I just need to say this......... (Full Version)

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



Message

sdhundt -> I just need to say this......... (5/14/2011 3:12:00 PM)

I know this has been stated in the past and players from both sides have weighed into this topic. The American torpedoe failure rate was about %70 according to the several different detailed reports that I have seen. The game though has the failure rate at almost %100. Um, this really needs to be fixed. By not fixing it the Japs. can go anywhere and sit with KB with no fears of anything. Lets make this a better game. I know you cold just turn off the realistic torpedo failure rate but that doesn't address the problem, Thanks for reading this.



HexHead -> RE: I just need to say this......... (5/14/2011 3:23:11 PM)

Oh, turning off the torp fails addresses it, alright.

Let the JFB know, though.



Rob Brennan UK -> RE: I just need to say this......... (5/14/2011 3:33:06 PM)

SDhundt. USN dive-bombers with 1000lb bombs ruin Jap Cv's , Admittedly the torpedo bombers are not very effective due to the horrible torpedoes used by the USN in the early and mid war periods. By stating that KB is invulnerable to damage suggests you haven't really tried hard enough as allies or just been plain lucky as Japan [;)].

The torp failure rate has been discussed to death here since witP launched and 90% failure is pretty much accepted by most players, some ofc are entitled to hold different views and that's what the torp off button is for in the game menu. I would imagine the device can be edited to whatever you like too.

Regardless I hope you enjoy the game, and this forum is a great learning tool as well as a nice place to drop by.

good luck



Smeulders -> RE: I just need to say this......... (5/14/2011 3:35:22 PM)

The game has a dud rate of 80% in January 43' it becomes 60% and in September 43' it becomes 10%. I'm interested to hear where you get the 'nearly 100%' from.



sdhundt -> RE: I just need to say this......... (5/14/2011 4:34:10 PM)

Well I can only speak for my pbem game, I'm still in late 1942 but it's now been twentyone times in a row that my sub. torps. have failed to detinate when hitting a Jap. carrier in big BK or little KB. Twenty one times in a row, now that's a little redicoulas. And as for the statement that "I haven't really tried hard enough", I could direct you to roy2008 AAR in the German forum or you could just ask him and I think he could tell you how HARD I have tried. I'm just saying it's a little hard to fight KB when he knows the torps. never go BOOOOM [:-]



DeriKuk -> RE: I just need to say this......... (5/14/2011 6:05:08 PM)

There are many things that need to be fixed. Many of the problems probably came about through "well-intentioned" efforts to design-for effect.

Apart from the torps:

- The devastating AWS capabilities of IJA bombers.
- C47s falling from the skies like confetti, while Dakota IIIs flying the same mission from the same base at the same time have much more realistic loss rate.
- Those nuclear depth charges used by IJN 'E'-class patrol boats.
- Night-time bombers being too effective on non-"City" missions.
- Night Fighters being practically useless.
- The [supply-cost]-[effect-benefit] of artillery being prohibitively useless.

Yes, there is much that is wrong. Will it be fixed before I have to abandon the game for the rest of my life? Probably not . . .

How close is the latest BETA to being the definitive release?



topeverest -> RE: I just need to say this......... (5/14/2011 6:08:44 PM)

Keep in mind the non-american subs do not carry the same 42 dud burden.

You will get hits. I regularly sink one to three dozen merchants per month in 42 with subs. The primary reason empire combat ships dont really suffer from american subs in 42 is a combination of the difficulty to hit a ship with higher speed and maneuverability along with the dud rate. Look at it from a math perspective, say 4 torps fired at target. A ship moving 10 might take 4 hits and one explosion. A combat ship doing 30+ knots might take one hit and it be a dud. Thats just math.

I do believe the dud rate effectively portrays the american difficulty in 42. Later in the war, you will be utterly amazed how effective the allied sub machine is.

Let me suggest your subs are best use in merchant roles in 42, since, as I described above, there is little they can effectively do against combat ships.



topeverest -> RE: I just need to say this......... (5/14/2011 6:16:46 PM)

HJ,

A few thoughts on your comments
1. remember that pilot skill and experience is the single most important factor in mission effectiveness. If you are getting pummeled by ASW, then your opponnet / computer has highly skilled pilots and is using effective naval search routines
2. with regard to depth charging, this is going to happen, especially where the enemy has effectively used combined arms (air spotting, Air asw, and ship asw). either side can effectively shut down particular zones by focusing trained assets. I believe this is what you are experiencing.
3. I do not agree that night fighters are useless. radar equipped certainly are better than non...
4. c47 vs dakota 3. Operational losses are a function of airframe fatigue, pilot experience, and mission distance. Those two plane types are pretty similar and their ops losses are similar IME.
5. IMHO, artillery is mainly useful as a disrupting device against enemy ground forces. It does not win or lose battles in and of itself.

