Uber Subs - Still (Full Version)

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



Message


Pratzen -> Uber Subs - Still (4/1/2010 10:07:45 PM)

When are you going to fix the over powered invincible never miss super subs?????


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack near Kirakira at 115,139

Japanese Ships
SS I-16

Allied Ships
CV Saratoga, Torpedo hits 3, on fire, heavy damage
CA New Orleans
DD Sterett
DD Farenholt
DD Dale
DD Worden
DD MacDonough
DD Farragut



SS I-16 launches 8 torpedoes at CV Saratoga
DD Dale fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Worden fails to find sub and abandons search
DD MacDonough fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Farragut fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Dale fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD MacDonough fails to find sub and abandons search
DD Farragut fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Dale fails to find sub and abandons search
DD Farragut fails to find sub, continues to search...
Escort abandons search for sub


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Terminus -> RE: Uber Subs - Still (4/1/2010 10:12:55 PM)

[8|] Subs miss plenty of times...




freeboy -> RE: Uber Subs - Still (4/1/2010 10:16:59 PM)

I actually have been fairly effective at anti sub attacks in ae as allies scen 2 pbem, BUT I agree subs attacking is a little high... my thought is the subs vs escorts.. I actually have no issue with this result u posted..
If you use allied improved damage control that ship may only be slowed down... I have had three carriers beached in shallow small ports.. pumped out and limped to a port, then to a larger port then to Pearl.. so good luck




Fletcher -> RE: Uber Subs - Still (4/1/2010 10:19:49 PM)

I can not understand this request !!... over-powered subs ?? ..[:-]
In my game like allied I am about 80-85% miss by no-explode hits !! (and it´s very correct with Mark XIV).
In RL USS Wasp, USS Yorktown and CVE Liscome Bay were sunk by I submarines.




koontz -> RE: Uber Subs - Still (4/1/2010 10:20:46 PM)

[:'(] 5 missed...[;)]

Did you have any ASW and search settings on the DB and/or TB?
I`d would also add some more DD to the TF.




John Lansford -> RE: Uber Subs - Still (4/1/2010 10:30:47 PM)

I'm not seeing this kind of "uber sub" results at all.  It's 3/43 in my CG, I escort all my troopship and warship TF's, and I've not had a sub make an attack on my ships in the past 4-6 weeks.  My subs, OTOH, are attacking tankers south of Davao and merchant ships west of the Marshalls, and the escorts are finding and attacking some of them.  IOW, things are going like I expect them to.




Charbroiled -> RE: Uber Subs - Still (4/1/2010 10:46:10 PM)

I think the submarine and ASW portion of the game is just about right.




tbridges -> RE: Uber Subs - Still (4/1/2010 10:57:13 PM)

Is this PBEM or AI? Allies or Japanese? What year?




sfbaytf -> RE: Uber Subs - Still (4/1/2010 11:07:37 PM)

I think the sub/ASW could use some tweaking. As mentioned in a previous thread and acknowledged by my opponent- the Type D escorts Japan gets towards the later part of the war are too effective.

Japanese subs are probably a bit overpowered IMO. This combined with the fact it's well known early American ASW is piss poor leads to situation where any Japanese player with any sense will press this advantage to the max which can lead to some strange results. Also the air recon abilty of Japanese subs with float planes is very a historical.




Misconduct -> RE: Uber Subs - Still (4/2/2010 12:13:34 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: freeboy

I actually have been fairly effective at anti sub attacks in ae as allies scen 2 pbem, BUT I agree subs attacking is a little high... my thought is the subs vs escorts.. I actually have no issue with this result u posted..
If you use allied improved damage control that ship may only be slowed down... I have had three carriers beached in shallow small ports.. pumped out and limped to a port, then to a larger port then to Pearl.. so good luck


Can you explain any of your methods? I can't seem to get any hits on a sub even with 3 groups of 4 destroyers packed in a hex with a sub.




koontz -> RE: Uber Subs - Still (4/2/2010 12:24:21 AM)

Well iam not freeboy [;)]

But in an ongoing pbem as the allies ive havent had
an single sub attack aginst my CVs

Got like 12 DD in each CV TF and the CV TF are usually in the same hex
also got DB on search 20% and TB on 10% ASW





khyberbill -> RE: Uber Subs - Still (4/2/2010 12:40:45 AM)

quote:

When are you going to fix the over powered invincible never miss super subs?????

