Allow subs to engage other subs while submerged

[Dahdee]

@Stratego(dev)@ TntAttack @Jasondunkel@ DreJaDe @SSJerichoallow subs to attack each other with torpedoes while submerged. Although there has only been one sub vs sub battle while both were submerged, it did occur in WW2 and was accomplished with torpedoes. If you Google the names of either of these subs there is a plethora of articles about this battle. This is from Wikipedia: On 6 February, U-864 passed the Fedje area without being detected but after one of her engines began to misfire, she was ordered to return to Bergen where an escort would be provided at Hellisøy. On 9 February, Venturer detected U-864's diesel engine noise using her hydrophone as she was refraining from using active sonar (ASDIC) to avoid disclosing her position and later spotted the U-boat's snorkel.

In a long engagement and in a situation for which neither crew had been trained, Venturer waited 45 minutes after making contact before going to action stations. Recognising they were being followed and that their escort had still not arrived, U-864 began zig-zagging. After three hours, Venturer fired all four bow torpedo tubes at the U-boat's predicted position, beginning at 12:12, at 17-second intervals and at variable depths, then dived deeper to avoid retaliation. U-864 heard the torpedoes coming and also dived deeper and turned away. She managed to evade the first three but steered into the path of the fourth and imploded, split in two and sank with all hands, coming to rest in over 150 m (490 ft) of water, 2 nmi (3.7 km; 2.3 mi) West of Fedje.[4]

[DreJaDe]

With how much other subs nerfed against type 21?
Its kinda hard to agree.

They would just be sniped from miles away more so than back then like this.

[Shark guy 35]

I just don't think it happened enough to be included.

[Dahdee]

Ok. So,

With how much other subs nerfed against type 21?
Its kinda hard to agree.

They would just be sniped from miles away more so than back then like this.

from this point, we are comparing the most advanced, by far, submarine of WW2 to the others. Yes. The type XXI is going to dominate. It's better at EVERYTHING. Pure fact. But, keep in mind it still has the same torpedo range as all other subs currently in the game (to the best of my knowledge). It's not really a reason to deny subs to perform an action that was proven to be possible. It was done. Spread of 4 torpedoes, second one fired destroyed the enemy. Now, as for the argument of

I just don't think it happened enough to be included.

yes, it was a remarkable battle. So was the Doolittle raid. To say it didn't happen enough, well how many raids like the Doolittle raid occured? And how many B17's (which required about 5000 ft of runway to take off) were launched and landed on aircraft carriers? How many B26's were launched and landed? How many Ratte were built? I'm simply proposing allowing the subs to do something they actually could do IRL. Furthermore, why do no subs have AA, when so many did? The I400 could carry and launch Seiran (3, I believe), and Surcouf carried a float plane. These are all real things. I'm not proposing a 100% hit rate during submerged combat, simply proposing they should be allowed a chance to attack, because they could.

[Dahdee]

And, about the I400, I know it can carry planes in game, and that is my point. It is allowed because it could do so.

[DreJaDe]

It's not really a reason to deny subs to perform an action that was proven to be possible.

It is a reason, sry. And an addition to what you already told that it was rare. It's like Bismarck should now 1 hit ships cause they have proven that it is possible.

Ok wait. I agree. I 100% agree.
+1 vote for me.

(No sarcasm, I really agree that subs should now be able to hit each other submerged.)

[Dahdee]

It's like Bismarck should now 1 hit ships cause they have proven that it is possible.

How awesome would critical hit possibility be in this game?

[SS-Jericho]

If there is really a problem with countering subs in game, then I agree allowing this. I could also agree with hit chance.

[TntAttack]

How I see this is that there are two issues. Whether subs have enough counters and whether subs should be able to hit each other.

If you go back into the sub forums balancing where I was discussing about the sub patch, I did mention this very story as well.

Subs were not designed to fight each other. In fact, in deep waters, subs don't have the technology to detect each other (at least to my understanding) and to even shoot the other underwater would be like shooting in the dark. And it's not even a matter of direction, you have to account for tons of factors like depth, distance and what not (I am no expert).

That's why I pushed to have subs unable to counter other subs. This was an outlier, and only could happen because the conditions were right. Now if you propose to address the first issue (better sub counters), my question is what benefits do we get from re-enabling sub on sub combat?

If anything, it's unrealistic and will break and create more problems.

[Dahdee]

How I see this is that there are two issues. Whether subs have enough counters and whether subs should be able to hit each other.

