RE: Best IJN ASW assets? (Full Version)

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



Message

Shark7 -> RE: Best IJN ASW assets? (9/12/2010 1:18:14 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

quote:

So yes, factors are “appreciated” in the game. But no, those factors are not expressly modeled; except in so far as they are held in the mind of the designer. You would not believe the background math that was passed back and forth during the development activity.


If the results people are describing are accurate (i.e. - Allied subs being easy meat in 1944 and on), i'd say that either something has happened in one of the patches, or the model needs serious tweaking.


Or is it just that the Japanese equipment improves in 1944? Not questioning the rightness or wrongness of it, just wondering if that is the guilty variable?



Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Best IJN ASW assets? (9/12/2010 1:20:40 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

In a sense Bob, the answer is both yes and no. You are correct, in the sense that it is just not possible to model this on the basis of “method” or “technique” so, of course, the engine does not calculate probabilities of each and every advantage/disadvantage of the relative combatants (heck, to be precise, you would have to do that for each and every Class and Class upgrade for each and every combatant).

Not quite correct, in the sense that many of these factors were indeed considered when tweaking the algorithm – especially the noise factor differential between US and IJN subs. The model is not based on method (it cannot be), it is based on “relative” result. All the individual factors are in the mind of the designer when they develop the differential probabilities (the randoms).

Results are kinda-sorta broken down into several phases – detection, acquisition, prosecution, and damage.

Detection – there is an Allied/Japan differential that grows year-by-year until it is “substantial” (I hesitate to say dispositive). Informed by data fields of respective radar devices, experience, leadership, etc. While not expressly modeled, HF/DF plays a part in determining the numerical differentiation.

Acquisition – if detected (by however means), can an ASW TF, or Ship, ‘acquire’ the sub in order to attack it. Again, there is an Allied/Japan differential that grows year-by-year until it is “substantial”. While not expressly modeled, ‘noise levels’ play a part in determining the numerical differentiation.

Prosecution – the ASW TF shoots its weapons at a target. How many weapons and what kinds of weapons are a function of data, and how the engine uses that data to calculate ammo expenditure, % hit and “tonnage on target”. This is the case where 16 may not be bigger than 11 and 2 + 2 do not equal 4. The designers understand the concept of salvos, and also understand the concept of coordination between sensors and weapons and forward firing technique. Weapon data has been informed in order to conform with this understanding.

Damage – again a data impetus, with several non-obvious considerations.

So yes, factors are “appreciated” in the game. But no, those factors are not expressly modeled; except in so far as they are held in the mind of the designer. You would not believe the background math that was passed back and forth during the development activity.



Excellent summary without giving away the algorithms. I can only imagine the maths.

One quesiton, how (or even if) are multiple-ship ASW TFs considerd? Is each firing--damage calculation made assumig a 1-on-1 geometry, or are supporting ASW platforms somehow introduced to shade the results? Evasion is very much easier against one attacker than four in a ring.



Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Best IJN ASW assets? (9/12/2010 1:25:15 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso
To add a bit more to the debate: according to the "US Submarine Design" series, USN fleet boats were ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE quieter than I-boats, and at least an order of magnitude quieter than the quietest U-boats... (i didn't see comparisons to British boats...)

This alone gave the USN a tremendous advantage in sub warfare (including sub vs sub, i would think).

As this fact isn't widely appreciated, i am pretty sure it is not in the WITP game design.


I know from RL experience that quiet ops are a factor--95%+--of three things. Good initial design and builder QA, good maintenance practices, and crew training and discipline. Take the best design, but have the crew paint sound mounts to make them stiff, or drop tools while at silent running, and it all goes out the window. In modern sonar world we call ooppsies "transients." They are precious to opposing sonar operators. No narrow-band analysis needed. Drop a wrench in the bilge and you're toast.

WWII USN crews drilled and drilled on silent running. It wasn't just the title of a great novel.


However, if you can get that crew that does everything right, doesn't drop the wrench or paint the sound mounts stiff...then a diesel electric boat running on batteries at low speed makes about as much sound as the lead acid battery in your car (an actual comparison I've seen)....very difficult to detect.


Yep, which is why the IJN relied on active echo ranging to a great extent. That requires rapid response, or lots of escorts, as the circle of probable error gets real big, real fast.

There are also miscelaneous noises other than main propulsion that can't be completely eliminated. The trim pump, flow noise across hull valves, aux. seawater system pumps, lube oil pumps, hydraulic pumps, some blade noise from the screw, wtc.



