pholkhero
Deviant Mind
it sounds like sub-pairs may be the way to go for a good ol' 1-2 punch ~ one with w/d upgrades to wound, and maybe one with heal or bombard or something to kill off
About submarines
- Thread starter Kleppo
- Start date
I_batman said:
Sorry I batman,
This just isn't correct. The incident that you quote is from September 22, 1914, when U9, an obsolete sub even by 1914 standards, sunk three British obsolete warships, the Aboukir, the Cressey, and the Hogue. They were so out of date the Admiralty was ready to remove them from service.
When the Aboukir was struck, the other two ships assumed theat it hit a mine, and came to assist openly. They were sitting ducks.
Unfortunatley, 1914 operations shouldn't be used as a guide. This reminds me of people telling me how effective cannon were, using the early 15th century as an example. In the early 15th century, cannon were effective because the defenses weren't ready for them. Thus it was in 1914 for submarines.
Pre-WWI submarines were so technologically difficult that they don't count. Early submarines were a new weapon, and they were effective, even against warships, until the defenders knew about them and knew how to handle them.
Indeed, an old battleship unescorted is an easy targert for a sub. The 16" guns of a battlship aren't useful against a small sub. However, navies designed the whole idea of 'escorts' to battle the subs.
(Digression -- the escort idea came a little earlier, but weren't used with subs in mind -- but it came down to the same idea. The technological change that altered the world was the torpedo. In the late 19th century, the big debate was: is the dominant ship would a battleship, or should a navy use the same amount of money to buy globs of tiny little torpedo boats. Clearly, a mess of torpedo boats will kill a battleship in minutes.
The response was the creation of a new, fast ship -- the Torpedo boat destroyer. This was a mouth-full, so it was shortened to the name it bears today -- the destroyer. Cruisers were 'in-between' ships. The destroyers were fast, low bottomed and had lots of little 3" or 5" guns that could rip up torpedo boats to shreds. So, we have Torpedo boats kill battlships that kill destroyers that kill torpedo boats. The result -- some sort of combined arms).
So, the submarine became a 'sneaky' torpedo boat -- it could submrerge. At the beginning of WWI, they didn't have enough destroyers to escort the ships properly.
The main use of the sub in WWI was to destroy merchant ships. Of course, the story of the subs against England was well known. The subs almost brought Engalnd to its knees, by attacking its weakness -- its merchant ships. The sub menace was defeated by the use of the convoy system -- where England's escorts could protect the convoys. The idea for the subs was NOT TO FIGHT THE ESCORTS -- they couldn't.
AS time went on, there were developments in both sub design and with defeating them. By WWII, battleships would get more small guns to fight the new enemies -- subs and planes. The convoy system was countered by the Germans with the 'wolfpack' system.
In WWII,two countries had highly effective subs -- the US and Germany. Once again, the Germans took it to the Commonwealth merchant fleet. The CW suffered about 20 million tons of losses, of which about 65% -- 70% were to subs. The US submarine fleet massacred the Japanese merchant fleet, which was a neglected service not given escorts. Indeed, some people think the long term impact of the sub damage to Japan was greater tahn the carrier war!
Japanese submarines had a different doctrine. Fortunately for the US, Japan used its subs to sink warships. Of course, there were sinkings. They were in best use where the enemy ships wwere pinned down to an area without air cover, which didn't happen very often. When it did, like at Guadalcanal, the subs could be very effective.
So, through WWI and WWII, submarines wree powerhouse weapons against merchant ships. They could sink a warship under the right conditions. Their nemesis were originally destroyers, and then other escort ships like Corvettes. Their biggest enemy eventually were aircraft. The invention of carreir escort ships for the US and Great Britain in 1943 were very powerful against the subs.
When a sub could get inside a big ship's defense, they could sink it. This didn't happen very often. But they could ambush and kill important ships with poor escorts or not enough of them.
Modern submarines are a different story. The biggest change in submarine technology was the use of powerful feul source, nuclear reactors. In WWII, diesel subs took as long going to and from ports as on station. (In WWI, they needed coal.) Now, submarines are 'true' submarines (firing under water), can stay on station for a long time, and can move fast.
So, once again, we have debate. Some people think that subs are THE warships now, and that carriers and other types of ships are obsolete. Some think a well built surface fleet is better.
A modern sub can now fight with surface ships. Again, the issue is formation. The surface group is caarrier, two Aegis equipped ships, and escorts. If the surface fleet is stripped of any of its peices, its vulnerable. Wtihout the Aegis', missile firer will kill it. Without the escorts, subs will sink the carrier. Together, its advocates feel that the carrier strike power is decisive. Nobody can say which 'school' is right.
In the game, its hard for subs to be as effective as they were in real life, since countries are rarely as vulnerable to sea lanes as were England or Japan. The game has trouble simulating their effects. However, their interaction with ships and how they act do seem to be appropriate.
Indeed, in the game, their best use is to kill resources, and to 'soften up' targets for bigger ships. This isn't really historical, but I think the subs have the right feel.
But pre- modern subs do not, and should not be used to fight warships.
Best wishes,
Breunor
subs need to be able to pick witch enamy to atack, for ex.
a stack of enamy ships is going past ur sub, u move ur sub to atack and when u select to atack the stack, u can see a list of units in that stack, so u can chose to atack the weakist unit, like the transport or carrier.
but if thear is a destroyer in the stack, the defending units get a +25 % deffense. or the destroyer will get 1 free shot at the sub, if it hits it losses some hp and if it misses the sub atacks like normal.
allso, ad a sub upgrade, add a tatical nuke and cruise missle!
a stack of enamy ships is going past ur sub, u move ur sub to atack and when u select to atack the stack, u can see a list of units in that stack, so u can chose to atack the weakist unit, like the transport or carrier.
but if thear is a destroyer in the stack, the defending units get a +25 % deffense. or the destroyer will get 1 free shot at the sub, if it hits it losses some hp and if it misses the sub atacks like normal.
allso, ad a sub upgrade, add a tatical nuke and cruise missle!
I also use subs as a screen around my continent, enough to light every square and be able to come to assist a nearby sub. I had one game where America sent a few transports (escorted) every few turns. None of them made it.
You rarely see unescorted transports, but last night Persia loaded a Galleon on the next turn after she got Astronomy, and sent it over unescorted. She did not find a place to plant her settler, but i would dearly have loved to have the old Privateers handy at that time.
You rarely see unescorted transports, but last night Persia loaded a Galleon on the next turn after she got Astronomy, and sent it over unescorted. She did not find a place to plant her settler, but i would dearly have loved to have the old Privateers handy at that time.
