Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson



We will continue testing and tweaking - but our experience has been that ASW air and ASW TF have always been very over powered - in stock and in early versions of AE - so yes we have been trying to tone down the "uber ASW" capabilities of ASW air and ASW TF - but we will continue watching - testing and adjusting as necessary.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
Canoerebel,
Can you please provide more details regarding your ASW aircraft settings around the Southern CA area: numbers of aircraft, patrol zone, air support, leader ratings, airframe, pilot skill, ASW pilot skill, altitude of operation, range, fatigue levels, morale, default weapon loadout for the airframe, etc.

It would be helpful to have a feel for this in order to dissect out any possible problems with your airborne ASW setting. Without having a better feel for these settings, it is difficult for us to make any recommendations.

Yikes, is there anything else I can get you while I begin compiling that information? If not, I'll see you in a week or two.

I'll get you some of this info later today, but please note that my main concern isn't the ineffectiveness of ASW air patrols and ASW ships, my main concerns are the ability of Japanese subs to sink Allied ASW ships and the ability of Japanese subs to lurk around major bases with near impunity.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mjk428

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson



We will continue testing and tweaking - but our experience has been that ASW air and ASW TF have always been very over powered - in stock and in early versions of AE - so yes we have been trying to tone down the "uber ASW" capabilities of ASW air and ASW TF - but we will continue watching - testing and adjusting as necessary.

Ever since the subs were made more durable a couple of years back, that has not been the case for me vs the AI. I strongly suspect, based on people claiming the above in PBEMs, that the results vs AI are determined differently. With the more durable subs they shrug off most attacks but they can easily claim one or more DDs in the exchange.

Because of this I learned to only use minesweepers, or other ships worth 1 point, in ASW TFs. They get slaughtered but at least the subs are wasting torps on them and not something much more valuable. Never use anything to hunt subs that cost more than a torpedo. In two AE starts I sank a grand total of 1 sub. Didn't matter how damaged they were, they could make it back home all the way from CA.

The bottom line for me is that I shouldn't be afraid to send DDs after subs in ASW TFs. A sane sub commander would not take on multiple destroyers and if he did he wouldn't consistently live to tell the tale. Any other TF and the DDs do fine. Send them out hunting and the hunter is always the hunted.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

When you're desperate - when subs are sinking everything in sight and have shut down your biggest ports, when your KV and AM and YP are impotent and are getting sunk right and left - then you'll do whatever you can to stop the enemy subs.  That's how I ended up using destroyers on ASW duty.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sheytan

DD's on the allied side are too valuable to use for ASW missions. I used AM KV AMc etc.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mjk428

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson



We will continue testing and tweaking - but our experience has been that ASW air and ASW TF have always been very over powered - in stock and in early versions of AE - so yes we have been trying to tone down the "uber ASW" capabilities of ASW air and ASW TF - but we will continue watching - testing and adjusting as necessary.

Ever since the subs were made more durable a couple of years back, that has not been the case for me vs the AI. I strongly suspect, based on people claiming the above in PBEMs, that the results vs AI are determined differently. With the more durable subs they shrug off most attacks but they can easily claim one or more DDs in the exchange.

Because of this I learned to only use minesweepers, or other ships worth 1 point, in ASW TFs. They get slaughtered but at least the subs are wasting torps on them and not something much more valuable. Never use anything to hunt subs that cost more than a torpedo. In two AE starts I sank a grand total of 1 sub. Didn't matter how damaged they were, they could make it back home all the way from CA.

The bottom line for me is that I shouldn't be afraid to send DDs after subs in ASW TFs. A sane sub commander would not take on multiple destroyers and if he did he wouldn't consistently live to tell the tale. Any other TF and the DDs do fine. Send them out hunting and the hunter is always the hunted.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Admiral Scott

Allied air ASW needs to be more effective at sinking subs. We have Jap subs sinking destroyers, and operating near allied bases with no fear of air attack.
The situation in the game is like the atlantic theater, because there is no jap sub doctrine; but the game doesnt let us counter the jap sub threat like the allies did in the atlantic.
German subs FEARED allied aircraft for good reason. They operated in areas of the Atlantic where land based aircraft were out of range.

AE needs to have better air ASW to counter and balance the effect of no Jap sub doctrine.

Jap subs should fear allied aircraft and ASW task forces hunting them! Instead we have Jap subs operating with near impunity.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sfbaytf

"You've got to have balance to bave an enjoyable war game.  When players have no way of countering a devastating enemy tactic, there's an unsatisfying imbalance"

I feel the same way about bombardments. Some have said it will balance out later on in the war when the allieds are on the offensive. Personally as the allieds I don't want to have my massive naval, air and land bombardments wipe out or render the IJA impotent and be able to just walk in and take places. We all know that historically that was not the case.

quote:

ORIGINAL: briny_norman

IJN subs in my game as Allied against the AI have not performed unrealistically well.
I have to be careful and I have to be over them all the time and use air ASW extensively, but doing this I'm able to rein them in.
They do get a ship from time to time, but nothing over the top.

