Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Allied ASW

 
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 >> Allied ASW Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Allied ASW - 11/18/2004 1:11:52 PM   
Sonny

 

Posts: 2008
Joined: 4/3/2002
Status: offline 		Was it really toned down?

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 04/27/42

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASW attack at 51,95

Japanese Ships
SS I-25, hits 11, on fire, heavy damage

Allied Ships
AK Ewa
AK Corrales
AK Walter Luckenbach
AK J.L. Luckenbach
APD Gregory
DD Hammann
DD Anderson



< Message edited by Sonny -- 11/18/2004 6:12:05 AM >

_____________________________

Quote from Snigbert -

"If you mess with the historical accuracy, you're going to have ahistorical outcomes."

"I'll say it again for Sonny's sake: If you mess with historical accuracy, you're going to have
ahistorical outcomes. "
Post #: 1
RE: Allied ASW - 11/18/2004 4:56:22 PM   
PJJ

 

Posts: 167
Joined: 7/10/2004
Status: offline 		In my opinion, no. Allied ASW TF's (or DD's in any other TF) are capable of destroying huge amounts of Jap subs extremely quickly. And they do this in rather early stages of the war, when the Americans especially shouldn't have too much experience at ASW.

Japanese ASW capability seems to be OK, as they only rarely hit Allied subs with depth charges.

_____________________________

"But here we are in a chamber pot, about to be ****ted upon."

-French General Auguste Ducrot before the Battle of Sedan, September 1870

(in reply to Sonny)
Post #: 2
RE: Allied ASW - 11/18/2004 5:26:28 PM   
Feinder


Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline 		Just to split hairs but...

The USN were not a bunch of neophytes at ASW. They didn't wake up on December 7th, 1941 and say, "Holy crap, there are these new thingies called subs! And they're gonna kick our butts if we don't kill them! Now which end do we roll these DCs off?".

In WW1, USN destroyers escorted convoys, and blunted the U-boat threat. From 1939 thru 1941, the USN was escorting convoys and performing ASW duties alongside their RN allies. I do -not- think there should be any sort of -experience- penalty for the USN ASW. Frankly, the tactics on how to find/kill a sub didn't change much after 1941, it was the sub tactics and the ASW weapons we employed against them that got better.

I think the real issue is, the accuracy rating of the DCs (which evidently includes SONAR by default, which is not entirely accurate), and/or the number of shots per salvo should be reduced. I also think there should be a penalty, similar to the AAA penalty, that creates a "diminishing return" for packing 20 ships in the TF. So as with AAA, not all ships get to participate; in ASW, you'd only get a max of 6 ships getting to attack (in convoy or ASW). But now (appearently), all ships in the convoy/ASW get a shot at locating and attacking the sub.

Also be aware that players are far more agressive with their subs (and every other ship for that matter) than our historical counterparts. Regardless of type, most navies were only fielding 20 - 30% of their assets at a time (on a good day). We on the other hand, throw everything out to sea 24-7, our deployment level is usually about 90%. When you've got that much stuff in the water, both using aggressive tactics, there's bound to be lots of action, which simply hurries along everyone's demise.

My 2 pfennigs.
-F-

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me


(in reply to PJJ)
Post #: 3
RE: Allied ASW - 11/18/2004 5:36:16 PM   
Twotribes


Posts: 6929
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline 		No No, it cant be how they are used, it must be the routines.

(in reply to Sonny)
Post #: 4
RE: Allied ASW - 11/18/2004 5:51:24 PM   
Ron Saueracker


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

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

No No, it cant be how they are used, it must be the routines.


Facetious?

_____________________________





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

(in reply to Twotribes)
Post #: 5
RE: Allied ASW - 11/18/2004 6:01:37 PM   
Twotribes


Posts: 6929
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline 		The program is just that, a program, it can and will have strange things happen, no matter how well it is written, since it uses a randomizer to determine hits. My question is how come the sub didnt sink with 11 hits, you sure it wasnt on the surface and got gunned not depth charged?

(in reply to Sonny)
Post #: 6
RE: Allied ASW - 11/18/2004 6:13:14 PM   
KPAX


Posts: 735
Joined: 6/3/2004
From: Where the heart is; Home of the Fighting Irish
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Feinder

Just to split hairs but...

The USN were not a bunch of neophytes at ASW. They didn't wake up on December 7th, 1941 and say, "Holy crap, there are these new thingies called subs! And they're gonna kick our butts if we don't kill them! Now which end do we roll these DCs off?".

