|
Post by klavohunter on Dec 5, 2019 3:29:23 GMT -6
One thing to maybe consider for the frequency of the event is the size of in-game fleets compared to historical fleets. If the player fleets are smaller than historical fleets then every loss hurts more and has a magnified severity. So it's possible the chance of occurrence might have to be reduced but I don't have enough data to form an opinion on that. I definitely think it should be part of the game though. I can see how the "Sub sinks capital ship" event could be seen as especially punishing for those who play on smaller fleet sizes. However, since I always try and play on Very Large, I wouldn't know quite how it feels.
I seethe in frustration when it happens to one of my ships that I like, but that's why I try and make more than one of whatever I'm building. And it's a wake-up call to get more anti-sub warfare boats and planes operational. Kinda like losing a big ship to mines makes you build minelayers.
I don't savescum on losing a ship to either subs or mines... Generally *that* takes a major night battle or entire war going disgustingly bad
|
|
|
Post by JagdFlanker on Dec 5, 2019 3:45:06 GMT -6
There are several things affecting this event. The number of destroyers in the fleet compared to capital ships affects the chance of it happening at all. Ship type and TDS is used for determining the chance of sinking. Though I can understand that it is frustrating to lose an important ship to a random event, it is very historical. Without making a count, I have a feeling that submarines caused the loss of more carriers and battleships than any other cause. I am sure the Japanese navy staff felt rather miffed when the brand new Shinano was sunk by a submarine for example. I could of course put in an option to have capital ships only damaged by submarines, but that would feel a bit artificial. I will think about it and read further comments and suggestions in this thread. i do agree that for me it's a rare event since i always have double the amount of ASW needed assigned to TP, but since i keep my active fleet size (on VL fleets) small and tight (6-10 capital ships), it's generally a big hit to lose 10-15% of my capital ship firepower when i'm generally outnumbered in most of my wars. if adding a checkbox is considered it perhaps should be toned down in the same way the 'reduced flash fire risk' checkbox tones down that event
there's 2 types of sub attack events - the random sub attack message during turn resolution, and the random sub attack message you get at the end of a battle. i find the sub attack message you get at the end of a battle *seems* less deadly than the sub attack message during turn resolution, which *if true* is interesting because the ship that got hit by a sub at the end of a battle is generally already damaged yet *seems* to survive more often than the undamaged ship that gets hit by a sub during the turn resolution - this is just my impression though, if both the events are handled the same way then the overall results should be the same
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 5, 2019 8:51:06 GMT -6
Simply as a measure of success (and not braggadocio), I have not experienced the Sub Sinks Ship event and had it apply to anything larger than a CL in ... well, I bet it happens in less than 1% of my games. I believe it boils down to sheer numbers. I strive for at least a 1.5x TP level and preferably 2x and above, and want the same proportion of Active Fleet escorts for the active fleet to my capital ships. In games where I eek through to the end with 20 prestige I finish with 35-50 DDs, and in games where I am very successful with a very large fleet I can have 100-125 or more. If you never scrap DDs, just shift them from fleet service to trade protection, it is not a great burden to achieve. I haven't lost ships to submarines except some destroyers and corvettes. It's the cost of doing business the way I view it. In all my battles, I've lost about three battlecruiser but that is also acceptable. I agree with your suggestion, my overage destroyers are mothballed and when needed, I use them in trade protection. But generally the first set of ships I build are corvettes, lots of them and submarines. After that, I start pruning my fleet of ships that are cramped. It saves money.
|
|
|
Post by gorthaff on Dec 5, 2019 9:51:12 GMT -6
There are several things affecting this event. The number of destroyers in the fleet compared to capital ships affects the chance of it happening at all. Ship type and TDS is used for determining the chance of sinking. Though I can understand that it is frustrating to lose an important ship to a random event, it is very historical. Without making a count, I have a feeling that submarines caused the loss of more carriers and battleships than any other cause. I am sure the Japanese navy staff felt rather miffed when the brand new Shinano was sunk by a submarine for example. I could of course put in an option to have capital ships only damaged by submarines, but that would feel a bit artificial. I will think about it and read further comments and suggestions in this thread. Considering the level of abstraction and artificial restriction already in the game, I cannot quiet fathom the problem with something feeling artificial. Than again, as it currently stands I tend to reload, which is as good an alternative solution as a checkbox would be.
