GS: Subs seriously overpowered

[borsook79]

After several games as both sides I see that subs are very overpowered in GS. Simply because you cannot attack them after moving. This makes destroying subs in the Atlantic almost impossible. Also it would seem that it is against sub hunting that in reality took place, just allows you to defend against them...

[joerock22]

After several games as both sides I see that subs are very overpowered in GS. Simply because you cannot attack them after moving. This makes destroying subs in the Atlantic almost impossible. Also it would seem that it is against sub hunting that in reality took place, just allows you to defend against them...

My advice is to invest more heavily in ASW research. You will get upgrades that will quickly make your ships very capable of escorting convoys and dealing with the subs. But escorting convoys is expensive. Build 4-6 strategic bombers and station them at key points around the Atlantic, where you think the subs will be. The object is not to protect every single convoy, but make the Germans pay steps for every sub attack they make. With a few ASW upgrades, you can consistently inflict 4-6 damage on a sub, even an upgraded one. That quickly becomes a prohibitive cost for the Germans, and you will quickly see sub attacks decline or eve cease altogether.

Subs are not overpowered in GS, solely because of the power of the strategic bomber. Combatting the u-boats takes some serious effort from the Allies, but winning the Battle of the Atlantic is very doable. I did it against Borger by following the strategy outlined above. But if the Allied player is not willing to invest properly in fighting the u-boats, then Germany will dominate the Atlantic. The outcome depends on how much effort and resources the Allies are willing to put into the Atlantic, and this is very historical.

[borsook79]

After several games as both sides I see that subs are very overpowered in GS. Simply because you cannot attack them after moving. This makes destroying subs in the Atlantic almost impossible. Also it would seem that it is against sub hunting that in reality took place, just allows you to defend against them...

My advice is to invest more heavily in ASW research. You will get upgrades that will quickly make your ships very capable of escorting convoys and dealing with the subs. But escorting convoys is expensive. Build 4-6 strategic bombers and station them at key points around the Atlantic, where you think the subs will be. The object is not to protect every single convoy, but make the Germans pay steps for every sub attack they make. With a few ASW upgrades, you can consistently inflict 4-6 damage on a sub, even an upgraded one. That quickly becomes a prohibitive cost for the Germans, and you will quickly see sub attacks decline or eve cease altogether.

Subs are not overpowered in GS, solely because of the power of the strategic bomber. Combatting the u-boats takes some serious effort from the Allies, but winning the Battle of the Atlantic is very doable. I did it against Borger by following the strategy outlined above. But if the Allied player is not willing to invest properly in fighting the u-boats, then Germany will dominate the Atlantic. The outcome depends on how much effort and resources the Allies are willing to put into the Atlantic, and this is very historical.

I'd still claim they are overpowered because even if you inflict 6 points of damage it will not sink a 10 point sub. And since you cannot attack with units that have moved, Germany can easily stack quite a lot of subs in the open sea and then use them to stop D-Day. Even if bombers sink them, the invasion will be broken. And there is no way of preventing that. Not to mention that GS puts limits on tech research so stacking on ASW is not that easy...

Anyway what is the rationale behind this decision?

[Peter Stauffenberg]

I think the exact opposite. In the vanilla game subs are too underpowered and it's not a good strategy to let the attack convoys because escorts can lurk in the central Atlantic and gang up on the subs they see.

In GS you will instead used DD's for active escorts so the subs don't get a chance to hurt the convoy or transport. If they attack anyway then your DD's can retaliate against subs adjacent to the DD.

Remember that 2 air units can attack each sub hex so you can seriously damage subs when they're detected if you have strategic bombers within range. I don't have problems with subs lurking at coastal hexes to prevent invasions. The way you do that is to use DD's to "sweep" the coastal hexes by moving along the coast. If a sub lurks there then you detect it and combat will occur. A late game sub vs a DD with 10-11 ASW means the sub will take substantial damage. Now the sub is detected and you can use air units to finish it off. When one sub is destroyed you send another DD to sweep the coast line further to detect the next sub etc.