In WW1, USN destroyers escorted convoys, and blunted the U-boat threat. From 1939 thru 1941, the USN was escorting convoys and performing ASW duties alongside their RN allies. I do -not- think there should be any sort of -experience- penalty for the USN ASW. Frankly, the tactics on how to find/kill a sub didn't change much after 1941, it was the sub tactics and the ASW weapons we employed against them that got better.

I think the real issue is, the accuracy rating of the DCs (which evidently includes SONAR by default, which is not entirely accurate), and/or the number of shots per salvo should be reduced. I also think there should be a penalty, similar to the AAA penalty, that creates a "diminishing return" for packing 20 ships in the TF. So as with AAA, not all ships get to participate; in ASW, you'd only get a max of 6 ships getting to attack (in convoy or ASW). But now (appearently), all ships in the convoy/ASW get a shot at locating and attacking the sub.

Also be aware that players are far more agressive with their subs (and every other ship for that matter) than our historical counterparts. Regardless of type, most navies were only fielding 20 - 30% of their assets at a time (on a good day). We on the other hand, throw everything out to sea 24-7, our deployment level is usually about 90%. When you've got that much stuff in the water, both using aggressive tactics, there's bound to be lots of action, which simply hurries along everyone's demise.

My 2 pfennigs.
-F-


Feinder, excellent post and agreed. Allies were aggresive in ASW and had good exp in the Atlantic. IJN thought that ASW was a waste of time and did not work hard at it for a while.

And, players on both sides of the water are VERY aggressive with ASW. Kinda have to be as IJN and Allies see good results.

On throwing most of the ships in the water, I would agree. However, sending a TF from SF to OZ will cause a decent amount of SYS damage. You do that once or twice and the ships will need some repairs or suffer. Overall, I do agree, though.

_____________________________

"War makes Heros on both sides." Hero (the movie)



Thanks !!

KPAX

(in reply to Feinder)
Post #: 7
RE: Allied ASW - 11/18/2004 6:38:09 PM   
medicff

 

Posts: 710
Joined: 9/11/2004
From: WPB, Florida
Status: offline 		I have to agree with Feinder regarding the ASW experience and gameplay. Even with agressive ASW tactics and resources assigned only 3-4 Jap subs sunk (FOW 2 for sure) and 2 allied sunk in January. Maybe a slight tonedown of actual hits would be in store IMHO but otherwise I am satisfied. I haven't tried the Jap side yet so don't know exact results just the complaints here.

(in reply to Feinder)
Post #: 8
RE: Allied ASW - 11/18/2004 6:45:50 PM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline 		What defines aggressive Japanese use....sending subs into combat? So much wrong with the sub combat/ASW model I'm as tired of writing about it as I'm sure they (you?) are reading it.

_____________________________





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

(in reply to medicff)
Post #: 9
RE: Allied ASW - 11/18/2004 7:07:38 PM   
PJJ

 

Posts: 167
Joined: 7/10/2004
Status: offline 		Everybody should try playing as the Japanese and use their subs as they are meant to be used with the sub doctrine on. Give it a try, even if you are fanatic Allied fanboys and can't stand the idea of playing as Tojo.

There IS something wrong with the Allied ASW, even against the AI, who is nowhere near as aggressive as human players. Almost every time my I-Boats attack Allied targets, they are sunk by depth charges. It doesn't matter if they are in deep water or if no Allied planes have spotted them, they die anyway. Almost every time.

Or then I'm doing something terribly wrong or playing a completely different WitP than many of you.

I know the Americans weren't totally inexperienced at ASW in Dec. 1941. But I don't think they were as good and experienced as the British were at that time. And I just can't believe the sub losses I've suffered as the Japanese.

_____________________________

"But here we are in a chamber pot, about to be ****ted upon."

-French General Auguste Ducrot before the Battle of Sedan, September 1870

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 10
RE: Allied ASW - 11/18/2004 7:57:49 PM   
dr. smith

 

Posts: 221
Joined: 6/30/2004
From: lost in space
Status: offline 		Gotta echo Ron "der Sauercrack", tired of all these ASW stuff. at 1 Jan I've sunk ZIPPO IJN boats, they've damaged a couple of mine.

Some others get sunk EVERY time!!!! WOW!!!

gotta think reality is a little in between these 2 samples.

to be honest, though, i don't see the IJN (in WitP) sinking a CV (Wasp) & DD, damaging BB (NC) in a single attack or any number of attacks. with 6-8 DDs even in '42

(in reply to PJJ)
Post #: 11
RE: Allied ASW - 11/18/2004 10:55:31 PM   
Bradley7735


Posts: 2073
Joined: 7/12/2004
Status: offline 		I'm one who hasn't seen a problem. (I'm not saying a problem doesn't exist, I just haven't noticed it).