Shark7 -> RE: Best IJN ASW assets? (9/12/2010 1:40:40 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso
To add a bit more to the debate: according to the "US Submarine Design" series, USN fleet boats were ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE quieter than I-boats, and at least an order of magnitude quieter than the quietest U-boats... (i didn't see comparisons to British boats...)

This alone gave the USN a tremendous advantage in sub warfare (including sub vs sub, i would think).

As this fact isn't widely appreciated, i am pretty sure it is not in the WITP game design.


I know from RL experience that quiet ops are a factor--95%+--of three things. Good initial design and builder QA, good maintenance practices, and crew training and discipline. Take the best design, but have the crew paint sound mounts to make them stiff, or drop tools while at silent running, and it all goes out the window. In modern sonar world we call ooppsies "transients." They are precious to opposing sonar operators. No narrow-band analysis needed. Drop a wrench in the bilge and you're toast.

WWII USN crews drilled and drilled on silent running. It wasn't just the title of a great novel.


However, if you can get that crew that does everything right, doesn't drop the wrench or paint the sound mounts stiff...then a diesel electric boat running on batteries at low speed makes about as much sound as the lead acid battery in your car (an actual comparison I've seen)....very difficult to detect.


Yep, which is why the IJN relied on active echo ranging to a great extent. That requires rapid response, or lots of escorts, as the circle of probable error gets real big, real fast.

There are also miscelaneous noises other than main propulsion that can't be completely eliminated. The trim pump, flow noise across hull valves, aux. seawater system pumps, lube oil pumps, hydraulic pumps, some blade noise from the screw, wtc.


Plus pinging away advertises the convoy's position to every ship or sub with a hydrophone in range to hear it. Which is why passive is preferred. Very easy to avoid the escorts when they are using active sonar.



mike scholl 1 -> RE: Best IJN ASW assets? (9/12/2010 2:48:03 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

Plus pinging away advertises the convoy's position to every ship or sub with a hydrophone in range to hear it. Which is why passive is preferred. Very easy to avoid the escorts when they are using active sonar.



More true today than in WW II. Today's passive systems can determine a great deal more than WW II hydrophones, which were limited to picking up noise and providing a general direction.

Sonar provided much more accurate information for conducting an attack. And if the "pinging" caused the sub to turn away, then the convoy was safe from it's attack anyway. Convoys made so much noise that a pinging sonar more or less was of little concern in escaping detection. The important thing was to detect incoming subs and drive them away. Sinking them was great, but driving them out of attack range was more important.

Later in the War, the Allies had enough ASW assets that come could be detached to prosecute extended attacks with improved weaponry like hedgehog and mousetrap, and Axis sub sinkings became much more common.



Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Best IJN ASW assets? (9/12/2010 8:42:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7


Plus pinging away advertises the convoy's position to every ship or sub with a hydrophone in range to hear it. Which is why passive is preferred. Very easy to avoid the escorts when they are using active sonar.


Local help was a factor in the Atlantic for U-boats, not in the Pacific. Except for small group experiments in 1944-45, the USN kept patrols areas solo.

Also, passive sonar requires far more industrial expertise and exact manufacturing. Hydrophones are hard to make. It's a lot easier to make a radiator that bangs away and a reciever that only has to listen to a narrow freq response range. On my boat in the 1980s, we still had a mid-1950s active set. My father recognized it as one he'd used as an enlisted man pre-1960. Our passive sets were highly computerized, with narrowband signal processors. They were late 1970s tech, and all we used.

Active sonar was highly useful with WWII sub tech. The escorts had a 10:1 speed advantage, and the subs (mostly) had no homing wepaons. Especially with more than one escort, an active fix held the boat tight while the other(s) made runs to kill it. You can't get away at 2-3 knots, unless there's a great layer, you use sonificaiton of the water expertly, you also have countermeasures, or the opposition is horribly trained.



JWE -> RE: Best IJN ASW assets? (9/13/2010 3:19:17 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso
If the results people are describing are accurate (i.e. - Allied subs being easy meat in 1944 and on), i'd say that either something has happened in one of the patches, or the model needs serious tweaking.

Yes indeed, I do agree, if everybody was seeing this result. But only a couple players have reported it, without going into any detail about 'where' and in what density. About 50 of our regular Babes testers and players have reported just the opposite result.

