Turn off submarines.

[brucesim2003]

Tried playing this game again after a long break. Mid-end game reminded me why I stopped playing in the 1st place. The AI producing nothing but subs destroys my enjoyment of the game.

What I want to know is how do I turn off subs completely? Yes, I know it is what an outmatched navy would do, but I don't care. I want them gone. Yes, I know it is realistic, but I don't care, I want them gone.

How do I turn off submarines?

[cv10]

Edit the research dat. file: change the research date on the first submarine tech to 1926 or whenever you want to end.

[oldpop2000]

Sept 25, 2017 8:02:04 GMT -6 brucesim2003 said:

Tried playing this game again after a long break. Mid-end game reminded me why I stopped playing in the 1st place. The AI producing nothing but subs destroys my enjoyment of the game.

What I want to know is how do I turn off subs completely? Yes, I know it is what an outmatched navy would do, but I don't care. I want them gone. Yes, I know it is realistic, but I don't care, I want them gone.

How do I turn off submarines?

Well, you could raise hull and machinery to high, submarines and torpedoes along with ASW when available to high to fight off submarines along with building lots and lots of tin cans. This is what I do and I don't lose ships to submarines. Either that or I am just a lucky little lad.

[brucesim2003]

Sept 25, 2017 8:32:00 GMT -6 cv10 said:

Edit the research dat. file: change the research date on the first submarine tech to 1926 or whenever you want to end.

Thanks, I'll give it a try.

[oldpop2000]

Sept 25, 2017 8:52:39 GMT -6 brucesim2003 said:

Sept 25, 2017 8:32:00 GMT -6 cv10 said:

Edit the research dat. file: change the research date on the first submarine tech to 1926 or whenever you want to end.

Thanks, I'll give it a try.

Doesn't making changes like that, reduce the realistic nature of the game. It wasn't like the navies of the early 20th century could eliminate submarines, even The Washington Naval Treaty left them alone, if I remember.

[cv10]

Sept 25, 2017 9:16:28 GMT -6 oldpop2000 said:

Sept 25, 2017 8:52:39 GMT -6 brucesim2003 said:

Thanks, I'll give it a try.

Doesn't making changes like that, reduce the realistic nature of the game. It wasn't like the navies of the early 20th century could eliminate submarines, even The Washington Naval Treaty left them alone, if I remember.

The OP just wants them off because they're impeding his enjoyment of the game. I don't think that realism enters into it for him. 

[oldpop2000]

Sept 25, 2017 9:58:10 GMT -6 cv10 said:

Sept 25, 2017 9:16:28 GMT -6 oldpop2000 said:

Doesn't making changes like that, reduce the realistic nature of the game. It wasn't like the navies of the early 20th century could eliminate submarines, even The Washington Naval Treaty left them alone, if I remember.

The OP just wants them off because they're impeding his enjoyment of the game. I don't think that realism enters into it for him. 

I understand his desire but my point is very simple. I don't like fantasy games. I enjoy games that are designed along the lines of simulations with all the historic pieces in place both socially, historically and technologically. Now, its up to the player to make the simple choices and see how he would have managed with all the historic pieces that were available or not available. Removing submarine entirely is not historic, it is fantasy. The technology was available before the turn of the century. Figure out the best defense, I never lose because of submarines.

[Enderminion]

Sept 25, 2017 14:25:22 GMT -6 oldpop2000 said:

Sept 25, 2017 9:58:10 GMT -6 cv10 said:

The OP just wants them off because they're impeding his enjoyment of the game. I don't think that realism enters into it for him. 

I understand his desire but my point is very simple. I don't like fantasy games. I enjoy games that are designed along the lines of simulations with all the historic pieces in place both socially, historically and technologically. Now, its up to the player to make the simple choices and see how he would have managed with all the historic pieces that were available or not available. Removing submarine entirely is not historic, it is fantasy. The technology was available before the turn of the century. Figure out the best defense, I never lose because of submarines.

before the turn of the 19th century (USS Turtle) 

[brucesim2003]

Oldpop,

I thought I made it quite clear that I didn't want to hear why I shouldn't turn them off. I never said it was the losses the subs were causing that was the problem....though it is an issue. To me, the AI building subs at the expense of all other types of ships subverts the whole point of the game, which is surface actions in the age of the dreadnought. If the AI shifts to submarines, these surface actions never happen, because the AI keeps declining the battle.

I didn't buy the game just to play ASW spreadsheets. Myself and one or two others have been saying that the excess subs have been a problem for over a year now, but the dev doesn't want to hear about it. So in the absence of mitigation from the dev (who is the only one that can do that), I have only two choice - 1: don't play the game at all, or 2: turn off subs completely.

[oldpop2000]

Sept 25, 2017 18:13:14 GMT -6 brucesim2003 said:

Oldpop,

I thought I made it quite clear that I didn't want to hear why I shouldn't turn them off. I never said it was the losses the subs were causing that was the problem....though it is an issue. To me, the AI building subs at the expense of all other types of ships subverts the whole point of the game, which is surface actions in the age of the dreadnought. If the AI shifts to submarines, these surface actions never happen, because the AI keeps declining the battle.