I'm allies vs AI. It's mid feb 42. I've been trying to sink IJN subs. I got two near Pearl on days 2-5, but I had to sortie ALL ASW ships to do so. That's about 40 DD's.

I've also bagged 2 near Australia. But, I'm trying hard to bag them. I've got about 200 planes on ASW at 1,000 ft between PM, Sydney and Noumea. And I've got all Dutch and Aussie DD's trying to chase down contacts. I think I've damaged two others (one may have sunk, but isn't on the confirmed kills)

My casualties vs IJN subs is CL Java heavily damaged (would have sunk, but one hex from Townsville), two PG's sunk and about 7 AK's & AP's in various states of damage.

So, I've given better than I've taken. But I'm trying hard to sink em. and only 4 or 5 in over two months time. I think that would be a lot, but the first two came from all PH DD's in the first couple of days. So, two more over two months isn't real ugly.

(in reply to dr. smith)
Post #: 12
RE: Allied ASW - 11/18/2004 11:52:41 PM   
Ron Saueracker


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

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

I'm one who hasn't seen a problem. (I'm not saying a problem doesn't exist, I just haven't noticed it).

I'm allies vs AI. It's mid feb 42. I've been trying to sink IJN subs. I got two near Pearl on days 2-5, but I had to sortie ALL ASW ships to do so. That's about 40 DD's.

I've also bagged 2 near Australia. But, I'm trying hard to bag them. I've got about 200 planes on ASW at 1,000 ft between PM, Sydney and Noumea. And I've got all Dutch and Aussie DD's trying to chase down contacts. I think I've damaged two others (one may have sunk, but isn't on the confirmed kills)

My casualties vs IJN subs is CL Java heavily damaged (would have sunk, but one hex from Townsville), two PG's sunk and about 7 AK's & AP's in various states of damage.

So, I've given better than I've taken. But I'm trying hard to sink em. and only 4 or 5 in over two months time. I think that would be a lot, but the first two came from all PH DD's in the first couple of days. So, two more over two months isn't real ugly.


Using all resources to sink them? Hmmm. How many DDs per ASW TF? How many escorts per convoy? How big are your convoys? Reason I ask is this...if you are using huge convoys (I dislike this ability do to no ops maximums at ports=gamey) with large escort goups/convoy and large ASW TFs (over 4 DDs) you are not covering alot of ground. I use small convoys and ASW TFs (very rare as escorts are needed for the very large number of smaller convoys I'm running (more realistic) and bag a huge number of IJN subs because more sub encounters occur. What this tells me is that the ASW model is completely off as modelled.

_____________________________





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

(in reply to Bradley7735)
Post #: 13
RE: Allied ASW - 11/19/2004 12:43:46 AM   
Massattack

 

Posts: 93
Joined: 10/28/2002
From: UK
Status: offline 		My game is a new start V1.30 scen 14B?, the campaign that starts May 01 1942, playing Allies v Jap AI. It is now mid August 42, and the total score is about 35 dead Jap subs, virtually all off the NE coast of Australia and about 12 bombed in port at Gili-Gili. My ASW TF's are all 4-6 DD's, none bigger. The IJN subs have sunk 3 DDs, damaged 3 others, also sank or damaged some other ships. Virtually every time they have fired on anything with more than 2 escorts they have died or been seriously damaged.

Regards

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 14
RE: Allied ASW - 11/19/2004 1:07:35 AM   
Bradley7735


Posts: 2073
Joined: 7/12/2004
Status: offline 		Well, I try to have at least two escorts per convoy. My supply convoys aren't too big. Usually about 4 to 10 merchies and 2 to 4 escorts. I have lots of air power on ASW, but until recently haven't run many dedicated ASW task forces. I tried with the PG's, but they got smacked by the subs. I am just now sending out ASW task forces with DD's in them, but they're mostly Dutch and Flush Deck DD's. Exception: in the first 5 days of the game I made quite a few ASW task forces around Pearl and spread them out. The subs all left within 5 days or so, so I stopped my ASW efforts near Pearl.

When I do ASW task forces I keep them with about 4 or 5 ships. I think it's pretty cheesy to have 25 in one task force. I wish the game limited you on this aspect.

