submarines should not have air defense

Calcybel wrote:

...Submarines should have little or no air defense...

...

Stop

Stay away from the submarines if you don't know how they works, or how to work against them

The values of the air defense from the submarines in this game, as well as the other attributes associated with submarines, are right and also important.

If the submarines would be further weakened in any way, they become a nearly defenseless and worthless unit and the game would lose a major strategic variant.

Why :

You should try to see that this browsergame is not (and can not be) a "real simulation" but works on the principle of "Stone Scissors Paper", and that it is playable as a browsergame "the reality has to be adjusted" here and there.

In this game submarines has always come to surface for fight.

(Otherwise there would be a much too great whining of many players)

But a "significant weapon" of submarines is their invisibility.

So as compensation it's simulated by the fact that the two main enemies of the submarine must work together for an effective combat.

The navy bomber locates and the destroyer fights.

A well chosen compromise for the playability and balance how I think.

And:

Each alone, the destroyer as well as the naval bomber, in every level are in comparison just a little bit stronger as a sub. Both are faster of course.

But the destroyer cannot locate a submarine, however he has "Ranged combat water bombs" - a sub only has "Close combat torpedoes".

The naval bomber can locate submarines, but should beware of their AA - a naval bomber locates submarines every time, a submarine can never dive in front of a naval bomber, and like any AA also submarines air defense is reactive, therefore it only shoots back when attacked.

At the CoW-Oceans there is only a very coarse mesh of waypoints, so a located sub usually cannot escape, therefore the navy bomber only needs to observe occasionally, but not attack, and in the meantime destroyer/s can encircle the submarine/s.

So, a naval bomber forces submarines always to surface, a destroyer can use depth charge from a safe distance, additionally since some time we have aircraft carriers, and so even at high sea submarines are no longer "safe"...

...and a good admiral is able to sink enemy submarines without suffering any own damage, irrelevant how high is their AA.

Of course you can still beat up the submarines without any strategy and tactics - but then destroyers or own submarines are much cheaper than naval bombers.

*********************************************************************************************************************************************

Please, don't worry for my horrible English language, I'm an old fucking Kraut and learned it while drinking beer with British soldiers in German pubs in the early seventies - so simply drink a beer and think you're in the pub, then you can read this without problems...

Calcybel wrote:

Submarines should have little or no air defense at all

U.S. Navy fleet boats and Kriegsmarine U-boats had multiple anti-aircraft machine guns. Not a great defense, but enough to make a single patrolling aircraft think twice as it was diving to drop its bombs, torpedoes or depth charges on a surfaced submarine. The subs of other navies had widely varying numbers of AA weapons, and some had none at all.

Calcybel wrote:

My entire squadron of 16 naval bombers being totally taken out by a squadron of 16 submarines and not sinking a single one

Restrisiko wrote:

You should try to see that this browsergame is not (and can not be) a "real simulation"

If you don't think COW should be a reality-based war simulation, then perhaps we should just dispense with the whole system of strength against armor classes, hit points, strength advantages based on geographic terrain and combat environment, etc., and just progress to a completely fanstasy-based game with Nazi Frankenstein super soldiers, fire-breathing flying dragons that can bring down attacking bombers, great white sharks with laser beams sinking ships, and invincible battle units like Godzilla, the Smog Monster, and Super Mario . . . .

MontanaBB wrote:

That's one of the sillier comments I have read in the forum, and unfortunately it's typical of some of the long-time players who seem to have grown accustomed over time to some of the COW game's more eccentric features. Of course this game IS a World War II-based war game simulation, but like any simulation game we must accept certain trade-offs between realism and the "play-ability" of the game. If you want a goofy fantasy-based game, might I suggest you try Dungeons & Dragons or a Parker Brothers board game? Most of us were attracted to the realistic elements of WW2 combat, not some bizarre feature of advanced battleship plans being mistakenly air-dropped into an adjoining country with which yours may or may not be at war (WTF? On what planet would that happen? And on a routine basis? Time to shoot your air force generals if it does.)

If you don't think COW should be a reality-based war simulation, then perhaps we should just dispense with the whole system of strength against armor classes, hit points, strength advantages based on geographic terrain and combat environment, etc., and just progress to a completely fanstasy-based game with Nazi Frankenstein super soldiers, fire-breathing flying dragons that can bring down attacking bombers, great white sharks with laser beams sinking ships, and invincible battle units like Godzilla, the Smog Monster, and Super Mario . . . .

