Japanese ASW not toned down in stock? (Full Version)

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



Message


SqzMyLemon -> Japanese ASW not toned down in stock? (11/10/2016 10:29:29 PM)

I'm losing almost a submarine a day to Japanese ASW. I just encountered an E Boat that dropped 4 x 12 depth charge spreads and sunk yet another Allied submarine. I thought the Japanese E Boats had been fixed in updated stock patches, or is DaBabes the only platform where Japanese ASW was corrected?




Admiral DadMan -> RE: Japanese ASW not toned down in stock? (11/10/2016 11:27:12 PM)

Not knowing how you are employing your subs, I have a few suggestions:

Patrol in deep water.

- Stay out of shallow water.
- Stay out of ports.
- Stay out of enemy AZoC's.
- Move around.




SqzMyLemon -> RE: Japanese ASW not toned down in stock? (11/11/2016 12:00:40 AM)

I accept the risk of operating in shallow water, not what I'm concerned about.

All I'm asking is whether the Japanese E Boats have been reduced in effectiveness in a stock game, like they were supposed to be in the latest updates. My recent experience in the game shows this not to be the case.




Lokasenna -> RE: Japanese ASW not toned down in stock? (11/11/2016 3:20:13 AM)

What is the actual message you are seeing for the firing of depth charges? Are you seeing "firing 2x Type 2 Depth Charge" (this would be the updated database; it has 4 of these devices for a total of 8 "shots") or "firing 8x Type 2 Depth Charge" (this is stock-stock; it has a much better chance of hitting and killing due to the x8 vs. x2)?

I suspect you are seeing the latter?

I've played scenario 2 all the way into 1945 without the updates and suffered what you mention. I just stopped sending subs anywhere but with my fleet actions.

I've also played as Japan with scenario 2 and the updates from Andy through July 4, 1944, so far and have not had the results I suffered as the Allies without the updates. So.... are you running the updates?




SqzMyLemon -> RE: Japanese ASW not toned down in stock? (11/11/2016 4:05:13 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

What is the actual message you are seeing for the firing of depth charges? Are you seeing "firing 2x Type 2 Depth Charge" (this would be the updated database; it has 4 of these devices for a total of 8 "shots") or "firing 8x Type 2 Depth Charge" (this is stock-stock; it has a much better chance of hitting and killing due to the x8 vs. x2)?

I suspect you are seeing the latter?

I've played scenario 2 all the way into 1945 without the updates and suffered what you mention. I just stopped sending subs anywhere but with my fleet actions.

I've also played as Japan with scenario 2 and the updates from Andy through July 4, 1944, so far and have not had the results I suffered as the Allies without the updates. So.... are you running the updates?


Thanks for answering. I'm seeing firing "12x Type 2 Depth Charge" and this occurred four times during the last submarine action. So a total of 48 depth charges in four spreads and 3 individual mortar attacks. Each series of 12 caused at least one direct DC hit and numerous near misses causing damage.

We are running the most current update as per matrix official release. We are not running more current betas. Some of my losses are DL related and I'm not arguing that it shouldn't contribute, but the Japanese E's, and naval ASW in general, are proving deadly. I'm losing a submarine 60% of the time to Japanese depth charges when first encountered. Three subs have been lost in as many days. This is the first time I've seen this 12 x Type 2 message though.

If this is the case for the official updated stock version, then DaBabes looks to have gotten it right. Allied submarine ops will most likely be unplayable in my game moving forward with these kinds of results unless we run the version you are. Can you provide the version you are running so I can compare?




Lokasenna -> RE: Japanese ASW not toned down in stock? (11/11/2016 4:28:29 AM)

I have never, EVER seen firing 12x depth charge. That is absurd.

My stock games don't have any ships with a 12-charge rack.




bradfordkay -> RE: Japanese ASW not toned down in stock? (11/11/2016 5:14:45 AM)

There is a class of IJN E (escort) type ships that have that capability. I forget when they show up but I know that they did serious damage to my subs in my PBEM which went well into 1945.




SqzMyLemon -> RE: Japanese ASW not toned down in stock? (11/11/2016 5:16:09 AM)

It may be absurd, but I'm just the messenger here. I saw this message four times during the replay and counted at least 36 DC messages. I don't know at what point the final spread of 12 depth charges sunk the sub.

[image]local://upfiles/33192/D1AE63A5FBE34BC991A7FC622711172E.jpg[/image]




SqzMyLemon -> RE: Japanese ASW not toned down in stock? (11/11/2016 5:26:10 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

There is a class of IJN E (escort) type ships that have that capability. I forget when they show up but I know that they did serious damage to my subs in my PBEM which went well into 1945.


Sigh, this PBEM of mine just gets better every turn.




Sardaukar -> RE: Japanese ASW not toned down in stock? (11/11/2016 6:43:13 AM)

Well, I think michealm fixed it in one of the Betas (which are really not betas but as "official" they can get at this stage). I just don't get why people don't use Betas, considering multiple fixes and improvements included. Of course updating while playing PBEM is bit of work, but still.