I hope this helps.



sdhundt -> RE: I just need to say this......... (5/14/2011 6:22:57 PM)

Update....Just ran my latest turn.....guess what ?.........It's now twenty-two turns and counting.......CV Hiyo just laughed at the four torpedoes that missed the big fat carrier. Well at least they missed and I can't complain about them being duds. This has to be an AE record for failed sub. vs CV attacks. If anyone cares I'm going to keep a running total on here to see how many times in a row my subs can fail against a jap. CV. You would think by accident the subs. should eventually hit a CV[&:]



DeriKuk -> RE: I just need to say this......... (5/14/2011 6:35:39 PM)

quote:

I hope this helps


Actually, it doesn't. I'm into a grand campaign in June '44, and have played it against an excellent opponent for almost a year now, so I have a very thick layer of empirical evidence . . . and I'm committed to keep on playing.

Pilot experience of Wellington GRs and Liberator GRs and Catalinas and Venturas is through the roof. They have high skills (70+) in low naval bombing and ASW . . . yet they - and their IJN counterparts - are chumps when compared to the actual game performance of the IJA bomber pilots on ASW missions. Please note the emphases.

I have seen the numbers. I'm a grognard wargamer (and game designer) with 33+ years of experience on wargaming. I know design-for-effect when I see it. It's a cheap trick, and it will create a multitude of errors in a complex game for every "error" it tries to "fix".



HexHead -> RE: I just need to say this......... (5/14/2011 6:40:48 PM)

It is almost impossible to model a sub attack in an operational level game.

* What was the range for the attack?

* Did the skipper or periscope operator use the stadimeter correctly? How about the speed estimate? No one ever misestimates a target's speed? How about angle on the bow (AOB)? Gee, that's always down to the exact degree, right?

* Spray on the scope, night attacks being nearly impossible when submerged ("...the scope at night was effectively useless..." [paraphrase], George Grider, War Fish), little things like escorts with a bone in their teeth approaching while you're taking one last setup observation.

I hate to say it, but if one wants a realistic model, play Silent Hunter - even the original is better than an operational level program.

There was a skipper who had a fat juicy liner, 30,000 tons in the crosshairs. He got it to slow by a hit on the props, or something - it was literally a sitting duck.

Sixteen fish later, not a freakin'scratch - from point blank range, virtually a sitting target with a firing solution even an ensign could set up. The boat took one fish with them back to the barn for analysis. It took stuff like that to get Bureau of Ordnance to say, "Hmmm."

Do not look for realistic sub ops in operational games, that's my opinion. It could be done, but it would be an entire subprogram and probably not cost effective from cost/benefit perspective, it could cost too much in time and money to implement a credible routine for half a dozen different navies, different boats, different doctrines.

Just one man's take on things.



witpqs -> RE: I just need to say this......... (5/14/2011 6:49:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sdhundt

I know this has been stated in the past and players from both sides have weighed into this topic. The American torpedoe failure rate was about %70 according to the several different detailed reports that I have seen. The game though has the failure rate at almost %100. Um, this really needs to be fixed. By not fixing it the Japs. can go anywhere and sit with KB with no fears of anything. Lets make this a better game. I know you cold just turn off the realistic torpedo failure rate but that doesn't address the problem, Thanks for reading this.



No, and you can actually look up the dud rate in the editor. The torpedoes all vary, and you or I might think they got this one or that one a little bit wrong but the data is there for you to see. IIRC the Mk14 used by many USN subs is given a failure rate of 80%. A torpedo (I forget the name) used by many USN destroyers is given a failure rate of 60%. They are all there to be seen.

They also change over time. From the manual:
quote:


6.4.2.1 NOTE ON TORPEDO DUDS
In January 1943, all torpedoes with a dud rate of greater than 49 have their dud rates reduced by 20. In September 1943, all torpedoes with an adjusted dud rate greater than 20 have their dud rates lowered to 10. Allied torpedoes were notoriously inefficient in the early stages of the Pacific War, and this rule reflects their slow but steady improvement over the years.

Note: if the Realism option “Reliable USN Torpedoes” (see section 2.4.7) is selected, this rule does not apply – no torpedoes will have dud rates higher than 10%.



USS Henrico -> RE: I just need to say this......... (5/14/2011 6:55:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: sdhundt

Update....Just ran my latest turn.....guess what ?.........It's now twenty-two turns and counting.......CV Hiyo just laughed at the four torpedoes that missed the big fat carrier. Well at least they missed and I can't complain about them being duds. This has to be an AE record for failed sub. vs CV attacks. If anyone cares I'm going to keep a running total on here to see how many times in a row my subs can fail against a jap. CV. You would think by accident the subs. should eventually hit a CV[&:]


In Jan 43 it gets better. The difference between 80% and 60% firing a spread of torpedoes makes a serious difference.

