RE: Why Does it Seem?

RE: Why Does it Seem? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition

Message

xj900uk -> RE: Why Does it Seem? (12/18/2009 1:51:43 PM)
I agree it's what the US subs did in real life - unresticted warfare (a practice which the US was so adverse to it actually entered WWI 3 years late in protest) particularly against the Japanese Tanker fleet. Always wonder how quicker the Pacific War would have ended if the US subs had been equipped with a decent reliable torpedo...

RevRick -> RE: Why Does it Seem? (12/18/2009 1:56:58 PM)
I'm going to try that in the mod I'm working up... I'm beefing up both navies (WNT abrogated in 1930 vice 1936) and USN develops an effective torpedo. Yoiks and away!! Gonna be some Heavy Metal "Thunder in the Pacific."

xj900uk -> RE: Why Does it Seem? (12/18/2009 1:59:03 PM)
If the US get a reliable working torpedo earlier than late '43 it would seriously unbalance the game...

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Why Does it Seem? (12/18/2009 1:59:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sardaukar What Bullwinkle58 said. Even with dud rate of 80%, it is not that rare for USN fleet boats to sink several ships in week, sometimes with rate 1/day if all subs are utilized. Go pigboats!!! I would encourage all Allied players frustrated with their sub production to really spend the time needed to set up good patrol zones. Apart from targeting choke points rather than open ocean, use the Linger variable to hold the boat at the prime part of the choke (balancing with detection level), and think about the fuel trade offs on long-range zones (HI, PI from Pearl) of using Cruise settings in the zone for linger time versus not having the speed to intercept warship TFs. Let the warships go. They make you feel good and liven up the patrol report, but the true job of the subs is to deny the HI its groceries. A big AK, or, especially, a lucious tanker, sent to to the bottom is worth far more to the war effort than a bagged cruiser. Hand manage a few, really aggressive subs, mix up the zone sizes and shapes, focus on going where the targets are going to have to be, once you "pay" for the transit let them have some time to be productive, and you'll see good results in 1942. In 1943, if you have good habits in place, you'll see stupendous results.

RevRick -> RE: Why Does it Seem? (12/18/2009 2:00:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Titanwarrior89 I am playing the allies(pbem). So why is it that every torpedo fired by my subs thats HITs anything "big"-such as a CA,large Ao, Ak or DD torpedo does not explode. But let it be a PB or something similiar - its a hit and it explodes. Please don't give me that FOG crap. I hope some jap iron is going to the bottom besides these little Pbs and the such. But its Aug 42 and very little is changing. The allied subs are a joke, you might as well leave them in port instead of taking the losses. I am sure my Japanese counter part has his own complaints with something being off. So what gives? From my experience, it's FOW. Nope, not "Fog of War!" It's what every piece of gear you really need really is when your really need it most (in technical Naval Jargon!) - "F*%#+@& outta whack!"

Canoerebel -> RE: Why Does it Seem? (12/18/2009 2:14:02 PM)
I'm nearing mid November 1942 in my PBEM and the Allies have experienced a rather stunning number of dud hits throughout the game, but that's as it should be given the high dud rate. I'm sure my opponent is concerned about what's going to happen when the dud rate starts falling and those hits turn into explosions.

Dixie -> RE: Why Does it Seem? (12/18/2009 2:46:08 PM)
80% dud rate still means 20% are working correctly, if you're lauching 100 torps a week (should be easy enough in the early days with short patrol areas and lots of targets) then 20 hits can easily sink 20 AKs [;)] It seems to be that my lot get lower dud rates from surface attacks as well for some reason.

Titanwarrior89 -> RE: Why Does it Seem? (12/18/2009 2:52:11 PM)
I agree about the dutch. In fact they are now in the south pacific(In our pbem game) doing the work that the United States Naval submarine service can't do.[:-] quote: ORIGINAL: noguaranteeofsanity I have runs of bad luck with the US subs, where every torpedo will fail and then just when you are wondering why you are even watching the combat animations and still paying attention, one will actually work and sink something important, like the Kaga, despite previously failing against every damn destroyer or whatever else they have come across. I think its basically just the luck of the dice and i dont think there is any bias. Of course, if you want to avoid this, you dont have torpedo problems with the Dutch subs.

