Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Nuclear Subs

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Nuclear Subs Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Nuclear Subs - 12/10/2009 10:14:41 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline 		Things are getting kind of tense in the forums these days, so I hesitate to raise this point. But it's one I've been chewing on for weeks and it's really come to a head today.

It appears to me that submarines are able to operate too effectively in and adjacent to major Allied base hexes. In my PBEM against Miller, he has had stunning success in posting his subs in or right outside bases like San Francisco, Pearl Harbor, Noumea, and Sydney. I have aircraft on ASW and dedicated ASW TFs operating out of these bases, but the enemy subs are tearing apart my ASW while taking only a few losses themselves.

From August 1 to October 16, 1942, Japanese subs have sunk the following ships in dedicated ASW TFs in or adjacent to major ports: DDs - 6; AM -5; KV -1 ; YP - 1; SC - 1.

Note, these are not escorts accompaning juicy and vulnerable merchant ships on the high seas far from land. These are ships assigned to ASW duty in or next to major bases that have ASW air patrols.

How ridiculous has it been? In one case, a Japanese submarine surfaced during daylight hours and sank an AKL docked and unloading at Luganville. The Allied ASW TF in the hex didn't do anything.

In total, 71 American destroyers went under in all theaters during World War II. I've lost six to just Japanese subs in six weeks.

< Message edited by Canoerebel -- 1/6/2010 2:58:05 PM >
Post #: 1
RE: Nuclear Subs - 12/10/2009 10:15:31 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline 		P.S.  Allied subs have torpedoed three Japanese destroyers at Kendari in the past few weeks, so this cuts both ways.  It's an equal opportunity problem.

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 2
RE: Nuclear Subs - 12/10/2009 10:21:11 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		IJN submarine doctrine is no longer an issue, so Jap subs are more aggressive than they were in stock.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 3
RE: Nuclear Subs - 12/10/2009 10:24:12 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline 		I'm researching this issue and this is what I've found thus far.

Forty-seven American destroyers were sunk by the Japanese during World War II.

Thus far I've found causes for fifteen of these sinkings.  Of these fifteen, one (ONE) was sunk by a sub.  Of the other fourteen, one was boarded and captured at Soerabaja, one was sunk by naval gunfire, several by kamikaze, and the rest by aerial attack.


(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 4
RE: Nuclear Subs - 12/10/2009 10:27:02 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus
IJN submarine doctrine is no longer an issue, so Jap subs are more aggressive than they were in stock.


Okay, sub doctrine is off...but that shouldn't allow them to operate with near-impunity in and next to major bases.

Sub doctrine makes my point even stronger. Even though in the real war Japanese subs only took shots at combat ships, they rarely hit Allied destroyers. And I'll guarantee that very few of those hits were against destroyers specifically on ASW patrol (most were probably like the destroyer trying to rescue survivors at Midway or destroyers serving as escorts to convoys.

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 5
RE: Nuclear Subs - 12/10/2009 10:28:23 PM   
noguaranteeofsanity


Posts: 257
Joined: 11/24/2009
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

P.S.  Allied subs have torpedoed three Japanese destroyers at Kendari in the past few weeks, so this cuts both ways.  It's an equal opportunity problem.


Totally agree it works both ways and doesnt seem biased, for example, send all those subs out from Manila and have them patrol between Vigan and Formosa... i have been getting at least 2 or 3 separate attacks on IJN transports almost every turn. Although as the allies, you will find that the majority of torpedoes fail (like 75 percent or more), you may get lucky and they will even surface and start shelling the enemy, when there is no escort.