So, with all this activity I've sunk 4 IJN subs. Two at the start near Pearl (both with dedicated ASW task forces) and two near Australia. Both were sunk by escorts within the convoys. No airplanes have damaged or sunk a sub to my knowledge. I expect to have a little success now, since I have some DD's at Brisbane that don't have escort duties. Also, I have had probably 20 planes make attacks on subs, but no hits. I've had a lot of my escorts attack subs, but since there are 2 to 4 in the task force, they usually don't get any hits. Finally, I think the IJN subs have had about 10 successful attacks on my ships (not necessarily sinking their target, but getting a hit)

Does this seem ok to you? Am I using my forces in an unhistorical manner? Are people seeing problems when forces are used in the same way that I use them? Ron, are you seeing different results from me? I think my results are realistic. (but I don't know a whole lot on the subject)

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 15
RE: Allied ASW - 11/19/2004 3:00:50 AM   
denisonh


Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/21/2001
From: Upstate SC
Status: offline 		Question:

What is the "right" number of subs to lose?

I am through end of May 1942 and have lost 19 USN to 14 IJN subs.

_____________________________


"Life is tough, it's even tougher when you're stupid" -SGT John M. Stryker, USMC

(in reply to Bradley7735)
Post #: 16
RE: Allied ASW - 11/19/2004 6:54:43 AM   
dan frick


Posts: 10
Joined: 7/13/2004
Status: offline 		I'm playing against AI, Sept '42. I did about the same thing as Bradley with worse results. However bombing Rabual seems to work.
You want lots of smaller ASW forces. Hexes are 60 miles, and the horizon is 30 miles. So the real problem is detection (convoys work the same way).
(danger salty tale on horizon)
We once had a Russian "fishing trawler" get within 20 miles of our ship undetected. Totally hosed our test shot - and was the CO pissed! Tried to run them down.

(in reply to Sonny)
Post #: 17
RE: Allied ASW - 11/19/2004 8:54:55 AM   
pfnognoff


Posts: 631
Joined: 5/6/2003
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline 		I'm playing just one PBeM game at the moment and in that game we are at 27 March 1942, and the fist IJN sub attack, on one of my escorted convoy, with the sub living to tell the tale happened just a few days back. Before that every single attack by IJN sub ends up with the attacker being sunk. Only good news for the IJN sub force is that one of them managed to sneak in a torpedo into USS Enterprise (well escorted part of 3 CV TF just off Noumea), but it also got smashed by the escorts afterwards.

My convoys don't get more than a 4 DDs as escorts but usually all of them not only attack but they all score at least one hit. Although I think the statistics for succesfull attacks is much more important then the total numer of lost subs, the current score in that game is 7 USN vs 11 IJN subs lost.

One other thing that I see as a problem is that because USN escorts score so many hits not a single IJN sub get's damaged, while I have more than 20 damaged USN subs that made back to port for repairs after being attacked but not sunk. At the moment, due to magazines explosions, I feel more confident that my subs if hit will come back than my BBs

(in reply to dan frick)
Post #: 18
RE: Allied ASW - 11/19/2004 2:41:04 PM   
steveh11Matrix


Posts: 944
Joined: 7/30/2004
Status: offline 		Anyone have a list of actual Japanese (and Allied, for preference ) sub losses?
I don't know if the IJN loss rate I'm seeing (zero up to early April 42, now up to 8 by early June after I took over from the ai) is historical or hysterical...
Steve.

_____________________________

"Nature always obeys Her own laws" - Leonardo da Vinci

(in reply to pfnognoff)
Post #: 19
RE: Allied ASW - 11/19/2004 2:50:12 PM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 4443
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline 		Like in previous versions, the Jap AI concentrates most subs off Queensland, esp. in the approaches of Townsville. I'm in April '42 of a 41B campaign and have sunk a total of 19 Japanese subs, 10 near Townsville, one near Rockhampton, the rest off Hawaii, Noumea and Suva. Most subs fell victim to my three ASW-TFs of five short-legged MSW and one PG per TF, operating out of Townsville. The subs have killed a few PGs and MSWs, but who cares as long as the subs are being sunk in return by the other ships in the TF. I think the losses are a bit excessive, but IMO that's due to the idiotic positioning of the subs by the AI rather than due to overpowered ASW platforms. Ahistorical strategy leads to ahistorical results...




