What is is about subs?

[Dr.Sid]

What I like on subsims ? Hard to say.
Let's analyse .. I hate war. I hate weapons. I hate killing.
I love machines. I'm amazed by weapons. Even nukes. How does it goes together ? I can't tell.
I like simulations of all kind. Aircrafts, spaceships, FPS, anything. All this fast paced, 3d environment action.
Subsims are different. Big part of it is just knowing all the stuff. And there is also the the myth of outsmarting enemy (like we can see in movies and books).
In fact, in DW, you very rarely outsmart somebody. Who makes mistake dies. If nobody makes mistake, better ship (ie ship with better sensors) wins.
But it is still fun, somehow .. I too wonder. Idea of being in command ? Fleet command was no such fun for me. Idea of being closed in tight iron tube under the water ? I hope not

I've heard recently one of my grand uncle died on austrian sub in WWI. So maybe it is simply genetic disease !

[ASWnut101]

Originally Posted by Kapitan

As a matter of fact my kill score in MP matches do include the downing of 4 P3C orions 31 FFG's 16 submarines 61 other craft.

In single player i have now toteld over 850,000 tonnes of sunken ships.

how do you find the number of tonnes you sink?

[Kapitan]

I note down every ship i sank then go to the USNI refrence and find the tonnage then add it together.

I keep a record of it.

[ASWnut101]

Ah, clever......

[SeaQueen]

Originally Posted by Kapitan

I note down every ship i sank then go to the USNI refrence and find the tonnage then add it together.

I keep a record of it.

Do you start over every time you get sunk?

[Kapitan]

In single player ive yet to be sunk. and the tonnage doesnt include mp games.

[Dr.Sid]

Originally Posted by Kapitan

In single player ive yet to be sunk. and the tonnage doesnt include mp games.

You state you have never been sunk in singleplayer ? You play with Truth on or what ?

[SeaQueen]

Originally Posted by Kapitan

In single player ive yet to be sunk.

Where's the fun in that?

[ASWnut101]

Its not that hard, especially in a sub, even I am coming back to the "world" of submarines, specifically the Kilo (its my favorite besides the Seawolf). I also have yet to be sunk in a sub since my "return"

[SeaQueen]

Originally Posted by Dr.Sid

You state you have never been sunk in singleplayer ? You play with Truth on or what ?

I don't think a lot of people realize how much geometry can bias things. I was playing a scenario the other day I downloaded and it left me entirely unsatisfied. It left me thinking, "What was the purpose of this whole exercise?" The submarine was never in any danger. He was opposed by a totally inadequate force. He started off in an advantageous position. I thought the whole thing was silly. I shot my torpedoes until I didn't have any more, killed a bunch of stuff and had a nice day. It was BORING. I think impatience and a lack of understanding of the geometry of naval warfare, causes people to undercredit the capabilities of the AI too.

I also think they like to play the vessel with an edge.

[ASWnut101]

so it was sort of like a Seawolf against a torpedoless corvettes? thats pretty sad. I hate those missions where, like you said, it puts an already super deadly sub against a very easy opponet. I think that putting any surface combatant against a sub without at least a ASW aircraft makes it way too easy for the sub to do ASuW.

[Eagle1_Division]

Sometimes even helos doen't help that much, u just have to use a SAM launched from the conn: i was playing S.D. Breakout and its really up-front forget the stealth to me. Surface, launch a missle at the helo, and fire torps at the frigate (: though he sends a torpedo right back at me... i still dodge it, but all his helos r shot down. A great map for the impatient who just want up-front combat.


BTW: Whats REALLY boring r the missions that don't have enemies at all. What was sonyalists thinking? or have i just not played them?

[SeaQueen]

Originally Posted by ASWnut101

so it was sort of like a Seawolf against a torpedoless corvettes? thats pretty sad.

It wasn't just that. Also, the targets moved slowly. At spawn, the ships were already in weapons range. The whole scenario was a straw man.

I think that putting any surface combatant against a sub without at least a ASW aircraft makes it way too easy for the sub to do ASuW.

Not necessarily. This gets into what I was saying about geometry. Try the NATO EXWAR Exercise scenario a few times and you'll see what I mean. Submarines are limited by their weapons range and the fact that to remain silent and have a long endurance, they must remain slow. That imposes certain kinematic constraints on a battle. Surface vessels have the advantage of speed, and team work as well. They have great communications, and heavier armament.

While an SSK might be able to get off a first shot against a surface combattant, the surface combattant, by using his speed, can frustrate an SSK's ability to get off a shot at all. If a surface combattant detects an SSK, even if he's just armed with SVTT, then he has successfully defended the high value units he's escorting because now they have the option of changing course, leaving the SSK HOPELESSLY out of position for a torpedo shot. So, the battle is more competitive than one might imagine.