If you think CoW should be a war simulation, perhaps we need to introduce all those things I already mentioned, France must fall at the beggining of every map, it is not realistic any other way and remove any possibility of moving from the straight path. But I must agree on your last saying, Super Mario could be nice addition, that man is so persistant in what he does... It is always funny to see how people cry for realism where it is not needed just for the sake of having it.

As for the real subject of this thread, yes, maybe submarines need their AA defense lowered a little, but losing 16 naval bombers to 16 subs is impossible. Are you positively sure that there were no other enemy units (planes or big ships)? Still, even if subs get zero AA defense, I don't think naval bombers are worth producing in bigger numbers, mainly because of the time and cost of the research, low range, upkeep and production costs and other units being higher priorities.

Paramunac wrote:

It is always funny to see how people cry for realism where it is not needed just for the sake of having it.

Actually it is. And random gibberish and mentioning fantasy games is completely off topic. It is only you who talks about fantasy games here. You are not trying to make game better, you just want to make it nicer to you.

Restrisiko's comment was very well written, with proper explanation, and you just rant about something which is not important and write some random nonsense.

MontanaBB wrote:

Restrisiko wrote:

You should try to see that this browsergame is not (and can not be) a "real simulation"

That's one of the sillier comments I have read in the forum, and unfortunately it's typical of some of the long-time players who seem to have grown accustomed over time to some of the COW game's more eccentric features. Of course this game IS a World War II-based war game simulation, but like any simulation game we must accept certain trade-offs between realism and the "play-ability" of the game. If you want a goofy fantasy-based game, might I suggest you try Dungeons & Dragons or a Parker Brothers board game? Most of us were attracted to the realistic elements of WW2 combat, not some bizarre feature of advanced battleship plans being mistakenly air-dropped into an adjoining country with which yours may or may not be at war (WTF? On what planet would that happen? And on a routine basis? Time to shoot your air force generals if it does.)

If you don't think COW should be a reality-based war simulation, then perhaps we should just dispense with the whole system of strength against armor classes, hit points, strength advantages based on geographic terrain and combat environment, etc., and just progress to a completely fanstasy-based game with Nazi Frankenstein super soldiers, fire-breathing flying dragons that can bring down attacking bombers, great white sharks with laser beams sinking ships, and invincible battle units like Godzilla, the Smog Monster, and Super Mario . . . .

Sorry, but if you did, your response leads to the conclusion that you haven't understood the context.

I had written, among others:

"You should try to see that this browsergame is not (and can not be) a "real simulation" but works on the principle of "Stone Scissors Paper", and that it is playable as a browsergame "the reality has to be adjusted" here and there."

It should illustrate why it is not helpful, for to understand and master the game, while thinking and playing in "reality thought patterns" but rather in "game setting".

(Try to see things from a different angle - who does not, prevents that he gets better)

This applies as described not only for the submarine combat, but also for many other aspects of the game. Some examples:

*************************************************************************************************************************************************

Please, don't worry for my horrible English language, I'm an old fucking Kraut and learned it while drinking beer with British soldiers in German pubs in the early seventies - so simply drink a beer and think you're in the pub, then you can read this without problems...

Paramunac wrote:

I don't think naval bombers are worth producing in bigger numbers, mainly because of the time and cost of the research, low range, upkeep and production costs and other units being higher priorities.

Paramunac wrote:

And random gibberish and mentioning fantasy games is completely off topic. It is only you who talks about fantasy games here.

Restrisiko wrote:

"You should try to see that this browsergame is not (and can not be) a "real simulation" but works on the principle of "Stone Scissors Paper", and that it is playable as a browsergame "the reality has to be adjusted" here and there."

MontanaBB wrote:

But apparently YOU like it that way. Many of us think it is VERY SILLY.

Paramunac wrote:

You are not trying to make game better, you just want to make it nicer to you.

Restrisiko's comment was very well written, with proper explanation, and you just rant about something which is not important and write some random nonsense.

That said, you and Restrisiko are both among the old-timers to whom I have referred above: you have both accepted and bought into some of the more bizarre current features of the COW game, and now have a psychological investment in maintaining them, even when more knowledgeable players object and suggest perfectly reasonable changes.

Paramunac wrote:

No, I don't. I didn't play any map with crates, nor I am planning.

MontanaBB wrote:

Paramunac, we apparently differ as to what makes the game better. As to whether it would make the game "nicer" to me, I suggest you check my battle statistics against human players under the existing COW rules. Anytime you want to drop into one of my games, and play me under the existing rules, please feel free to do so. I think I have a pretty good grasp of the existing rules and have done quite well.

That said, you and Restrisiko are both among the old-timers to whom I have referred above: you have both accepted and bought into some of the more bizarre current features of the COW game, and now have a psychological investment in maintaining them, even when more knowledgeable players object and suggest perfectly reasonable changes.