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by LargeSlowTarget -- 11/19/2004 12:52:22 PM >

_____________________________

AE Mod "Bottlenecks" UPDATED 01/2022

(in reply to pfnognoff)
Post #: 20
RE: Allied ASW - 11/20/2004 3:08:08 AM   
Sonny

 

Posts: 2008
Joined: 4/3/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

The program is just that, a program, it can and will have strange things happen, no matter how well it is written, since it uses a randomizer to determine hits. My question is how come the sub didnt sink with 11 hits, you sure it wasnt on the surface and got gunned not depth charged?


The sub sunk. It was not on the surface. It is never listed in the AAR - it appears after you click the DONE button.

Before 1.30 I never saw more than 5 hits on a sub - and those were with 8-10 escorts. This is three escorts and 11 hits!

This is somewhat like the naval bombing where if a ship gets hit once with a bomb it becomes a bomb magnet.

_____________________________

Quote from Snigbert -

"If you mess with the historical accuracy, you're going to have ahistorical outcomes."

"I'll say it again for Sonny's sake: If you mess with historical accuracy, you're going to have
ahistorical outcomes. "

(in reply to Twotribes)
Post #: 21
RE: Allied ASW - 11/20/2004 1:09:22 PM   
testarossa


Posts: 952
Joined: 9/24/2004
From: Vancouver, Canada
Status: offline 		51 sunk. And majority of them in Jan-march 1942. And around Townswille. Now it's July and I haven't met a single sub in 2 months. Did I sink them all?

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 22
RE: Allied ASW - 11/20/2004 1:42:42 PM   
Ron Saueracker


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

ORIGINAL: testarossa

51 sunk. And majority of them in Jan-march 1942. And around Townswille. Now it's July and I haven't met a single sub in 2 months. Did I sink them all?


Good gawd! This is the most extreme figure I've heard of but it is not overly surprising vs the AI if you want to be aggressive. Illustrates just how overly accurate the ASW weapons are and how having all DD/escorts attacking may corrupt the model.

_____________________________





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

(in reply to testarossa)
Post #: 23
RE: Allied ASW - 11/20/2004 6:05:17 PM   
Feinder


Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline 		FWIW, in our PBEM game, our IJN opponents are doing a pretty good job on our Allied subs. Can't say for sure how many have sunk (information is classified). And we've sunk more IJN subs than we've lost (9 by the end of December). However, his own ASW efforts have not been shabby. While we haven't lost as many subs (still several sunk), we've got quite a few that are gonna be in the repair yard for quite some time. So it's not just the Allied ASW that can be punishing, it -does- work both ways. Altho the Allied ASW has a higher chance of actually being fatal, I think this can be attributed just as much to the Allied damage control.

Cheers.
-F-

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me


(in reply to Sonny)
Post #: 24
RE: Allied ASW - 11/20/2004 6:37:46 PM   
JohnK

 

Posts: 285
Joined: 2/8/2001
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: steveh11Matrix

Anyone have a list of actual Japanese (and Allied, for preference ) sub losses?
I don't know if the IJN loss rate I'm seeing (zero up to early April 42, now up to 8 by early June after I took over from the ai) is historical or hysterical...
Steve.


Hmmm...I actually went to Nihon Kaigun and counted up all the Japanese subs killed Dec. 7 41 to Dec. 31 1942, and I KNOW I posted on it here, but I've been searching on my screen name and cannot find the thread.

I BELIEVE it was around 26 Japanese subs killed in the first 13 months of the war. But I'm not sure. Not motivated to go count again but I may eventually.

(in reply to steveh11Matrix)
Post #: 25
RE: Allied ASW - 11/20/2004 6:42:23 PM   
JohnK

 

Posts: 285
Joined: 2/8/2001
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
Illustrates just how overly accurate the ASW weapons are and how having all DD/escorts attacking may corrupt the model.


Actually the biggest problem is that there are too many subs at sea in operational areas TO be killed, IMHO.

One of my next research projects will be to figure out what % of time an average sub was at sea on patrol.

In modern, highly efficient navies, a typical ship may spend about 1/3rd of its time on patrol in an operational area; 1/3rd of its time is spent being maintained/refitted and the other 1/3rd is spent training crew in short cruises near base.

I suspect the % of time on operational patrol for WWII subs was even less. But of course in WITP the average sub spends 90% of its time on patrol till it's killed or severely damaged.

One of the reasons I really support the "no subs leave port with ANY SYS damage" house rule for PBEM.

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 26
RE: Allied ASW - 11/20/2004 7:35:31 PM   
dereck


Posts: 2800
Joined: 9/7/2004
From: Romulus, MI
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnK

quote:

ORIGINAL: steveh11Matrix

Anyone have a list of actual Japanese (and Allied, for preference ) sub losses?
I don't know if the IJN loss rate I'm seeing (zero up to early April 42, now up to 8 by early June after I took over from the ai) is historical or hysterical...
Steve.


