent of sub tech. That is, the ability to sink convoys is the same at the beginning as it was at the end of the war. Increased sub tech would help subs better evade DD's. So here are my questions/comments:

(1) Increase the firepower of subs against convoys? Forget whether of not a convoy has an escort adjacent of not. This is handled by the increased effectiveness of DD's versus subs. Keep sub firepower against warships and transports the same as it is now, which is a function of sub tech and warship tech.

(2) If Yes to 1, Should sub firepower be independent of tech? What should sub firepower be? For example, an expected loss of 15 PP's +/- 5 PP's per attack? My thoughts is that a three flotilla wolfpack should kill 45 PP's on average per turn. Of course, they would have to flee if the RN or USN rushed destroyers to that area. That seems historical to me.

(3) With this what about keeping everything as it is now the same (i.e., cost of subs, DDs and the increased effectiveness of DDs against subs)?

(4) My objective is to make subs throughout the war lethal to convoys, transports and capital warships (i.e., BBs/CAs/CLs & CVs) but vulnerable to DD's. This forces the axis player to hunt for unescorted (or lightly) escorted convoys and transports. Also, if they operate in wolfpacks these packs could bring down unescorted capital warships or a lone DD squadron. For the allies, this would force the allies to build enough DD's to patrol and protect their vital Atlantic shipping lanes (i.e., protect convoys) and escort transports and warships in sufficient strength to protect them against u-boats. Another thing is that u-boats would flee from a strong force of 3 or more allied DD's (as I believe they should). What do you think?

I would be fine with that. In 1941, I'm only doing on average 9-10 damage per attack. And if you're only getting 2-3 attacks on a convoy before the escorts arrive, then this doesn't make much of a dent. With these losses, it gives the Axis player incentive to not invest in subs at all as the returns won't be very good.

I still think there should be some kind of rule giving the subs a bonus (or taking away the DDs bonus) if they manage to ambush a DD. This won't make much of a difference if the Allies keep their DDs grouped together, but it will force the Allies to build a lot of DDs in order to properly escort all the convoys. I think this is what you need if you're going to give the DDs bonuses against subs. You'll hurt game balance if you allow the Allies to escort all the convoys with only 6 DDs.

Posted: **Sat Dec 31, 2011 3:28 pm**

joerock22 wrote:
rkr1958 wrote:You know the more I play with the increased survivability for DD's against subs the more I like it. It forces subs, even in a wolfpack, to run from DDs of 3 or more in a group. Also, the allied player builds more DD's to gain control of the Atlantic. So that part in my experience so far seems to play out historical. I wonder if the only tweak we need to make is to make subs more lethal against convoys. I also wonder if this lethality should be independent of sub tech. That is, the ability to sink convoys is the same at the beginning as it was at the end of the war. Increased sub tech would help subs better evade DD's. So here are my questions/comments:

(1) Increase the firepower of subs against convoys? Forget whether of not a convoy has an escort adjacent of not. This is handled by the increased effectiveness of DD's versus subs. Keep sub firepower against warships and transports the same as it is now, which is a function of sub tech and warship tech.

(2) If Yes to 1, Should sub firepower be independent of tech? What should sub firepower be? For example, an expected loss of 15 PP's +/- 5 PP's per attack? My thoughts is that a three flotilla wolfpack should kill 45 PP's on average per turn. Of course, they would have to flee if the RN or USN rushed destroyers to that area. That seems historical to me.

(3) With this what about keeping everything as it is now the same (i.e., cost of subs, DDs and the increased effectiveness of DDs against subs)?

(4) My objective is to make subs throughout the war lethal to convoys, transports and capital warships (i.e., BBs/CAs/CLs & CVs) but vulnerable to DD's. This forces the axis player to hunt for unescorted (or lightly) escorted convoys and transports. Also, if they operate in wolfpacks these packs could bring down unescorted capital warships or a lone DD squadron. For the allies, this would force the allies to build enough DD's to patrol and protect their vital Atlantic shipping lanes (i.e., protect convoys) and escort transports and warships in sufficient strength to protect them against u-boats. Another thing is that u-boats would flee from a strong force of 3 or more allied DD's (as I believe they should). What do you think?
I would be fine with that. In 1941, I'm only doing on average 9-10 damage per attack. And if you're only getting 2-3 attacks on a convoy before the escorts arrive, then this doesn't make much of a dent. With these losses, it gives the Axis player incentive to not invest in subs at all as the returns won't be very good.

I still think there should be some kind of rule giving the subs a bonus (or taking away the DDs bonus) if they manage to ambush a DD. This won't make much of a difference if the Allies keep their DDs grouped together, but it will force the Allies to build a lot of DDs in order to properly escort all the convoys. I think this is what you need if you're going to give the DDs bonuses against subs. You'll hurt game balance if you allow the Allies to escort all the convoys with only 6 DDs.