So placing subs along the coast line won't work e. g. in France. You may delay Overlord for one turn, but your subs will be annihilated if they try to prevent an invasion. It's better to place them in ports so you can directly attack adjacent transports or keep them at sea to go after the transports if not escorted from all sides. Then tactical bombers can finish off the remnant of the transport. Or the bombers can damage even more transports so most of the Allied transports are depleted before landing.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

I also recall that you're one of those who claim that the Allies are too strong in GS. What do you think will happen if we allow naval units to attack subs after movemement. Then the subs will become worthless and it will seriously unbalance the game.

The only way to overcome that is to make subs much cheaper (maybe 30 PP's per sub instead of 60 PP's). Then you will instead see hordes of subs attacking, but they will burn more oil and make Germany weaker that way.

Trust me when I tell you that we've spent A LOT of time trying to fine tune the sub warfare. The current rules are the only ones who make the subs become the menace they should have been in the vanilla game. With proper play by the Allied player he will neutralize the sub threat some time in 1942 and then the subs will make surprise strikes or scout missions.

So the subs are definitely not too strong in GS. In 1940-1941 they are, but then the Allied player is best advised to concentrate their escorts to just one convoy. This way they won't lose many escorts to the wolfpacks. In 1940 after the fall of France I usually send my British naval units to port so they don't become the target of the subs. The Germans can kill the Royal Navy if you're not careful and then they will become a menace for a long time. The Allies start with weak ASW warfare so you need to get 2 naval labs asap. It's not easy to master the sub warfare as the Allies, but Joe has a very good plan. If you ignore the sub threat then you will not get convoys home and build the units you need to grab the initiative late 1942. That can cost you the entire game.

[schwerpunkt]

I also recall that you're one of those who claim that the Allies are too strong in GS. What do you think will happen if we allow naval units to attack subs after movemement. Then the subs will become worthless and it will seriously unbalance the game.

The only way to overcome that is to make subs much cheaper (maybe 30 PP's per sub instead of 60 PP's). Then you will instead see hordes of subs attacking, but they will burn more oil and make Germany weaker that way.

Trust me when I tell you that we've spent A LOT of time trying to fine tune the sub warfare. The current rules are the only ones who make the subs become the menace they should have been in the vanilla game. With proper play by the Allied player he will neutralize the sub threat some time in 1942 and then the subs will make surprise strikes or scout missions.

So the subs are definitely not too strong in GS. In 1940-1941 they are, but then the Allied player is best advised to concentrate their escorts to just one convoy. This way they won't lose many escorts to the wolfpacks. In 1940 after the fall of France I usually send my British naval units to port so they don't become the target of the subs. The Germans can kill the Royal Navy if you're not careful and then they will become a menace for a long time. The Allies start with weak ASW warfare so you need to get 2 naval labs asap. It's not easy to master the sub warfare as the Allies, but Joe has a very good plan. If you ignore the sub threat then you will not get convoys home and build the units you need to grab the initiative late 1942. That can cost you the entire game.

As another battle-hardened veteran, I agree - if the allies put the effort in and follow the right tactics, the German sub threat can be managed. Against good allied opponents, the sub war tends to follow pretty historical lines. I find the sub war quite balanced, whichever side I play, but against less experienced allied players subs have managed to do well through to 1944...

[shawkhan]

The game, as it is, is near perfect. There is a counter to just about anything. Experienced players can deal with any of these problems with the right builds/tech. Please don't change anything w/o serious consideration.

[Samhain]

Subs still seem quite weaker and not overpowered to me especially considering German ones have a long way home to get upgraded or even just repaired. Then again I'm a rubbish admiral but 2 cents isn't so little nowadays eh?

[borsook79]

I also recall that you're one of those who claim that the Allies are too strong in GS. What do you think will happen if we allow naval units to attack subs after movemement. Then the subs will become worthless and it will seriously unbalance the game.