MontanaBB wrote:

even when more knowledgeable players object and suggest perfectly reasonable changes.

A lot os submaries had guns on top, AA guns and were fired when surfaced

I do agree do, Id like to see submarines AA nerfed, but not gone

MontanaBB wrote:

...even when more knowledgeable players object and suggest perfectly reasonable changes.

But seriously, please, could you give and explain us one of your "perfectly reasonable changes" for the "submarine system", different from the existing, which would be better, and of course (better) playable in this browser game?

As long as we wait, and even if you apparently really have not understood what I wrote, I think and hope that my description is helpful for some other players, to better understand and use the game in this area of application.

Calcybel wrote:

Submarines are submersible and most times operate under the surface as they are extremely vulnerable at the surface. My entire squadron of 16 naval bombers being totally taken out by a squadron of 16 submarines and not sinking a single one is "total bs", regardless of what level they may be.

Submarines should have little or no air defense at all, and if they are going to have air defense capabilities, then they should be visible on the surface to all unit types, including other planes that fly over them and take fire. They can't stay submerged and provide aa fire, so how can they stay hidden when firing upon aircraft of any kind?

I will agree that there is something wrong with the current combat factors between Submarines and Naval Bombers.

If I put my Naval Bombers on patrol (to prevent convoys from sneaking through) they get eaten by Submarines doing AA.

This is simply mind boggling. I have to envision submarines sneaking up on airplanes, surfacing and surprising them with AA guns and doing this so successfully that they consistently win the battles against airplanes that can fly away if things get scary.

Definitely something wrong here.

Submarines should not be able to clear aircraft from the skies. That was never a possibility.

If, as an earlier poster implied, this is about some variant of rock, paper, scissors involving submarines, airplanes and destroyers, I will disagree. Lizard and Spock are definitely in play and the rules need to reflect that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock%E2%80%93paper%E2%80%93scissors#Additional_weapons

F. Marion wrote:

Lizard and Spock are definitely in play and the rules need to reflect that.

As I said to the OP who raised the rock-paper-scissors metaphor earlier, one could reduce all technological innovations in warfare over the last 3,000 years to rock-paper-scissors, as new technologies of war were created and old technologies evolved and improved to keep pace and leap-frog each other. That said, the R-P-S metaphor is an over-simplification, and COW is supposed to reflect the various technologies of the World War II era (and a few of those that were still under development at its end in 1945).

At present, the anti-aircraft capability of our in-game submarines (especially the higher level ones) is over-powered relative to the anti-submarine capability of our in-game naval patrol bombers (and NPBs are the only unit that can locate submarines, and only air unit that can attack them). The World War II reality was that by 1943 the ASW capability of long-range naval patrol aircraft was excellent. The Allied naval patrol bombers (PBY Catalinas, navalized B-24s, Short Sunderlands, etc.) in the Atlantic were equipped with on-board radar that could easily detect U-boats on the surface and even attack them at night with their so-called Leigh lights (high-intensity arc lights mounted under the wing). The German u-boats did have greater AA capability than most other submarines commonly used by the major powers, but that increasing AA capability reflected the ever-increasing threat of day and night-time aerial attack they faced from Allied ASW aircraft.

Here are the basic sub-vs.-plane stats for the Atlantic war:

*264 U-boats sunk by ships

*250 U-boats sunk by aircraft

*37 U-boats sunk by combined ship/aircraft action

*120 Allied aircraft shot down by U-boats

For reference, see, e.g.:

http://uboat.net/fates/losses/cause.htm

http://uboat.net/history/aircraft_losses.htm

This is a German website with a good English language translation, but there are other online references that list very similar statistics, reflecting relatively current research based on marine archeology and official records searches. As you can see, the losses were 2 to 1 in favor of ASW aircraft, a reality that the game doesn't currently reflect. I have personally lost 9 of 16 NPB squadrons attacking a stack of 11 submarine squadrons, in order to kill 1 sub squadron, before I ended the experiment to avoid losing the remaining 7 NPB squadrons. Frankly, that's just plain goofy. A squadron of navalized B-24s equipped with depth charges would have massacred a squadron of U-boats.

Another rather problematic game design choice is naval patrol bombers are the only unit that can locate submarines. In reality, WWII air units could only locate subs on the surface or very near it (their radar was so good by 1945 that they could detect periscopes). In reality, destroyers were equipped with ASDIC/SONAR -- both passive and active -- and could detect submerged submarines. The game parameters should be changed to reduce submarines' AA capability and add a submarine-detection capability to destroyers.