Yes , in 1939 the Axis sub is hard to attack a convoy escort by two DD . I attacked them(10steps to 10steps , same effective data around 65 ) the forcast was 2:5 & 2:6 . The result was 2:3 & 1:3 . Axis could not afford for this lose in 1939 . So I quit to attack any convoy which escort by 2 DD . After 1940 , there are more DD appears with one more ASW lvl . Axis sub looks hopeless .

Posted: **Sat Dec 31, 2011 3:44 pm**

Hi,

I have a suggestion. What if we have the starting DD's start with ASW value of 4. New DD's produced start with an ASW value of 5. This is what happened

when we switched over to the new values in RC5. I have 3 DD's with an ASW value lower than the new ones. This would represent the older DD's left over from WWI.

We can also have the Survivability addition start at zero and increase by one starting in Jan 1940 and a plus one in August of 1940 for a total of 2.

This way the DD's are weaker because of age and technology. Besides new DD's can be built, but with the MP below 75 the DD's are weaker and will never regain

that quality.

Posted: **Sat Dec 31, 2011 4:51 pm**

I thought I'd post some data that I complied from the two sources reference in the slide below.

Posted: **Sat Dec 31, 2011 6:12 pm**

I also think that the simpliest thing to do would be to decrease starting ASW level back to 4. Have we any data of german subs lost due to allied DD´s? I mean that probably german subs were sunk mainly by DD´s thus proving that destroyers were the most effective weapon against the german sub threat.

Posted: **Sat Dec 31, 2011 6:50 pm**

leridano wrote:Have we any data of german subs lost due to allied DD´s? I mean that probably german subs were sunk mainly by DD´s thus proving that destroyers were the most effective weapon against the german sub threat.

Note that the number u-boats lost to allied ships (264) is greater than the the number of allied warships (222) lost to u-boats. I don't have a breakdown of u-boats lost by ship type but I think it's safe to assume that the majority lost to ships were lost to destroyers or similar (i.e., destroyer escorts).

Also, note that u-boats lost to carrier aircraft are countered in the lost to aircraft category and not the lost to ship category. That means we can exclude losses from CVs from the ship based lost numbers.

Posted: **Sat Dec 31, 2011 7:49 pm**

Currently it is ASW=4 and +2 SURV vs SUBS and I think this is ok.

If UK has too many firepower in 1939 and early 1940 then why don't just lower the number of DDs by 1 (it will be 2 left after fall of France + 1 in Mediterranean).

With that you can more less escort one convoy (if you do not transport anything across Atlantic) and UK cannot build any substantial number by late 1940. So if Axis Player chooses he can get quantitative & qualitative advantage first.

I also like the idea that ASW of starting DDs should be lowered (then number of 3 should be kept) to represent old pre-war equipment.

Posted: **Sat Dec 31, 2011 7:57 pm**

I agree with Leridano that we should lower the ASW of the DD back to 4 from 5 and instead let the DD get the +1 ASW tech increase at ASW tech 1.

It's also possible to not add the +2 survivability for the DD if the DD stumbles upon a hidden sub. Then the DD will receive extra damage.

Posted: **Sat Dec 31, 2011 8:24 pm**

Stauffenberg wrote:It's also possible to not add the +2 survivability for the DD if the DD stumbles upon a hidden sub. Then the DD will receive extra damage.

This is mostly against subs protecting transports/warships and I am against lowering survivability in such situation. DDs would always run under constant command: 'watch out for subs on next hex' and this should especially work if Player knows the spot where the sub is.

The problem is really early years so why don't just lower the number of DD squadrons if UK is too powerful?

Posted: **Sat Dec 31, 2011 8:58 pm**

Stauffenberg wrote:It's also possible to not add the +2 survivability for the DD if the DD stumbles upon a hidden sub. Then the DD will receive extra damage.

I would vote against that for two reasons:

(1) DD's doing a sweep as part of their escort duties for convoys, transports and other warships would be subject to this effect. I really think that's counter to using them in such escort roles.

(2) The axis player could park subs next to DD's and passively ambush them that way. I also think that's counter to what we're trying to accomplish.

So, personally I think it best to keep +2 survivability.

Posted: **Sat Dec 31, 2011 10:45 pm**

So I agree to lower the ASW to 4 for DD's and restore the ASW tech to level 1, but keep the +2 survivability.

Or as I suggested earlier, the DD's start with no increase to SURV and then gain +1 SURV Jan 1940, and another +1 SURV Aug 1940.

Posted: **Sat Dec 31, 2011 10:52 pm**

Nice statistics, Ronnie!

I finally would vote for maintaining +2 survivability bonus for DD´s in all cases regarding of being ambushed or not. As Borger has commented in last posts we probably have found what we were looking here so the only tweak here could be to get back to 4 starting ASW level for DD´s. Right now DD´s can be used again as they should be, that is: for escorting duties and ASW.

Slitherine

DD's vs U-boats Balance?