Titanwarrior89 -> RE: Why Does it Seem? (12/18/2009 3:03:24 PM)
Then why did I have at least 9 plus dud showing in a row in our game. I think the dud rate is to high in the game. It needs to be lowered to about 70%. My subs(US Navy) doing nothing more than scout if that. My allied subs are doing the core of the fighting. Now was that the case historical? quote: ORIGINAL: castor troy what you shouldn´t forget is that while the dud rate of the torps is 90% this doesn´t mean you need 10 attacks to score one exploding torp. In fact you need far fewer. My guess would be 4 and the next one makes boom. Why? Because the subs don´t only fire one torp but 2, 4 or many times 6 in a salvo.

Titanwarrior89 -> RE: Why Does it Seem? (12/18/2009 3:12:54 PM)
Bullwinkle Ill give this a try. Some of your advice below I am using, some of it I am not. Ill try resetting my patrol zones. The problem isn't finding targets, my U.S. subs do that. The problem is when I do find that fat tanker-and it has happened-its a dud-always a dud. Thats my complaint. So the dutch-bless their little hearts are all over the south pacific and the Imperial Navy's shipping lane.[;)] quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 quote: ORIGINAL: Sardaukar What Bullwinkle58 said. Even with dud rate of 80%, it is not that rare for USN fleet boats to sink several ships in week, sometimes with rate 1/day if all subs are utilized. Go pigboats!!! I would encourage all Allied players frustrated with their sub production to really spend the time needed to set up good patrol zones. Apart from targeting choke points rather than open ocean, use the Linger variable to hold the boat at the prime part of the choke (balancing with detection level), and think about the fuel trade offs on long-range zones (HI, PI from Pearl) of using Cruise settings in the zone for linger time versus not having the speed to intercept warship TFs. Let the warships go. They make you feel good and liven up the patrol report, but the true job of the subs is to deny the HI its groceries. A big AK, or, especially, a lucious tanker, sent to to the bottom is worth far more to the war effort than a bagged cruiser. Hand manage a few, really aggressive subs, mix up the zone sizes and shapes, focus on going where the targets are going to have to be, once you "pay" for the transit let them have some time to be productive, and you'll see good results in 1942. In 1943, if you have good habits in place, you'll see stupendous results.

rockmedic109 -> RE: Why Does it Seem? (12/18/2009 4:47:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: stuman quote: ORIGINAL: Nemo121 Short answer: The game isn treating both sides equally. Long answer: Your perception is a result of an egocentric cognitive bias which is common to all people and which, incorrectly, overemphasises one's own experience as a basis for generalisation. That is a lot of big words. And I think the game is biased against me. It is constantly blowing up my ships, shooting down my planes, sinking my subs and trashing my troops. All of the time, without letup. The game is not biased against you. Nor is the programing giving any extras to the AI. Your computer is the problem. It doesn't like to loose, so it cheats in order to win. I have a similiar computer. I've threatened mine with becoming spare parts or a boat anchor and have had some success.....it now believes my name is "Dave" and keeps asking what I am doing. My fleet boats do get a lot torp failures, but I do get enough successes to make it worthwhile. This also has the effect of increasing crew EXP for when the torps are better. Part of the problem is perception. The vast majority of attacks are against transports, thus you will have successes. With so few capital targets, your attacks on them will be few and far between and most will end in failure.

Canoerebel -> RE: Why Does it Seem? (12/18/2009 4:53:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dixie 80% dud rate still means 20% are working correctly, if you're lauching 100 torps a week (should be easy enough in the early days with short patrol areas and lots of targets) then 20 hits can easily sink 20 AKs [;)] It seems to be that my lot get lower dud rates from surface attacks as well for some reason. This is where the "theoretical" doesn't intersect with the "actual." Allied subs don't launch anything like 100 torps a week. Most weeks might seek five to ten Allied sub attacks with perhaps 10 to 40 torpedoes launched.