Hmmm...I actually went to Nihon Kaigun and counted up all the Japanese subs killed Dec. 7 41 to Dec. 31 1942, and I KNOW I posted on it here, but I've been searching on my screen name and cannot find the thread.

I BELIEVE it was around 26 Japanese subs killed in the first 13 months of the war. But I'm not sure. Not motivated to go count again but I may eventually.


The US Navy lost approximately 50 submarines during all of the Pacific War. Not sure of the exact number though but it was roughly 25% of the total boats they had.

_____________________________

PO2 US Navy (1980-1986);
USS Midway CV-41 (1981-1984)
Whidbey Island, WA (1984-1986)
Naval Reserve (1986-1992)

(in reply to JohnK)
Post #: 27
RE: Allied ASW - 11/20/2004 8:21:29 PM   
denisonh


Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/21/2001
From: Upstate SC
Status: offline 		When compared to loss rates in PBEM games, it would point to employment being the primary issue with sub losses.

The AI is not capable of managing subs, particualry with respect to adapting to the opponents ASW tactics.

Sub doctrine and ASW doctrine evolved through the war based on experience. WitP is much the same. Since the AI is unable to learn, it keeps making the same mistakes (Putting and keeping subs in the same place despite continually losing them). A human player, on the other will learn and adapt.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

quote:

ORIGINAL: testarossa

51 sunk. And majority of them in Jan-march 1942. And around Townswille. Now it's July and I haven't met a single sub in 2 months. Did I sink them all?


Good gawd! This is the most extreme figure I've heard of but it is not overly surprising vs the AI if you want to be aggressive. Illustrates just how overly accurate the ASW weapons are and how having all DD/escorts attacking may corrupt the model.


_____________________________


"Life is tough, it's even tougher when you're stupid" -SGT John M. Stryker, USMC

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 28
RE: Allied ASW - 11/20/2004 8:33:59 PM   
JohnK

 

Posts: 285
Joined: 2/8/2001
Status: offline 		I've just glanced at the histories at DANFS for American subs and it appears that typically a US sub that was undamaged on a war patrol spent one to two months in port till the next war patrol...and would have longer refits every few patrols on a fairly routine basis, at times going all the way back to California for them.

As has been mentioned we probably need morale and fatigue ratings for ships though I'm sure we'll never get them.

I really loved that Uncommon Valor had ships accumulating SYS damage at sea, though people who had gotten used to computer games treating unrealistically ships as perfect robots whined incessantly about it...but actually ships don't get ENOUGH sys damage at sea.

However the problem is battle damage and routine wear and tear damage need to be differentiated....a ship over time can accumulate problems that will eventually need maintenance (that may take a long time) without its speed dropping catastrophically.

WITP needs some means to force refits or long port stays without it being "real" damage that drastically reduces speeds.

(in reply to denisonh)
Post #: 29
RE: Allied ASW - 11/20/2004 10:58:15 PM   
Ron Saueracker


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

ORIGINAL: JohnK

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
Illustrates just how overly accurate the ASW weapons are and how having all DD/escorts attacking may corrupt the model.


Actually the biggest problem is that there are too many subs at sea in operational areas TO be killed, IMHO.

One of my next research projects will be to figure out what % of time an average sub was at sea on patrol.

In modern, highly efficient navies, a typical ship may spend about 1/3rd of its time on patrol in an operational area; 1/3rd of its time is spent being maintained/refitted and the other 1/3rd is spent training crew in short cruises near base.

I suspect the % of time on operational patrol for WWII subs was even less. But of course in WITP the average sub spends 90% of its time on patrol till it's killed or severely damaged.

One of the reasons I really support the "no subs leave port with ANY SYS damage" house rule for PBEM.


This is what really cheezes me about this game. This is what, the sixth or seventh naval game of this sort that GG has released and still the ships in the game are basically crewless and have no real operational limitations like HQs, port limitations, distinction between naval bases and Crab Apple Cove etc... ! Crew factors could have been modelled in with fatigue, morale, and experience could have been an average based on the crew factors present on each ship. They could be lost in combat and some to new construction, so that new crew would have to be drawn from a pool. This would have reflected the real world issues a bit more and add some reality to the pace. Major league oversite to not advance over previous projects.

_____________________________





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

(in reply to JohnK)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Allied ASW Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
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

0.766