Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Own ASW Experience

 
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] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Own ASW Experience Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Own ASW Experience - 8/16/2002 7:26:31 AM   
ReDDoN45

 

Posts: 135
Joined: 2/25/2002
Status: offline
Think itīs a good idea to imply own ASW capabilties. Using day/night experience isnīt completely unrealistic, as often subs were surprised and such sinkings have less to do with ASW expeience.
But all is all there need to somehting implied for long sub chases for deep running subs and there the Allies defineteyl had the advantege.

The ASW experience shouldnīt only represnt more fighting experience, itīs also should be intended to represent better doctrine, training and most important equiptment (or they should change accuracy settings forr DCs to represent for poorer equiptment - the ammount of DCs needed in UV to sink a sub, is ridiculuos... I think everybody will admit, thatīs curretnly far too few, except for surprise attacks - there itīs realistic)
But on the other hand such changes in WITP should give the Jap player a chance... a game like that isnīt intended to exactly play like history, so a Japanese player who cares about his own forces low ASW prefociency early and does something agaisnt it, should also be paid off later in the war. Noone buys a game which goes like history from the beginning to the end.
Post #: 1
- 8/16/2002 10:29:46 PM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
Mmm. The "no one buys a game that repeats history" argument is a straw man. (Bseides, many people do buy such games.) The real issue is "How much counterfactual is appropriate?" The second one is "Is this counterfactual (a) plausible, (b) likely, (c)nutto?" The third one is "If we assume counterfactual X, how does this affect the other basic assumptions?" Better IJN ASW doctrine implies a willingness to prepare for a siege, and that means a rejection of the Decisive Battle Doctrine. So for your better IJN ASW you give up the Long Lance torpedo, perhaps.

(in reply to ReDDoN45)
Post #: 2
- 8/17/2002 12:50:55 AM   
ReDDoN45

 

Posts: 135
Joined: 2/25/2002
Status: offline
If Japs do better efforts in 41 and 42 to train more air crews on ASW and fit more of their DDs with ASW.....
Many games (I doubt that WiTP will imply this) have research and development (like Clash of Steel, Strategic Command or Koéiīs version of a Pac War .. canīt remember exact name). They give y ou a chance by "buying" (expensive!) R&D points and allocate them to certain areas like aircraft technology, heavy tanks, sonar, better subs, .... and many more. A player has to decide whether he wants a new Cruiser to be ordered or more R&D to be purchased. ---------> I allways loved this approach. A player has real control and does not see happen all similar (or identical) to history.

(in reply to ReDDoN45)
Post #: 3
- 8/17/2002 12:55:17 AM   
ReDDoN45

 

Posts: 135
Joined: 2/25/2002
Status: offline
games should start somewhat historical, but the larger the scale of the game, the more abilities a player should have, that it doesnīt exactly play like history. He has more under is command and that should be felt - not just the ability to move his ships, LBAs and Ground forces. Thatīs what I meant.

(in reply to ReDDoN45)
Post #: 4
Re: Own ASW Experience - 8/21/2002 2:49:07 AM   
HMSWarspite

 

Posts: 1401
Joined: 4/13/2002
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Reddon45
[B]Think itīs a good idea to imply own ASW capabilties. Using day/night experience isnīt completely unrealistic, as often subs were surprised and such sinkings have less to do with ASW expeience.
But all is all there need to somehting implied for long sub chases for deep running subs and there the Allies defineteyl had the advantege. [/B][/QUOTE]
If you want ASW ratings, you should have AA ratings, and ASuW ratings. You have just gone a level deeper than the game simulates. Also, the 'surprise on the surface' arguement is not significant for me. The chance of surprise is better for good crews (better look out, in the right place, ready to exploit sighting etc.), and worse for poor crews. I.E. it relates to experience. Whilst very rarely you will literally come across a sub by pure fluke, the experience of the crew still tends to determine whether you can get it before it submerges.

[QUOTE][B]The ASW experience shouldnīt only represnt more fighting experience, itīs also should be intended to represent better doctrine, training and most important equiptment (or they should change accuracy settings forr DCs to represent for poorer equiptment - the ammount of DCs needed in UV to sink a sub, is ridiculuos... I think everybody will admit, thatīs curretnly far too few, except for surprise attacks - there itīs realistic)[/B][/QUOTE]
Why do you think the number of DC to sink is rediculous? Whilst I have just started v1.3, so can't comment on this version, up to now, the number of attacks has been the weak think. I find one DC hit generally drives the sub off. DC attacks in RL could extend to 100 or more, without sinking the sub. Don't forget that a 'hit' in UV with a DC is a charge close enough to potentially do damage (maybe 50ft or something), not bouncing off the casing.

