Sub refinements

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Sub refinements

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 >> Sub refinements

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Sub refinements - 1/13/2003 1:29:34 AM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

Well PBEM has certainly been enlightening for me.

The issue of subs of course is not new but i wanted to post a refresher on them after being roughly handled in PBEM by uber-wolf pack operations off bases.

Sub routines need a serious scrubbing. Right now, as all UV players know, Subs in the game are currently unable to "patrol" and can only attack TF's if they happen to land in the same hex at the end of a 12-hour cycle within a game turn.

As such, it makes it extremely difficult, if not impossible for deep water interceptions to happen. (its easier against the AI, which always uses the same or similar routes, humans are a different story)

The result is that players are forced to bunch their subs at or around bases where ships inevitably have to go. The problem is that these shallow water hexes, so close to operating PC and air assets were historically quite dangerous for subs to operate in but the disadvantages of this are not modeled in the game.

Recently IJN ASW was halved in UV. Historically this was a correct move. Unfortunately the minority that protested this move had a very valid point as i have just recently found out. While historically correct, because of the way Subs behave in UV, a far more ahistorical result occurs.......USN players can bunch a half dozen to a dozen subs at a base hex and just have a field day against IJN assets, even old obsolecent S-boats (actually they are the most devastating because their Mk-10's dont suffer dud problems)

Because IJN ASW is so abysmal, these mass "wolf-pack" subs parked right off a base can just shoot away hitting ships left and right and the IJN player can do little about it. In playing a PBEM game and being exposed to this tactic for the first time i've had a dozen incidents of torpedoed ships in less than 3 days. ASW efforts reaped zero kills, I only got one because of a fluke surface engagement between a sub and a charging light cruiser.

My suggestions:

1) penalties for attack and defence need to be assigned to subs that choose to operate in shallow water hexes. This penalty needs to be increased further in the presence of air patrol assets such as in or near a base hex. The attack penalty represents the additional challenge of subs to set up their shots in this high danger area (discovery is much greater than out in deep water hexes, away from aircraft and regular surface patrols)

The defensive penalty is more self explanitory, if discovered, before or after a shot is taken, being attacked in a shallow water hex is far more dangerous for a sub than a deep water hex given a sub's primary source of evasion is to "go deep"

2) the above suggested penalties should not be static but should be modified by sub and sub commander exp, by the absence or presence of radar on the sub, same for escorts and aircraft on ASW, day vs night, and the level and proficiancy of ASW air and surface assets (particularily near or at bases)

3) A genuine "patrol" feature needs to be coded in for subs so that players are not forced to bunch subs around bases in order to secure attacks. My thought would be a limited form of "react to enemy" similar to how carrier TF's behave when set to react. Subs on the map should have range bands that represent to the player this "reaction" zone that, dependant on sub experience, randoms, crypto, and the presence of radar, defines how far a sub might react to reach a hex currently occupied by an enemy TF. This would allow subs to be more properly deployed in safer deep water hexes, and site them along known or suspected routes taken by enemy shipping. When in these deep water hexes, the penalties described in #1 would not be present and with Japanese ASW at its current level, should give historical results in terms of leathality.

The only recourse i can see in the absence of the above suggestions or something similar would be to restore Japanese ASW to what it was so that the IJN player is no longer so vulnerable to mass bunching of subs at base hexes.

Post #: 1

- 1/14/2003 5:49:41 PM

LargeSlowTarget

Posts: 4443
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline

I second those suggestions and would like to add my ideas on #3.

I would like to have player-assigned patrol zones covering several hexes. In UV you can either leave subs on player control and have them sitting in one single hex, or you put them on computer control, and off they go wandering over the map in unpredictable patterns and patroling locations that often are either unimportant or too dangerous, without the slightest regard to the original destination the player gave them.

I'd like to give my subs a destination hex and a patrol range, i.e. orders like 'patrol within x hexes around hex y,z'. The AI sub commander would move the sub around the designated zone, report and engage targets and return to port when out of ammo, low endurance or damaged. In case a certain target is found (priority list) the subs might be allowed to leave their patrol zones to track and attack, but they should return on station if the target is sunk or contact is lost.

I don't think this is 'too tactical', it is operational or even strategic guidance. I think IRL sub skippers weren't just told 'go wherever you want and attack whatever you want'. They were given specific missions, patrol zones and target priorities, 1. to cover convoy routes, choke points, approaches to bases etc., 2. to avoid that subs bunch up at the same hot spot and leaving other sectors uncovered and 3. to conform with the strategic and operational goals.