I can think of several (ot-nay, oo-tay, ight-bray) deployment schemes that would give a lot of dead US subs in '44. Am not particularly interested in having the engine tweaked to minimize sub-optimal utilization.



mike scholl 1 -> RE: Best IJN ASW assets? (9/14/2010 7:10:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE


quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso
If the results people are describing are accurate (i.e. - Allied subs being easy meat in 1944 and on), i'd say that either something has happened in one of the patches, or the model needs serious tweaking.

Yes indeed, I do agree, if everybody was seeing this result. But only a couple players have reported it, without going into any detail about 'where' and in what density. About 50 of our regular Babes testers and players have reported just the opposite result.

I can think of several (ot-nay, oo-tay, ight-bray) deployment schemes that would give a lot of dead US subs in '44. Am not particularly interested in having the engine tweaked to minimize sub-optimal utilization.



John. How many of the testers you mentioned have reached 1944? I didn't notice anything particularly our-of-line until the flood of "E" class escorts showed up then. As Sonny and I close out December, the only working answer I've found to these ships is to sic TF 58 on them..., which brings it into kamikaze range and a whole new set of problems.

The game seems to operate these vessels as if they were Allied ASW vessels with advanced Sonar/Asdic sets, superb Radars, and specialized ASW weaponry like Mousetrap, Hedgehog, and Squid. They simply weren't nearly as good or well-equipped historically as their performance in the game would indicate.



JWE -> RE: Best IJN ASW assets? (9/14/2010 7:43:02 PM)

The gaming group I am part of makes its own scenarios that, over the years, have covered the entire gamut of time frames. This includes several looks at early/late ’43 and early/late ’44. We play Babes, so we can tweak. Since we (mostly Don Bowen) were the principal pushers of the split-tube sub system, and since we devised certain data tweaks to sub/ASW characteristics, we have been extremely diligent in looking at both sub and ASW combat, across the game-years.

The game does not operate Japanese E vessels as though they were Allied. Japanese vessels operate like the code tells them to operate. I cannot be more specific than that. It just does NOT happen.

As I mentioned, there are several deployment schemes that will allow an Allied player to get their subs killed at an ahistorical rate. But there is no accounting in the code for less than optimal operational competence.
[image]local://upfiles/17451/B3178F19FB264A72AD93DADDCB0EE989.jpg[/image]
Stupid is as stupid does, Sir.



mike scholl 1 -> RE: Best IJN ASW assets? (9/15/2010 5:45:32 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

As I mentioned, there are several deployment schemes that will allow an Allied player to get their subs killed at an ahistorical rate. But there is no accounting in the code for less than optimal operational competence.
[image]local://upfiles/17451/B3178F19FB264A72AD93DADDCB0EE989.jpg[/image]
Stupid is as stupid does, Sir.



You've said several times now that the only reason for the effectiveness of Japanese ASW is incompetent play by the Allied player. Perhaps you would enlighten the rest of us as to how a competent Allied player deploys his subs.
I've sunk about 825 Jap ships with Mk XIV torpedoes in three years of play..., which I thought was pretty good. But I'm always willing to learn from my betters...



JWE -> RE: Best IJN ASW assets? (9/15/2010 8:45:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1
You've said several times now that the only reason for the effectiveness of Japanese ASW is incompetent play by the Allied player. Perhaps you would enlighten the rest of us as to how a competent Allied player deploys his subs.
I've sunk about 825 Jap ships with Mk XIV torpedoes in three years of play..., which I thought was pretty good. But I'm always willing to learn from my betters...

I never said the ONLY reason for anything. Your attempt to put words in my mouth is rather annoying and quite disingenuous.

The original question, which the comments were devised to answer, had to do with the complaint of some people that they were losing more US subs late war than IRL, and the proposition that the number of launchers on late war Japanese E-type vessels was the culprit. The comments indicated:

1) The number of launchers is not a prime factor – too many other factors (code and data) overcome this simple numeric;

2) Loss rates are “relative” within the system, so losing more than one thinks one should implys the other side also loses more than it should, on a relative proportional basis; and

3) There are many gameplay deployment options that minimize or maximize losses, regardless of what the code or data might indicate. The game defines ‘system’. It is not there to force IRL results on a players choices, no matter what they are.