[QUOTE][B]But on the other hand such changes in WITP should give the Jap player a chance... a game like that isnīt intended to exactly play like history, so a Japanese player who cares about his own forces low ASW prefociency early and does something agaisnt it, should also be paid off later in the war. Noone buys a game which goes like history from the beginning to the end. [/B][/QUOTE]

Japanese sub tactics and proficiency is less a material thing than an entire frame of mind. If you allow IJN to train up merchant hunting sub crews, you must probably ditch the decisive battle strategy (as said above), Yamato, also berserk infantry charges, extremely agile, but unarmoured fighters etc. In my opinion, this would no longer be a simulation of JPN in 1940's. You might as well play a German invasion of the Pacific - possibly fun, but in no way a game of the war in the Pacific.
The game cannot be all things to all people or it will fail...

_____________________________

I have a cunning plan, My Lord

(in reply to ReDDoN45)
Post #: 5
- 8/21/2002 1:51:25 PM   
Drongo

 

Posts: 2205
Joined: 7/12/2002
From: Melb. Oztralia
Status: offline
Originally posted by Baldric :)
[QUOTE]If you want ASW ratings, you should have AA ratings, and ASuW ratings. You have just gone a level deeper than the game simulates.[/QUOTE]

I agree with your logic but not the results that standard day/night "experience" levels gives for ASW in UV.

IMO, combining (day)experience with AA weapon capabilities and numbers works fine (USN more effective than IJN despite equivalent day experience). For ASuW (Anti Surface Warfare?), day combat would give the USN the edge (same exp, more firepower). Night combat has the IJN with a distinct advantage (shorter engagement range + almost double the allied exp level + better torps - this is partially offset by some allied ships having radar). Later on, the USN equals (if not exceeds) the IJN as allied ships gain more night experience and greater numbers of allied ships have radar. At this point, I would say that UV is supplying AA/AsuW capabilities which broadly matches the historical (I did say broadly mdiehl :p ) without any need to go down a level of detail.

In UV, most ASW combat occurs at night (in my experience anyway). This fact, when combined with an extemely high IJN night experience rating, ends up giving the IJN escorts a kill ratio against subs that is way beyond both their historical capabilities and the game ASW capabilities of the supposedly superior allied escorts. This is despite the fact that the game has the IJN escorts carrying ASW weapons that are inferior to that on USN ships. The USN gains experience (improves) over time but the IJN seems to start the game like veterans of the Atlantic and stay that way. I would think that a better way of determining ASW capabilities could be found than the current one that weights the "standard" day/night levels so heavily.

Having said that, I would rather play a wargame that best combines both balanced game play and elements of historical play (you want to at least feel you're playing a game of the Pacific Theatre using forces that reflect historical capabilities). Reducing IJN ASW capability would probably just make things more unbalanced in UV since the Japanese have very little choice but to meet the allies head on in a defensive battle of attrition (despite having the early initiative). I would hope that WitP may give the Japanese player sufficient strategic flexability to allow more historical ASW capabilities (as well as other ones that are hotly debated in UV forums) without tipping the play balance.

_____________________________

Have no fear,
drink more beer.

(in reply to ReDDoN45)
Post #: 6
- 8/21/2002 4:26:59 PM   
ReDDoN45

 

Posts: 135
Joined: 2/25/2002
Status: offline
lol - of coursse Dronge - we are still in the pacific. Just meant that a player which things ahead should get rewarded for it. Someone who sends many of his escorts in 42 back to Japan should have them getting better ASW equiptment.

Many games implied research and developement, where you have to "buy" and assign R&D points to certain areas (like SS RADAR, AA RADAR, SONAR, plane design, ship design, torpedoes, tanks, heavy bombers, special bombs, sub design, depth charge technology.....) you know what I mean. That allowed a player who, say was very successful so on to use resources to not only be spent on ship and aircraft building. He may later get rewarded for his spending on R&D with newer tachnologies or better planes (earlier than historical)
Since the US has more resources they can easily build more ships and "would be able to do more R&D than the Japs - as historical, but the Jap player could decide - based upon resources where to put emphasis on spenidng. Whil it is clear to me that something like that can not be easily implemented in the UV engine, it is still a good idea. A jap player who captures very much, so gets extra reward, for his more resources and thereby more aircraft/ground forces/ship building ability or to spend those points on R&D.

