Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Glorious Arstotzka

17 (16%)

Glorious Moskurg

13 (12.3%)

Ingloriously Didn't Play

76 (71.7%)

Total Members Voted: 106

[Kot]

(1) UFN-SS-45 "Archer III": Es
(1) UFN-SS-45 "Boot":
(1) UFN-SS-45 "Rán": lightforger
(1) 'Leto' Naval Countermeasure Launcher: taricus
(3) UFN-SS-45 "Boot" (v2): Cnidaros, Happerry, Kot

I'd still enjoy at least a basic autocannon on top. Historically those were used to harass lighter boats too.

[Parsely]

What we really desperately need to fix aside from the battery is that 8 hour running time, that's very low and being able to stay submerged when you're in danger is very important to the ship's survival in combat since we're relying on torpedoes, but I'm not sure how else you can improve that other than by fixing the batteries so hopefully that's enough to get it up to at least 24 hours.

Differences from the others:
-Doesn't include active sonar but settles for passive. From what I've researched online (here and here and here, as well as wiki) extremely few subs in WWII were equipped with active sonar, and those that did have it rarely used it to target enemy ships, because it gave away their presence and possibly their position. Active sonar was more employed as an anti-submarine measure on surface ships, and also used by submarines to detect other submarines during the Cold War.
-Doesn't include weapons topside, because by this stage in the war it was infeasible to mount sufficient antiair weaponry to deter air attack on submarines, see the U-flak concept. Admittedly the Germans didn't have guided SAMs, but then the aircraft in our war are also much more advanced.

- I agree about deck weapons mostly, a deck gun is nice for killing merchant shipping but AAA is not worth it, if you get spotted by CAP you just have to dive and hope for the best.
- The nice thing about active sonar is that it gives you a very accurate range without needing a visual on the target either because going to periscope depth is dangerous or the seas are too rough to see the enemy, so while it's got a very specific use it's very useful, and since it's already equipped with passive sonar I don't see any reason not to include it and let the sub captains do with it what they will.

[ConscriptFive]

Could have rolled better, but still should be able to fulfill its role of interdicting shipping behind enemy lines at a low cost.  The crush depth is not great, but probably ok.  The underwater endurance is shit, but at least it has a working snorkel.  Sonar would be nice, but at least we got the RADAR on there.  Wish the Dolphin was bigger with a longer range.  The Boot revisions should cover enough of that even on a bad roll.

Deck guns are a two-edged sword and I don't think they're a great idea.  Deck guns made sense against the Japanese.  The Japanese really despised logistics (also were way out of their league industrially to be a Great Power) and thus alot of their shipping were shallow draft wooden "junk" sampans.  They ended up being so shallow that torpedoes would run too deep to hit them.  Even PT boats field-modified themselves with tank cannons to engage them.  (US magnetic torpedoes were also super faulty, such that the Navy actually put out written orders to disable the magnetic fuse.)  I'm going to give the Canners some credit and expect their civvie freight to have metal hulls and/or some armament.  Subs are super-fragile, and thus really shouldn't get into a firefight.  Giving them guns just encourages them to do that.  (See also AA guns.)  It also hampers the crash depth time (have to make sure the gun barrel is tied down) and underwater speed due to drag.  So yeah, I don't think it's worth it.

(1) UFN-SS-45 "Archer III": Es
(1) UFN-SS-45 "Boot":
(1) UFN-SS-45 "Rán": lightforger
(1) 'Leto' Naval Countermeasure Launcher: taricus
(4) UFN-SS-45 "Boot" (v2): Cnidaros, Happerry, Kot, ConscriptFive

[Madman198237]

So having realized that we've moved to double advancement....why on earth aren't we hyper-focused on Tereshkova? We could get that wonderful Ore back by next turn. Hindsight says the 2 wasn't going to let us do anything AWESOME, but we should've been trying to win that regardless.

[ConscriptFive]

Because regardless of us gaining land, we still have to block two D-days at Vlanlados and our mainland.  Now is not the time to let them dominate the seas again.

[Parsely]

alot of their shipping were shallow draft wooden "junk" sampans. 

Shallow draft junks may have been employed but they weigh less than 1000 tons and wouldn't count for a significant portion of shipping. The Japanese lost over 9 million tons of shipping, over 2,000 merchant vessels, during the war. Most of those losses were in the form of modern tankers (usually 10,000+ tons displacement) and cargo vessels (1,000 - 10,000+ tons displacement).
There's a big registry of the vessels killed here: https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/j/japanese-naval-merchant-shipping-losses-wwii.html

You can reference the displacement for some of these vessels on wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:World_War_II_merchant_ships_of_Japan

And here are some other 1000+ ton modern support ships the IJN used:
IJN ammunition ships: http://www.combinedfleet.com/Kyuheikan_c.htm
Maru class hospital ships: http://www.combinedfleet.com/Hikawa_c.htm
Other supply ships: http://www.combinedfleet.com/Kyuryokan_c.htm

I don't know about the idea that they "despised" logistics, I'm not really sure what that means, but the Imperial Army and Navy did resist cooperating with one another on logistics and vessels on either side would sometimes be underloaded during a trip because they wouldn't collaborate and load supplies from the opposite branch. But they definitely didn't rely mostly on small, wooden ships for strategic logistics.

Subs are super-fragile, and thus really shouldn't get into a firefight.  Giving them guns just encourages them to do that.  (See also AA guns.)

It also hampers the crash depth time (have to make sure the gun barrel is tied down) and underwater speed due to drag.  So yeah, I don't think it's worth it.

