Erroneous Sub Damage

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • @Dixie, I'd be willing to take a look at this from a historical perspective, but I think it's pretty accurate to say that for most of World War II, submarines were among the least effective anti-submarine weapons. Unless somebody got a lucky shot at an enemy sub cruising on the surface, the anti-sub torpedo targeting technology was primitive or non-existent. For a sub to effectively hunt other subs, the sonar, passive listening and acoustic-homing torpedo technology had to reach maturity.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by MontanaBB ().

    • I agree with everything you guys said as far as sub vs sub combat being inefficient. However, I think a more modern, more advanced sub should have better attack stats vs a less advanced sub. It doesnt make sense to upgrade an unit if it doesnt upgrade. Even if it is very slight, such as .1 per level, a higher level sub should have greater combat effectiveness.
      “I am the flail of god. Had you not created great sins, god would not have sent a punishment like me upon you.”

      ―
      Genghis Khan

    • I was amazed the first time I found out my sub could attack another sub. Personally I think a factor of 1 is way to generous for WWII technology. .001 may be more accurate.
      "A good plan, violently executed now, is better than a perfect plan next week." - General George S. Patton, Jr.

      "Do, or do not. There is no try" - Yoda

    • Peter Mat wrote:

      I was amazed the first time I found out my sub could attack another sub. Personally I think a factor of 1 is way to generous for WWII technology. .001 may be more accurate.
      0.001 may be too generous.

      In all of WWII I can only think of 2 or 3 documented submarine vs submarine encounters that resulted in battle losses.

      If we are going to allow that to be the basis for the current Sub vs Sub combat, we should be allowing Airplane Convoys to sink Battleships.

    • F. Marion wrote:

      1955 to 1960 is when sub versus sub became something that actually was designed into the combat capabilities of submarines.
      As I suggested above, the technology for two submerged submarines to engage in sub-vs-sub combat was not yet ripe during WWII. I was going on memory (always a dangerous proposition), that there were several instances of subs sinking other submerged subs during WWII, perhaps confusing war movies I had watched 30+ years ago with what history I had read. In fact, there was only one recorded instance of a sub sinking another submerged sub during the war:

      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_submarine_U-864

      It was a British sub firing a staggered spread of four torpedoes against a German cargo U-boat. The linked article provides the known details.

      Please note, however, there are a number of known instances of a submerged submarine detecting and sinking a surfaced submarine.

      If anything, we should be ratcheting down sub-vs-sub defensive and offensive strengths, not increasing them, for in-game submarine units, especially the defensive strength vs. other subs.



      @freezy: Ahem. See above.

      The post was edited 2 times, last by MontanaBB ().

    • the point was not to give subs unrealistic damage stats against other subs. only that higher ranked subs should be a little better with each rank. This is not to late realism, but to enhance gameplay.

      analogy: it might be next to impossible to hit a deer at 800 yds with a .22 rifle, open sights or scope, and if you do manage to hit it, it probably wont go down, but you have a BETTER chance with the scope. (The upgrade).

      Also, think about that .001 damage you want to give a sub vs sub attack. Do you really want one enemy sub holding you up forever as it would take 500 days to finish the battle?

      I dont CARE if they make level one sub damage very low. Im not out hunting subs with subs. I just wanted an upgrade to upgrade. Level 1-4 subs all used to do 1 point of damage. It wouldnt matter to me, as I said before, if the increments were TINY. Just any power up in any GAME should POWER UP something.

      So, this is a gameplay issue for me, not an historical realism issue. There are a lot more unrealistic things in the game that need attention before bashing the crap out of sub vs sub.
      “I am the flail of god. Had you not created great sins, god would not have sent a punishment like me upon you.”

      ―
      Genghis Khan

    • Dixie wrote:

      the point was not to give subs unrealistic damage stats against other subs. only that higher ranked subs should be a little better with each rank. This is not to late realism, but to enhance gameplay.

      analogy: it might be next to impossible to hit a deer at 800 yds with a .22 rifle, open sights or scope, and if you do manage to hit it, it probably wont go down, but you have a BETTER chance with the scope. (The upgrade).

      Also, think about that .001 damage you want to give a sub vs sub attack. Do you really want one enemy sub holding you up forever as it would take 500 days to finish the battle?

      I dont CARE if they make level one sub damage very low. Im not out hunting subs with subs. I just wanted an upgrade to upgrade. Level 1-4 subs all used to do 1 point of damage. It wouldnt matter to me, as I said before, if the increments were TINY. Just any power up in any GAME should POWER UP something.

      So, this is a gameplay issue for me, not an historical realism issue. There are a lot more unrealistic things in the game that need attention before bashing the crap out of sub vs sub.
      if you don't want to hunt submarines with submarines, did you consider using destroyers?
      This player may have been reactivated in October 27th 2017

    • Difference sub vs sub lies from level 1 to 4 in the improving defense.

      Browser games are an ingenious business idea to lure out money ..
      ..... >> more or less cleverly camouflaged as a real game <<
      .... .. so beware of caltrops, spring-guns and booby traps. :00008185:
      Warning! Texts above this signature may contain traces of irony! :D

    • Restrisiko wrote:

      Difference sub vs sub lies from level 1 to 4 in the improving defense.
      Actually, if game play is the major concern, it would make more sense to make sub-vs-sub offense somewhat stronger, and make sub-vs-sub defense weaker. That would at least be somewhat consistent with the actual history: while only one submerged U-boat was successfully attacked and sunk, I have found more than a dozen confirmed accounts of U-boats and IJN subs being sunk by Royal Navy or U.S. Navy subs while the targets were on the surface and the attacker was submerged. I have not found a single account where a sub that was fired upon first was able to turn the tables and sink its attacker.

      Also, two more suggestions:

      1. in-game submarine units should be able to attack all naval units from some distance without getting stuck in the eternal death grip, just like surface ships and artillery can bombard enemy units from range, and aircraft can attack ground units.

      2. like aircraft units, and surface ships or artillery bombarding from range, submarines attacking submarines should be able to disengage from battle, even at close range, and not remain locked in the eternal grip of death.

    • Subs should be able to disengage, though destroyers should be able to track them and re-engage as the attacker.
      Sub versus Sub - they should just ignore each other. No locked in combat.

      Planes disengage, so the programming exists. I have never seen two patroling aircraft locked in a death struggle.
      "A good plan, violently executed now, is better than a perfect plan next week." - General George S. Patton, Jr.

      "Do, or do not. There is no try" - Yoda

    • Peter Mat wrote:

      Planes disengage, so the programming exists. I have never seen two patroling aircraft locked in a death struggle.
      Yes, this comes back to my earlier point about aircraft being sui generis . . . it would be preposterous to have aircraft locked in eternal combat. Depending on type, they would have to refuel every 90 minutes to 8 hours, otherwise . . . splat. Like two love bugs on the grill of my Jeep.