Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: undercovergeek

Without wishing to cause trouble about whats over powered and not, or whats over represented and not, thats for other people to argue about, im just here to sink subs - what are the best subhunters and subsinkers in the IJA, at the minute ive just got SCs and PBs sat in hexes ive seen a small green menace in but they couldnt hit a cows arse with a banjo - probably every 5 turns i get a 'sighting' and no hits with the barrage of charges i drop - just need to know what to point at the allied subs

as always, thanks for help

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

ASW rating is not telling whole truth about ASW capability. It is good guide, but it is just the number of ASW weapons without any detail about weapon capabilities. Some DCs and systems like Mousetrap/Hedgehog can be lot more deadlier and accurate than other systems.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

ASW rating is not telling whole truth about ASW capability. It is good guide, but it is just the number of ASW weapons without any detail about weapon capabilities. Some DCs and systems like Mousetrap/Hedgehog can be lot more deadlier and accurate than other systems.

So I'm told..., but I'm going by the results, and these "Escorts" are far too deadly in the game by historical standards. Hopefully someone on the design staff will take a close look at them one of these days.

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

It´s more of a problem of the E´s experience than a problem of their DC racks. I´m sure the vessels themselves are accurately modeled compared to real life and usually all those non DD or DE vessels are rather poor ASW platforms due to their low experience. But have them moving around for some time and get some attacks and they will hit one of the magic experience levels that makes them very deadly because then they´ve got the needed experience and twice the number of DC a destroyer has got. That may be the problem..., the game rewards numbers of DC's instead of ability to put them on target. By that reasoning a Liberty ship with 10,000 DC's should be an awesome ASW vessel---and we all know that's a bunch of nonsense.

I do feel your pain about E as I´m on the receiving end of them too and I guess I haven´t faced the 14 ASW value E vessels so far.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

ASW rating is not telling whole truth about ASW capability. It is good guide, but it is just the number of ASW weapons without any detail about weapon capabilities. Some DCs and systems like Mousetrap/Hedgehog can be lot more deadlier and accurate than other systems.

So I'm told..., but I'm going by the results, and these "Escorts" are far too deadly in the game by historical standards. Hopefully someone on the design staff will take a close look at them one of these days.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

ASW rating is not telling whole truth about ASW capability. It is good guide, but it is just the number of ASW weapons without any detail about weapon capabilities. Some DCs and systems like Mousetrap/Hedgehog can be lot more deadlier and accurate than other systems.

So I'm told..., but I'm going by the results, and these "Escorts" are far too deadly in the game by historical standards. Hopefully someone on the design staff will take a close look at them one of these days.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bomber

Also,back when I played WitP it seemed like some aircraft models did better than others at ASW (I used to like Lillies). However I dont notice any difference in performance between aircraft in AE.
Sooooo I try to use aircraft with the biggest payload.

Da bigger da bomb,da badder da blast!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Amoral

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bomber

Also,back when I played WitP it seemed like some aircraft models did better than others at ASW (I used to like Lillies). However I dont notice any difference in performance between aircraft in AE.
Sooooo I try to use aircraft with the biggest payload.

Da bigger da bomb,da badder da blast!

I have read that the factor that makes a bomber a good ASW platform is if it carries 4 x small bomb or 2 x larger bombs. Small bombs still are fatal to a sub, so more attacks is better. Thus, Idas and Lillies should make good early sub killers.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Amoral

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bomber

Also,back when I played WitP it seemed like some aircraft models did better than others at ASW (I used to like Lillies). However I dont notice any difference in performance between aircraft in AE.
Sooooo I try to use aircraft with the biggest payload.

Da bigger da bomb,da badder da blast!

I have read that the factor that makes a bomber a good ASW platform is if it carries 4 x small bomb or 2 x larger bombs. Small bombs still are fatal to a sub, so more attacks is better. Thus, Idas and Lillies should make good early sub killers.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

For those losing so many ships to the E boats, I have to ask...where exactly is this happening? Shallow coastal water or deep blue water?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

For those losing so many ships to the E boats, I have to ask...where exactly is this happening? Shallow coastal water or deep blue water?

Deep blue, with COs of 2+ years experience in some cases. The attacks seemed binary. Either the sub got away clean, or it got vaporized. Pretty much 100% hits. I lost subs to 2-ship convoys--one xAKL and one E. That would have been a trivial attack in late 1944--early 1945 in deep water with a Balao-class and excellent radar.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

For those losing so many ships to the E boats, I have to ask...where exactly is this happening? Shallow coastal water or deep blue water?