For WitP I'd also like to see a 'pilot rescue' special operations mission for the Allies, i.e. I would station a sub at an enemy base hex I plan to attack by air with orders to decline combat but to pick up pilots downed by CAP or flak. Lots of allied pilots were saved that way later in the war and it's not 'too tactical' either since the rescue missions surely were coordinated in advance with the operational and strategic planing of the air campaigns and carrier strikes.
Another feature for subs would be recon missions (this 'photos taken through the periscope'-thing) yielding limited intel.

I mean, I can live with the sub routines in UV, it is not a reason to shelve this very good game or not to buy WitP, but those games would be close to perfection and probably the greatest games ever if... [I](well, there are a couple of other 'if' besides this sub issue :()[/I]

_____________________________

AE Mod "Bottlenecks" UPDATED 01/2022

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 2

- 1/15/2003 5:20:03 AM

Yamamoto

Posts: 743
Joined: 11/21/2001
From: Miami, Fl. U.S.A.
Status: offline

I�d like to see IJN ASW restored to its pre-cut level. It�s extremely rare for me to sink a sub these days unless its in a shallow hex (and even that is mostly rare).

Yamamoto

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 3

- 1/15/2003 6:22:47 AM

Grotius

Posts: 5798
Joined: 10/18/2002
From: The Imperial Palace.
Status: offline

I agree that IJN ASW is now too weak in UV. Should we consider posting a similar thread in the UV forum?

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 4

- 1/15/2003 6:38:35 AM

Fred98

Posts: 4430
Joined: 1/5/2001
From: Wollondilly, Sydney
Status: offline

For the allies their best ASW weapon appears to be destroyers and sub chasers.

For the Japanese their best ASW weapons are their float planes. These are great sub killers. Note that you don�t need to kill. But an attack does the great damage and they often must return home before completing their mission.

As for the subs, some have greater endurance than others. The manual says that greater endurance means a sub can dive deeper to avoid depth charges.

So if you were a sub commander in UV, you would rather be a Japanese sub commander and you would rather be in deep water � not in a shallow water hex.

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 5

ASW ideas - 1/15/2003 9:29:32 AM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Hi, I would like
If sub makes surface attack in hex where enemy base is:
CD fire
Any AC on ASW react (still might not find sub, as sub could dive. I am mainly interested in seeing an end to a sub attacking multiple targets located inside enemy base hex.)
Other ships in TF fire at sub if they can see it (check like escorts)
Check to see if sub can even enter hex (Get through sub net)

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 6

- 1/15/2003 11:48:32 AM

Paul Goodman

Posts: 198
Joined: 7/5/2000
From: Portsmouth, VA, USA
Status: offline

I personally believe that the halving of Japanese asw is about right. However, there does need to be severe penalties for operating submarines in an enemy base hex.

I think the real problem in UV is that the S boats are not modeled accurately for vulnerability. Their actual record was dismal, indeed. If the S boats were correctly modeled for vulnerbility, they wouldn't last long at enemy bases. And the game would be accurate as far as U.S. submarine capability, as the fleet submarines hardly ever hit anything due to the torpedoes. Thus, the Japanese would destroy S boats that go in harms way. They would not be very effective against Gato class subs which, in turn, would not be very effective against Japanese shipping due to the torpedoes.

It is important to get the submarines right, with the ability to attack in the open ocean, but NO uber weapons.

Paul

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 7

S Boats were not overly vulnerable - 1/20/2003 12:06:01 AM

Ron Saueracker

Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Paul Goodman
[B]I personally believe that the halving of Japanese asw is about right. However, there does need to be severe penalties for operating submarines in an enemy base hex.

I think the real problem in UV is that the S boats are not modeled accurately for vulnerability. Their actual record was dismal, indeed. If the S boats were correctly modeled for vulnerbility, they wouldn't last long at enemy bases. And the game would be accurate as far as U.S. submarine capability, as the fleet submarines hardly ever hit anything due to the torpedoes. Thus, the Japanese would destroy S boats that go in harms way. They would not be very effective against Gato class subs which, in turn, would not be very effective against Japanese shipping due to the torpedoes.