If one wishes enlightenment, one might try a few years in Tibet, or a Yaqui Guia. Otherwise, a simple approach might be to consider:

Density of subs is directly proportional to probability of detection;
Proximity of subs is directly proportional to probability of detection;
Density of subs, and magic code, is directly proportional to probability of acquisition;
Density of ASW TF, and magic code, is directly proportional to probability of prosecution;
Pay a certain degree of attention to the diving depth of subs vs the fall depth (range) of late war DCs.



rtrapasso -> RE: Best IJN ASW assets? (9/15/2010 11:53:23 PM)

iirc: in the course of actual events, USN subs routinely operated quite close to IJN bases... and didn't get hammered as shown in AE. So, by trying to replicate reality, USN players would be judged incompetent??? [&:] [;)]



vonTirpitz -> RE: Best IJN ASW assets? (9/16/2010 1:33:46 AM)

I believe that I understand the point your are trying to make. However, the same statement could be said of an IJN player that stuck to "actual events" and placed a low priority on anti-submarine warfare and not escorting their shipping.

IMHO, the situation is that players on either side of the board will not stick to historical (but often times deficient or obsolete) doctrines that applied to not only ASW but all other aspects of naval warfare. I personally believe that players can use whatever doctrine they want and change their ways as often as they want (which seems to be the way it is in AE).

Technological differences aside, most players will start off on December 7th using tactics and strategies gleaned from historical knowledge of which tactics and strategies proved effective. Add to that the knowledge learned from other forum members and posted for all to analyze and discuss then you have yourself a fine game of strategy that, with very few exceptions, would follow history in detail.

The hope is, I think, that most players will pair up with opponents whom are (or will soon become) strategically adept but are also willing to enjoy the game and the challenges it bears.

My PBEM opponent has changed his tactics several times to adjust to my strategies. Likewise, I have adjusted my tactics to adjust as well. (It is a true shame that he doesn't have the option to attempt a 'Doolittle' raid. That alone would be probably have a similarly 'shocking' effect on most first time PBEMs [:D] )

As for the USN subs, I would suggest you keep them out of shallow waters and away from strong LBA and escort areas until you get more reliable Mk-14s (or else start the game with reliable torpedos). The IJN does not have sufficient assets to defend everything at the same time (Even in the modified scenarios). Find the weak spots and use them to your advantage. And keep your subs moving! [8D]

quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

iirc: in the course of actual events, USN subs routinely operated quite close to IJN bases... and didn't get hammered as shown in AE. So, by trying to replicate reality, USN players would be judged incompetent??? [&:] [;)]



JWE -> RE: Best IJN ASW assets? (9/16/2010 1:48:04 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vonTirpitz
IMHO, the situation is that players on either side of the board will not stick to historical (but often times deficient or obsolete) doctrines that applied to not only ASW but all other aspects of naval warfare. I personally believe that players can use whatever doctrine they want and change their ways as often as they want (which seems to be the way it is in AE).

Technological differences aside, most players will start off on December 7th using tactics and strategies gleaned from historical knowledge of which tactics and strategies proved effective. Add to that the knowledge learned from other forum members and posted for all to analyze and discuss then you have yourself a fine game of strategy that, with very few exceptions, would follow history in detail.

And that would be a "Bingo". I think someone just won an all expense paid trip to b-yew'-tee-ful downtown Tijuana for that one. That is exactly how it's supposed to work, vonTirpitz. Glad to see that somebody "gets it".



mike scholl 1 -> RE: Best IJN ASW assets? (9/16/2010 2:44:47 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1
You've said several times now that the only reason for the effectiveness of Japanese ASW is incompetent play by the Allied player. Perhaps you would enlighten the rest of us as to how a competent Allied player deploys his subs.
I've sunk about 825 Jap ships with Mk XIV torpedoes in three years of play..., which I thought was pretty good. But I'm always willing to learn from my betters...

I never said the ONLY reason for anything. Your attempt to put words in my mouth is rather annoying and quite disingenuous. And the "stupid is as stupid does, sir" quote wasn't? [;)]

Density of subs is directly proportional to probability of detection;
Proximity of subs is directly proportional to probability of detection;
Density of subs, and magic code, is directly proportional to probability of acquisition;
Density of ASW TF, and magic code, is directly proportional to probability of prosecution;
Pay a certain degree of attention to the diving depth of subs vs the fall depth (range) of late war DCs.



Thank you for the actual advice. I'd figured on "density", and never deployed more than one sub to a hex (on purpose..., they sometimes "wolfpack" in pursuit).

"Proximity" to what? Each other? Enemy bases? Could you clarify please?

Hadn't thought of diving depth. With the sub war having moved to Japanese coastal waters in our game, it may be too late now.



rtrapasso -> RE: Best IJN ASW assets? (9/16/2010 2:49:53 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE


quote:

ORIGINAL: vonTirpitz
IMHO, the situation is that players on either side of the board will not stick to historical (but often times deficient or obsolete) doctrines that applied to not only ASW but all other aspects of naval warfare. I personally believe that players can use whatever doctrine they want and change their ways as often as they want (which seems to be the way it is in AE).