AA guns are nice for when you know diving will get you killed (i.e. there is a destroyer and it's seen you and you're outrunning it because if you dive it will kill you or you can't dive because of damage), usually diving is the right choice but you just have to trust captains to make the correct choice given the situation. That's actually something that's worth noting, our subs will outrun their smallest vessel on the surface, they really need a fast destroyer to even get our subs to dive unless they get caught off-guard.

This is true but we can afford to take an offensive advantage at this early stage when the enemy has no good counter. I don't know how many torpedoes the sub can carry but the subs will be used to kill merchant shipping and the Cannalans don't have armed merchant vessels that could threaten our subs on the surface and I doubt their big expensive cruisers can be used to escort convoys of merchants very often, which is the perfect environment for a deck gun. Saving torpedoes means tremendously increasing the endurance of the sub at sea, that could be a tremendous force multiplier while the enemy is caught flat-footed. If we're still going for a missile revision next turn we can just remove the deck gun for free to give us that defensive edge back.

[Madman198237]

Running away does not work for submarines. On the surface they're FAR slower than any military ship except maybe the Canners' older ones, until you get nuclear engines and the absurd horsepower you can develop with those things. Diving or surrendering is usually the right choice, though it's better to just not surface, usually.

[Cnidaros]

So having realized that we've moved to double advancement....why on earth aren't we hyper-focused on Tereshkova? We could get that wonderful Ore back by next turn. Hindsight says the 2 wasn't going to let us do anything AWESOME, but we should've been trying to win that regardless.

I brought it up. Before the design, even. The Jungle Ore only makes the VVF and Sea Lift cheaper (the VVF goes from VE to E), but you can (and should) double-check that. While more fighters would be nice, preventing them from landing on our mainland again would be much nicer.

Of course, if we don't continue our advance in the jungle, the Cannalans get it all next turn. Then we'll have to decide whether it's more important to deny them the ore or carry on with missile sub to land on the Plains island.

Regarding deck guns, I'm against them for difficulty reasons (cramming too much into a revision). I'm not sure whether we'll be able to target their shipping anyway, the GM doesn't seem to take that into account.

[Parsely]

I'm not sure whether we'll be able to target their shipping anyway, the GM doesn't seem to take that into account.

Yes he does, naval advantage can reduce our opponent's sea transport capability and affect their resources. The Ice Giant was developed as a logistics aircraft because our naval shipping was being harassed.

[Cnidaros]

I'm not sure whether we'll be able to target their shipping anyway, the GM doesn't seem to take that into account.

Yes he does, naval advantage can reduce our opponent's sea transport capability and affect their resources. The Ice Giant was developed as a logistics aircraft because our naval shipping was being harassed.

I am aware of that, but that only applies if we gain a Large Advantage over the Cannalans. I think the Boot is going to be absolute murder on Cannalan ships next turn, but probably not enough to swing us from a Disadvantage to a Large Advantage, even assuming the Cannalans do nothing in the naval field.

What I'm saying is, submarines are uniquely far better at raiding merchant shipping than all other classes of ship, but I don't think that will affect their TC outside of the Naval Advantage mechanic, which only seems to consider fleet battles.

[Parsely]

I agree that it's probably not enough to get a Large Advantage since the subs have little endurance and the 500 pound torpedo is quite anemic, which we hopefully fix. Radar means the threat of aircraft is minimal although they will suppress subs easily by forcing them to dive and move very slowly which makes attacking carrier fleets problematic, but no ASWs or sonar means free reign on enemy convoys and fleets as long as subs plan their attacks carefully, and the sub is Cheap. I'm not holding out hope for a Large Advantage but if it does happen for us, now is really when it ought to.

Much like land mines, just because merchant raiding isn't mentioned doesn't mean it doesn't exist or have an effect. I'd be surprised if it wasn't mentioned next turn since nothing else would really effect merchant convoys as much as submarines could. That said, raiding non-combat ships has been mentioned off hand at least once when a Forenian hospital ship was sunk in Spring 1940. The sea combat has never really been contextualized in great detail at all beyond just general statements about advantages and fleet composition so it's totally possible that cheap destroyer designs have been a factor in defending convoys.

Running away does not work for submarines. On the surface they're FAR slower than any military ship except maybe the Canners' older ones, until you get nuclear engines and the absurd horsepower you can develop with those things. Diving or surrendering is usually the right choice, though it's better to just not surface, usually.

Sorry if I was unclear, I'm not talking about outrunning a light cruiser or destroyer on calm seas in daylight, they're usually much faster than your typical WW2 sub when surfaced. But a sub can escape visual range while submerged then surface to escape at their best speed, it's even easier if visual conditions are poor. Cannalan ships don't have sonar so it's very easy to break contact this way, but of course that's impossible if there's a Santos, Keres, or Victoria mixed in since they have radar but you can deal with that just by targeting them first.

[evictedSaint]

So having realized that we've moved to double advancement....why on earth aren't we hyper-focused on Tereshkova? We could get that wonderful Ore back by next turn. Hindsight says the 2 wasn't going to let us do anything AWESOME, but we should've been trying to win that regardless.

Because Cannala is likely doing a naval design this turn, giving them an even bigger bonus to every territory on the map next turn since all are in range of naval support

[Jilladilla]

the 500 pound torpedo is quite anemic, which we hopefully fix.

500 kilograms, actually. This is 1102.3 pounds.
Or in other words, half a tonne.

It's still a small torpedo, of course.

[Kot]

I think fixing the submarine itself is much more important. Submarines can generally choose their engagements, so while it'd be nice to have a longer range torpedo, we need to make sure the submarine even gets there in first place.

[VoidSlayer]

If it is reliable enough to operate as is it can at least screen our fleets.  With it being slow, shallow and dive for small amounts of time I can not recommend using it to engage supply ships.

Lets try and fix some part of it then make an improved version with a missile launcher on it next turn.