< Message edited by noguaranteeofsanity -- 12/10/2009 10:30:03 PM >

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 6
RE: Nuclear Subs - 12/10/2009 10:36:34 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline 		Here's a list of American destroyers sunk in the Pacifc.  Note that (as of this posting) only one of those listed was sunk by a submarine. I'm going to edit this as I find out the cause of sinking for each:


< Message edited by Canoerebel -- 12/10/2009 10:37:55 PM >

(in reply to noguaranteeofsanity)
Post #: 7
RE: Nuclear Subs - 12/10/2009 10:37:05 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		And yet I have sunk 4 subs outside of my major ports in the last few weeks against the Ai (not saying your experience is wrong just cannnot match it)

I tend to use small mixed TF's on ASW supported by ASW aircraft at low altitude c 1 - 2,000 feet on short wide search radius i.e. no more than 3 or 4 hex range.

My most successfull HK Group was commanded by Arleigh Burke consisted of HMAS Nizam, USS Walke and a pair of other ships that rotate

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 8
RE: Nuclear Subs - 12/10/2009 10:44:54 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline 		Well, I can't say the experience in my two games is the same. I find the Japanese subs to be very deadly but it has not proven to be the disaster that you have seen. Perhaps Miller is just very good at this. My opponents are skilled-and I am experienced in sub warfare. So far in both games (mid March and Mid Feburary) I have seen.

1. Japanese subs indeed more deadly than historical. Lone ships are dead meat and extreem caution is needed with my capital ships. So far none have been hit. Couple of light cruisers hit and sunk and a couple more damaged. One sub nailed the damaged and fleeing POW on the second day. She took three hits and sunk.

2 Long lance is a one shot killer against most all light ships. I have not had a DD, AK, TK, or Auxiliary survive after taking a torpedo. (Narwhale took a hit and survived-go figure). Yet my losses have not been excessive. I am finding that even a single escort will make a difference.

3. Yes, too many DDs and KVs are getting hit, but it has not been enough for me to be concerned.  Just a little more cautious. I have shot and missed or failed to explode at lots of IJN DDs but not a single hit. Not too worried yet about this. I am at least getting the attacks.

4. Both Allied ASW and IJN ASW is just bad. No surprise here. We each have lost two or three subs in both games. Don't really know about my DC but Japanese DC are not that good. I have yet to be hit by an airplane and I don't think mine have hit any Japanese. Maybe one or two. I have not gotten my 4/42 ugrades yet. British ships with good ASW assets are very deadly, but American DDs just do not have enough DCs. No surprise here either.

5 Airplanes are important. My ASW attacks have come against subs that have been snooped by aircraft first. I am also able to spot many subs around the West Coast and Pearl and move my ships around them.

So all in all, I am pretty pleased with my games. Seems like subs are working fairly well. I know Miller is very agressive with his subs. From your AAR, I know that you have sunk a lot of them. My opponents seem more conservative and the results seem fine. We will have to watch subs but so far I am not feeling the pain that you are.




_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 9
RE: Nuclear Subs - 12/10/2009 10:51:04 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline 		So far I have found the causes of 29 of the 47 American submarines sunk in the Pacific in World War II.  Of those 29, two were sunk by submarine.  Neither of those two was involved in ASW work.

< Message edited by Canoerebel -- 12/10/2009 10:52:17 PM >

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 10
RE: Nuclear Subs - 12/10/2009 10:53:21 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Well, I can't say the experience in my two games is the same. I find the Japanese subs to be very deadly but it has not proven to be the disaster that you have seen. Perhaps Miller is just very good at this. My opponents are skilled-and I am experienced in sub warfare. So far in both games (mid March and Mid Feburary) I have seen.

1. Japanese subs indeed more deadly than historical. Lone ships are dead meat and extreem caution is needed with my capital ships. So far none have been hit. Couple of light cruisers hit and sunk and a couple more damaged. One sub nailed the damaged and fleeing POW on the second day. She took three hits and sunk.

2 Long lance is a one shot killer against most all light ships. I have not had a DD, AK, TK, or Auxiliary survive after taking a torpedo. (Narwhale took a hit and survived-go figure). Yet my losses have not been excessive. I am finding that even a single escort will make a difference.

3. Yes, too many DDs and KVs are getting hit, but it has not been enough for me to be concerned.  Just a little more cautious. I have shot and missed or failed to explode at lots of IJN DDs but not a single hit. Not too worried yet about this. I am at least getting the attacks.