Yes. We will call the 2 issues A and B. A, to stick with the subject, is whether they should be able to hit each other. Yes. Because there is a possibility. Should it be 100% chance to hit, like against a ship (which is ridiculous), No. "a shot in the dark" is exactly what I'm suggesting. A very low possiblity of success. We must not assume they are always deeply submerged if they can always attack ships with impunity. Which brings us to B. Countermeasures. Currently the only thing that can hit a sub is a depth charge. A sub can torpedo any ship but no ship, not even a sub can torpedo a sub unless it's surfaced. ASW aircraft are useless, because sea area bombing doesn't work on them and planes also may not attack them with a torpedo in that state. The ones that carry depth charges, don't for some reason. Planes can't even deploy mines. The Catalina...the poor, pitiful, Catalina (which was one of America's top sub killers) carries torpedoes, depth charges, AND could deploy mines, but can do none of that...and it's not the only one. These maritime patrol/ASW aircraft are the countermeasure but they aren't allowed to. So, we just have the destroyers. So, yes there are 2 issues here. So, if your only chance is a roll of the dice to get lucky you should at least be able to. Sometimes it's just luck when you meet another sub and they happen to have submerge 2 and you have submerge 1. You're in range. You know you're going to die next turn especially if it's a type XXI, but you can't even make a desperation shot. When the aforementioned battle occured someone attempted something not likely to work and got a kill on the second shot. Who dares wins. A 15% or so chance to hit is not going to break any game balance.

[DreJaDe]

Problem with chances is that Stratego doesn't like chances...

Though I still agree with subs being able to torpedo each other underwater. This way, I believe it's can now be totally shown how allies currently can't win a naval fight against axis.

[Dahdee]

This way, I believe it's can now be totally shown how allies currently can't win a naval fight against axis.

I thought this idea up while playing several naval battles using allies. So, yes. It's a desperation move. At this point I'd say even let us ram ships, anything to help. apart from the issue I previously pointed out about the countermeasures, fact of the matter was Allies were cranking out Incredible numbers of ships. Also, while the axis powers with the exception of Japan, seem to get every engineering fantasy and experimental prototype, allies are missing elemental parts of their naval war machine. Where are the LST's, the escort carriers they were completing at a rate of almost 1 a week, the OTHER planes that could carry torpedoes besides the devastator, etcetera? DreJaDe already said something about the cost of transports in another thread, just want to throw out there that the allies ability to make things (and not just transports) in vast numbers was a real weapon in and of itself.

[TntAttack]

Though I still agree with subs being able to torpedo each other underwater. This way, I believe it's can now be totally shown how allies currently can't win a naval fight against axis.

I am sure there are other ways of doing this without sub on sub combat.

In regard to everyone else's opinions, what exactly do you guys have with issues A and B that manifest the desire to have sub on sub combat again as I find it quite realistic and balanced.

(Translation, do elaborate, I don't fully understand your position)

But if we did have to go down this path, ideally adding more naval units e.g. like Dahee mentioned is preferable over reimplementing sub on sub combat I my opinion.

Why?
- Subs now pose more of a threat to battleships and carriers, and despite its disadvantages (surfacing).
- Forces players on both sides to use destroyers.
- Less cheesing of subs via torpedo aircraft much the stakes a bit more higher unlike before where subs had counters from both air and sea.
- Mechanically it's fun micromanagement, and players have to choose whether to surface and risk death (plus speed bonus) or dive become safe.

Although I acknowledge there are flaws to sub counter currently, I am sure there are workable solutions to this.

And to re-emphasise my point, I don't agree sub on sub combat should be a thing based off chance and this story as it this is an outlier.

[DreJaDe]

- Subs now pose more of a threat to battleships and carriers, and despite its disadvantages (surfacing)

How? I do think, they pose a great threat but not more than before.

Less cheesing of subs via torpedo aircraft much the stakes a bit more higher unlike before where subs had counters from both air and sea.

I believe the suggestion is only for submerged subs, not really about torpedo planes being able to hit subs again. Also, what's so wrong about 5 turn unit killing a 2 turn unit? I don't think there is much problem beside it being unrealistic.

Although I acknowledge there are flaws to sub counter currently, I am sure there are workable solutions to this.

I'm honestly OK with the current subs, i don't really think there's much need for change. Why I are with this suggestion is purely for game change cause overall, the easy solution to every problem in naval game is to just use axis and to not misclick any ally faction then you're OK.

[Dahdee]