|
|
|
Post by alkiap on Dec 6, 2019 5:14:24 GMT -6
I build well balanced fleets (at least 5 destroyers per capital ship, and DDs are always equipped with the best ASW available), and don't think there is anything wrong with the system. Occasionally a ship will get torped, very, very rarely actually sunk. It's part of the imponderables of war - it happens Ozawa lost 2 fleet carriers to subs before even engaging at the battle of Philippine Sea..
|
|
|
Post by rodentnavy on Dec 6, 2019 11:10:37 GMT -6
Overall I like the way that RTW and RTW model submarines versus capital ships. If you look at the vulnerability to torpedoes modern capital ships tended to be quite resistant which is modelled by the progressively improving TDS. Thus WWI saw a lot of pre-dreadnoughts sunk by torpedoes (including submarine launched ones) but generally, yes Szent Istvan I am looking at you, not dreadnoughts. In WW2 a lot of dreadnoughts that would have sneered at contemporary torpedoes went down like rocks when hit by newer models for example Royal Oak and Barham.
Carriers might at first glance seem to have suffered worse carnage at the hands of submarines but if you look at it this was a case largely of pre-war designs with inadequate TDS such as Ark Royal.
In general you see something very similar in the RTWs. Though I was actually annoyed when one of my subs sank the Kaiserreich's newest dreadnought before I had a chance to shoot at it more than once, though the German Navy tends to be a bit gun shy unless they have the drop on you anyway. Normally modern ships survive but are laid up for a few months while older ones get sunk outright.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Dec 6, 2019 11:51:26 GMT -6
It is quite difficult subject as during war a lot of torpedo protection system fall behind for they were designed for.
Italy has designed Pugliese defense system which ended far from expectations.
Royal Navy designed system that are critized for 2 reasons - allowing explosion going up damaging structure and quality of rivets (wreck of PoW). The first one is questionable as TDS should prevent of flooding and some damage could be accepted as reasonable sacrifice. USN change design of TDS starting South Dakota class. I have found a lot of mentioning about report from full scale test of this new system that it was worse than previous but I have never read and do not know where it can be found. But certainly from reports of damage it could be seen that damage was higher than expected.
And this was most modern ship at that time, the old ones has defense system designed for even smaller warheads.
But modern capital ships should be able to handle some torpedo hits without an issue if it is not in weak point (Bismarck, the first hit on PoW) if there is no negligence (as HMS Ark Royal, Taiho etc.). So abstraction system works well in game and it normal that sometimes some shis are sunk by submarines as it really happened in history. And as Fredrik mentioned most important things are taken into consideration.
|
|
jujo
New Member
Posts: 2
|
Post by jujo on Dec 6, 2019 12:23:07 GMT -6
Let me tell you my experience with my Japan campaign with Medium fleets. I ended up beating Germany and France several times in the first 25 years(most ended up with minor territories and base values for some reason). My approach was making 1 or 2 very good BBs and BCs that could beat all theirs, and it worked. After the last war they ended up having about 80 or 70 subs each, so I prepared for it and stopped producing BBs and BCs (I had 1 BB and 2 BCs) and started producing DDs with a lot of AWS. Of course with Medium Fleets and in peace time I couldn't build a lot of DDs at a time, so I ended up with about 45 DDs (12 of them with the best AWS at the time).
Eventually France came for me and their subs started sinking my ships, even If had about 20 KEs and almost all my DDs in TP. So my DDs started die out slowly and less DDs in TP meant that there was less AWS overall. So I had to keep producing DDs to remplace the ones that I was loosing. Until one turn a sub sunk my only BB, and even though I had a problem with it I accepted it. Two turns later they got one of my BCs, leaving me with only one BC. And that's when I started scumsavig.
My main problem with these random subs events is that there is no good way to prevent it, other nations go nuts and spam subs that even you can't keep up with the DDs to defend yourself, specially if you are using Small or Medium fleets. And most of the time I feel like even with a lot of DDs doing AWS I still sink 1 or 2 subs each turn (sometimes none) and they keep building subs. Loosing 2 of your 3 best ships to random events that you can't even prevent is kind of annoying.