I had an experience of three weeks with a torpedo dud attack every day in Nov-Dec 42 of my PBEM game. Once the calendar rolled over to the new year, the explosions started happening. Not every time, but enough to put the USN submarine arm in the war.



Big B -> RE: I just need to say this......... (5/14/2011 7:48:33 PM)

Actually, if you open your editor and look up the types of torpedo assigned to the different platforms, you will find that initial dud rates vary by torpedo type.

USN submarines use the 21" Mark 14 (dud rate 80%)
USN surface ships (DDs) use the 21" Mark 15 (dud rate 60%)
USN TBD's and TBF's use the 22.4" Mark 13 (dud rate 50%).

And as stated above, the rates improve as the date progresses.

B

EDIT: A good place to find the historical information is here: http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WTUS_WWII.htm



Bullwinkle58 -> RE: I just need to say this......... (5/14/2011 7:54:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B

Actually, if you open your editor and look up the types of torpedo assigned to the different platforms, you will find that initial dud rates vary by torpedo type.

USN submarines use the 21" Mark 14 (dud rate 80%)


Only the fleet boats. The S-class uses the Mk10, which works well.

As for the contention made by the OP and his 22-shot donut, well, Mr. Bernoulli was a real SOB.



Bradley7735 -> RE: I just need to say this......... (5/14/2011 8:09:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: HexHead

There was a skipper who had a fat juicy liner, 30,000 tons in the crosshairs. He got it to slow by a hit on the props, or something - it was literally a sitting duck.

Sixteen fish later, not a freakin'scratch - from point blank range, virtually a sitting target with a firing solution even an ensign could set up. The boat took one fish with them back to the barn for analysis. It took stuff like that to get Bureau of Ordnance to say, "Hmmm."



The game shouldn't use one example from the real war to make coding decisions in the game. This example happened once. And, it's a great example.

The torpedo firing pin was weak. 90 degree hits had a much higher chance of failure, compared to shorter angles. This ship was a sitting duck. The skipper lined up so an ensign could make the shot (90 degrees). unfortunately, that was the worst setup for the bad torpedoes.

If the ship was maneuvering, she would have been sunk with less than 16 torpedos. A couple would have hit at angles and the firing pin would have been less likely to shatter. The majority of the 16 fish actually hit the target. a few did run deep or angled away.

I would argue, as the OP has, that 80% is too high a dud rate. I think it should be around 70% (but, this number is pulled out of my @ss). I would also argue that the capabilities of the US S class are too effective. Historically, they (combined) sank 1 ship per month they were in action. And, quite a few of them were lost operationally.

The US fleet boats are a little less effective in 42 than they were, historically. But, most players make up for some of the deficiency by getting much better use from their S class and the Dutch boats. I guess you end up getting to the same place, but it would be nice to have it perfect.



topeverest -> RE: I just need to say this......... (5/14/2011 8:27:10 PM)

Quoting Bernoulli now. This is serious!

I never liked fluid dynamics...or number theory or was it...and I am stretching...Reman function?




sprior -> RE: I just need to say this......... (5/14/2011 8:44:02 PM)

Bernoulli is eay P1Q1=P2Q2



HexHead -> RE: I just need to say this......... (5/14/2011 8:47:05 PM)

And when the engine quits, you enjoy the acceleration due to gravity.



HexHead -> RE: I just need to say this......... (5/14/2011 8:50:01 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: topeverest

Quoting Bernoulli now. This is serious!

I never liked fluid dynamics...or number theory or was it...and I am stretching...Reman function?




"Riemann," I believe.

Remember, there is one, and only one line, parallel to given line that may be drawn through a point not on the given line - but only if you say so.



HexHead -> RE: I just need to say this......... (5/14/2011 8:55:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735


quote:

ORIGINAL: HexHead

There was a skipper who had a fat juicy liner, 30,000 tons in the crosshairs. He got it to slow by a hit on the props, or something - it was literally a sitting duck.

Sixteen fish later, not a freakin'scratch - from point blank range, virtually a sitting target with a firing solution even an ensign could set up. The boat took one fish with them back to the barn for analysis. It took stuff like that to get Bureau of Ordnance to say, "Hmmm."



The game shouldn't use one example from the real war to make coding decisions in the game. This example happened once. And, it's a great example.

The torpedo firing pin was weak. 90 degree hits had a much higher chance of failure, compared to shorter angles. This ship was a sitting duck. The skipper lined up so an ensign could make the shot (90 degrees). unfortunately, that was the worst setup for the bad torpedoes.