I find it helpful to add a dedicated ASW screen to all important task forces. With CV's I always have a portion (10%) of my DB's and TB's set to ASW.




SuluSea -> RE: Uber Subs - Still (4/2/2010 2:05:44 AM)

I wonder if  search ASW by carrier TFs are the key, I have 20 % of TBDs on ASW and half of the float planes in the TF on ASW and have never had a  sub attempt an attack on a carrier to my recollection. I usually have 6 to 8 DDs as well. I guess since I posted this I'll have a burning flattop any day now. [;)]




Misconduct -> RE: Uber Subs - Still (4/2/2010 2:27:06 AM)

Well I can agree, when I started the war without putting DB's or TBD's on ASW patrol my carrier got attacked twice, since then I boosted the DD's to 7 per carrier and 10% ASW search none have been attacked, and they are in open waters between moresby and townville where the AI has plenty of patrols going up and down the coast.




jackyo123 -> RE: Uber Subs - Still (4/2/2010 4:24:38 AM)

i think the only remaining problem is the # of torps launched - i think in the time it took to launch 8 torpedoes with the tracks being visible and the scope up, there would be an enormous chance of the carrier turning away and wrecking the shots or more likely destroyers closing on the sub before he had secured from launch.

I would love to see a mod where spread max is 6, and that there was some penalties applied to any launches of over 2 torps.




castor troy -> RE: Uber Subs - Still (4/2/2010 7:24:00 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Pratzen

When are you going to fix the over powered invincible never miss super subs?????


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack near Kirakira at 115,139

Japanese Ships
SS I-16

Allied Ships
CV Saratoga, Torpedo hits 3, on fire, heavy damage
CA New Orleans
DD Sterett
DD Farenholt
DD Dale
DD Worden
DD MacDonough
DD Farragut



SS I-16 launches 8 torpedoes at CV Saratoga

DD Dale fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Worden fails to find sub and abandons search
DD MacDonough fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Farragut fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Dale fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD MacDonough fails to find sub and abandons search
DD Farragut fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Dale fails to find sub and abandons search
DD Farragut fails to find sub, continues to search...
Escort abandons search for sub


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



In my PBEM I saw three IJN sub attacks on carriers, all three achieved hit(s). All carriers have been heavily guarded by DDs but that´s no guarantee. Won´t complain as subs had quite some success in real life too.

What has to be fixed in your example is the wrong torpedo tube number in the database for this sub class. This class should not be able to fire 8 torps at once, no sub class should. This has been brought up some months ago and the devs are aware of. Don´t know if it´s still in the database if you start a new game.




Stelteck -> RE: Uber Subs - Still (4/2/2010 8:04:07 AM)

In my campaign game, my carrier dedicated to sub hunt, with a SB squadron full ASW and a dedicated escort of destroyers, the CVL Hermes, was ironicaly hit by 2 subs torpedos while on patrol :-)

The only hope is to avoid them or sink them as soon as you see them before a task force go thought....... [8|]





Dili -> RE: Uber Subs - Still (4/2/2010 1:32:51 PM)

I don't see the problem Pratzen. So now a submarine can't sink a CV?




Misconduct -> RE: Uber Subs - Still (4/2/2010 2:56:18 PM)

[/quote]


In my PBEM I saw three IJN sub attacks on carriers, all three achieved hit(s). All carriers have been heavily guarded by DDs but that´s no guarantee. Won´t complain as subs had quite some success in real life too.

What has to be fixed in your example is the wrong torpedo tube number in the database for this sub class. This class should not be able to fire 8 torps at once, no sub class should. This has been brought up some months ago and the devs are aware of. Don´t know if it´s still in the database if you start a new game.
[/quote]

Castor, last time I seen a sub fire off this many torps it was possible Fog of war issue, because the sub only had 4 tubes in the front - it fired 8 torpedoes at a carrier in the combat report. I highly doubt a sub could reload and be back in position on a carrier to fire off a 2nd salvo. Its possible with a carrier sitting still, I mean had 2 sub attacks in 2 turns against 2 of my carriers sitting in milne bay right now and both fired reported "4" torpedoes and missed. So makes me wonder how accurate the combat report is when dealing with fog of war?