If there is a way to prevent it I don't understand it. Having all my DDs and KEs in TP mean that my AWS goes up, but that means I don't have any DDs in my Active Fleet. Does that cause the RNG to be that bad? Shouldn't DDs In active fleet also contribute to AWS for random events? There should be a tactic that can work against it. If there isn't that means that if I build 100 subs I should start sinking their ships without even doing battles right?
Right now I started another Campaign with Japan with Large Fleets, and the subs spam has just started. Maybe with more ships now I can defend myself or at least the RNG won't be that bad.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Dec 6, 2019 12:37:01 GMT -6
I am not sure, may be Fredrik will make it clearer. But if I understand his last sentences correct than ships on TP (trade protection) provide protection to merchants but not fleet. Destroyers on active duty provides protection for the fleet (warships).
So sinking of warships has nothing or almost nothing to do how many destroyers you put in trade protection duty.
|
|
|
Post by tortugapower on Dec 6, 2019 15:34:43 GMT -6
I am not sure, may be Fredrik will make it clearer. But if I understand his last sentences correct than ships on TP (trade protection) provide protection to merchants but not fleet. Destroyers on active duty provides protection for the fleet (warships).
So sinking of warships has nothing or almost nothing to do how many destroyers you put in trade protection duty.
I did not interpret anything of Fredrik's that way. He said something like "chance of capital ship being torpedoed is based on number of destroyers in fleet <plus other stuff>", and that would mean that the number of DDs -- or more likely the ratio of DDs you have per capital ship -- impacts this. I didn't see anything about Trade Protection (unless I missed a post of his, I only saw one).
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Dec 6, 2019 16:48:40 GMT -6
I am not sure, may be Fredrik will make it clearer. But if I understand his last sentences correct than ships on TP (trade protection) provide protection to merchants but not fleet. Destroyers on active duty provides protection for the fleet (warships).
So sinking of warships has nothing or almost nothing to do how many destroyers you put in trade protection duty.
I did not interpret anything of Fredrik's that way. He said something like "chance of capital ship being torpedoed is based on number of destroyers in fleet <plus other stuff>", and that would mean that the number of DDs -- or more likely the ratio of DDs you have per capital ship -- impacts this. I didn't see anything about Trade Protection (unless I missed a post of his, I only saw one). May be I misunderstood this but it seems to me logical that ships on trade protection is unavailable for fleet duties. In real history ships protecting convoys did not protect any ship outside that convoy. Protection of fleet was matter of fleet destroyers.
|
|
|
Post by tortugapower on Dec 6, 2019 17:12:48 GMT -6
dorn What you said, logical or not, is not what Fredrik said (or even mentioned). edit: we would need Fredrik to further detail what his algorithm does to know more
|
|
|
Post by brygun on Dec 6, 2019 19:21:09 GMT -6
Im in favour of subs still making attacks on capitals. Part of the Admiral's life is the "frictions" of war dealing with the unexpected, unplanned and unwanted.
I also support the idea of the local ASW affecting the chances. Not just of ships on trade protection but of the whole fleet in the zone. That way the # of DDs and perhaps even landbases can deter SS kills though it could still occur.
I'd also like to see some ASW love for floatplane equipped ships. Perhaps in some scaled factor on the # of floatplanes scouting forcing them to dive or warn off targets.
Perasonally I'd love if the CL could at some point unlock the ASW features. There is room on them for it. Not sure if there is historical precedence for CLs having depthcharges or hedgehog. Perhaps someone can do a look up for us <insert oldpop2000 lore skills here>
|
|
|
Post by BathTubAdmiral on Dec 7, 2019 6:26:27 GMT -6
Not sure if there is historical precedence for CLs having depthcharges or hedgehog. Perhaps someone can do a look up for us <insert oldpop2000 lore skills here> Atlantas started out with sonar and DCs: ... and K-gun launchers: ... but the equip was removed at the end of 1943 for more 40mm BOFORS dakka dakka. (says Wikipedia)
|
|
|
Post by Fredrik W on Dec 8, 2019 1:50:32 GMT -6
dorn What you said, logical or not, is not what Fredrik said (or even mentioned). edit: we would need Fredrik to further detail what his algorithm does to know more I was unclear in my statement.
Destroyers in the same area not on trade protection count towards protecting capital ships from submarine attacks.
Ships on trade protection are away from the fleet escorting convoys or patrolling sea lanes.
|
|