4. Both Allied ASW and IJN ASW is just bad. No surprise here. We each have lost two or three subs in both games. Don't really know about my DC but Japanese DC are not that good. I have yet to be hit by an airplane and I don't think mine have hit any Japanese. Maybe one or two. I have not gotten my 4/42 ugrades yet. British ships with good ASW assets are very deadly, but American DDs just do not have enough DCs. No surprise here either.

5 Airplanes are important. My ASW attacks have come against subs that have been snooped by aircraft first. I am also able to spot many subs around the West Coast and Pearl and move my ships around them.

So all in all, I am pretty pleased with my games. Seems like subs are working fairly well. I know Miller is very agressive with his subs. From your AAR, I know that you have sunk a lot of them. My opponents seem more conservative and the results seem fine. We will have to watch subs but so far I am not feeling the pain that you are.


You're much earlier than us. Things didn't really get whacky until the summer of '42. That's when we suddenly discovered that Japanese submarines could operate in Allied bases and sink Allied ASW in large numbers.

Not sure how somebody can "just be good at it." All you can really do is assign a good commander to your subs and send them on their merry way. The fact that those subs can do the things they're doing in our games is just whacky.

< Message edited by Canoerebel -- 12/10/2009 10:55:54 PM >

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 11
RE: Nuclear Subs - 12/10/2009 11:08:56 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline 		Okay, here's the finally tally.  Of 47 American destroyers sunk in the Pacific in World War II, exactly three were sunk by submarines...this is one more than the two sunk by Okha rocket and mine.

None of the three sunk by submarine were involved in ASW duties.

In contrast, in my game I've had six destroyers sunk by Japanese submarine in six weeks.  SIX.  That's twice the number America lost in the entire war.  In the real war ZERO American destroyers on ASW duty (or escort duty, for that matter) were sunk by Japanese submarine. Bear in mind that all six of these destroyers were in or adjacent to major Allied bases that had aircraft on ASW patrol. This kind of thing never happened in the war - not once - never. Thus, this is a totally a-historical result. This should not be happening. And there's nothing I can do about it. I have ASW TFs and ASW air patrols operating out of major bases and Japanese subs are attacking and sinking the ASW. A few Japanese subs have been damaged or sunk, but far less than the number of American DDs sunk.

For goodness sake, the Allies don't really have enough DDs in the game, and losing one a week to submarines really hurts.

Here's the tally of American destroyers sunk in World War II:

