Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

(Dumb?) Question: Naval Search vs. ASW

 
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 >> (Dumb?) Question: Naval Search vs. ASW Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
(Dumb?) Question: Naval Search vs. ASW - 5/25/2011 4:32:17 PM   
MosheDayan

 

Posts: 12
Joined: 12/9/2010
Status: offline 		I've been setting up Naval Search at 6000 and ASW at 1000, but don't seem to be spotting many enemy subs. Interestingly, my CV airgroups seem to be master sub spotters (with most DB's at 30% Naval Search). So that lead me to question my strategy. Simple question: does ASW actually spot subs, or does it just (potentially) attack subs that have been spotted by Naval Search? If the latter, would an optimal search regime from the same port be all three of a) Nav Search at 6000 [to spot enemy TFs); b) Nav Search at 1000 [to spot enemy subs] and c) ASW at 1000 [to attack spotted subs]?

_____________________________

"If you want to make peace, you don't talk to your friends. You talk to your enemies." - Moshe Dayan
Post #: 1
RE: (Dumb?) Question: Naval Search vs. ASW - 5/25/2011 5:58:53 PM   
Rob Brennan UK


Posts: 3685
Joined: 8/24/2002
From: London UK
Status: offline 		ASW does spot anything within 1/2 its range , BUT I think its not as efficient as search orders. While A/C on search can attack subs its a lot less likely than with ASW orders.

Being early war you might well find your pilots experience is awful for ASW , it will need training up before it becomes any use (for me 65+) ..

_____________________________

sorry for the spelling . English is my main language , I just can't type . and i'm too lazy to edit :)

(in reply to MosheDayan)
Post #: 2
RE: (Dumb?) Question: Naval Search vs. ASW - 5/25/2011 6:15:46 PM   
vettim89


Posts: 3615
Joined: 7/14/2007
From: Toledo, Ohio
Status: offline 		Oh and BTW, there almost no truly dumb questions to ask when it comes to AE. The game is so complex that it can be almost overwhelming to new players. Do not hesitate to ask. You will find that most of the Forum members are both very knwledgable and quite helpful no matter how basic the question may seem to you

(Certain monosylabic residents of the Jutland Penisula excluded)

_____________________________

"We have met the enemy and they are ours" - Commodore O.H. Perry

(in reply to Rob Brennan UK)
Post #: 3
RE: (Dumb?) Question: Naval Search vs. ASW - 5/25/2011 7:37:55 PM   
khyberbill


Posts: 1941
Joined: 9/11/2007
From: new milford, ct
Status: offline
quote:

my CV airgroups seem to be master sub spotters

These are probably the pilots with the highest EXP too. In AE, I find that I need DD's and DE's to kill subs. In my current PBEM that is to 2/44 I have sunk 57 Japanese subs and only 10 of these have been by bombs, 2 by torpedo, 5 unknowns and the rest by DC.

_____________________________

"Its a dog eat dog world Sammy and I am wearing Milkbone underwear" -Norm.

(in reply to MosheDayan)
Post #: 4
RE: (Dumb?) Question: Naval Search vs. ASW - 5/25/2011 8:55:29 PM   
MosheDayan

 

Posts: 12
Joined: 12/9/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: khyberbill

quote:

my CV airgroups seem to be master sub spotters

These are probably the pilots with the highest EXP too. In AE, I find that I need DD's and DE's to kill subs. In my current PBEM that is to 2/44 I have sunk 57 Japanese subs and only 10 of these have been by bombs, 2 by torpedo, 5 unknowns and the rest by DC.

quote:

its not as efficient as search orders. While A/C on search can attack subs its a lot less likely than with ASW orders.


Though with a less extensive sample size, I too find that the only effective way to kill a sub is with a DD (or equiv.). So the question for me becomes whether or not to have any airgroups at all trained in ASW. If the idea is to use DDs to hunt them down once spotted, then it makes more sense to have all aircraft train on NavS to spot the subs (assuming that this is the most effective spotting methodology), and then vector in the DDs once spotted. Does anyone do this (i.e. not bother with ASW, and just train all pilots on NavS)?