I never said that Allies are overpowered in GS. I am not claiming that subs do not need a boost (although they are very useful in Vanilla CEAW and have a valid point in the strategy). But there are many ways of making them more powerful. I just think that this idea is a really, really bad one, because of several simple reasons:

1. It's very unrealistic
2. Subs can be destroyed only on Axis player initiative. Whatever Allies do, if the Germans do not attack with their subs and keep them in the open sea they cannot be destroyed. I think that introducing such an element is bad for game balance, it gives Axis too big control over the development of a given game.

[rkr1958]

I never said that Allies are overpowered in GS. I am not claiming that subs do not need a boost (although they are very useful in Vanilla CEAW and have a valid point in the strategy). But there are many ways of making them more powerful. I just think that this idea is a really, really bad one, because of several simple reasons:

1. It's very unrealistic

I recommend you watch the 1974 BBC "War at World" episode on the Battle of the Atlantic. I personally feel that we've created the mechanics in GS that reflect the progress and fell of this battle. Like Borger said we've spend A LOT of time refining and playtesting sub warfare in GS.

2. Subs can be destroyed only on Axis player initiative. Whatever Allies do, if the Germans do not attack with their subs and keep them in the open sea they cannot be destroyed.

How is this not historical? If the German's don't attack with their u-boats then they would be hard find wouldn't they? Also, if they don't attack then they cause no damage and have no impact on the allies.

I think that introducing such an element is bad for game balance, it gives Axis too big control over the development of a given game.

Winston Churchill was quoted as saying the biggest threat to England during WW-II were German u-boats.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

2. Subs can be destroyed only on Axis player initiative. Whatever Allies do, if the Germans do not attack with their subs and keep them in the open sea they cannot be destroyed. I think that introducing such an element is bad for game balance, it gives Axis too big control over the development of a given game.

That is NOT true. A typical Allied move would be to use their DD's to sweep the path ahead of the transport or convoys. If you move over a hidden sub combat will occur and both will take quite a lot of damage. If you then have strategic bombers or CV's within range then you can bombard the subs and maybe even sink it.

You can use tactical bombers against ports and if subs are hidden there then you will hit them.

Part of gaining the control of the Atlantic is to place Allied strategic bombers in locations where the subs are most likely to be discovered. E. g. the Allies would place subs in Greenland, Iceland, Northern Ireland, the British Hebrides airfields, Azores (after 1943), US Coast, northern Canada, Portugal or Ireland (after invasion) etc.

Joe said it correctly that the Allies will eventually gain the control of the Atlantic if they work hard to get it. Initially you want to make sure that each time a sub attacks then you have at least one bomber within range to deplete it a bit.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

In the beginning you will just deplete a sub now and then, but that means the subs must get to base from time to time.

If you follow Ronnie's advise and look at the WW2 documentary films about the sub warfare you will notice how devastating it was for the Allies till 1942. Churchill said that the only German weapon he feared was the wolfpacks. A big percentage of the convoys were sunk so the British were starved for resources to fight the Germans. Even after USA joined the Allies the subs continued to be a big menace.

In the vanilla game I didn't have to invest in 2 naval labs with both USA and UK to win. In GS you MUST do it. We lowered the initial ASW values deliberately in GS so the Allies must invest in tech to have a decent chance to seriously hurt the subs. In 1939 and 1940 the subs are really dangerous so you need to save your navy and let the convoys be attacked with only strategic bombers to retaliate. You need more survivability and ASW for your ships before you can attack them.

I just don't understand why you think it's such a bad thing that you can't attack the subs unless you're adjacent to them? The real subs attacked and then dived again to escape. So unless you had escorts nearby you had almost no chance finding the subs. Only patrolling air units had a chance to bombard them.

[foost]

2. Subs can be destroyed only on Axis player initiative. Whatever Allies do, if the Germans do not attack with their subs and keep them in the open sea they cannot be destroyed. I think that introducing such an element is bad for game balance, it gives Axis too big control over the development of a given game.

That is NOT true. A typical Allied move would be to use their DD's to sweep the path ahead of the transport or convoys. If you move over a hidden sub combat will occur and both will take quite a lot of damage. If you then have strategic bombers or CV's within range then you can bombard the subs and maybe even sink it.