If the ship was maneuvering, she would have been sunk with less than 16 torpedos. A couple would have hit at angles and the firing pin would have been less likely to shatter. The majority of the 16 fish actually hit the target. a few did run deep or angled away.

I would argue, as the OP has, that 80% is too high a dud rate. I think it should be around 70% (but, this number is pulled out of my @ss). I would also argue that the capabilities of the US S class are too effective. Historically, they (combined) sank 1 ship per month they were in action. And, quite a few of them were lost operationally.

The US fleet boats are a little less effective in 42 than they were, historically. But, most players make up for some of the deficiency by getting much better use from their S class and the Dutch boats. I guess you end up getting to the same place, but it would be nice to have it perfect.


Perfection is, essentially, chimerical in this imperfect world.

As far as WitP:AE goes - it probably is a matter of taste. As far as the game and WW2 goes - there were three major problems with the 14s, each masking the other. The problem, as a whole, wasn't completely solved until late '43. So when to give the AFB his bullets back, how, and how much, is a matter for design meetings.



LoBaron -> RE: I just need to say this......... (5/14/2011 9:06:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: topeverest

Quoting Bernoulli now. This is serious!




[:D]



erstad -> RE: I just need to say this......... (5/14/2011 9:07:53 PM)

Of course, if anyone thinks the dud rates are too high, it's easy enough to change them.



Bullwinkle58 -> RE: I just need to say this......... (5/14/2011 9:21:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: erstad

Of course, if anyone thinks the dud rates are too high, it's easy enough to change them.


Bingo.

And it needs to be said over again: Nobody, anywhere, at any time, knows the real dud rate. We know it wasn't zero or 100%, but beyond that, in the center of the probability distribution, it's anyone's guess. The data are massively impacted by human subjectivity and limits in the observational mechanisms at sea.

Set it to whatever rate blows your kilt up and be happy.



Bullwinkle58 -> RE: I just need to say this......... (5/14/2011 9:31:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: topeverest

Quoting Bernoulli now. This is serious!

I never liked fluid dynamics...or number theory or was it...and I am stretching...Reman function?




Jacob Bernoulli was the multiple independent trials guy I believe, not Daniel Bernoulli, who was the Fluid D. guy. Lots of very smart Bernoullis in the history of math and physics.



Smeulders -> RE: I just need to say this......... (5/14/2011 9:38:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: sdhundt

Well I can only speak for my pbem game, I'm still in late 1942 but it's now been twentyone times in a row that my sub. torps. have failed to detinate when hitting a Jap. carrier in big BK or little KB. Twenty one times in a row, now that's a little redicoulas. And as for the statement that "I haven't really tried hard enough", I could direct you to roy2008 AAR in the German forum or you could just ask him and I think he could tell you how HARD I have tried. I'm just saying it's a little hard to fight KB when he knows the torps. never go BOOOOM [:-]


You've gotten 22 attacks on a carrier, nice. Now, how many of these have been duds and not just misses ? Even if all duds, you've still got a .7% chance of it happening with an 80% dud rate. Not fun, not fun at all, but not impossible. With the number of players playing this game it was bound to happen.



roy2008 -> RE: I just need to say this......... (5/14/2011 10:36:06 PM)

if i rember correctly , most of the attacks misses



crsutton -> RE: I just need to say this......... (5/14/2011 11:45:47 PM)

Hmmmm.... what I really find surprising is that you have had 22 sub attacks on Japanese carriers  by late 42. Your opponent must not believe in escorts. But perhaps you have had an abundance of luck finding and shooting at subs and an abundance of bad luck hitting them. You are just having hard luck and it will balance out.

Does anyone know if an American sub hit any Japanese carrier in 1942?

In my campaign (late 43),my subs put single torpedoes in three carriers in 1942. One I think was a MK 14. Now that my torpedoes are better, I have had a run of bad luck hitting Japanese capital ships as of late-with about 10 or 15 shootings in the last six months and no hits. Just a bad streak I suppose.

I have no problem with the historical dud rate but do have a serious problem with targeting. My subs shoot at escorts over more valuable tankers and merchies way too much-and always seem to miss the escort and then get pounded.



Bradley7735 -> RE: I just need to say this......... (5/15/2011 12:35:18 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Does anyone know if an American sub hit any Japanese carrier in 1942?



Did Hiyo get severely damaged in 42 or 43?
I need to go look up Blair.....[&:]



dereck -> RE: I just need to say this......... (5/15/2011 1:37:53 AM)

One thing to remember is that with a torpedo with a dud rate of 80% it doesn't mean that:

out of 100 torpedoes fired 80 will be duds and 20 will hit, BUT

that each of the 100 torpedoes has an 80% chance of being a dud

Considering the above it would be possible to have streaks of hits and streaks of dud.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.234375