Deep blue, with COs of 2+ years experience in some cases. The attacks seemed binary. Either the sub got away clean, or it got vaporized. Pretty much 100% hits. I lost subs to 2-ship convoys--one xAKL and one E. That would have been a trivial attack in late 1944--early 1945 in deep water with a Balao-class and excellent radar.

Then something does seem to be amiss, though I do have to wonder at the E boats experience. Getting it into a lot of action versus say...PT boats...where you have a good chance of winning for little risk would certainly boost the xp levels. Overall it might be an area in need of tweaking, by taking the late war Japanese ship crew experience down a few points on initial arrival.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

For those losing so many ships to the E boats, I have to ask...where exactly is this happening? Shallow coastal water or deep blue water?

Deep blue, with COs of 2+ years experience in some cases. The attacks seemed binary. Either the sub got away clean, or it got vaporized. Pretty much 100% hits. I lost subs to 2-ship convoys--one xAKL and one E. That would have been a trivial attack in late 1944--early 1945 in deep water with a Balao-class and excellent radar.

Then something does seem to be amiss, though I do have to wonder at the E boats experience. Getting it into a lot of action versus say...PT boats...where you have a good chance of winning for little risk would certainly boost the xp levels. Overall it might be an area in need of tweaking, by taking the late war Japanese ship crew experience down a few points on initial arrival.

I entered that era coincident with a major patch (3 I think), so I never knew if it was the patch or WAD all along. Experience is nice, but some of those subs had two years of experience too, and great COs. I've never looked at the editor for E stats, but if they're really 14s, and ASW-designed DEs are 11s, that's just wrong IMO. Allied sonar, gear and especially training, was head & shoulders better than the IJN by late 1944. If a DE is an 11, no platform in the game should be a 14.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7
For those losing so many ships to the E boats, I have to ask...where exactly is this happening? Shallow coastal water or deep blue water?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

Weapon counts are a distant second to sensors. If you can localize him and then fix him all you need is one Hedgehog salvo. In modern ASW, only one weapon is normally used. Yes, they home, but they're also dumped on the sub's head.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

Weapon counts are a distant second to sensors. If you can localize him and then fix him all you need is one Hedgehog salvo. In modern ASW, only one weapon is normally used. Yes, they home, but they're also dumped on the sub's head.

USN sonar was just better. It was built to tight QA standards, not in paper-shacks with dirt floors. It had years of R&D behind it. And by 1944 all the lessons of the Battle of the Atlantic had flowed through the training pipelines to the PTO.

Balao boats were also very much more advanced than the Salmon and P- and T-classes at the start of the war. Thicker hulls, better DC design, way better trained crews, also better sonar for evasion. Historic sinking numbers per encounter bear this out. At no time was the USN losing 2-3 boats a WEEK.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rainer79

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

Weapon counts are a distant second to sensors. If you can localize him and then fix him all you need is one Hedgehog salvo. In modern ASW, only one weapon is normally used. Yes, they home, but they're also dumped on the sub's head.

The raw ASW count is not the whole story and the IJN does get penalized.

From the manual:
"Prior to 1944, Allied crews perform ASW functions during daylight at 114% of their crew rating, and at night at 150% of their crew rating (except for British crews which get no bonus at night as they generally already have extra high night experience). Prior to 1943, Japanese crews perform their ASW functions at 67% of their crew rating, while in 1943 and thereafter they perform at 80% of their crew rating."

quote:

ORIGINAL: Feltan

Bullwinkle,

I will agree with you about the lower sinking levels IRL.

However, if I am not mistaken, wasn't the U.S. doing carrier raids on and near the Home Islands by late 1944? IRL, I wonder how many of these E class boats got the opportunity to even engage U.S. submarines?

I am wondering if what some of you are seeing a "what if," as in, what if these "E" ships hadn't all been sunk by U.S. aircraft this is what things might have been like.

? Just thinking outloud ?



In 1944 a fair number of boats were in and around major island ops like the Marianas, but many game players, it seems from AARs, park way ahistorically too many boats right off the HI. Right up to the end a lot of patrols were to Formosa, Indo-China, Sumatra etc. The tanker war took place from summer 1944 to early 1945. Most of these patrols were not under Allied air cover. Now, by spring of 1945, yeah, patrol reports were full of sampans and a lack of any targets, partly due to air campaign sinkings, but not in 1944.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
I entered that era coincident with a major patch (3 I think), so I never knew if it was the patch or WAD all along. Experience is nice, but some of those subs had two years of experience too, and great COs. I've never looked at the editor for E stats, but if they're really 14s, and ASW-designed DEs are 11s, that's just wrong IMO. Allied sonar, gear and especially training, was head & shoulders better than the IJN by late 1944. If a DE is an 11, no platform in the game should be a 14.