USS Edsall Sunk by Japanese battleships and heavy cruisers in early 1942 in Indonesian waters
USS Stewart A Clemson-class destroyer, heavily damaged and captured at Soerabaya. Commissioned in the Imperial Japanese Navy as Patrol boat no 102.
USS Pope:  Sunk by dive bombers.
USS Peary: American destroyer sunk on 19 February 1942 by aircraft in [color=#0000ff size=3]Darwin Harbour.
USS Pillsbury:  Sunk by naval gunfire.
USS Porter Sunk by air attack during the [color=#0000ff size=3]Battle of Santa Cruz 1942.
USS Mahan: Sank after three kamikaze hits off [color=#0000ff size=3]Leyte on 7 December 1944.
USS Reid: Sank after two kamikaze hits off Leyte on 11 December 1944.
USS Cassin: Sunk in dry dock alongside USS Downes on 7 December 1941 at Pearl Harbor. Later salvaged and rebuilt.
USS Downes: Sunk in dry dock alongside USS Cassin on 7 December 1941 at Pearl Harbor. Later salvaged and rebuilt.
USS Cushing:  Sunk by naval gunfire at Savo Island.
USS Preston:  Sunk by naval gunfire at Savo Island.
USS Blue:  Sunk by naval gunfire.
USS Henley:  Sunk by submarine.
USS Jarvis Sunk in aerial attacks during the Guadalcanal campaign in 1942.
USS Benham:  Sunk at Savo Island (by torpedo, but apparently ship-launched).
USS Sims: Sunk on 7 May 1942 by carrier aircraft during [color=#0000ff size=3]Battle of Coral Sea.
USS Hammann: Sunk on 6 June 1942 by [color=#0000ff size=3]Japanese submarine I-168 during the [color=#0000ff size=3]Battle of Midway.
USS O'Brien Broke up under tow to Pearl harbor for repairs a month after being torpedoed by [color=#0000ff size=3]Japanese submarine I-19.
USS Walke:  Sunk by naval gunfire at Savo Island.
USS Gwin:  Sunk in the Slot by ship-fired torpedo.
USS Meredith:   Sunk by aerial attack.
USS Monssen:  Sunk by naval gunfire.
USS Chevalier:  Sunk by ship-launched torpedo.
USS Laffey:  Sunk by naval gunfire and ship-launched torpedo.
USS Strong:  Sunk by ship-launched torpedo.
USS De Haven:  Sunk by air attack.
USS Pringle:  Sunk by kamikaze.
USS Aaron Ward:  Sunk by air attack.
USS Duncan: American destroyer sunk on 12 October 1942 by Japanese naval gunfire at the [color=#0000ff size=3]Battle of Cape Esperance.
USS Brownson:  Sunk by air attack.
USS Luce:  Sunk by kamikaze.
USS Abner Read:  Sunk by kamikaze.
USS Bush:  Sunk by kamikaze.
USS Hoel:  Sunk by naval gunfire.
USS Johnston:  Sunk by naval gunfire.
USS Morrison: Sank after four hits by kamikaze aircraft on 4 May 1945 while on picket duty off [color=#0000ff size=3]Okinawa.
USS William D. Porter:  Sunk by kamikaze.
USS Halligan:  Sunk by mine.
USS Twiggs:  Sunk by aerial attack.
USS Barton:  Sunk by ship-launched torpedo.
USS Cooper:  Sunk by ship-launched torpedo.
USS Mannert L. Abele:  Sunk by Okha rocket.
USS Drexler: Sank after two hits by kamikaze aircraft on 28 May 1945
USS Callaghan:  Sunk by kamikaze.
USS Colhoun: Sunk by kamikaze.
USS Little:  Sunk by kamikaze.

< Message edited by Canoerebel -- 12/10/2009 11:46:35 PM >

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 12
RE: Nuclear Subs - 12/10/2009 11:22:31 PM   
ADB123

 

Posts: 1559
Joined: 8/18/2009
Status: offline 		The AI's subs haven't been particularly successful in the multiple starts that I've made against it in all versions of AE. My ASW hasn't done a lot, but then I haven't tried to hunt down enemy subs too hard, because I'm very conservative with TFs and don't tend to have a whole bunch of them sailing around at all times. I also keep a lot of planes on Naval Search, with a good number on ASW also, so they tend to keep spotting the Japanese subs, which is half the battle.

One thing that I have noticed that seems a bit odd to me is that I have never had a YP ASW TF run into an enemy sub. (I tend to keep my ASW TFs homogeneous if possible.) KV TFs, AM TFs, DD TFs, and so on have all found their share of enemy subs, for better or worse, but not YP TFs. (AMs seem to be the most susceptible to being surprised and sunk.)

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 13
RE: Nuclear Subs - 12/10/2009 11:24:13 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus
IJN submarine doctrine is no longer an issue, so Jap subs are more aggressive than they were in stock.



But those that could reach the US West Coast were huge, clumsy, hard-to-manuever pieces of junk. In heavily patrolled waters as he describes, they should be going down in droves.

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 14
RE: Nuclear Subs - 12/10/2009 11:43:18 PM   
Lrfss


Posts: 349
Joined: 5/20/2002
From: Spring, TX
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

IJN submarine doctrine is no longer an issue, so Jap subs are more aggressive than they were in stock.



On this note, I hate to say it but....give your local ASW TF's w/ the max hex reaction over to "AI / Computer Control", the AI does a fairly decent job in nailing Jap Subs believe it or not... at least better than I...

