Slitherine

pk867 wrote:right now it is hard to get rid of powerful sub units now. I can deal with them, but the attack factor should be reduced coming from a port.

From my standpoint it would be closer to reality if SUB gets penalty (e.g. attack halved) if within 2 hexes from a land.

That depends a great deal on the details on the location.

Shallow, clear water, e.g. on the coastal areas of the Med, is mostly bad for subs, as they could easily be spotted by planes, but on the other end of the spectrum e.g. the North Sea, a submarine could be very effective. As a specific example, look at the brilliant attack on Scapa Flow early in the war.

I think there is another solution.

Also, we have to keep in mind that CEAW GS hex scale is 50 km.

This seems to be a similar question than when it was said that BB´s in WW2 had only a range of 15-20 km and thus they should be less effective when bombing shore hexes.

Abstraction is needed in CEAW because of the map scale.

It's not as if the game is really implying that the subs are 'in' port when they attack. Think of the game mechanic as the equivalent of the uboats sneaking by night/fog out from their pens, getting into deeper waters to engage, then fading back to the safety of port.

Diplomaticus wrote:It's not as if the game is really implying that the subs are 'in' port when they attack. Think of the game mechanic as the equivalent of the uboats sneaking by night/fog out from their pens, getting into deeper waters to engage, then fading back to the safety of port.

The point is that 'deeper water' for subs is several hundreds of meters. Why do you think German subs couldn't cross Gibraltar strait? Shallow water was also a reason why there were almost no sub operations on the Baltic sea. Polish submarines escaped to UK just after beginning of the war as they could be easily hunted down (maximum depth is a 459 m but average is only 55).

This is why I think it is valid point at least worth discussing.

See the following for subs & Gibraltar:

http://formontana.net/uboats.html

It was narrow and shallow in parts and very heavily patrolled. It is not a very universal example of sub use near shore.

U-boats were effective immediately off the US coast until the allies sent in forces & resources. Which is what CEaW-GS would require. SOme of these attacks were with 7-9 miles of the coast of NC.

amcdonel wrote:See the following for subs & Gibraltar:

http://formontana.net/uboats.html

It was narrow and shallow in parts and very heavily patrolled. It is not a very universal example of sub use near shore.

U-boats were effective immediately off the US coast until the allies sent in forces & resources. Which is what CEaW-GS would require. SOme of these attacks were with 7-9 miles of the coast of NC.

I was in a church class 15-years ago with a lady who as a young women worked as a secretary in a high rise in Miami, FL during WW-II. See said that from their office they could see burning and sinking merchant ships that were victims of u-boat attacks.

Kragdob wrote:

Diplomaticus wrote:It's not as if the game is really implying that the subs are 'in' port when they attack. Think of the game mechanic as the equivalent of the uboats sneaking by night/fog out from their pens, getting into deeper waters to engage, then fading back to the safety of port.

The point is that 'deeper water' for subs is several hundreds of meters. Why do you think German subs couldn't cross Gibraltar strait? Shallow water was also a reason why there were almost no sub operations on the Baltic sea. Polish submarines escaped to UK just after beginning of the war as they could be easily hunted down (maximum depth is a 459 m but average is only 55).

This is why I think it is valid point at least worth discussing.

I'm not an expert on the Polish navy... but I'd guess that faced with the loss of their only ports at the beginning of the invasion of Poland, and with the very limited range and stores that the pre-war subs had, their options would have been a) suicidal attacks until they were destroyed, b) scuttle and surrender or c) head for England. c) would have been the correct course of action, militarily speaking.

I think depth is being overdone as an issue for subs, particularly in the early war. The early-war/pre-war subs couldn't go very deep (a few hundred feet, if they were brave). They didn't really need to, because the surface ships had extremely crude tools for finding them underwater. Asdic/Sonar was not yet invented. Passive systems existed, but on the whole, once a submarine was underwater, whether 50 feet or 500, it was pretty safe... until it had to come up! That is the rub – the early-war boats had very, VERY limited underwater range and duration. They were super slow on batteries AND they didn't have a lot of air, because they were small, so you couldn't just sit around on the bottom, waiting, at least not for too long.

I do think that the coastal environment would have offered some challenges, but it would have also created some opportunities for subs. I'm not sure that a blanket penalty for coastal action by subs would be an accurate representation of the real environment.

Thanks all of You. I am not sub expert either so if this 'voting' is rather decided I agree that probably there is nothing worth changing here.