TBH, I don't think anyone (including myself) is 100% for sub on sub combat just for the sake of sub on sub combat. Its more of an issue of grasping at straws for counters. Look, don't get me wrong, I like the new thing with subs being forced to surface. I like it so much that I suggested something of this nature for planes. I can't argue with your logic about the one battle being an outlier, or your examples of how it makes for a more strategic battle. Yes there are other, better ways to fix the balance and add counters. The issue is not just with subs, it's about other things as well, production (as DreJaDe has repeatedly pointed out, and rightly so) being one. The ASW units that are in the game need to be able to perform ASW tasks. Just like subs that have AA, like Gato and typy XXI, should have that when surfaced. Sea area bombing right now is completely useless. I already said that. The Russian seaplane, the Catalina (also used by Free French during WW2), as well as the swordfish could carry depth charges. There are pictures online of the swordfish dropping them. I saw it when I was looking at ASW capabilities of planes in WW2 on the net. The British had a homing mine they could drop that followed German subs down when they crash dived. The Japanese had one of the best seaplanes in the war. Allied code name was Emily, I forgot the Imperial Navy designation. I'm wandering, sorry. My point is we already have units in the game that should be able to engage submerged subs. But, they don't. If they did I wouldn't have suggested this, and perhaps I went about it wrong to make this suggestion. So, maybe this is going to be dead, or maybe a new thread needs to be started. Some suggestions, beside the obvious about letting units operate as they did IRL, are add a new tech for Allies that demonstrates their industrial might and the sheer number of units they were making every month. And don't say war machine, because that's not it. Has no effect on production speed and doesn't affect naval. There should realistically be a significant difference in production speed of allies and axis powers. Add new units. Let the Catalina do what it really did, and let France use it under lend lease. Introduce the British plane I think it was called Shackleton or something like that, I saw it on the list of ASW WW2 maritime aircraft. Dive bombers, this is more for ships, but it's ineffective. It's ineffective because it has no effect unless it sinks the ship, and that's not really what it did for the most part. Purpose of the dive bomber was to disable the ship, damage the bridge, damage the flight decks of carriers making them useless, kill the crew and set it on fire. Torpedoes knocked holes in ships below waterline sinking them. They worked together but both are effective. A ship on fire with destroyed guns and many dead sailors is going to be out of the fight too. But currently there's no way to show this. The ship remains just as powerful and functional until the last point of damage is taken. This is an issue because it means the only thing you realistically use against a ship in game is torpedoes. Because all else is ineffective to the point of being useless. Now the Germans have the fritz x thing and Japan has fast planes with torpedoes and it's like 80 percent of their planes carry torpedoes too, so what do allies have? Not much. Planes that don't do what they did, no production boost, no privateer that carried the BAT (American weapon like Fritz X) and not nearly the best of the naval aircraft they had. Many of these are already in the suggestions for new units but not implemented. Ok, so got on a rant there, my bad. Anyway there needs to be better balance between allied and axis navy and the countermeasure ability of the in game units we have now need to be included so they become useful. Yes TntAttack, you're right. Maybe sub on sub not the way to go, but something has to change.

[DreJaDe]

Also, while the axis powers with the exception of Japan, seem to get every engineering fantasy and experimental prototype, allies are missing elemental parts of their naval war machine.

Pretty much agree. Its kinda really hard for this game to put the IRL aspect that made the allies won but somehow, it's so much easier to put axis techs that doesn't really do much or do anything at all in the war and somehow be OP.

[Dahdee]

Its kinda really hard for this game to put the IRL aspect that made the allies won but somehow, it's so much easier to put axis techs that doesn't really do much or do anything at all in the war and somehow be OP.

pure truth.

[Dahdee]

Furthermore, the idea of a 100% hit rate for subs torpedoing ships...I'm not really down with that. That's part of the balance issue as well.

[DreJaDe]

Furthermore, the idea of a 100% hit rate for subs torpedoing ships...I'm not really down with that. That's part of the balance issue as well.

Just going to say this, no. It's not part of the issue.

Most bullets don't hit their target IRL. And so does torpedo. In fact torpedo is more likely to hit than MG bullets. This is a really long one so pls, not on this topic.

[TntAttack]

Its kinda really hard for this game to put the IRL aspect that made the allies won but somehow, it's so much easier to put axis techs that doesn't really do much or do anything at all in the war and somehow be OP.

pure truth.

It's because the core focus of the unit stats, balances are influenced from a multiplayer perspective and you can't have unbalanced fractions for a multiplayer game.

Therefore, am I correct that you all want better Allied units and technology? (And or balance fixes that favour Allied ingenuity and specialisation)
...
Ideas:
-Allied radar gives all planes +1 speed and +2 damage.
-Axis radar idk (or counter radar as I recall reading in wiki about axis radars but never really understood what they really had)
-Allied Sea planes drop depth charges.
-Axis sea planes drop depth charges
-USA can have nukes

Wishlist:
I kinda rather mines so that they are a like a terrain bonus rather than a unit, so we don't have to avoid walking on friendly mines.

-Oh, I would like a tech tree so players have to work toward a speciality e.g. sub damage +2, infantry health +1.



Sorry I have nothing really more to say, just wanted to summarise everything and drop ideas down while I was at it.

[DreJaDe]

.

[DreJaDe]

It's because the core focus of the unit stats, balances are influenced from a multiplayer perspective and you can't have unbalanced fractions for a multiplayer game.

It's both historical and balanced while most imbalance is coming from supposed "history".

Therefore, am I correct that you all want better Allied units and technology? (And or balance fixes that favour Allied ingenuity and specialisation)

Balance is the right word. There are already suggestion but if we can't have a unified opinion, we then can't have them.

Everyone really have a diff opinion even though everyone agree that there are imbalance. Thus no change.