Technological differences aside, most players will start off on December 7th using tactics and strategies gleaned from historical knowledge of which tactics and strategies proved effective. Add to that the knowledge learned from other forum members and posted for all to analyze and discuss then you have yourself a fine game of strategy that, with very few exceptions, would follow history in detail.

And that would be a "Bingo". I think someone just won an all expense paid trip to b-yew'-tee-ful downtown Tijuana for that one. That is exactly how it's supposed to work, vonTirpitz. Glad to see that somebody "gets it".

There are ahistorical strategies, and ahistorical tactics.

Ahistorical strategies (i.e. - Japan's invading Oz instead of Burma) should be allowable and encouraged in this game.

Ahistorical TACTICS are gamey, imo (things that COULD have been done but generally weren't because it was against the actual doctrine or even thinking processes of the combatant)... stuff like, oh, sending in AKs before your surface combat TF shows up to absorb the other SCTF's ammo and torps... i will also throw in training IJA bombers for searching over water (or bombing ships), as well as unsupported (by land troops) IJN naval bombardments*... these things were almost unheard of during the war.

In the game, these things are (often) smiled at and thought to be a standard tactic, whereas the didn't happen except in very rare circumstances during the actual war.

Heck, there were probably more instances of Allied pilots going kamikaze than there were of these other instances - why not throw that into the game as well as long as ahistorical tactics are kosher?? The Allies were PHYSICALLY capable of it, after all (it just violated their thinking processes/doctrine/ethics.)

(*AFAIK - there were less than 5 of these during the war, with maybe a couple of more unsuccessful attempts).



Nikademus -> RE: Best IJN ASW assets? (9/16/2010 2:52:27 PM)

how many people won money figuring this thread would be hijacked almost instantaneously into an IJN ASW is overpowered rant?




Shark7 -> RE: Best IJN ASW assets? (9/16/2010 3:35:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

how many people won money figuring this thread would be hijacked almost instantaneously into an IJN ASW is overpowered rant?




raises hand

And I was part of it. [X(]



morganbj -> RE: Best IJN ASW assets? (10/5/2010 1:50:38 PM)

Great!. Another one of those "underwear in the basement" posts. Good grief.



Misconduct -> RE: Best IJN ASW assets? (10/5/2010 3:14:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

how many people won money figuring this thread would be hijacked almost instantaneously into an IJN ASW is overpowered rant?




I won a new pair of briefs, does that count? I played both sides of the board and see no evidence of overpowering, one can conclude I must simply be stupid to not see it.




frank1970 -> RE: Best IJN ASW assets? (10/5/2010 7:42:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

Good to know more of the math, JWE. For my current game I suspected something along those lines re the ratings, so I edged the Type 2 DC down a bit on Accuracy, to an 8. I probably should have toned down the E's launcher count instead. Next time I will, and leave the DDs' Type 2s alone.

You probably would like, as much as any of us, to get into the sensor code and re-model it to make it the huge game-changer it really was and is. I know, from forums for past sub games by Sonalysts, that sonar modeling is a math Everest, and radar not much different. If ever there's a WITP2 I hope that can be funded in the design specs.

Thanks for the knowledge.

To add a bit more to the debate: according to the "US Submarine Design" series, USN fleet boats were ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE quieter than I-boats, and at least an order of magnitude quieter than the quietest U-boats... (i didn't see comparisons to British boats...)

This alone gave the USN a tremendous advantage in sub warfare (including sub vs sub, i would think).

As this fact isn't widely appreciated, i am pretty sure it is not in the WITP game design.


Could you please add the weblink?
I can hardly imagine, that a XXI sub should be so much worse than a Balao etc.



herwin -> RE: Best IJN ASW assets? (10/5/2010 8:05:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Frank


quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

Good to know more of the math, JWE. For my current game I suspected something along those lines re the ratings, so I edged the Type 2 DC down a bit on Accuracy, to an 8. I probably should have toned down the E's launcher count instead. Next time I will, and leave the DDs' Type 2s alone.

You probably would like, as much as any of us, to get into the sensor code and re-model it to make it the huge game-changer it really was and is. I know, from forums for past sub games by Sonalysts, that sonar modeling is a math Everest, and radar not much different. If ever there's a WITP2 I hope that can be funded in the design specs.

