Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

4K altitude is still too high to consistently spot subs. During the day they are submerged and all you spot is a periscope, so you need to be quite low.
At night, 4K is too high to spot anything too.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

Naval Search missions are not that good at spotting subs - they can, but not very well. ASW missions (with ASW skilled pilots) do far better at spotting subs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wargmr
I go 5K to 6K for subs and 11K for general search.

Somewhere I read that 5K - 6K was optimal for subs. I have no clue about the veracity of this information but I seem to spot them pretty easy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

Its not about the actually loss but Japanese subs ability to completely disregard any and all ASW effort.

I had 12 CATs + 24 Hudsons doing NavS over the TF. All TBs/DBs where doing 50 NavS/20ASW. Long Island had 15 TBs doing ASW. I had 4 ASW TFs in the same hex. 2 leading and 2 trailing. The TF had 64 ASW value in itself. And they could just as well have not been there. Absolutely silly. Just as when I lost Ent. Its a joke and a bad one. Whats the point of even trying if the only thing you can do is leave your CVs in port? Every time I move my CVs I get a lump in my throat because I know that regardless of what I do my CVs are completely defenseless against Japanese subs. It doesnt matter if I have good leaders, good training and make every effort to avoid his subs the just magically pop up in the middle of the CV. All Jeff has to do is to get a sub in the same hex as an Allied CV and its a done deal.

If my subs where doing half as good half of KB would have been gone by now. Sick of it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

It was 12 DDs in the TF. All newly upgraded. Some had 8 ASW value.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

Its not about the actually loss but Japanese subs ability to completely disregard any and all ASW effort.

I had 12 CATs + 24 Hudsons doing NavS over the TF. All TBs/DBs where doing 50 NavS/20ASW. Long Island had 15 TBs doing ASW. I had 4 ASW TFs in the same hex. 2 leading and 2 trailing. The TF had 64 ASW value in itself. And they could just as well have not been there. Absolutely silly. Just as when I lost Ent. Its a joke and a bad one. Whats the point of even trying if the only thing you can do is leave your CVs in port? Every time I move my CVs I get a lump in my throat because I know that regardless of what I do my CVs are completely defenseless against Japanese subs. It doesnt matter if I have good leaders, good training and make every effort to avoid his subs the just magically pop up in the middle of the CV. All Jeff has to do is to get a sub in the same hex as an Allied CV and its a done deal.

If my subs where doing half as good half of KB would have been gone by now. Sick of it.

Does the CR show the complete TF OOB? If so I don't see how you get 64 ASW value out of four DDs. Of course, ASW value doesn't add like that either. Each ship gets considered as itself. There's no additive heft to having lots of ASW-capable ships in the TF other than you get more passes through to detect and engage the sub.

Four DDs is too few in this era for a CV TF.

Were the DDs upgraded?

Air Search is poor at finding subs, especially early on. Air ASW, and 1000 feet.

All that said, sometimes the other guy gets lucky. But you could reduce his luck with seven DDs instead of four.

I lost Enterprise to a sub on December 15, 1941. That week at least. It hurts. You play on. As others have said, open the ship queue and look at 1944. I'm IN 1944 and I just did that this week. It helps.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

It was 12 DDs in the TF. All newly upgraded. Some had 8 ASW value.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

I have 8 DDs with each CV TF almost always. Maybe it goes down to 6, but not for long. Then, some DDs go with my 18 knot AOs that I use with my CVs. Third, my SC TF get some DDs. Once I get enough DDs, then I have each CV TF ordered to follow a single ASW TF. I know its extra micro-management, but I even use arcs for my ASW FPs within the CV TF to increase odds. Like you, I tend to fear enemy subs in '42 more than KB.

quote:

ORIGINAL: IJV

Can't bring your boat back, but some thoughts:

My understanding is that firing chances on a per-ship basis are primarily (or at least significantly) to do with speed, and speed differentials - slow ships will fire less often, fast ships more often (this is more or less observable if you put, say, one of the 19kt AA sloops up against a similarly armed destroyer - you'd think they'd hit each other more or less as often, and yet... - similarly it's why the US gets so much mileage out of groups of Fletcher DDs (38kts!) and why the old slow battleships tend to get implausibly clowned on as surf combatants - the low speeds mean less shooting, not just more getting shot at); so, with the carrier, you're lining a 'fast' submarine (the more nauseating of the IJN ones, like I-170 & I-171 among others, are rated for 23kts) for shots at 'slow' cruising warships which AIUI will be doing 15kts until they get shot at.