It is important to get the submarines right, with the ability to attack in the open ocean, but NO uber weapons.

Paul [/B][/QUOTE]

During the "Battle of Lingayan Gulf", the name used to describe the woefully late response to the Japanese invasion landing there by the Americans through the use of Asiatic subs, Lucius "Moon" Chapple in S38 repeatededly attacked IJN shipping (sinking a transport) in the gulf. He was repeatedly attacked in very shallow water but escaped. The S Boats did have a shallow diving depth, 200-250 ft, but were extremely maneuverable and faster underwater than fleet boats.
The main problem with S Boats was machinery and other defects. In UV, they should have correspondingly higher instances of system damage (or at least require longer to get them seaworthy, and should have a possibility of breakdown, requiring cessation of ops. Breakdowns would then, of course, have to be added overall to the database as all ships sufferred them. Notably the machinery stunk on the Junyo class CVs, Ryuho, some IJN subs, HOR engined USN fleet boats etc.

_____________________________

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 8

Unrealistic Wolf Pack attacks. - 1/20/2003 12:30:09 AM

Ron Saueracker

Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline

Historically subs never operated together with a few exceptions, these being highly trained German subs (who did not really have to worry about enemy subs in their op areas as they had no surface assets there to warrant the presence of enemy subs), the odd USN 3 boat wolf pack in late 44 on, and perhaps a few rare occassions for special ops. This was done to reduce the chances of friendly fire. Lets not talk about IJN sub scouting/picket lines as stacking them all in same hex is not a line in my book, especially considering the hex size.

Simple and obvious solution is to make it impossible for subs to remain in same hex (aside from their home base, obviously). They did not historically, so why in UV? Players will say they have to because subs can't intercept TFs in transit. This is a moot point now as Kid has mentioned in the forums that subs will be able to intercept TFs in transit in WITP. Simply allow this in UV as well. This will reduce effectiveness of subs as they are spread out and we won't need to tweak either sides ASW as I believe, anyway, that they are more accurate than previous versions.

Nikademus: I like your enemy base ASW asset penalty idea.:)

_____________________________

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 9

- 1/28/2003 11:52:34 AM

Snigbert

Posts: 2956
Joined: 1/27/2002
From: Worcester, MA. USA
Status: offline

Since a WitP hex is 50 miles across, I think it is ok to have more than one sub in a hex.

More than one sub in a TF would be a closer simulation of a wolf pack, in my opion. Perhaps that should be prohibited.

_____________________________

"Money doesnt talk, it swears. Obscenities, who really cares?" -Bob Dylan

"Habit is the balast that chains a dog to it's vomit." -Samuel Becket

"He has weapons of mass destruction- the world's deadliest weapons- which pose a direct threat to the

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 10

- 1/29/2003 4:29:53 AM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

I havn't noticed any real difference between stacking multiple sub TF's in one hex (with one sub each) and one big sub TF with multiple units so dont see what good would come of a such a prohibition.

Rather, I think a better idea would be to increase enemy ASW alert levels, the more subs that enter one single hex. (to represent the increased chance of spotting such enemy activitiy)

While effectiveness of said ASW would not benefit, the more subs that lurk in the same hex, the more alert it should make the defense (assuming it is also present......such as at a base hex)

As with UV, while the hex itself may be X miles wide, the game engine pretty much treats it as a "base hex" if one judges by the frequency of attacks and sightings that occur.

Another idea to simulate the "wolf pack" challenges, would be to lower attacking efficiency/frequency as sub TF's either stack or a singular multi unit TF enters said hex. Similar to the diminishing returns rule in place for overstuffed surface TF's trying to get the most AA one can squeeze out.

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 11

Re: Sub refinements - 2/1/2003 5:13:01 AM

siRkid

Posts: 6650
Joined: 1/29/2002
From: Orland FL
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nikademus
[B]Right now, as all UV players know, Subs in the game are currently unable to "patrol" and can only attack TF's if they happen to land in the same hex at the end of a 12-hour cycle within a game turn.

As such, it makes it extremely difficult, if not impossible for deep water interceptions to happen. (its easier against the AI, which always uses the same or similar routes, humans are a different story)

[/B][/QUOTE]

This has been fixed in WITP. Subs now have a chance of intercepting a TF that passes through the hex they are in.

Rick

_____________________________

Former War in the Pacific Test Team Manager and Beta Tester for War in the East.