Here are the specifications I get for the I-16 submarine

• 8 × 533 mm (21 in) Torpedo tubes
(8 × front)
• 20 × Type 95 torpedoes
• 1 × 140 mm (5.5 in) L/40 11th Year Type Naval gun
• 2 × Type 96 25mm AA guns




Dili -> RE: Uber Subs - Still (4/2/2010 3:25:48 PM)

Turns are one day so it is certainly possible to expend all torpedos.




castor troy -> RE: Uber Subs - Still (4/2/2010 3:33:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Misconduct




In my PBEM I saw three IJN sub attacks on carriers, all three achieved hit(s). All carriers have been heavily guarded by DDs but that´s no guarantee. Won´t complain as subs had quite some success in real life too.

What has to be fixed in your example is the wrong torpedo tube number in the database for this sub class. This class should not be able to fire 8 torps at once, no sub class should. This has been brought up some months ago and the devs are aware of. Don´t know if it´s still in the database if you start a new game.

Castor, last time I seen a sub fire off this many torps it was possible Fog of war issue, because the sub only had 4 tubes in the front - it fired 8 torpedoes at a carrier in the combat report. I highly doubt a sub could reload and be back in position on a carrier to fire off a 2nd salvo. Its possible with a carrier sitting still, I mean had 2 sub attacks in 2 turns against 2 of my carriers sitting in milne bay right now and both fired reported "4" torpedoes and missed. So makes me wonder how accurate the combat report is when dealing with fog of war?


Here are the specifications I get for the I-16 submarine

• 8 × 533 mm (21 in) Torpedo tubes
(8 × front)
• 20 × Type 95 torpedoes
• 1 × 140 mm (5.5 in) L/40 11th Year Type Naval gun
• 2 × Type 96 25mm AA guns



wow, you´re right. I-16 together with some other subs had 8 fwd torp tubes. There´s an issue on one class in the database that has 8 fwd tubes instead of 4 or 6 and I´ve thought that I-16 was one of the subs belonging to this class. Sorry, I stand correced.




Buck Beach -> RE: Uber Subs - Still (4/2/2010 3:47:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Charbroiled

I think the submarine and ASW portion of the game is just about right.


I'm with you!!




witpqs -> RE: Uber Subs - Still (4/2/2010 7:37:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Stelteck

In my campaign game, my carrier dedicated to sub hunt, with a SB squadron full ASW and a dedicated escort of destroyers, the CVL Hermes, was ironicaly hit by 2 subs torpedos while on patrol :-)



Happened IRL too.




HHI -> RE: Uber Subs - Still (4/2/2010 9:47:14 PM)

I disagree that it is about right. The I class sub was a pig. It was too large, slow diving and, most importantly, could only dive to 200 feet. The diving limitation means the I-class couldn't get under the Pacific thermals, making it a marvelous sonar target. None of these limitations are represented either in the hard code or in the data base, where diving depth is not even indicated and the I-class has about the same durability as the Gato's. I get irritated every time I see the massage 'I-XX diving deep'. It CAN'T dive deep. All I-class subs should be treated as though they were in a shallow water hex. I find it interesting that we have no problem representing the limitations imposed on US subs by torpedoes that don't work but very poor Japanese submarine's limitations are ignored. JFB bias? Naaah, couldn't be.

On the other end of the spectrum, from mid 1944 on, when US subs ought to be sinking ships left and right, the E patrol boats are sinking US subs nearly every time they attack. They all have ridiculous day and night experience, I guess, and are all commanded by Lord Nelson. While I agree that the poor ASW capability of the IJN could be improved in the game, This is off the deep end. JFB bias? Naaah, couldn't be.