What I wanted to say about higher jap nght experience and their usage for ASW: Itīs certainly not right that it is used therefore and the results are a bit off, because of that, but a very experienced Mutsuki lclass can spot a sub early and surprise it. So I mean that in fact this experience influences ASW capabilities a bit. Most subs in Pacific theatre were sunk by surprise. Thoguh of course that still needs rework.
DC usage is ridiculuos for longer hunting. When a sub is surprised or caught ina bad situation (happens more often than one might think) than often a few well placed DCs are really enough, but for longer huntings often a single DD used 20 - 40 DCs.... often he was accompanied by another DD using same amount.

When a sub has the chance to dive deep itīs often out of harm. Except later in the war when the Allies got more and more better Sonar which even could judge depth somwhat + the Mk 9 teardrop DCs which went down very very fast - so the escorts had to take less lead)

In most cases the ASW isnīt that far off, as many believe. The general abilities of Japs/US in ASW are also reflected in the accuracy of the DCs.

Perhaps, rather than making an ASW experience of its own, they could slightly modify DC accuracy numbers - adjust the way they are used fot calculation of sub hunting a bit - and create multipliers for the DC accuracy values, so that in later war the DCs profit from higher accuracy.

(in reply to ReDDoN45)
Post #: 7
- 8/21/2002 5:52:01 PM   
Drongo

 

Posts: 2205
Joined: 7/12/2002
From: Melb. Oztralia
Status: offline
Reddon45,

You're a chatty little bastard :) (that's not an insult by the way). I do understand what you're talking about.

I don't disagree with what you are saying but you may be wasting your time trying to go into the finer details of escort v's sub combat. I would be surprised if the designers of a game like UV or WitP bother walking through every single possibility that could be involved in ASW combat and then attempt to model it intricately. That would be more the role of a sub sim game designer.

From what I read of the designers posts in UV, GG built combat resolution engines into which all the constants and variables he considered relevant to combat were entered. What came out the other side was the results (how many hits, how much damage, etc.). Depending on whether or not the results meet your expectations is really what you should look at. How the engine works (or how ships actually hunt subs) is something that probably wont change in WitP. Thats why I was suggesting (as I thought you were) that a different value to day/night experience should be "sent" to the game engine (I'm talking very simplisticly here).

You would have to be careful with your suggestion of boosting the allies' ASW weapon characteristics. Since it would still be tied to day/night experience, you could create a similar problem to that of the IJN, that the USN escorts who regularly experience surface combat will be better ASW ships than those who are routinely used for convoy escort. My main concern was really to "tone down" the IJN ability.

As far as research, development, etc of new or different weapons to that used by either side historically, thats fine by me so long as its in the form of a series of game options that players can decide which ones they want/dont want.

_____________________________

Have no fear,
drink more beer.

(in reply to ReDDoN45)
Post #: 8
- 8/21/2002 8:53:51 PM   
ReDDoN45

 

Posts: 135
Joined: 2/25/2002
Status: offline
I donīt want this "micro-enigne" ,either. I am happy with what it is. Just wanted to explain people (not you - you are fully aware), why the fact of directly tieing the night experience to the ASW capabilites isnīt that unrealistic.

R&D of course would allow the player to select in which area he wants to assign his "research points", at least thatīs the way games like strategic Command, Clash Of Steal and Pacific theatre of operations handled it. Perhaps we should ask GG, whether he somehow can tkae that over from COS (itīs a SSI game).

(in reply to ReDDoN45)
Post #: 9
Regarding UV ASW runs. - 8/31/2002 12:19:46 AM   
sparks

 

Posts: 9
Joined: 5/15/2002
From: Underway!
Status: offline
I have a suspicion that the number we see on the ASW attacks is really more akin to the number of patterns or runs dropped by the can rather than the number of DC's - something like the full loadout of 16 shells in the NC's being 12 per turret. DD's weren't big enough to carry a whole lot of those things - which may be a blessing - I'm not sure that I'd really be comfortable with the equivalent of a hundred and a half trash can size barrels full of explosive berthing in the next compartment.

But, it still seems to be too abstracted for my taste - and the IJN seems to be a whole lot more proficient in ASW than they were in real life and the USN can't hit those huge, slow, bubbling monster I boats with a bass fiddle in the butt.

BTW - where are the DE's. Aren't they suppose to be be producing by mid 43? Getting tired of using mine sweeps as ASW escorts and having to refuel the tubs every fifteen feet.