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 15
RE: Nuclear Subs - 12/10/2009 11:46:34 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lrfss
quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

IJN submarine doctrine is no longer an issue, so Jap subs are more aggressive than they were in stock.


On this note, I hate to say it but....give your local ASW TF's w/ the max hex reaction over to "AI / Computer Control", the AI does a fairly decent job in nailing Jap Subs believe it or not... at least better than I...


I've tried putting ASW on computer control without any luck. The computer-controlled TFs seem to stay in port and don't react.

(in reply to Lrfss)
Post #: 16
RE: Nuclear Subs - 12/10/2009 11:50:04 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus
IJN submarine doctrine is no longer an issue, so Jap subs are more aggressive than they were in stock.

But those that could reach the US West Coast were huge, clumsy, hard-to-manuever pieces of junk. In heavily patrolled waters as he describes, they should be going down in droves.


Every destroyer sunk has been in or adjacent to a level six port or higher, and each base had ASW air patrols.

IJN sub doctrine proves my point. In the real war the Japanese totally concentrated on combat ships and still managed to sink just THREE American destroyers - none of which were on ASW patrol. In my game with Miller his subs are sinking plenty of transports, but they've still managed to sink SIX American destroyers in six weeks - and those six were in dedicated ASW TFs.

The results are totally, completely, irreconcilably at odds with the real war.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 17
RE: Nuclear Subs - 12/10/2009 11:52:08 PM   
Shark7


Posts: 7937
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus
IJN submarine doctrine is no longer an issue, so Jap subs are more aggressive than they were in stock.


Okay, sub doctrine is off...but that shouldn't allow them to operate with near-impunity in and next to major bases.

Sub doctrine makes my point even stronger. Even though in the real war Japanese subs only took shots at combat ships, they rarely hit Allied destroyers. And I'll guarantee that very few of those hits were against destroyers specifically on ASW patrol (most were probably like the destroyer trying to rescue survivors at Midway or destroyers serving as escorts to convoys.


I'm having the same problem versus the AI right off the Home Islands. And its worse for us JFBs because even when we can see them, our ASW is so pathetic we can't drive them off.

One thing I have noticed, my subs when set to patrol, linger and max react have a tendency to follow allied convoys for vast distances, picking off ships whenever the opportunity presents itself. I'm not sure how far they are following, but it is a long way. Once the AI determines that my subs can no longer catch the targets, it returns to its patrol points.

So the subs in question may not be patrolling close to the major bases, but rather moving in due to reactions then moving back out making them hard to detect and engage.

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 18
RE: Nuclear Subs - 12/10/2009 11:55:47 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline 		These subs are parked pretty close - I've had packs operating west of San Francisco, north of Pearl, and right next to Noumea.  They may indeed be reacting into the base hexes, but they are awfully close to begin with.  My air patrols are spotting them and some of my ASW TFs are reacting to them, but by an large the ASW attacks are unsuccessful at great hazard to the ASW ships.

P.S.  On our latest turn I lost another ASW-dedicated ship - this time an AVD near Los Angeles. 

(in reply to Shark7)
Post #: 19
RE: Nuclear Subs - 12/11/2009 12:32:26 AM   
Kwik E Mart


Posts: 2447
Joined: 7/22/2004
Status: offline 		aren't we supposed to be using some sort of harbor patrol craft now in AE? could these make a difference? maybe not with ASW destroyers getting slapped around...

_____________________________

Kirk Lazarus: I know who I am. I'm the dude playin' the dude, disguised as another dude!
Ron Swanson: Clear alcohols are for rich women on diets.

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 20
RE: Nuclear Subs - 12/11/2009 12:55:32 AM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kwik E Mart
aren't we supposed to be using some sort of harbor patrol craft now in AE? could these make a difference? maybe not with ASW destroyers getting slapped around...


I'm using all available harbor patrol craft, but they're not making a difference.

