ASW report - mid 1942, patch3 *VERY LONG*

ASW report - mid 1942, patch3 *VERY LONG* (Full Version)

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

Message

jackyo123 -> ASW report - mid 1942, patch3 VERY LONG (1/11/2010 8:02:41 PM)
I have read many complaints about ASW (particularly allied) in the AAR's, and will share my latest observations. I restarted an AI game as the allies maybe a month ago, and am patched up to hotfix3. My general ASW setup: - I ran ASW task forces in groups of 2 and in groups of 4. - I tried not to mix 'types' (e.g - all dd's, or all kv's); if that was not possible, I ensured that at least they all had similar speeds. - I sent all units that could steam and had any ASW ability at all (even those local minesweepers) on patrol patterns around my bases. - All LBA in the US and at Pearl had ASW set from 30-60% (those with low experience were set to ASW 30%/Train 30%). About 1/2 were set for NAVAL ATTACK (they still prosecute subs, but generally dont gain ASW experience as quickly) and the other 1/2 (including all PBY's) set for ASW MISSION. - Several fighter groups were set to NAVAL ATTACK at 100ft - figure maybe they could strafe a boat on the surface. - All search arcs were set MANUALLY. I had 360' coverage at Pearl by several units, 360% coverage at Xmas Island, full arc coverage at Victoria, Eureka (moved a bf unit there for AV support), San Fran, LA, and San Diego. - In OZ, I put a BF unit on Flinders to give me good Melbourne coverage with my hudsons; I also have patrols running from Townsville down the coast. - At Suva, Pago, and Noumeu, I have good air coverage over a narrowly defined 'corridor' that my merchies use. Spotty coverage elsewhere (reason? those 3 plane b17 groups, even when set to 80% asw, only cover a few arcs). - Had 2 special 'hunter killer' groups on west coast, pearl, and Oz, that I manually would send each turn to prosecute detected contacts. - Reaction range on most ASW TF's are set to 6 (except in OZ, where I dont want them pulled into air range of Rabaul, so they are set to 4). All are also set to ABSOLUTE/DIRECT for threat tolerance (not sure if this matters for asw missions, but what the heck). I spent PP to do the following: - All hunter killer groups (except for 2 - 1 in oz, one in Victoria that I am using as 'control' groups, to see effects of personnel changes) have captains with naval of at least 60, and aggression of at least 60 (several are in the 70's). - I do NOT have a captain of one of my DD's in charge of the ASW task force itself - that is usually reserved for 70+/70+ commander (when available - if not, i choose the highest combo naval/aggressive I can find). - All KV groups have their captains replaced along the same lines. Same with PC/PG groups, and YP groups. - I left 2 more 'control' groups - 1 in Townsville, one in Victoria, that did not have captains with particularly high naval or aggression (one was 47/51, the other one was similar but not sure of exact #'s). All told, maybe did 40 captain/tf commander replacements. Usual cost was about 2 to 3 pps per captain (iirc). Results: The AI aggressively posts his subs alongside the west coast, with very high concentrations around the San Fran/Victoria corridor, and off of San Diego/LA. Also, very high concentrations along the Townsville/Port Moresby corridor, and between Brisbane and Sydney. In general, the subs operate about 3 hexes to 6 hexes offshore; if further away, I dont detect them and dont know about them, though they do occassionally make a 'blue water' kill - out in the middle of nowhere, which seems reasonable (wasnt the Indianaopolis in the middle of nowhere when she was sunk?) From December 7 to April 1 (sinkings verified by logging in as jap player (by setting to 'head to head' mode)). - On average, I get 3 to 4 'Airplane xxx is attacking Sub xxxx at hex xxxx' per turn. Usually 2 to 3 'reported hit' messages. These climbed significantly as my planes passed the 50 point mark in experience, and the 40 point mark in ASW. Confirm only 1 sub sank by air attack. - On average, I get 2 to 3 ASW prosecutions by surface groups per turn. MORE THAN 75% OF THESE ARE BY MY DEDICATED HUNTER KILLER GROUPS WITH THE UBER CAPTAINS. Generally, I will 'hit' 1 sub per every 2 turns. I can confirm 1 sub sunk by ASW TF by 4/1/42. - On 2/1/42, there were 8 japanese subs in a damaged condition, either in japanese ports or on their way. - On 4/1/42 there are 14 damaged japanese subs in a damaged condition. Total Jap Subs sunk by mines - 1 So total #'s - DAMAGED: at least 22 damaged subs (the 8 from 2/1 and the 14 from 4/1) SUNK: 3 (one by air, one by surface, one by mines). Damage inflicted by Jap Subs: - 8 escorts sunk (2 YP's, 1 AM, 2 DD's, 2 KV's, 1 PC) - 20 merchantmen sunk 'out of convoy' by subs; 11 merchants damaged; 6 merchantmen sunk 'in convoy' (escorted by a ship with at least an ASW rating of '1'). Only 2 merchantmen were sunk under my air umbrella on the west coast, and none out to 4 hexes at Pearl. Most of the rest occurred up near Anchorage/Kodiak, Midway/Johnston Islands, or in Australian waters. Several more got trashed at dutch harbor and the Juneau area. A few were sunk on my usual convoy routes more than 6 hexes from LBA. - 2 warships torpedoed (that were not on ASW missions) (this number might be '3' - its hard to read my own notes). Test Cases: - I would try to send out my 'normal' hunter killer group (with captains in the mid 50's) along with my 'uber' groups when possible (they sometimes didnt return to port at the same time after long chases). There was a wide discrepancy in performance, so choosing your captains does make a difference. - My 'control test' patrols came back with full DC racks on every single patrol except for once. They were located in the 'hot spots', finished many turns in the same hex as enemy subs, but only attacked them once. Did they help keep the subs 'under control'? Probably. Did they sink any? No. Conclusions: - LBA makes a big difference. I compare this to one of my other running games where I didnt bother with search arcs or too much LBA optimization, and I probably lost 20 ships within 5 hexes of the west coast. Set up your LBA once, and then leave it alone. Make sure you pay careful attention to search arcs - 'random' seems extremely wasteful, especially on coastal hexes where 180 degrees of the compass are over land (is there a routine that guarantees asw patrols will always fly over water? Not sure, but my perceived attack rate went up when i set my search arcs). - ASW TF's dont really start doing well until they pass the mid 60's mark in NAVAL/AGGression for both the ship captains and the TF commander. - 2 ship TF's seem to be the most 'economical'. I didnt notice much of an improvement going from 2 ship TF's to 4 ship TF's. It might have been there, but it was slight. - Most of my units, except the KV's, had ASW ratings of 2 (a few 6's from the 2/42 upgrades, but not too many). I expect that when they are upgraded to DE's at ASW 6, they will get better. - Captain's ability seems to matter more than Ships ASW rating (some of my brit units in Colombo, with ASW ratings of 8 but mediocre captains, didn't get off many (if any - dont recall any that happened) prosecutions, though granted there were less targets. - Subs are too sturdy by about a third. or - Depth Charges do too little damage - also about a third. I've seen subs take 10 DC hits and make port. Only once did I get the satisfying message ' Sub xxx is forced to the surface' followed by 'sub x slips beneath the waves'. - Too many attacks are successful on the escorts. Much better now in patch 2/3 than in straight 1095, but still not enough. Needs to be a rare case, not a monthly occurrence, to see a KV/DD torpd by a jap sub. A word about Japanese ASW abilities - TOO STRONG from their dinky patrol craft. A PC boat with captains with no better experience than his US counterparts are getting in an awful lot of attacks - this has become noticeable since hotfix 2/3. Typical turn will see 5 to 6 japanese ASW attacks, and their success rate is pretty good. Definitely better than the US skippers. I've lost only 2 subs, but I can count on 20 to 25 seriously damaged subs per month. I think that is much higher than historical. Hope this LONG post helps someone!