My own subs, on the other hand, I found were so effective it just wasn't funny.
It threatened to ruin the game, actually.
I chose to let the computer take over sub operations to make them a little less effective.
And that worked nicely as the computer is a lot less aggressive with the subs than I was.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

This thread had dropped into the nether regions of something like page ten, but it's time to bring it back the forum's attention.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants
Dan - There is a hotfix that came out on Sunday. I didn't know about it until my opponent sent me an e-mail as I had done my first turn orders using the one that came out just before Christmas. Check Tech Support thread.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

You mean the Hot Fix that was released a few weeks ago?  If so, that one didn't help the situation.

Either that Hot Fix or Patch Two toned down sub effectiveness against ASW ships, which was a big step in the right direction, but subs are much too lethal against other ships.

quote:

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

I'm having mixed success with my subs.  It's 11/42 and the fleet boats still can't sink anything although they are getting dud torpedo hits by the score.  The S-boats, OTOH, recently sank Kaga off of Bouganville.  Her TF came down from Rabaul to disrupt my Guadalcanal shipping and three S-boats put two torpedoes each into her, for the loss of one S-boat to ASW attacks.

ASW results have also been mixed.  I've got half a dozen ASW air patrols covering the Los Angeles/San Diego region, using PBY's, SBD's, B-17's and anything else that can carry a bomb, plus 4 ASW TF's composed of YP's and AM's patrolling from LA to SD and just outside the Catalina islands.  Not sunk a thing, although it seems that the subs have relocated further off shore.  The same kind of patrols are run off of SF with the same results. 
There appears to be at least one sub operating between Suva and Noumea, and another near Luganville, and one near Pago Pago, plus a couple south of Pearl Harbor.  The only attacks I get on these subs is from TF escorts that detect them; I've had ASW TF's patrol these areas and they don't even find the subs.

The RN, OTOH, is very capable in ASW.  I've got DD's and DE's at Ceylon that have sunk several I-boats already and keep the others down effectively.  Unescorted TF's get attacked, but even the weakly escorted ones have been unmolested (although I've seen a sub attack DD's escorting TF's).  So far I've had CV's and BB's damaged by subs, but the largest warship I've lost was San Francisco, up near Dutch Harbor.

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

dud rates aren´t reduced earlier than 1/43 quoting the manual:

6.4.2.1 NOTE ON TORPEDO DUDS
In January 1943, all torpedoes with a dud rate of greater than 49 have their dud rates reduced
by 20. In September 1943, all torpedoes with an adjusted dud rate greater than 20 have their
dud rates lowered to 10. Allied torpedoes were notoriously inefficient in the early stages of the
Pacific War, and this rule reflects their slow but steady improvement over the years.

and even then, you´re MK14 will still have a dud rate of 70% So the first 13 months of the war you will fight with 90% MK14 duds, then 8 months with 70% duds, after that you will have only 10% duds. So the real killing will start September 43.

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

dud rates aren´t reduced earlier than 1/43 quoting the manual:

6.4.2.1 NOTE ON TORPEDO DUDS
In January 1943, all torpedoes with a dud rate of greater than 49 have their dud rates reduced
by 20. In September 1943, all torpedoes with an adjusted dud rate greater than 20 have their
dud rates lowered to 10. Allied torpedoes were notoriously inefficient in the early stages of the
Pacific War, and this rule reflects their slow but steady improvement over the years.

and even then, you´re MK14 will still have a dud rate of 70% So the first 13 months of the war you will fight with 90% MK14 duds, then 8 months with 70% duds, after that you will have only 10% duds. So the real killing will start September 43.

I thought Mk 14 had dud rate of 80% (haven't checked with editor, but that's what it was in WitP) and in Jan 43 it drops to 60%. That'd mean you exploding torpedo hits would effectively double from 1942.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

dud rates aren´t reduced earlier than 1/43 quoting the manual:

6.4.2.1 NOTE ON TORPEDO DUDS
In January 1943, all torpedoes with a dud rate of greater than 49 have their dud rates reduced
by 20. In September 1943, all torpedoes with an adjusted dud rate greater than 20 have their
dud rates lowered to 10. Allied torpedoes were notoriously inefficient in the early stages of the
Pacific War, and this rule reflects their slow but steady improvement over the years.

and even then, you´re MK14 will still have a dud rate of 70% So the first 13 months of the war you will fight with 90% MK14 duds, then 8 months with 70% duds, after that you will have only 10% duds. So the real killing will start September 43.

I thought Mk 14 had dud rate of 80% (haven't checked with editor, but that's what it was in WitP) and in Jan 43 it drops to 60%. That'd mean you exploding torpedo hits would effectively double from 1942.