_____________________________

"If you want to make peace, you don't talk to your friends. You talk to your enemies." - Moshe Dayan

(in reply to khyberbill)
Post #: 5
RE: (Dumb?) Question: Naval Search vs. ASW - 5/25/2011 9:09:22 PM   
jmalter

 

Posts: 1673
Joined: 10/12/2010
Status: offline 		imo, sub-hunter pilots need both LowN & ASW skill before they become effective sub-killers.

(in reply to khyberbill)
Post #: 6
RE: (Dumb?) Question: Naval Search vs. ASW - 5/25/2011 9:21:52 PM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline 		When air unit ASW skill is over 60, you start to get decent number of attacks.

_____________________________

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


(in reply to jmalter)
Post #: 7
RE: (Dumb?) Question: Naval Search vs. ASW - 5/25/2011 10:41:00 PM   
inqistor


Posts: 1813
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline 		There was some discussion about this some times ago, and it seems nobody knows for sure.

Interesting question is, does plane makes standard attack against SS after detection? If so, does it use one of the attack skill, and altitude (so, 10k for dive for DB)?

(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 8
RE: (Dumb?) Question: Naval Search vs. ASW - 5/26/2011 5:00:27 AM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline 		MosheDayan,

Have a look at this thread.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2653621&mpage=1&key=sub%2Cspotting�

Alfred

(in reply to inqistor)
Post #: 9
RE: (Dumb?) Question: Naval Search vs. ASW - 5/26/2011 6:14:41 AM   
Fallschirmjager


Posts: 6793
Joined: 3/18/2002
From: Chattanooga, Tennessee
Status: offline 		This is a good thread to ask a question. I have a new PBEM with DivePac and it is Dec 21st. I am the Allies and of course at the begining of the game I am mostly on the defensive. I have a lot of useless bombers in places like PH and the West coast.
In old games I almost always put these bombers on ASW in the early game since there is not really much else good to do with them. But of course most of them have ASW in the 20-30 range.
So my question is, what is better. To put these units on ASW and let them get better through practice or should I put them on rotational ASW training?
And if I train them, what is the ideal range and altitude?
And does it matter if they are not near water? Can I put say, the units in the Eastern US on ASW training even though they are not near the ocean?

Even with the super low ratings they still spot subs a decent amount of the time. They just never make attacks. Is a spotted sub less likely to make a successful attack?

Lots of questions there, but I have been wanting to ask for a long time.

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 10
RE: (Dumb?) Question: Naval Search vs. ASW - 5/26/2011 8:48:20 AM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline 		I train some bomber units extensively to ASW skill and they train just fine wherever they are. And Eastern USA can well be near water, lot of bomber training was done in Tampa Bay, FL in real life.

Even spotting sub is important, since it reduces the chance of successful attack on ships. When you get ASW to 60-70, you start to get hits. I think michaelm (or might be JWE or Don) said that only Exp and ASW matters in attack, so no need to train LowN etc. I am not sure if NavSearch effects the spotting, though.

_____________________________

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


(in reply to Fallschirmjager)
Post #: 11
RE: (Dumb?) Question: Naval Search vs. ASW - 5/26/2011 8:52:38 AM   
Banzan

 

Posts: 288
Joined: 3/13/2010
From: Bremen, Germany
Status: offline 		Flying ASW will train ASW very very slow, so train them, but keep in mind that pilots with 50 skill will train very very slow, too (i rotate these bomberpilots with 48+ exp in some units training ground attack).

Fill some units up to max with new pilots and train them till 60-70 skill (exp will still be very lowish) and start using them in critical areas, but where you can use ASW TFs. Always keep an eye on ac range as ASW range is halfed and rounded down (if i remember right).
Altitude for training seems to be not important and it doesn't matter if they are close to water or train spotting subs in the mountains. I use Wirraways for training ASW within the deserts of australia.

Let the planes detect the subs and use ASW TFs with max reaction in the area. They will react on spotted subs and get the kills (TF commander with very high naval rating). You can be ready to start killing your first subs around PH, the westcoast or australia/nz by feb/march '42.

Depending on your situation, you can use untrained pilots to just find subs, but you won't have "free" DDs for the ASW groups to kill them. At least i use all my DDs, DMs and DMSs in the first 2-3 month to escort evac TFs, LCU transports and get supplies and fuel lines working.