Ametysth -> RE: Why Does it Seem? (12/18/2009 5:03:46 PM)
Why does it seem? Well, because it is true. It is more likely to get an explosion on xAK than CV. After all, you are making more attacks on transports. If one out of four attacks results an explosion, chances are high that the target is a transport and not that CV.

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Why Does it Seem? (12/18/2009 5:12:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Canoerebel quote: ORIGINAL: Dixie 80% dud rate still means 20% are working correctly, if you're lauching 100 torps a week (should be easy enough in the early days with short patrol areas and lots of targets) then 20 hits can easily sink 20 AKs [;)] It seems to be that my lot get lower dud rates from surface attacks as well for some reason. This is where the "theoretical" doesn't intersect with the "actual." Allied subs don't launch anything like 100 torps a week. Most weeks might seek five to ten Allied sub attacks with perhaps 10 to 40 torpedoes launched. I'd say the number has ramped up to probably 100/week by May 1943 in my game. Some of that is due to larger numbers of subs, and some to re-attacks by more experienced COs and crews. FWIW, in my AI game, on May 4, 1943 I've sunk 137 Japanese ships by MK 14 torpedo. The vast majority have been AKs. Ten have been tankers, the holy grail of targets. There are many more sinkings by other submarine torpedo models, mostly the S-boats' MK 10s. I've lost a total of 11 submarines to enemy action. Of those, two were mine strikes, and five were destroyed in drydock--four in Java, and one in Brisbane by a CV raid. I'd say that ASW effectiveness is indeed too low, but the number of Allied sub attacks, and their lethality, is not too far off.

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Why Does it Seem? (12/18/2009 5:14:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ametysth Why does it seem? Well, because it is true. It is more likely to get an explosion on xAK than CV. After all, you are making more attacks on transports. If one out of four attacks results an explosion, chances are high that the target is a transport and not that CV. But the code typically shoots more torpedoes at a CV than an AK. The dud rate is per fish, not per attack instance. People who can see the code have stated there's no target type preferences. Why not let this one go? Randomness is randomness.

bradfordkay -> RE: Why Does it Seem? (12/18/2009 5:28:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Canoerebel quote: ORIGINAL: Dixie 80% dud rate still means 20% are working correctly, if you're lauching 100 torps a week (should be easy enough in the early days with short patrol areas and lots of targets) then 20 hits can easily sink 20 AKs [;)] It seems to be that my lot get lower dud rates from surface attacks as well for some reason. This is where the "theoretical" doesn't intersect with the "actual." Allied subs don't launch anything like 100 torps a week. Most weeks might seek five to ten Allied sub attacks with perhaps 10 to 40 torpedoes launched. I get substantially more attacks each week than that with my allied subs, averaging at least 3 per day.

Canoerebel -> RE: Why Does it Seem? (12/18/2009 5:32:37 PM)
You get alot more early in the game when the Japanese are in the PI and DEI while Soerabaja, Manila, and Singapore are in Allied hands, but once the Allies have to pull back it seems like Allied sub attacks fall of dramatically.

Titanwarrior89 -> RE: Why Does it Seem? (12/18/2009 6:18:06 PM)
Well shoot me in the head. After months of real time in our pbem game, finally a US Sub hits a Ca and blows against its hull. Then later a US Sub shoots and hits a SC and its a dud(Aug 42). For months-replay after replay its been the other way around(as he wipes some egg of his face[:(]).

Nomad -> RE: Why Does it Seem? (12/18/2009 7:09:35 PM)
I totally agree with Bullwinkle, 80% dud rate means you have a 20% success rate. If you put your subs where his AKs and TKs are, you will sink some of them. I try to start changing out my sub commanders on the ships second trip out so they are more aggressive and will take more shots.

bradfordkay -> RE: Why Does it Seem? (12/18/2009 8:39:47 PM)
Dan, i know that in my CHS PBEM, I still averaged about 2 sub attacks a day after the initial Japanese expansion was over. When I get home tonight I'll post my totals for sunk ships - I earlier posted the warships but my totals against freighters, troopships, tankers and oilers were substantially higher.