For the Brits vs Kongos the situation will be reversed - you have a 15kt submarine trying to shoot at a battlecruiser doing ~30kts (since they tend to rush about on the way into/out from bombardments), which will tend not to work out so well.

It's possible that I'm wrong about the particulars of this and that the submarines are assumed to use their cruising speed when running the numbers...in which case you'd be doing 15kts vs 15kts (KD6A vs CV) against 10kts vs 30kts (Brit T vs Kongo). Would change odds but not relative difference so much.

quote:

ORIGINAL: IJV

So - mechanically that's your problem, I guess, without even getting into stuff like torpedo range, accuracy etc. Practically speaking I suspect most of the submarines (both Allied and JP) are in practice too fast - since the way movements/searches etc run is a bit out of order with regards to getting detection on the things they'll be spotted by aircraft from moving ships less often than they should be, but also in the sense that they regularly hit things that it's...debatable whether they should be hitting on the regular (imagine this concept in WITPAE: 'this ship is fast enough to be mostly immune to submarine interception and therefore does not require escort' - then get back to me in three months when you get both of your 30kt liners out of the yards after they both got blapped by the same submarine on the same day...not that I've had that happen multiple times or anything).

quote:

ORIGINAL: IJV

e: it is kind of a shame that there's no 'fast-ish cruise', or even better a customizable speed setting - being able to wind a fleet up to 25kts or so without requiring them to go absolutely flat out would be hugely helpful and more reflective of the sort of thing you'd find, say, a carrier group doing in a dangerous area...but here we are.

quote:

Air Search is poor at finding subs, especially early on. Air ASW, and 1000 feet.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: IJV

So - mechanically that's your problem, I guess, without even getting into stuff like torpedo range, accuracy etc. Practically speaking I suspect most of the submarines (both Allied and JP) are in practice too fast - since the way movements/searches etc run is a bit out of order with regards to getting detection on the things they'll be spotted by aircraft from moving ships less often than they should be, but also in the sense that they regularly hit things that it's...debatable whether they should be hitting on the regular (imagine this concept in WITPAE: 'this ship is fast enough to be mostly immune to submarine interception and therefore does not require escort' - then get back to me in three months when you get both of your 30kt liners out of the yards after they both got blapped by the same submarine on the same day...not that I've had that happen multiple times or anything).

I disagree here, with qualifications. There is no submerged speed modeled in terms of the sub moving around the map; however, subs are also treated as if they are on the surface 95% of the time. The only time they're treated as submerged is during the attack routine.

quote:

ORIGINAL: poodlebrain

The KB doesn't seem to have any problem with detecting and avoiding Allied subs, even early on.

quote:

ORIGINAL: poodlebrain

quote:

Air Search is poor at finding subs, especially early on. Air ASW, and 1000 feet.

The KB doesn't seem to have any problem with detecting and avoiding Allied subs, even early on.

quote:

ORIGINAL: IJV

The J also have access to longer-ranged search aircraft, at least initially - I think how it ends up working is that you need to search out at least as far as your TF is going, so if moving in a straight line 4h in the morning and 4h in the afternoon you'd need to search out to 4 at a minimum to have any detection on things at your destination; if you have the option to search out to 10 (as the IJN initially do and the Allies initially don't) with a giant pile of floatplanes that don't have anything else to do then you're massively improving odds of detection at destination as they have the potential to pick things up earlier in the day.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

FPs in general should all have their SR rating increased to cut down their daily availability, IMO.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

This is just mind mindbogglingly stupid AI behavior. I could possibly have had a chance to save her. But now I will definitively lose her and its a pretty good chance I will lose San Juan as well. I think the only thing really I could do here is scuttle WASP and detach 4 DDs at full speed to merge with San Juan hoping they will get there before the subs sink her.

This is exactly how I lost Lex. She was damaged by gunfire but NOT in sinking condition. The engine decided she had enough and moved her to a escort TF. It then decided that out of all the DDs in the hex one was enough which obviously it wasnt and then she was sunk by a sub.

Not going to do the turn today. Still too pissed off and this didnt help.