(in reply to Kwik E Mart)
Post #: 21
RE: Nuclear Subs - 12/11/2009 1:06:00 AM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		I find the Canadian Bangors and Flowers really usefull in the early going

Most of the US harbour escorts are weak even the DD's arent that great although I love the Porters for ASW post 2/42

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 22
RE: Nuclear Subs - 12/11/2009 1:11:31 AM   
Ketza


Posts: 2227
Joined: 1/14/2007
From: Columbia, Maryland
Status: offline 		How many Japanese submarines were sunk by US asw efforts?

Perhaps part of the reason not a lot of US DDs were sunk in WWII was a result of the Japanese doctrine.


"For their disappointing achievements, Japanese submarines paid heavily. Japan started the war with 63 ocean-going submarines (i.e., not including midgets), and completed 111 during the war, for a total of 174. However, three-quarters of these (128 boats) were lost during the conflict, a proportion of loss similar that experienced by Germany's U-Boats. Most of the surviving boats were either dedicated to training roles or were recently completed and never saw combat. Of those which saw significant combat, the toll was very grim indeed. For example, of the 30 submarines that supported the Pearl Harbor attack, none survived the war"

Taken from :

http://www.combinedfleet.com/ss.htm

Tidbit I did not know:

On 30 May 1942, I-16 and I-20 launched midgets outside the British naval base at Diego Suarez, Madegascar. A third midget, from I-18, failed to launch. The midget from I-20 damaged battleship HMS Ramillies with one of his torpedoes and sank a tanker with the other. Neither midget survived, although the crew of the midget from I-20 made it ashore, only to be shot and killed by British soldiers. An attack on Sydney Harbor the very next evening achieved nothing, and the five midgets employed, including those from I-22 and I-24, were all lost. I-16, I-20, and I-24 were used to launch midgets off Guadalcanal on 7 November 1942, when the midget from I-20 damaged a transport, but again none of the midgets survived the attack.



< Message edited by Ketza -- 12/11/2009 1:27:47 AM >

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 23
RE: Nuclear Subs - 12/11/2009 2:14:38 AM   
Skyros


Posts: 1570
Joined: 9/29/2000
From: Columbia SC
Status: offline 		Did you have air assets on asw to detect the subs and prevent surprise attacks?

_____________________________


(in reply to Ketza)
Post #: 24
RE: Nuclear Subs - 12/11/2009 2:26:10 AM   
vonSchnitter


Posts: 310
Joined: 7/2/2004
From: Germany - still
Status: offline 		Had my own share of ASW frustrations as Jap ver AI Scen 1 - pre patch 2.

Even though ASW was not my main interest or concern in this "testgame", I could not help but wonder about the very poor ASW results.

I decided to look "over the fence" and found an allied sub patrolling three hexes West of Tsushima and decided to "saturate" the hexes with Hunter-Killer Groups in June 42 (ASW TFs with PBs or SCs) - four groups in all (one group to replace depleted groups) all set to a specific Hex with reaction radius between 2 and 6.
Plus ASW searches by AC (Anns and Lillys) covering the eastern turning point only.
The sub path was set to "linger" one day at each turning point.

Here is what happend in about 2 weeks :
I lost two SCs to the sub.
The asw TFs made contact with the sub only at the turning points - never in the transit hex.
Outside of the ASW search radius, the ASW groups rarely detected the sub, while the sub "knew" exactly about the ASW assets in the hex.

Contacts made outside the search arc never resulted in acual attacks - and if attacks took place, no results where reported.

The sub was spotted on a regular basis by the search planes - attacks occured - hits reported (but these where bogus)

I did not look into any optimizations (Crew experience, leader traits).

If this sort of outcome is intended by design (compensation for improved IJN subs ?) - quite a departure from WitP - fine by me, once understood/confirmed.
Different tactics required ? Any pointers welcome, pretty, please.





Attachment (1)

(in reply to Ketza)
Post #: 25
RE: Nuclear Subs - 12/11/2009 2:44:53 AM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline
quote:

The results are totally, completely, irreconcilably at odds with the real war.