Canoerebel -> RE: Why Does it Seem? (12/18/2009 8:41:43 PM)
Are we talking AE or WitP? Isn't CHS a WitP mod? In AE, I'm not getting anything like that in November 1942, but perhaps I'm a poor sub commander.

bradfordkay -> RE: Why Does it Seem? (12/18/2009 8:47:27 PM)
I am tsalking WITP, as I haven't spent enough time with AE as of yet. However, the sub torpedo model for AE is the same as for WITP, IIRC. I hadn't spent much time with AE because I was so involved in an excellent CHS PBEM against ChezDaJez until fairly recently when a massive alien abduction of our pilots ended that game. Now we are preparing to start anew in AE. Ome difference between my game and those of many others is that I kept at it with my USN fleet boats even though their torpedoes were crap. Chez can affirm that he was seriously hurting on tankers throughout our war...

Canoerebel -> RE: Why Does it Seem? (12/18/2009 9:00:01 PM)
I've employed my subs the entire game; I get a fair number of sub attacks (nothing even CLOSE to 100 per week - maybe 10 per week) and the dud rate is just as advertised. I have sunk perhaps one to two Japanese ships per week, the vast majority being PB and AK. ASW on both sides is awful - I've only lost three subs in 12 months.

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Why Does it Seem? (12/19/2009 2:27:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nomad I totally agree with Bullwinkle, 80% dud rate means you have a 20% success rate. If you put your subs where his AKs and TKs are, you will sink some of them. I try to start changing out my sub commanders on the ships second trip out so they are more aggressive and will take more shots. After I posted today, I played two weeks of May 1943 in my game. IT WAS A SUB BONANZA! I sank FIVE tankers, and three AOs. USS Barb (a RL "hot boat" to the max) accounted for a third of the total. I had her on 6 reaction range sitting in the lane near Okinawa, and she harried convoys to death. Sank one 100%, two tankers and a PB, over three days of pursuit. With various AKs and assorted smalll boys it was the most productive period of the submarine war. Japanese subs got three ASW vessels, including another DD (Canoerebel!), but I hardly cared. Hang in there; good times are acomin'.

Boozecamp -> RE: Why Does it Seem? (12/19/2009 7:05:29 AM)
The lack of deductive reasoning abilities amongst many posters here is nothing short of amazing. Torpedo accuracy is affected by the target's maximum speed, and the torpedo's speed. Therefore, merchies are easy targets, DDs, not so much so. It doesn't take a Neurosurgeon's mental abilities to figure this out. In real life, an unguided torpedo's accuracy is going to be determined by those two factors, plus a target's physical size and the degree of the targets maneuvering.

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Why Does it Seem? (12/19/2009 7:31:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Boozecamp The lack of deductive reasoning abilities amongst many posters here is nothing short of amazing. Torpedo accuracy is affected by the target's maximum speed, and the torpedo's speed. Therefore, merchies are easy targets, DDs, not so much so. It doesn't take a Neurosurgeon's mental abilities to figure this out. In real life, an unguided torpedo's accuracy is going to be determined by those two factors, plus a target's physical size and the degree of the targets maneuvering. Well, Booze, it turns out your deductive reasoning is just, well, wrong. Torpedo accuracy to hit is determined by dozens of factors, not the least of which is ability of the Approach Officer to pass good bearings and work the stadimeter in the 4-5 seconds he has scope exposure. It isn't easy. Weapons can be badly maintained. There can be a current. There can be temperature inversions. There can be be poor target ID, leading to the wrong mast assumptions in the stadimeter. The TBT operator can screw up the inputs. The torpedo room can mis-set the depth spindles. The firing key officer can screw up the spread timing. The firing pin can deform at impact. Impact can be at an excessive angle. The air flask can explode on the way to the target. Another target can maneuver into the torpedo track. Should I go on? The minimum needed to get a hit is target bearing, speed, course, and range. Sounds easy. It's not. After you can do that excellently, then you get to worry about all that other stuff.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.983887