Last:
Keep an eye on your bombload. A 250 lb bomb is quite different to a 250 kg bomb in effency. Most allied planes use smaller bombs and will need serveral hits to kill a sub, while the japanese use bigger bombs and can kill subs (and ships) more easy.


(in reply to Fallschirmjager)
Post #: 12
RE: (Dumb?) Question: Naval Search vs. ASW - 5/26/2011 8:53:28 AM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Even spotting sub is important, since it reduces the chance of successful attack on ships. When you get ASW to 60-70, you start to get hits. I think michaelm (or might be JWE or Don) said that only Exp and ASW matters in attack, so no need to train LowN etc.

Experience shows this is wrong. In two games so far I've seen lots of attacks on my subs in known patrol zones with no hits over a very long time, while also witnessing subs sometimes destroyed by airgroups with abysmal ASW but very good NavB and I can only conclude that bombing skill does matter.

(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 13
RE: (Dumb?) Question: Naval Search vs. ASW - 5/26/2011 9:14:22 AM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Even spotting sub is important, since it reduces the chance of successful attack on ships. When you get ASW to 60-70, you start to get hits. I think michaelm (or might be JWE or Don) said that only Exp and ASW matters in attack, so no need to train LowN etc.

Experience shows this is wrong. In two games so far I've seen lots of attacks on my subs in known patrol zones with no hits over a very long time, while also witnessing subs sometimes destroyed by airgroups with abysmal ASW but very good NavB and I can only conclude that bombing skill does matter.


Quick quote from devs:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2340026&mpage=1&key=ASW%2CLow%2CNaval?

Naval search skill enables the planes to find the subs, ASW skill is how they do after finding it.



< Message edited by Sardaukar -- 5/26/2011 9:15:16 AM >

_____________________________

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


(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 14
RE: (Dumb?) Question: Naval Search vs. ASW - 5/26/2011 2:54:57 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jmalter

imo, sub-hunter pilots need both LowN & ASW skill before they become effective sub-killers.




No, I don't know that low naval applies here. ASW is the key skill along with experience. As the early war Allied player the problem for me was the lack of patrol squadrons. The biggest priority was naval search and that is what I trained my patrol pilots-and B17 pilots for. I felt is was better to spot carriers and STFs rather than kill subs. Now that I have enough squadrons. I train my navy patrol pilots in two ways. Search and low naval. (for ship killing bombers) and search and ASW (usually for the cats) I now almost always add a skill to my dive bomber and avenger pilots and that skill is usually ASW. But I don't really try to push skill two high. The reason is that the recent flood of DDs, DEs and the excellent patrol frigates has pretty much negated any sub threat. Heck even Allied minesweepers and SCs get very deadly. The air patrol is useful for spottin subs but the ships do 90% of the killing.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to jmalter)
Post #: 15
RE: (Dumb?) Question: Naval Search vs. ASW - 5/26/2011 3:23:05 PM   
jeffk3510


Posts: 4132
Joined: 12/3/2007
From: Kansas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Even spotting sub is important, since it reduces the chance of successful attack on ships. When you get ASW to 60-70, you start to get hits. I think michaelm (or might be JWE or Don) said that only Exp and ASW matters in attack, so no need to train LowN etc.

Experience shows this is wrong. In two games so far I've seen lots of attacks on my subs in known patrol zones with no hits over a very long time, while also witnessing subs sometimes destroyed by airgroups with abysmal ASW but very good NavB and I can only conclude that bombing skill does matter.


Quick quote from devs:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2340026&mpage=1&key=ASW%2CLow%2CNaval?

Naval search skill enables the planes to find the subs, ASW skill is how they do after finding it.



So, are you saying that if I am looking for subs, and then sending out ASW ships, I should do Naval Search and not ASW?



_____________________________

Life is tough. The sooner you realize that, the easier it will be.

Currently chasing three kids around the Midwest.

(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 16
RE: (Dumb?) Question: Naval Search vs. ASW - 5/26/2011 4:00:54 PM   
MosheDayan

 

Posts: 12
Joined: 12/9/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

MosheDayan,

Have a look at this thread.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2653621&mpage=1&key=sub%2Cspotting?