Ah but is that indicative of a problem?

Sinking 6 USN DDs in 6 weeks didn't happen in the war BUT, particularly in the early war months, it was very much within the tactical/technical capabilities of the IJN submarine force if their deployments and doctrine had been changed.


So, I think you are seeing things which didn't happen historically BUT which were possible.... albeit only with wholesale changes in doctrine and strategic/operational tasking.


Actually the more I think about it the stranger it would be if entirely different doctrinal settings and strategic/operational thinking didn't result in a significant change in the number, types and locations of ships being sunk. It didn't happen historically but I'm not sure that what you are seeing is, necessarily, statistically significant proof that there's a problem with submarine warfare and ASW modelling.

I'm not saying there isn't such a problem particularly as vonSchnitter's post indicates that there is an issue but I'm just saying that in the presence of wholesale changes to doctrine and employment the increase in DD sinkings doesn't necessarily indicate issues with the sub/ASW interaction.

< Message edited by Nemo121 -- 12/11/2009 2:47:31 AM >

(in reply to vonSchnitter)
Post #: 26
RE: Nuclear Subs - 12/11/2009 2:57:35 AM   
sfbaytf

 

Posts: 1122
Joined: 4/13/2005
Status: offline 		IJN subs are brutal. In my PBEM games they very effective and a real nuisance. I've lost BB's, CVE's and had CV's hit and lost a lot of other ships CA, CL, DD, and loads of transports to them. Early war allied ASW is very ineffective-save for a few British DD's. Over time allied ASW improves, but still IJN subs do seem to be a bit over powered, IMO.

and yes I dedicated a lot of resources to ASW work-both air assets and DD's and SC's when they became available.

< Message edited by sfbaytf -- 12/11/2009 3:00:05 AM >

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 27
RE: Nuclear Subs - 12/11/2009 3:09:59 AM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline 		sbaytf,

Hmm, since the devs say that they haven't given IJN subs a bonus I assume you mean that all subs are brutal.... Obviously though in the early months of the game any excessive efficacy will be more noticeable for IJN subs than Allied subs.

Have people found British and other non-US subs to be as effective? That'd be a comparable sample.

(in reply to sfbaytf)
Post #: 28
RE: Nuclear Subs - 12/11/2009 3:20:21 AM   
jwilkerson


Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: sfbaytf

IJN subs are brutal. In my PBEM games they very effective and a real nuisance. I've lost BB's, CVE's and had CV's hit and lost a lot of other ships CA, CL, DD, and loads of transports to them. Early war allied ASW is very ineffective-save for a few British DD's. Over time allied ASW improves, but still IJN subs do seem to be a bit over powered, IMO.

and yes I dedicated a lot of resources to ASW work-both air assets and DD's and SC's when they became available.


IJN submarines in my game are worthless - except as targets - on the other hand Allied submarines are sinking mutiple ships per turn !

_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to sfbaytf)
Post #: 29
RE: Nuclear Subs - 12/11/2009 3:27:58 AM   
sfbaytf

 

Posts: 1122
Joined: 4/13/2005
Status: offline 		Allied subs are going to be hampered if you set them to historical by faulty torpedoes. Since we use that I can't really make any comparisons. Its mid 1943 in my game and IJN subs are still a very major threat and will still easily hit a CV that is screened by 15+ DD's and seperate ASW hunter killer groups. The Wasp is being repaired for that reason.

All I can say at this point is from 1941 to mid 1943 IJN subs are very brutal and if you use historical USN trops and no historical IJN sub doctrine just be prepared. Combined with the China situation and the obvious IJN carrier advantage, its going to be very tough sledding for the allieds. Until I see what transpires after mid 43 I can't really say, but the reported Kamakazie situation also has me concerned.

At the beginning of the war I devoted over 50% of my air assets to ASW work-same goes for DD's and SC's.

I certainly don't fault my opponent for being aggressive with his subs either.



(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Nuclear Subs Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
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

0.750