There's also the fact that if an SSK shoots a surface vessel, now there's a flaming datum. So now they have the SSK localized to a certain degree, if they know it's weapons range (i.e. they look in the USNI reference). Now the problem is how to search the area of uncertainty faster than it's expanding, which a surface warship can do. So... an SSK really needs to pick it's shots because if he shoots early, he's risking having a bunch of angry destroyers chasing after him, even if he hits his target of choice. Submarines need to shoot the target of maximum impact to be effective.

A surface vessel can kick a submarine's butt, but it has to be very smart about what is working in it's favor and it has to choose it's battles. Surface ASW is really an art of it's own, but it requires a very high degree of proficiency to be competitive. I think that DW people tend to have a pro-submarine bias, though, and make scenarios from the perspective of a submarine being the ultimate weapon.

[ASWnut101]

hmmm, interesting. I also agree that some people view subs as "king" of the game/seas, and that they think they are invincible. but one thing with the submarine, is that once you fire a torpedo and it explodes, there is now a long 'blue-out' period where it becomes very hard to find anything with sonar. this can allow a sly submarine commander() to commence his escape, wich will start complicating things for the surface vessel. and if the sub gets below the sonic layer, you can kiss it good bye. but what you said is also true, but for a submarine commander to put himself in that position is not a very smart commander. they must think ahead before firing a torpedo, so they can get off a shot with minimal counter detection. A lowly kilo class can even sink a carrier in a battle group, while its the same for the surface vessel: a lowly corvette could sink a Seawolf if in the right position. like i just said, if a sub commander is smart enough and thinks about these things, it will be very difficult for a surface vessel to get a hit on the sub. and of course, a not so bright sub commander will almost certainly get himself and his crew killed if what you said happens. So what it pretty much comes down to is whichever commander is more intellegent will win.

[SeaQueen]

Originally Posted by ASWnut101

hmmm, interesting. I also agree that some people view subs as "king" of the game/seas, and that they think they are invincible. but one thing with the submarine, is that once you fire a torpedo and it explodes, there is now a long 'blue-out' period where it becomes very hard to find anything with sonar. this can allow a sly submarine commander() to commence his escape, wich will start complicating things for the surface vessel.

That reflects the distance scale over which you chose to play. EVERYONE on the board doesn't always experience that, and even when they do, relative to the amount of time it takes to transit the distances in the scenario, it may just be a bat of the eyelash.

Suppose you wanted to set up a barrier patrol between Bear Island and the Norwegian coast, okay? It takes over a full day to go from one side to the other at 5kts. Does a few minutes of broadband noise make a big difference? Not really. You might lose contact for that period of time, and if you only had a very tenuous hold on the bad guy he might be tipped off by the explosion and quickly slink away, but that minute or so of noise isn't a big deal to me in terms of my tactics. I suspect if I had a tenuous hold on him and lost it, I'd probably be able to pick it up again later unless he'd already essentially gotten past me.

and if the sub gets below the sonic layer, you can kiss it good bye.

Depending on the layer depth, you might be able to put your towed array below the layer. Also, being on opposite sides of the layer limits the sub's sensors too. As you get closer to a surface combattant, the layer isn't as effective at stopping sonar because it only reflects rays impinging at a shallow angle. Without specific knowledge, it isn't clear at all how detectable an SSK might be.

but what you said is also true, but for a submarine commander to put himself in that position is not a very smart commander.

I don't think that's necessarily the case. Since an SSK has to go slow, it's maneuvering options are quite limited. He really is at the mercy of what a surface group chooses to do. The SSK operator also has to operate with a degree of uncertainty about what the enemy's sensors can do, and in the absense of a periscope sighting, specific knowledge about where the target is located and what he's doing.

they must think ahead before firing a torpedo, so they can get off a shot with minimal counter detection.

That's true. I'd argue that due to the limited ability of an SSK to maneuver in the face of a quickly advancing surface group, this isn't always possible. It'd probably always be possible to take out a surface combattant, but the high value units, the ones you really want to get because they influence the outcome fo the war, are not at all easy to get at.

A lowly kilo class can even sink a carrier in a battle group .. like i just said, if a sub commander is smart enough and thinks about these things, it will be very difficult for a surface vessel to get a hit on the sub.

That's true, but he doesn't really need to hit the sub to do his job. Surface combattants are COMBATTANTS. They're expected to take a hit every now and then. They're charged with protecting important ships that are of value to the theatre commander, such as combat logistics ships, gators and aircraft carriers. If an SSK has to punch through the screening forces by shooting a surface combattant in order to get to the high value ships, the SSK has already lost, because as soon as he shoots he's localized, and will be prosecuted by the remaining ships. That also means the important ships (CLF, carriers, gators) are going to be quickly moved someplace where the commander of the group feels there's less of a submarine threat.

So what it pretty much comes down to is whichever commander is more intellegent will win.

I'd also say there's a hearty dose of good luck thrown in there too.