(...)

I agree. To win the Battle of the Atlantic, the Allies need lots of DDs, CVs and land-based long-range aircraft. Once the Allies have some DDs, they can ACTIVELY search large parts of the Atlantic for subs. Once found and engaged, two more attacks by aircraft, and a sub flotilla is history.

It's not easy to "organise" large search sweeps because you cannot control the movement path between source and destination hex. But that problem affects the Axis just as well.

[borsook79]

I have nothing against subs being a serious threat. This is how it is should be. They should have evasive abilities, e.g. SC has a nice solution giving a sub upon attack to submerge and disappear reappearing several hexes away. But I do indeed strongly dislike this implementation:
1. It creates silly situations, where a destroyer is a hex away from the sub, on the opposite side of a convoy, has not moved and and still cannot do a thing. This is a turn based game, but in reality those movements should happen at the same time, and there should be a chance of pursuing. Not to mention that early war subs were rather slow and could not stay under water for too long...
2. All the initiative falls to the Axis. As you said yourself all the Allies can do is try to ram randomly into a sub. But no way of sinking them. I currently play 2 PBEM games as Germany and I find the fact that I have perfect control over my losses highly unrealistic. It is the German player who decides if there will be a chance of sinking a sub or not. Not to mention that tricks like putting a sub in 1939 in the middle of the Atlantic and keeping it more or less safely there to 1945 is... rather strange.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

Try ramming a sub with a British DD with 10 or 11 ASW. Then you will do maybe 6-8 hits and can finish it off with a strategic bomber or CV nearby. With strategic operations tech you increase the range of the CV's so subs lurking near the escorts can reach the sub.

You need to make a movement plan. DD's first, then BB's then transports and finally CV's. This way you maximize the chances of using the resources you have to hit the subs.

Remember the purpose of the escorts. It's not to sink all subs nearby, but to ensure that the transports or convoys arrive safety at their destination ports. so if the presence of escorts means that the subs will not attack the convoy then you've achieved quite a lot.

In my game against Joe I noticed that his biggest convoys were escorted so I decided not to go after them. Instead I attacked his unescorted convoys and lost a few steps to strategic bombers. In 1942 they had such high tech so they inflicted 3 damage each on average. So a sub went from 10 steps to 4-5. If you then use it for attack it will be sunk so you need to send them to port to repair. That means more convoys getting home.

If you place 3 DD's in each corner of a triangle around a convoy you will see that every sub attacking in the 3 "holes" around the convoy can be attacked by 2 DD's. So with 3 DD's you can protect each convoy.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

However, this makes the escorts vulnerable to wolfpack attacks. So I protect my convoys / transports by placing them plus 1-2 CV's within a box of DD's and BB's. I put friendly subs on the flanks where enemy subs can attack and not be retaliated upon from adjacent naval units. With such a formation I rarely lose steps on my big convoys or transports. I force the subs to go after the DD's or BB's and then my CV's inside can damage the subs and adjacent DD's can attack the remnant of the subs. BB's have high survivability so I usually alternate BB's and DD's in my screen around the convoy / transports. I try to let the BB's be in the most vulnerable spots so DD's can retaliate if subs go after the BB's.

So I rarely have problems with subs from mid 1942 and later. I use all my US PP's on tech and naval units prior to December 1941. I usually build 2 US CV's, 2 BB's and 3+ DD's. In addition I build 2 British CV's and many DD's. I build strategic bombers too for both countries and place them in many places searching for subs. When I get control of the Atlantic and have sunk several subs then I move the bombers to Britain to initiate strategic bombing of German industry. So it's never a waste of PP's to build them.

My point is that if the Allies actively do what they can to stop the sub menace then they will succeed. If they ignore the subs then they will pay the price. The subs are the German player's most important weapon against the Allies and you have to stop it sooner than later if you intend to win. E. g. the northern convoy to Russia must come to Murmansk from time to time for the Russians to get enough PP's to build more air and armor units. It's critical till at least 1943. So most Allied players put most effort into protecting the northern convoy.