(in reply to ReDDoN45)
Post #: 10
- 8/31/2002 1:10:45 AM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
Have to count me among the ones who want ASW as a separate experience rating, and not at all tied into "day/night" capability. Most (all? -- not counting crippled or grounded subs?) surface vessel attacks on subs were on submerged boats. Day-night hardly mattered since you could not visually observe your target either way. Even when the things were spotted on the surface (by, say, 10cm radar, or visually on a moonlit night) they were usually underwater before the first shells came lofting their way.

In the arena of ASW the Allies were distinctly better from the get-go (with the UK being more talented than anyone prior to 1943). If Matrix follows the usual pattern, the IJN will be given some arbitrarily higher "night EXP" rating, and tying ASW to "night EXP" in any way would imply that somehow the IJN crews were intrinsically by training better at ASW. They weren't. The Allied advantage was more intensive pre-war ASW training and doctrine (esp in re communication between ASW aircraft and surface units) but also to better and more reliable tech. Airborne radar, high power illumination, float lights, and by the end of the war, the Mark 24 torp. On surface ships, the big Allied advantages were radar (10 cm, then 3 cm), gradually improving sonar, side-throwing DC launchers, and ahead thrown weapons (the "hedgehog" mortar).

On another thread, though, someone suggested "TF Experience." IMO some IJN desrons were relatively capable ASW units and quite exceptional among IJN. So either some of these IJN DDs or their Destroyer Divisions should be given a higher rating than most of their IJN peers. They're still gonna compare unfavorably to Allied ASW efforts mid-war, because of the growing tech gap.

I'd love to hear from a sub guy about this.

(in reply to ReDDoN45)
Post #: 11
- 8/31/2002 1:52:54 AM   
Jeremy Pritchard

 

Posts: 588
Joined: 9/27/2001
From: Ontario Canada
Status: offline
I think that ASW should recieve individual experience levels as well. Unlike any other operation of a fleet unit, ASW is a completely different operation then what is expected. All Destroyers recieved surface and AA training, as they were expected to be fully engaged in that no matter what. However, ASW training varied from mission assigned (notably in the IJN).

Battle experience does not necessarily transfer to the very different warfare that was ASW warfare. Should a ship that has gained a lot of experience in battling enemy cruisers be suddenly just as cabable of tracking down and killing subs? Surgface combat and AA combat are fairly similar (both requiring the use of guns at visible targets, using similar techniques of hunting and killing). However, subs add a 4th Dimension to warfare that required a different sort of training and level of experience.

Most wargames that have R&D, like Clash of Steel, are very large scope and have only close relation to history. These games allow you to control every aspect of the war with the war rarely progressing as it historically did because you can avoid the major mistakes that were actually unavoidable due to political and doctrinal restraints. R&D Takes the player to a completely new level of game. Instead of being a military commander fighting battles you turn more into a politician organizing industry. I also notice that the AI never does very well when given options for research and development, and becomes less challenging the more options you put into the game. WitP will already be a very complicated game, but adding production and R&D will just make this game into an unmanageable mess (much like what happened to Master of Orion III).

(in reply to ReDDoN45)
Post #: 12
- 8/31/2002 6:15:53 AM   
ReDDoN45

 

Posts: 135
Joined: 2/25/2002
Status: offline
commanders abilites also have quite an impact on ASW...at least for my experience with Destroyer Command - SH2.
A good DD commander, even when not given the leading edge in equpitment can trick his enemy with a few cunning maneuvers or "well placed patience". Same for sub skippers... for a sub crew nothing was more important than the abilites of their skipper. Perhaps when building an ASW experience into WiTP they might also multiply or modify it somehow with the commanders abilites.
(40% technology, 25% crew ASW capabilites, 35% commanders cleverness) - thatīs my view of ASW.

The whole R&D idea was just meant as example. Something less complicated might find its way into WiTP to give player a limited ability for improving otherwise hard coded facts.

I made simlar suggestions with pilot training, i.e. a squadron (with a min. experience of 75) should have this button available among (like withdraw/disband). This would then mean that the squadron disappears for a certain time (or until re-requested for front line duty) and its pilot would help train recruits back in Japan/States.
The whole effect of that would be more/better pilot replacements.
The idea must be refined though, as how to exactly imply them into game calculations.

Same for Patrol bomber squadrons - a certain button among the withdraw/disband options which labels "send back home for ASW training/equiptment". The squad would disappear for a certain time to come back with a better ASW experience... representing more theoratical as well as limtied practical training + some better equiptment.Of course theASW experience shouldnīt be able to rise into riduluos heights using this method... just so far as special ASW training and equiptment can raise a units ASW proficiency in reality.

Well, all just ideas..........

_____________________________

Bis dat qui cito dat!

