Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

IJN ASW now too weak?

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> IJN ASW now too weak? Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
IJN ASW now too weak? - 1/15/2003 6:30:11 AM   
Grotius


Posts: 5798
Joined: 10/18/2002
From: The Imperial Palace.
Status: offline 		Hi all,

Is it me, or is IJN ASW now too weak? I recall that Matrix halved its effectiveness a couple of patches ago, and since then I've rarely damaged or sunk a sub with my IJN ASW assets, even in shallow water. There's a thread in the WiTP forum suggesting this too, along with other possible refinements. Er, if I could figure out how to post a link to it, I would.

So, whaddya all think about IJN ASW capability?
Post #: 1
- 1/15/2003 6:38:03 AM   
Zeta16


Posts: 1199
Joined: 11/20/2002
From: Columbus. Ohio
Status: offline 		I do not think it is too week b/c during all of the war only something like 55 subs were lost. Not all were to the Japs.

(in reply to Grotius)
Post #: 2
USN Subs - 1/15/2003 7:43:43 AM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Hi, That 55 sub lost means 22 percent of all USN subs were lost.
Several things to consider.
In UV there are only 3 sub missions
Patrol
Mine
Transport

Players use Patrol and Mine.
Historical uses would add
Pickett (sub patrols bottle neck to provide warning of enemy movement. Not much chance for kills except for the rare instance enemy actually comes through.
Life Guard: Sub is stationed in area of enemy base to pick up pilots/aircrew that may have to ditch.

In UV all the subs are at sea all the time engaging the enemy. Often right in areas where ASW assets are highest.
There is no carry over from day to day. Sub attacks on Monday and enemy is caught again on Tuesday. (what is frustrating for players is it is ASW groups created in response to Mondays attack that become Tuesdays target.) (This applies to both players. IJN subs can do the same thing, only USN ASW is much better compared to IJN ASW)

Personally, based on how subs are used in UV I am suprised any of them ever return from a patrol.

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Grotius)
Post #: 3
- 1/15/2003 7:44:18 AM   
Piiska

 

Posts: 132
Joined: 8/28/2002
From: Helsinki, Finland
Status: offline 		Is this in relation to the questionable "Wolf Pack" tactic, or just generally?

If the system currently requires all submarines to be put to base hexes, where they are very effective, then perhaps the Japanese ASW should be improved.

Historically speaking I would not have a clue about Japanese ASW effectiveness, so I can't comment on that, but at the moment Allied do seem to get away with blockading a base hex by putting lots of subs in there.

(in reply to Grotius)
Post #: 4
- 1/15/2003 8:16:02 AM   
Drex

 

Posts: 2524
Joined: 9/13/2000
From: Chico,california
Status: offline 		As the Japanese, sub detection is very good and I get plenty of attacks from my planes on ASW but rarely do they get hits. the only way to really get an allied sub is with the DD TF with ASW of 4- 6. I rarely get an outright sunk because of FOW, usually I just get hits. It seems realistic to me.

(in reply to Grotius)
Post #: 5
- 1/15/2003 9:01:18 PM   
Sonny

 

Posts: 2008
Joined: 4/3/2002
Status: offline 		Japanese ASW by DDs is too weak and/or US ASW is too strong. Either detection of surface TFs by subs is a bit too easy in open waters and/or subs get too many shots at TFs. 30 miles to a hex is a lot of area to cover and even if a sub finds a TF in the game it too often gets into position to get a shot off.

A sub should be pretty easy to sink in shallow water and quite hard to sink in deep water.

The problem is because the game does not take into account mid-move interception we feel that we have to enter a port hex to get kills on TF. In a port, a discovered sub should be dead meat and no one should really ever send a sub there. But we get away with it - it pays off in the point count.

Don't know the figures but how many times in the game do you see a sub take on a DD when there are other targets available? Shooting at DDs should be a last ditch kind of thing but in the game it happens too often.

Also not sure about sub pens and re-arming, but could Rennell Island realy refuel and re-arm a sub like it does in the game?

Enough rambling - I gotta get to a meeting.:)

(in reply to Grotius)
Post #: 6
- 1/15/2003 9:20:22 PM   
Yamamoto

 

Posts: 743
Joined: 11/21/2001
From: Miami, Fl. U.S.A.
Status: offline 		I also think Japanese ASW is too weak. Cutting it in half was overkill. Maybe 2/3 or ¾ of the original strength would have been the correct way to go.

Perhaps one option would be to tie it to the IJN sub doctrine on/off button. If it’s on, cut it to 2/3. If it’s off, let it have to original ( equal to pre-patch ) strength. It only goes to figure that if the Japanese put more value into their subs they would also put more emphasis into ASW.

Yamamoto

(in reply to Grotius)
Post #: 7
THREAD-JACKING ALERT!! :) - 1/15/2003 9:49:21 PM   
Admiral DadMan


Posts: 3627
Joined: 2/22/2002
From: A Lion uses all its might to catch a Rabbit
Status: offline 		I also think that if there is more than 1 sub in a hex, each sub's detection level should rise. The more subs in the hex, the higher the D/L for each should be.


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sonny
[B]Also not sure about sub pens and re-arming, but could Rennell Island realy refuel and re-arm a sub like it does in the game?
[/B][/QUOTE]I think that subs should have to use a level 5 or higher port to re-arm unless there is a sub tender present.

I also think that sub patrolling should be handled differently.

Human Control subs should sit in the Destination Hex and not move.