I didn't buy the game just to play ASW spreadsheets. Myself and one or two others have been saying that the excess subs have been a problem for over a year now, but the dev doesn't want to hear about it. So in the absence of mitigation from the dev (who is the only one that can do that), I have only two choice - 1: don't play the game at all, or 2: turn off subs completely.

Well, you have the right to either play the game or not, turn off the subs or not...... just as I have the right to voice my own opinion, don't I.

[williammiller]

Sept 25, 2017 18:13:14 GMT -6 brucesim2003 said:

Oldpop,

I thought I made it quite clear that I didn't want to hear why I shouldn't turn them off. I never said it was the losses the subs were causing that was the problem....though it is an issue. To me, the AI building subs at the expense of all other types of ships subverts the whole point of the game, which is surface actions in the age of the dreadnought. If the AI shifts to submarines, these surface actions never happen, because the AI keeps declining the battle.

I didn't buy the game just to play ASW spreadsheets. Myself and one or two others have been saying that the excess subs have been a problem for over a year now, but the dev doesn't want to hear about it. So in the absence of mitigation from the dev (who is the only one that can do that), I have only two choice - 1: don't play the game at all, or 2: turn off subs completely.

Oldpop2000 is correct: he, or yourself, or any other poster on these forums, are free to give a respectful opinion on a subject that is presented here as long as it does not violate our TOS. Period.

[JagdFlanker]

i'l mention that i noticed the ai usually seems to build subs when it gets it's fleet nuked and doesn't have enough cash to rebuild it's fleet right away so it builds lots of subs to compensate. but playing on large and (especially) very large fleets i almost never see the ai build a ton of subs because they have lots of cash to rebuild with, plus (on very large) fleets are so big they'r very hard to wipe out so the ai doesn't freak-out as much

[garrisonchisholm]

Sept 26, 2017 19:45:37 GMT -6 JagdFlanker said:

i'l mention that i noticed the ai usually seems to build subs when it gets it's fleet nuked and doesn't have enough cash to rebuild it's fleet right away so it builds lots of subs to compensate. but playing on large and (especially) very large fleets i almost never see the ai build a ton of subs because they have lots of cash to rebuild with, plus (on very large) fleets are so big they'r very hard to wipe out so the ai doesn't freak-out as much

I agree with you Jagd.  When playing on VL & Historical my experience is that submarines do not become a problem, nor can I blame them for preventing large fleet actions by either damage or diversion of resources.

If one wants to enjoy a Jutland every time you sit down, then Steam and Iron might be a better game, so-as to play a scenario or limited campaign (such as cv10 so capably demonstrated).  If you are trying to realistically (within bounds of practicality) simulate 25 (or 50) years of building and designing ships, then 1 Tsushima and 1 Jutland are just about what you signed up for- and they don't always happen perfectly.  I remember my Nelsonian victories so well because they are so rare.  I treasure RTW as a building game that is an answer to a childhood dream, even while not being blind to the game's limitations.

[RNRobert]

My two cents:

While I have lost ships to subs in the game, I find it pretty much on a par with what happened historically.

Also, I think historically, while battleships were considered the primary arbiter in that period, it was actually the submarines that proved far more effective. While steel battleships played a decisive role in the Russo-Japanese War, by WW1 they had evolved into expensive status symbols that were considered too valuable to risk, and spent most of the war swinging at their anchors and looking impressive. It was the Kaiser's U-boats, not his dreadnoughts, that almost won the war.

Personally, when I play RTW, I almost always make submarine research and construction a high priority, especially if I am playing nations like Austria-Hungary or Spain, which simply do not have the budget to keep up with the big boys in the dreadnought building race. This way, when I have to fight a war (particularly when fighting a much more powerful opponent), I can build a flock of subs to destroy their merchant marine rather than risk my few battleships.

[oldpop2000]

Oct 5, 2017 10:48:22 GMT -6 RNRobert said:

My two cents:

While I have lost ships to subs in the game, I find it pretty much on a par with what happened historically.

Also, I think historically, while battleships were considered the primary arbiter in that period, it was actually the submarines that proved far more effective. While steel battleships played a decisive role in the Russo-Japanese War, by WW1 they had evolved into expensive status symbols that were considered too valuable to risk, and spent most of the war swinging at their anchors and looking impressive. It was the Kaiser's U-boats, not his dreadnoughts, that almost won the war.

Personally, when I play RTW, I almost always make submarine research and construction a high priority, especially if I am playing nations like Austria-Hungary or Spain, which simply do not have the budget to keep up with the big boys in the dreadnought building race. This way, when I have to fight a war (particularly when fighting a much more powerful opponent), I can build a flock of subs to destroy their merchant marine rather than risk my few battleships.

I agree and that is what I do, turn submarine and torpedo research to high and up the research percentage of budget to 10%.