Alfred


Thanks Alfred - as always very helpful, though I must say that there are lots of contradictory opinions there (in addition to the whole rudeness to the devs part of the thread). I'm still not 100% sure if ASW is only about attacking a detected sub, or if it's also used to detect subs (or rather, if it's equally effective in spotting as NavS). Neither am I sure whether or not other skills come into play (e.g. NavS for spotting, or bombing skills like LowN for attacking). I'm not so concerned at this point about the planes attacking the subs as I wonder about spotting. Again, the dbs around my carrier TFs seem to spot every sub (they are generally on Nav Search 30%, at about 13000 ft, with admittedly very high xp, reasonable NavS and low ASW), while dedicated ASW air groups with reasonable ASW skills (mid 60's) seem to spot them only rarely (and not because the subs aren't there - I keep getting recce'd by Glens). At any rate, this isn't crucial, but it seems that there's little consensus on the topic (except that to hit subs using ASW you need 70+ ASW skill).

On a side note, the search functionality of the Matrix site is still buggy, and I think it has to do with what browser you're using. Works pretty well at home on Firefox 4, but almost never at work using IE.

EDIT: "Naval search skill enables the planes to find the subs, ASW skill is how they do after finding it. "

Ok. If that's what the devs say, then that means I misunderstood the purpose of ASW (which I had thought was to do both find them and kill them). Problem solved. Thanks all for chiming in. This might be a good time to mention that WITP:AE is a game I've been waiting for since I started wargaming in the 1970's (anyone remember the Avalon Hill board game... I think it was called Rising Sun?). Thanks to all who made it possible.

< Message edited by MosheDayan -- 5/26/2011 4:06:23 PM >

_____________________________

"If you want to make peace, you don't talk to your friends. You talk to your enemies." - Moshe Dayan

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 17
RE: (Dumb?) Question: Naval Search vs. ASW - 5/26/2011 4:10:10 PM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jeffk3510

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Even spotting sub is important, since it reduces the chance of successful attack on ships. When you get ASW to 60-70, you start to get hits. I think michaelm (or might be JWE or Don) said that only Exp and ASW matters in attack, so no need to train LowN etc.

Experience shows this is wrong. In two games so far I've seen lots of attacks on my subs in known patrol zones with no hits over a very long time, while also witnessing subs sometimes destroyed by airgroups with abysmal ASW but very good NavB and I can only conclude that bombing skill does matter.


Quick quote from devs:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2340026&mpage=1&key=ASW%2CLow%2CNaval?

Naval search skill enables the planes to find the subs, ASW skill is how they do after finding it.



So, are you saying that if I am looking for subs, and then sending out ASW ships, I should do Naval Search and not ASW?




Err..no.

You of course could, but this sentence did mean that your ASW planes should have both NavalSearch & ASW skill high, to kill subs. They spot subs based on NavS and attack them based on ASW skill.

< Message edited by Sardaukar -- 5/26/2011 4:13:59 PM >

_____________________________

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


(in reply to jeffk3510)
Post #: 18
RE: (Dumb?) Question: Naval Search vs. ASW - 5/26/2011 6:09:42 PM   
Rob Brennan UK


Posts: 3685
Joined: 8/24/2002
From: London UK
Status: offline 		In practise I do the following and it seems to eventually result in some sub hits.

Initially its important to find subs as this suppresses and makes them much less deadly. also as allies you have limited planes for search (although i use medium bombers too and even some B17's if there are no better targets.)

Training groups in the US and India can be set to train search skills and once ready can swap out the worse pilots on map sqdns.

for on map units i set roughly 40% search 40$ training 20% rest and set them to normal range to reduce ops losses. Once these groups are high in Nsearch skills then you can set the to ASW but given you still have the option to set a search %, I keep the search at 40% ASW at 0% and training at 40% , with main mission set for ASW this will train up the ASW skill while the planes perform on map searches. Cross training up pilots for both search and ASW is (i find) the best way to make use of the train commands and results in extra exp too while they fly operationally. If you feel you need LowN this can be done using the exact same methods and you don't lose out on operational units as a bonus.

just my 2p ..

< Message edited by Rob Brennan UK -- 5/26/2011 6:11:02 PM >

_____________________________

sorry for the spelling . English is my main language , I just can't type . and i'm too lazy to edit :)

(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 19
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> (Dumb?) Question: Naval Search vs. ASW 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

2.922