FAdmiral -> RE: ASW report - mid 1942, patch3 VERY LONG (1/11/2010 8:10:44 PM)
This seems about right to me. One thing I may add is that when I see Japanese AI subs in a local area, they tend to stick to that area. With the new routing addition, I can easily avoid those areas.... JIM

freeboy -> RE: ASW report - mid 1942, patch3 VERY LONG (1/11/2010 9:06:07 PM)
PAtch 3? wad or did you mean Hot fix number 3? Again my point about numbers and letters! lol

Chickenboy -> RE: ASW report - mid 1942, patch3 VERY LONG (1/11/2010 10:32:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jackyo123 I have read many complaints about ASW (particularly allied) in the AAR's, and will share my latest observations. I restarted an AI game as the allies maybe a month ago, and am patched up to hotfix3. My general ASW setup: - I ran ASW task forces in groups of 2 and in groups of 4. - I tried not to mix 'types' (e.g - all dd's, or all kv's); if that was not possible, I ensured that at least they all had similar speeds. - I sent all units that could steam and had any ASW ability at all (even those local minesweepers) on patrol patterns around my bases. - All LBA in the US and at Pearl had ASW set from 30-60% (those with low experience were set to ASW 30%/Train 30%). About 1/2 were set for NAVAL ATTACK (they still prosecute subs, but generally dont gain ASW experience as quickly) and the other 1/2 (including all PBY's) set for ASW MISSION. - Several fighter groups were set to NAVAL ATTACK at 100ft - figure maybe they could strafe a boat on the surface. - All search arcs were set MANUALLY. I had 360' coverage at Pearl by several units, 360% coverage at Xmas Island, full arc coverage at Victoria, Eureka (moved a bf unit there for AV support), San Fran, LA, and San Diego. - In OZ, I put a BF unit on Flinders to give me good Melbourne coverage with my hudsons; I also have patrols running from Townsville down the coast. - At Suva, Pago, and Noumeu, I have good air coverage over a narrowly defined 'corridor' that my merchies use. Spotty coverage elsewhere (reason? those 3 plane b17 groups, even when set to 80% asw, only cover a few arcs). - Had 2 special 'hunter killer' groups on west coast, pearl, and Oz, that I manually would send each turn to prosecute detected contacts. - Reaction range on most ASW TF's are set to 6 (except in OZ, where I dont want them pulled into air range of Rabaul, so they are set to 4). All are also set to ABSOLUTE/DIRECT for threat tolerance (not sure if this matters for asw missions, but what the heck). I spent PP to do the following: - All hunter killer groups (except for 2 - 1 in oz, one in Victoria that I am using as 'control' groups, to see effects of personnel changes) have captains with naval of at least 60, and aggression of at least 60 (several are in the 70's). - I do NOT have a captain of one of my DD's in charge of the ASW task force itself - that is usually reserved for 70+/70+ commander (when available - if not, i choose the highest combo naval/aggressive I can find). - All KV groups have their captains replaced along the same lines. Same with PC/PG groups, and YP groups. - I left 2 more 'control' groups - 1 in Townsville, one in Victoria, that did not have captains with particularly high naval or aggression (one was 47/51, the other one was similar but not sure of exact #'s). All told, maybe did 40 captain/tf commander replacements. Usual cost was about 2 to 3 pps per captain (iirc). Results: The AI aggressively posts his subs alongside the west coast, with very high concentrations around the San Fran/Victoria corridor, and off of San Diego/LA. Also, very high concentrations along the Townsville/Port Moresby corridor, and between Brisbane and Sydney. In general, the subs operate about 3 hexes to 6 hexes offshore; if further away, I dont detect them and dont know about them, though they do occassionally make a 'blue water' kill - out in the middle of nowhere, which seems reasonable (wasnt the Indianaopolis in the middle of nowhere when she was sunk?) From December 7 to April 1 (sinkings verified by logging in as jap player (by setting to 'head to head' mode)). - On average, I get 3 to 4 'Airplane xxx is attacking Sub xxxx at hex xxxx' per turn. Usually 2 to 3 'reported hit' messages. These climbed significantly as my planes passed the 50 point mark in experience, and the 40 point mark in ASW. Confirm only 1 sub sank by air attack. - On average, I get 2 to 3 ASW