Misconduct -> RE: Uber Subs - Still (4/2/2010 10:36:36 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: HHI

I disagree that it is about right. The I class sub was a pig. It was too large, slow diving and, most importantly, could only dive to 200 feet. The diving limitation means the I-class couldn't get under the Pacific thermals, making it a marvelous sonar target. None of these limitations are represented either in the hard code or in the data base, where diving depth is not even indicated and the I-class has about the same durability as the Gato's. I get irritated every time I see the massage 'I-XX diving deep'. It CAN'T dive deep. All I-class subs should be treated as though they were in a shallow water hex. I find it interesting that we have no problem representing the limitations imposed on US subs by torpedoes that don't work but very poor Japanese submarine's limitations are ignored. JFB bias? Naaah, couldn't be.

On the other end of the spectrum, from mid 1944 on, when US subs ought to be sinking ships left and right, the E patrol boats are sinking US subs nearly every time they attack. They all have ridiculous day and night experience, I guess, and are all commanded by Lord Nelson. While I agree that the poor ASW capability of the IJN could be improved in the game, This is off the deep end. JFB bias? Naaah, couldn't be.


Well I agree with ya big time, I mean biggest problem the game has is the database is only so big, I would think it would be to much of a hassle to re-code the game over it, however like I said they need an entry for "detection level" because clearly you can't compare an I-16 to a Gato or Balao class submarine, both would easily dive under japanese sonar. Only thing I can think of that would cause a Gato to equal an I-16 is when diving in coastal areas where you are limited either way by the depth.

However if WITP3 ever comes out, i'm pretty sure they'd expand the database and include details like detection level and depth for submarines.




Dili -> RE: Uber Subs - Still (4/4/2010 3:25:46 AM)

So a sub that can't go under thermal layer(making the assumption that you are right) can't escape ever? What do you think it was the active sonar in WW2? It was nothing more than a spot light.




witpqs -> RE: Uber Subs - Still (4/4/2010 3:58:57 AM)

One problem here is lack of continuity - meaning that the original coders and designers are not available to point out exactly what in the code is meant to account for what. We have been told that there are various modifiers in the code for effectiveness of ASW of various nations. Maybe those were originally crafted to also account for the characteristics of IJN subs without having to add more to the database and other areas of the code.

Seeing that something is or is not in the database really doesn't give us - or the present developers - the whole story.




Cuttlefish -> RE: Uber Subs - Still (4/4/2010 5:35:32 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: HHI

I disagree that it is about right. The I class sub was a pig. It was too large, slow diving and, most importantly, could only dive to 200 feet. The diving limitation means the I-class couldn't get under the Pacific thermals, making it a marvelous sonar target. None of these limitations are represented either in the hard code or in the data base, where diving depth is not even indicated and the I-class has about the same durability as the Gato's. I get irritated every time I see the massage 'I-XX diving deep'. It CAN'T dive deep. All I-class subs should be treated as though they were in a shallow water hex. I find it interesting that we have no problem representing the limitations imposed on US subs by torpedoes that don't work but very poor Japanese submarine's limitations are ignored. JFB bias? Naaah, couldn't be.

On the other end of the spectrum, from mid 1944 on, when US subs ought to be sinking ships left and right, the E patrol boats are sinking US subs nearly every time they attack. They all have ridiculous day and night experience, I guess, and are all commanded by Lord Nelson. While I agree that the poor ASW capability of the IJN could be improved in the game, This is off the deep end. JFB bias? Naaah, couldn't be.


I don't disagree with what you have to say about I-boats - they were large and slow and could not dive deeply. But does this mean that:

- an I-boat could not not sink a badly damaged US carrier and a destroyer in the same salvo and then get away?
- a US carrier could not be hit by single torpedoes on two different occasions in the same year by two different I-boats that both escape?
- an I-boat could not sink a US carrier and damage a destroyer (which eventually sinks) and a battleship and then successfully escape?

The OP seems to be complaining about a game result that must have seemed to the US Navy, in 1942 at least, like a depressingly routine occurance.





Chickenboy -> RE: Uber Subs - Still (4/4/2010 12:31:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Charbroiled

I think the submarine and ASW portion of the game is just about right.

I agree.

It's been toned down substantially with patch III. Let's give it some time to judge whether more tweaking (read: impending nerf job) is truly merited.