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

If this is the fist look after the attack I agree it's going to be tough. I think with DDs heading to merge they will arrive before the attack phase. If it's an escort TF any other kind of ASW ship can get in there too, so AMs from Oz could help.

If you get her out of mission into cruise and head for the closest port, which is Newcastle I guess, it could still turn out all right.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Jocke, all Allied players understand your despair. I know you need a few hours to recover your equilibrium. I also know that you know that soon you'll feel fine and that, a bit later, Allied production will make you feel really fine.

But don't let your opponent know when things bother you. You want him to think that everything's peachy, even when your fit to be tied.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

Just rubs me the wrong way when you go through so much effort and all the other side have to do is get a sub in the same hex and its a done deal. Especially when it happens for the 2nd time in just a couple of months.

I probably shouldn´t be so vocal about it tho.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

Just rubs me the wrong way when you go through so much effort and all the other side have to do is get a sub in the same hex and its a done deal. Especially when it happens for the 2nd time in just a couple of months.

I probably shouldn´t be so vocal about it tho.

I don't get these results, and Loka is a very good sub driver. Maybe you do too much ASW? Maybe it gets in its own way, code-wise.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Based upon my relatively limited experience, I have not been overly impressed with the ability of SBDs and TBFs (or of Kates and Vals) to suppress enemy subs. I believe that having dedicated ASW TFs present in the hex (as contrasted to DDs in the TF) is far more important. But my sample pool is relatively modest.

I'd give especial weight to the Moose's observations. He's served on subs, they therefore hold a special place in his AE heart, and he works sub doctrine overtime in his games. He probably knows alot more than the average Joe.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

Also, within the ASW TFs three ships is best, four do not perform as well (my observations again, but I did not record all the results to be able to quantify it).

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Based upon my relatively limited experience, I have not been overly impressed with the ability of SBDs and TBFs (or of Kates and Vals) to suppress enemy subs. I believe that having dedicated ASW TFs present in the hex (as contrasted to DDs in the TF) is far more important. But my sample pool is relatively modest.

I'd give especial weight to the Moose's observations. He's served on subs, they therefore hold a special place in his AE heart, and he works sub doctrine overtime in his games. He probably knows alot more than the average Joe.

When I started playing AE and haunting the forum the GreyJoy and rader game was going. I learned a lot from that game. Since I had started a PBEM as the Japanese I payed close attention to what rader was doing. He was playing another game then too where he tackled Russia and took the Allies into 46.

He had a very good system for killing Allied subs. He used all planes available, but I remember a note somewhere where he mentioned Kates were his most successful sub killers.

I've found that to be true too, but it takes some work. The two bombs of a TB give it another opportunity to hit and if trained up these devastate the Allied subs. GreyJoy had to set bands of patrols outside ASW range to keep his sub pools up.

Air ASW is too strong in this game (the Bull outlines this meticulously in many posts over the years), but as we know there are balances for both sides in many facets of the game. TBs though are among the best and if trained up to 70 ASW, it's tough to get near them without taking a hit.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

The first time I read Moose's post, I thought he was saying: "I don't understand the results your getting here." (implying that he was puzzled by the events).

I read it again and understood him to be saying: "I don't experience the kind of results you're experiencing wtih respect to Japanese subs."

I agree with Moose. I suppose the overall results of sub wars in AE games resembles a bell-shaped curve, with perhaps Jocke at the extreme end. But the question is whether it's just bad luck for him or whether there are any number of factors influencing these results: Is Lowpe employing unusually good sub tactics? Is Jocke doing anything that isn't helping? Etc.

Based upon my relatively limited experience, I have not been overly impressed with the ability of SBDs and TBFs (or of Kates and Vals) to suppress enemy subs. I believe that having dedicated ASW TFs present in the hex (as contrasted to DDs in the TF) is far more important. But my sample pool is relatively modest.

I'd give especial weight to the Moose's observations. He's served on subs, they therefore hold a special place in his AE heart, and he works sub doctrine overtime in his games. He probably knows alot more than the average Joe.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

That said, I have to contribute the admission that part of the reason Bullwinkle hasn't seen these sorts of results is because my subs just don't get to attack much anymore. 1944 Allied ASW really beats them up. They spend a lot of time in port. I try to be unpredictable about when I use them .