prosecutions by surface groups per turn. MORE THAN 75% OF THESE ARE BY MY DEDICATED HUNTER KILLER GROUPS WITH THE UBER CAPTAINS. Generally, I will 'hit' 1 sub per every 2 turns. I can confirm 1 sub sunk by ASW TF by 4/1/42. - On 2/1/42, there were 8 japanese subs in a damaged condition, either in japanese ports or on their way. - On 4/1/42 there are 14 damaged japanese subs in a damaged condition. Total Jap Subs sunk by mines - 1 So total #'s - DAMAGED: at least 22 damaged subs (the 8 from 2/1 and the 14 from 4/1) SUNK: 3 (one by air, one by surface, one by mines). Damage inflicted by Jap Subs: - 8 escorts sunk (2 YP's, 1 AM, 2 DD's, 2 KV's, 1 PC) - 20 merchantmen sunk 'out of convoy' by subs; 11 merchants damaged; 6 merchantmen sunk 'in convoy' (escorted by a ship with at least an ASW rating of '1'). Only 2 merchantmen were sunk under my air umbrella on the west coast, and none out to 4 hexes at Pearl. Most of the rest occurred up near Anchorage/Kodiak, Midway/Johnston Islands, or in Australian waters. Several more got trashed at dutch harbor and the Juneau area. A few were sunk on my usual convoy routes more than 6 hexes from LBA. - 2 warships torpedoed (that were not on ASW missions) (this number might be '3' - its hard to read my own notes). Test Cases: - I would try to send out my 'normal' hunter killer group (with captains in the mid 50's) along with my 'uber' groups when possible (they sometimes didnt return to port at the same time after long chases). There was a wide discrepancy in performance, so choosing your captains does make a difference. - My 'control test' patrols came back with full DC racks on every single patrol except for once. They were located in the 'hot spots', finished many turns in the same hex as enemy subs, but only attacked them once. Did they help keep the subs 'under control'? Probably. Did they sink any? No. Conclusions: - LBA makes a big difference. I compare this to one of my other running games where I didnt bother with search arcs or too much LBA optimization, and I probably lost 20 ships within 5 hexes of the west coast. Set up your LBA once, and then leave it alone. Make sure you pay careful attention to search arcs - 'random' seems extremely wasteful, especially on coastal hexes where 180 degrees of the compass are over land (is there a routine that guarantees asw patrols will always fly over water? Not sure, but my perceived attack rate went up when i set my search arcs). - ASW TF's dont really start doing well until they pass the mid 60's mark in NAVAL/AGGression for both the ship captains and the TF commander. - 2 ship TF's seem to be the most 'economical'. I didnt notice much of an improvement going from 2 ship TF's to 4 ship TF's. It might have been there, but it was slight. - Most of my units, except the KV's, had ASW ratings of 2 (a few 6's from the 2/42 upgrades, but not too many). I expect that when they are upgraded to DE's at ASW 6, they will get better. - Captain's ability seems to matter more than Ships ASW rating (some of my brit units in Colombo, with ASW ratings of 8 but mediocre captains, didn't get off many (if any - dont recall any that happened) prosecutions, though granted there were less targets. - Subs are too sturdy by about a third. or - Depth Charges do too little damage - also about a third. I've seen subs take 10 DC hits and make port. Only once did I get the satisfying message ' Sub xxx is forced to the surface' followed by 'sub x slips beneath the waves'. - Too many attacks are successful on the escorts. Much better now in patch 2/3 than in straight 1095, but still not enough. Needs to be a rare case, not a monthly occurrence, to see a KV/DD torpd by a jap sub. A word about Japanese ASW abilities - TOO STRONG from their dinky patrol craft. A PC boat with captains with no better experience than his US counterparts are getting in an awful lot of attacks - this has become noticeable since hotfix 2/3. Typical turn will see 5 to 6 japanese ASW attacks, and their success rate is pretty good. Definitely better than the US skippers. I've lost only 2 subs, but I can count on 20 to 25 seriously damaged subs per month. I think that is much higher than historical. Hope this LONG post helps someone! Great list, jackyo123! Thanks for posting your very thorough testing results. If everyone was this conscientious about ASW performance as the allies, that would probably decrease some cries of "Uber subs-nerf 'em!" from some quarters.