Thanks for the knowledge.

To add a bit more to the debate: according to the "US Submarine Design" series, USN fleet boats were ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE quieter than I-boats, and at least an order of magnitude quieter than the quietest U-boats... (i didn't see comparisons to British boats...)

This alone gave the USN a tremendous advantage in sub warfare (including sub vs sub, i would think).

As this fact isn't widely appreciated, i am pretty sure it is not in the WITP game design.


Could you please add the weblink?
I can hardly imagine, that a XXI sub should be so much worse than a Balao etc.


A lot of the noise is in the design details (and the training of the crew). If you put a lot of men into a U- or I-boat, you don't have as much room to isolate the machinery, and you have a high probability of someone wedging their toolkit between some machinery and the hull to store it out of the way.



Shark7 -> RE: Best IJN ASW assets? (10/5/2010 8:39:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Misconduct


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

how many people won money figuring this thread would be hijacked almost instantaneously into an IJN ASW is overpowered rant?




I won a new pair of briefs, does that count? I played both sides of the board and see no evidence of overpowering, one can conclude I must simply be stupid to not see it.




Given how well the Allied AI subs are doing within the first 3 months of my current game, one could argue that they are overpowered...note I said AI. Being that I play on the hardest level, I'm not at all surprised that the AI is more agressive and more successful than historical, because it is the AI with the hard level bonuses...so over-powered...I think not.

And for that matter, I expect that an Allied player 1) knows his torpedoes suck 2) know the Dutch, British and S-Boats don't suck and 3) know I will be agressively hunting subs will do what is smart and use the working boats in areas where I have less ASW capability and not suffer the losses the AI would, or that was historically possible.

Conversely an Allied player that knows 1) I am aggressively hunting subs 2) his torpedoes suck and 3) his older/less capable boats are the only ones that can hit anything at first and still sends his good boats into Japanese home waters....well he gets what he deserves.

This is the reason I play with some house rules that state how many air groups of what type can be set on ASW...it limits me just as much as my opponent, and keeps it somewhat sane, with out completely crippling either of us.



frank1970 -> RE: Best IJN ASW assets? (10/13/2010 8:24:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin


quote:

ORIGINAL: Frank


quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

Good to know more of the math, JWE. For my current game I suspected something along those lines re the ratings, so I edged the Type 2 DC down a bit on Accuracy, to an 8. I probably should have toned down the E's launcher count instead. Next time I will, and leave the DDs' Type 2s alone.

You probably would like, as much as any of us, to get into the sensor code and re-model it to make it the huge game-changer it really was and is. I know, from forums for past sub games by Sonalysts, that sonar modeling is a math Everest, and radar not much different. If ever there's a WITP2 I hope that can be funded in the design specs.

Thanks for the knowledge.

To add a bit more to the debate: according to the "US Submarine Design" series, USN fleet boats were ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE quieter than I-boats, and at least an order of magnitude quieter than the quietest U-boats... (i didn't see comparisons to British boats...)

This alone gave the USN a tremendous advantage in sub warfare (including sub vs sub, i would think).

As this fact isn't widely appreciated, i am pretty sure it is not in the WITP game design.


Could you please add the weblink?
I can hardly imagine, that a XXI sub should be so much worse than a Balao etc.


A lot of the noise is in the design details (and the training of the crew). If you put a lot of men into a U- or I-boat, you don't have as much room to isolate the machinery, and you have a high probability of someone wedging their toolkit between some machinery and the hull to store it out of the way.

Sorry, but I am quite sure, that the German Navy was more than capable to train her crews. I know from my great uncle, that the Uboat he was on trained a very long time in the Baltic before they went for the atlantic.



mariandavid -> RE: Best IJN ASW assets? (10/16/2010 5:45:15 AM)

I rather like the idea of an effective IJN ASW capability late in the war. Make the following quite valid assumptions - the IJN finally prioritises ASW (Willmott's new book gives much detail on this), while at the same time a more astute player/AI has ensured that the escorts are being trained and not thrown away in useless supply runs from 1943 on; the introduction of both radar-equipped and 'light swamping' aircraft forces the USN to shift to submerged attack [[comment - don't erupt into national pride - which they were not very good at, being trained at log, not periscope shooting]] coupled with improved (or invented!) asdic and bearing changing hydrophones etc. All this converts into good ASW results - note that USN subs though highly effective were large and clumsy targets in certain conditions - fast submerge but large lateral asdic targets.



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.6083984