Computer Control subs should limit themselves to a max of [B]three[/B] hexes from it's Destination Hex. As it stands now, subs under Computer Control just wander all over the D@mned map.

_____________________________

Scenario 127: "Scraps of Paper"
(\../)
(O.o)
(> <)

CVB Langley:

(in reply to Grotius)
Post #: 8
Re: THREAD-JACKING ALERT!! :) - 1/15/2003 10:40:47 PM   
Grumbling Grogn


Posts: 207
Joined: 10/20/2002
From: Texas!
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Admiral DadMan
[B]Computer Control subs should limit themselves to a max of [B]three[/B] hexes from it's Destination Hex. As it stands now, subs under Computer Control just wander all over the D@mned map. [/B][/QUOTE]

I agree! I was only about 30min into my first game when I figured out that computer control of subs was not going to work for me. I spot a CV TF on the other freakin side of the theater and all my subs around Truk spend the next two weeks trying to move to the spot it was last seen. Which, when they get there is two weeks old and the CV is now in Truk (where they started!) :confused:

_____________________________

The Grumbling Grognard

(in reply to Grotius)
Post #: 9
- 1/16/2003 3:55:48 AM   
crsutton


Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline 		It seems to me that players are the least satisfied with subs in the game, and the posts on these boards indicate that.

1. Subs are too effective and deadly when on human control and not effective enough when on computer.

2. Japanese ASW in not effective enough-especially around ports and in shallow water.

3. Sub interception of task forces needs to come at anytime in a turn- with chances varying related to the speed and ASW of the task force.

4. Subs should only be able to resupply at bases of a certain size or with sub tenders.

5. Massing subs in one hex should lead to greater detection and greater chances of sucessful attack.

6. Subs attacked by air should at least be suppressed. That is: their movement and chances of sucessful attacks limited.

7. Subs in areas of heavy ASW activity and air cover should have a harder time spotting and engaging. Perhaps we should have a sub "contact" without engaging message.

8. Subs working in restricted waters should have much greater chance of detection and attack.

All this said and done, let me just say that on the October 30 turn of my Four Weeks in Hell scenario, my American subs made nine attacks against Japanese attacking forces. Targets included one BB, two CA, two Cl, two DD and two AP. Of about 40 torpedoes fired, I got one hit on a DD. In return the Japanese counter attacked with DDs and PCs on almost every attack and threw a lot of DCs at my subs with no results.

I really felt the defects of American torpedoes that night and the Japanese had to know the shortcomings of their pitiful ASW efforts. For one turn the system actually felt and worked right. However, let me say that this is really an aberation in my experience and my American subs in other games are having way to much sucess for this stage of the war.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Grotius)
Post #: 10
- 1/16/2003 5:15:40 AM   
madflava13


Posts: 1530
Joined: 2/7/2001
From: Alexandria, VA
Status: offline 		Just a quick note with two points:

1. I think subs should have a limiting factor when they are in a port hex - To me this means they're camped out off the approaches to the port, and while this is possible, it seems they shouldn't last long there... Maybe something reducing the chances for hits or intercepts after one or two successful attacks? (simulates re-routing of shipping)

2. I have no problems with the "ineffective" Japanese ASW. In real life, the Japanese set their depth charges too shallow for about half the war. There were many attacks but few sinkings. Then a boneheaded US Senator bragged they were setting their charges too shallow -- within weeks, deeper charges and more sinkings...

In UV's time frame, the Japanese would still be setting their charges shallow, so I can buy less effectiveness on Allied subs -- this is historically accurate.

_____________________________

"The Paraguayan Air Force's request for spraying subsidies was not as Paraguayan as it were..."

(in reply to Grotius)
Post #: 11
- 1/16/2003 5:44:46 AM   
PzB74


Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline 		I don't think Jap ASW is to weak!
In my first Scen 17 pbem game, I've sunk 5 US subs in 2 months.

I'm using ASW groups - CS's with 40 ASW ac's and 13 DD's are deadly...

..........................................................................................
AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 07/04/42
Weather: Thunderstorms
Sub attack at 15,43
Japanese Ships
DD Harusame
DD Makinami
DD Arashio
Allied Ships
SS Flying Fish, Shell hits 3, on fire, heavy damage (sank)
............................................................................................

Several of the sinkings have taken place in deep water as well.

_____________________________



"The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without"
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

(in reply to Grotius)
Post #: 12
- 1/16/2003 7:34:30 AM   
Nomad


Posts: 5905
Joined: 9/5/2001
From: West Yellowstone, Montana
Status: offline 		I will confirm PzBs observation. I lost 2(3?) S class subs in shallow water hexes. I then started moving them to deep water hexes and I still lose them. I don't see Japanesse ASW being weak.

(in reply to Grotius)
Post #: 13
Air attacks and Sub - 1/17/2003 1:33:19 AM   
mbatch729


Posts: 537
Joined: 5/23/2001
From: North Carolina
Status: offline 		To some extent, air attacks do suppress subs. Take a look at the endurance of a sub before an air attack, then after. A lot of the endurance (fuel) is burned up by an air attack. You may not sink a lot of subs w/air, but you can drive them back to their bases for refueling very rapidly. And a sub in transit isn't going to be doing a whole lot of damage to your shipping. :D

_____________________________

Later,
FC3(SW) Batch
USS Iowa

(in reply to Grotius)
Post #: 14
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> IJN ASW now too weak? Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.797