Smeulders -> RE: ASW report - mid 1942, patch3 VERY LONG (1/11/2010 10:40:54 PM)
I'll certainly be using some of the tips, but if you need all your LBA in the WC and Hawaii to keep subs down a bit, then they do still seem strong. Do remember that this is only against the AI though, a human player will still find ways to attack outside of the of strong LBA/ASW group coverage. However, this does show again that having convoys escorted is important in keeping losses down.

oldman45 -> RE: ASW report - mid 1942, patch3 VERY LONG (1/12/2010 12:01:09 AM)
Thank you for doing what I was too lazy to do. [:)] I was looking at CO ratings vs the crew ratings and starting to see what you concluded. Thanks again.

jackyo123 -> RE: ASW report - mid 1942, patch3 VERY LONG (1/12/2010 2:36:44 AM)
freeeboy- yes, hotfix3 Chickenboy - thnx Smeulders - LBA is critical, no doubt. I have also swapped out my key PBY air crew for high performance captains. Definitely worth it. Ive settled on 8k as being the optimal height; 6k might be just as effective, but I dont want my LBA getting experience too much in Low naval attacks (only my specialized mitchell groups which i will use as skip bombers along historical lines) - i want them getting normal naval experience, and under 7k feet gives 'low altitude' increases. olman - welcome!

stuman -> RE: ASW report - mid 1942, patch3 VERY LONG (1/12/2010 6:03:09 AM)
great job jackyo123. Looks like I have not spent enough PPs on my ASW captains.

Sardaukar -> RE: ASW report - mid 1942, patch3 VERY LONG (1/12/2010 6:08:23 AM)
I can confirm those results, they seem to be similar to my ongoing campaign game vs. IJ AI.

Admiral Scott -> RE: ASW report - mid 1942, patch3 VERY LONG (1/12/2010 6:10:48 AM)
Sub durabilty is a little too high. Isnt it obvious?

Sardaukar -> RE: ASW report - mid 1942, patch3 VERY LONG (1/12/2010 6:12:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Admiral Scott Sub durabilty is a little too high. Isnt it obvious? Seems so, since subs not only shrug off DCs from ASW ships, but also 500 lb bombs that heavy bombers and patrol planes use on ASW mission.

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.046875