HHI -> RE: Uber Subs - Still (4/4/2010 2:01:10 PM)

[I don't disagree with what you have to say about I-boats - they were large and slow and could not dive deeply. But does this mean that:

- an I-boat could not not sink a badly damaged US carrier and a destroyer in the same salvo and then get away?
- a US carrier could not be hit by single torpedoes on two different occasions in the same year by two different I-boats that both escape?
- an I-boat could not sink a US carrier and damage a destroyer (which eventually sinks) and a battleship and then successfully escape?

The OP seems to be complaining about a game result that must have seemed to the US Navy, in 1942 at least, like a depressingly routine occuranc]

When operating in submarine infested waters, bad things can happen, particularly when the opponent, even in an inferior submarine, has the Long Lance. This weapon had titanic range and over 50 knot speed. The real issue is that all of the advantages of the I boats are carefully represented, none of the disadvantages. When cruising with fast warships, any ASW ship is at a disadvantage. They are running around at 30 knots trying to maintain a screen around a maneuvering capital ship. Such a task force depends on speed and an effective zig-zag pattern, which, in the case of aircraft carriers, must be broken to launch aircraft. Hydrophones and sonar do not work well at 30 knots. This really comes into effect with the idea that the I boats could be an effective commerce warrier. There it's limitations really would have been apparent, due to the much slower speed of the escorts. Again, none of these issues are represented either in the hard code or the data base. Why not? Well, we all know that the people who did this work are well aware of the these problems with the I boats, yet they choose to ignore them. There is a decided JFB bias.

Yes, in real life, the I boats had some successes. They torpedoed and sunk the Yorktown and the (I think) Sims, both heaved-to. They got a torpedo into the North Carolina, whose underwater protection was inferior due to Treaty limitations and they got the Wasp which was forced to operate in submarine infested waters. I did not complain about the specific incident that initiated this line. I simply stated that this sub/ASW was not properly represented. It definitely is not. It is decidedly biased toward the Japanese.

This whole bias continues throughout the game. The prewar US battleships are treated as though they were manned by seaman recruits, when in reality, they were every bit as well trained as the Japanese, perhaps better. However, the emphasis was on gunnery, not torpedo attack. Later in the war, the effects of bombardment have been toned down to the point that it is a joke. While the bombardment was ineffective at Tarawa, US naval officers were capable of learning their lessons. The bombardment of atolls at Kwajalein and Eniwetok was extensive and effective. The assault force destroyed the Japanese forces with limited casualties due to the devestating effect of the bombardment. The whole bombardment model is mistreated. The real effect of bombardment, both by ships and by aircraft, should be primarily to reduce the fortification level of the target. Instead, you get runways that are put out of commision ten times over and losses sustained by, primarily, non-combat units. Why is this? The people working on this game have a knowledge base probably several magnitudes higher than mine. They know everything. Simply put, modeling the reality of the situation does not work with the JFB bias.

Starting in early 1943, the US developed and used parachute fragmentation bombs on airfields in New Guinea with absolutely devastating effect on Japanese aircraft. How come this isn't represented. Continuing on, the US had hugely superior radar fire control (example, Washington vs. Kirishima). In the game, nothing happens until there is a visual sighting, usually by the Japanese. JFB bias.

The B-29's are virtually useless. Now, in reality, we all know high altitude precision bombing was ineffective on the home islands due to heavy cloud cover, the effect of the jet stream at 30,000 feet and a lack of adequately trained radar operators. This is certainly accurately represented in the game. You can't hit sh*t. Furthermore, even after getting fighter support into Iwo Jima, the attacks are not cohesive and aircraft stagger in, unescorted, and get beat up. OK, fine. It doesn't work and it didn't work IRL. But where are the incendiaries? B-29s can't hit the ground in low altitude night attacks in the game. How is the tinder box nature of Japan's great cities represented? Not at all. JFB bias.

Speaking of incendiaries, with the advent of napalm, the effect of fighter-bomber attack on LCU's should be much more effective. Doesn't happen. JFB bias. Attacks by land based aircraft against merchant ships and destroyers should be greatly improved with the advent of the 4.5" rocket. Doesn't happen. JFB bias.




Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.7832031