(in reply to ReDDoN45)
Post #: 13
- 8/31/2002 8:29:40 AM   
Jeremy Pritchard

 

Posts: 588
Joined: 9/27/2001
From: Ontario Canada
Status: offline
I think that these options would give too much control over things by the Player. We do not want a game that will always follow history, but we also do not one that will never get close to history. Hindsight has eliminated many problems faced by commanders of the era, and giving this level of control to a player to defy actual doctrine will just distance this game from the actual War in the Pacific.

There are ways in maximizing training and ASW abilities of fleets without affecting production and/or training. The IJN and IJA did not set up a triangular series of resource deployment, but linear (everything to the Home Islands, then deployed from the Home Islands). This was very inefficient and caused more convoys to sail then could be defended. This would be one of the things that you as a player could change, as convoy direction is part of a military commander's mandate. The IJN used many of its well trained ASW Destroyers for fleet duty, where they were decimated in this role. Using these units solely as ASW ships will probably increase your sub killing ability.

Training can be increased by doing things that the IJAAF and IJNAF didnt do. They tended to leave an airgroup in operation until it was severely depleated and exhausted. However, cycling airgroups will decrease loss and probably improve the experience of your pilots (i.e., send them to China to get some combat training). This is what Pac War reviewers said to do with the game back in 1994, and it still holds true as the best way to train Japanese pilots.

(in reply to ReDDoN45)
Post #: 14
- 9/1/2002 7:18:18 AM   
John Carney

 

Posts: 66
Joined: 7/1/2002
From: Tampa FL
Status: offline
Mdiehl,

If you want to know from a bubble-head, I spent ten years at sea on submarines. I often may side with the idea that USN results were more luck and command than military doctrine in early WWII.

The first sub that I was attached to was in new construction at Groton Connecticut Electric Boat Shipyard, the USS West Virginia SSBN 736. When she was launched, I was a Second Class PO in Engineering. The Captain invited the survivors of WWII submarine veterans association VFW 1 (located in West Virginia and the source of more submariners than any other state in the Union during the late thirties to mid forties). After the ceremony, much alcohol, and the wives sent home, they began to tell their stories of patrols in the China Sea and South West Pacific.

There are thirty-nine boats on eternal patrol in the Pacific 42-45, most due to IJN. Those who were caught by DD’s and DE’s and were able to come home, did so with stained drawers and bitter frighting stories. A common point was the ending, thank god for a truly silent service. During WWII even our allies were not told the actual operating and crush depths of our subs. The operational depth and area were sealed in the subs safe along with her alternate numbers, issued by a code in your daily traffic.
Thus one evasion tactic was to sit below accepted IJN crush limit while the explosions above caused flooding every where. Not desired, but unfortunately often required when pickled. The men, Commanding Officer to seamen, were trained how to isolate a seawater leak or patch the leak in the dark, a lesson from the early days when mother nature killed more of us then the enemy. Sleep was optional, until you served a useful purpose on board, that is the ability to save the men around you.
Another evasion tactic was to place the target between you and the ASW. Our sonar-men were by far superior to the task, a status that still exists today, even if they are weird little geeks.

Tactics and execution of orders was left to the officers, while operation and combat was left to the enlisted, this is found only in the US Submarine Service. I would say that this doctrine often is what allowed our boats to come home while the enemy was sunk, not solely due to some inferior ASW tactics. There is credence to the fact that our submarines became quieter and faster underwater than IJN, which increased evaded detection. The crew often made changes that increased performance of the boat, one example is the problem of flooding from the equalizing header and pressurization header of the Porpoise, Shark, and Perch class torpedo tubes. Corrected by isolating the tubes from the headers unless firing, this did require stationing an extra forward watch to allow for quick reaction firing. Our sonar ability grew quickly, helping our ASW efforts. Air ASW contributed largely to the US ASW tactics and target acquisition.

But, ASW DD to ASW DD the IJN harden doctrine made them better at group maneuvers and USN better at single bout prosecution (one on one). A single IJN DD was a target; two were a task force. The USN often relies on the balls factor at the beginning of a war. Our promotion and peace time training in the officer ranks often allows for the best organizer (Administrative officer) to advance while the fighter has a spot on his recorder and is slow to move up.
American ingenuity and guts often determined early war doctrine in the Pacific (on a Shoestring) in my opinion.

I do agree that ASW should be a seperate rating and should be considered as an add/multiplier with the units day/night rating, which would include their profitiancy with multiply unit maneuvering in the dark (a complicated issue),

(in reply to ReDDoN45)
Post #: 15
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Own ASW Experience 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