Procedure is here: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2233574




Lokasenna -> RE: Japanese ASW not toned down in stock? (11/11/2016 7:47:50 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Well, I think michealm fixed it in one of the Betas (which are really not betas but as "official" they can get at this stage). I just don't get why people don't use Betas, considering multiple fixes and improvements included. Of course updating while playing PBEM is bit of work, but still.

Procedure is here: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2233574


This is a database issue, though.


quote:

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

It may be absurd, but I'm just the messenger here. I saw this message four times during the replay and counted at least 36 DC messages. I don't know at what point the final spread of 12 depth charges sunk the sub.

[image]local://upfiles/33192/D1AE63A5FBE34BC991A7FC622711172E.jpg[/image]


These ships should have, in stock with the updates:

4x 2x Type 2 Depth Charge
1x ASW Mortar


Without the updates, they do indeed have the 12x DC's. You should ask your opponent about updating the database, or else change your sub usage as there isn't really anything you can do about it. In Scen 2 (my reference point in Tracker), your opponent gets 58 of these "Super E's" and 70 more of a similar class.

And 30 of another class, roughly the same size, that have 6x DC's, 2x DC's, and 1 ASW Mortar.




obvert -> RE: Japanese ASW not toned down in stock? (11/11/2016 9:00:07 AM)

Hello. Opponent here. [:)]

I am totally fine with getting this to reasonable levels of destruction.

This is a scen 1 game and we could ideally update to the new database. What other things were changed in that? Will it affect game in any other way?

The USN subs should be a major factor for the Allies, and they have been tough lately, but losses have been high, too. As ASW air is already better than it should be this needs a fix.




geofflambert -> RE: Japanese ASW not toned down in stock? (11/11/2016 10:06:42 AM)

This isn't exactly cogent to what's being discussed here, but I've found that (without super Es) if I put intensive ASW searches over a certain area, in part by restricting the search range of the aircraft to just the area I want as well as restricting search arcs, and if possible having air ASW coming from more than one base to the same area, and with a surface ASW patrol operating in the same area, I can make a small area prohibitive for enemy subs to operate. Here is an example of where I would do this as there is a lot of traffic to protect between Hokkaido and Honshu, the area East of Tsugaru Strait.


[image]local://upfiles/37002/6FB7E22C62394017BA926E41D8C68A9A.jpg[/image]




geofflambert -> RE: Japanese ASW not toned down in stock? (11/11/2016 10:12:23 AM)

The area to the West could be covered in a similar way but may not be needed. Going into the Tsugaru Strait or through it is nigh impossible and the amount of fuel used up going around Hokkaido to get there and then get back out is taxing.




Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Japanese ASW not toned down in stock? (11/11/2016 12:10:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna


Without the updates, they do indeed have the 12x DC's. You should ask your opponent about updating the database, or else change your sub usage as there isn't really anything you can do about it. In Scen 2 (my reference point in Tracker), your opponent gets 58 of these "Super E's" and 70 more of a similar class.

And 30 of another class, roughly the same size, that have 6x DC's, 2x DC's, and 1 ASW Mortar.


To be clear for me, the "Andy files" we uploaded to our game prior to starting are now included in the beta patches to stock? The AA changes too?

If the AA changes are there, obvert really wants to understand them. They change carrier ops a lot.




crsutton -> RE: Japanese ASW not toned down in stock? (11/11/2016 3:30:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Well, I think michealm fixed it in one of the Betas (which are really not betas but as "official" they can get at this stage). I just don't get why people don't use Betas, considering multiple fixes and improvements included. Of course updating while playing PBEM is bit of work, but still.

Procedure is here: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2233574


The official patch supposedly incorporated this fix, so a beta should not be needed. I think is was the fix that the DaBabes folks came up with. I am just getting into the phase of my current campaign where the super E's start to show up. So, it will be interesting to see.

As for the sub war in WITP-AE it really has never been very satisfying as a smart Japanese player can do so many things to counter the Allies sub force that were not really an option in the real war. That said, the Allies do not need their sub force to fully win the game. In my last campaign I modified my sub tactics and did not worry about the Japanese merchant fleet but used them to support my offensive campaign. Focusing on Japanese warships resulted in fewer overall sinkings but a lot more high priority sinkings.

But to Squeeze, this is the way it has always been. You should be able to live with it.




bradfordkay -> RE: Japanese ASW not toned down in stock? (11/11/2016 5:03:27 PM)

My way of dealing with it was to significantly increase the length of my subs' patrol zones. Once they were caught by the Super Es there was little that could be done, but by keeping the detection level down they weren't caught as often (nor were they as effective as they had been in our CHS game - original WITP). Run those long patrol zones into chokepoints on the map but don't loiter there. Another way to use it is to run long patrol zones along expected enemy long distance shipping lanes.




obvert -> RE: Japanese ASW not toned down in stock? (11/11/2016 5:45:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Well, I think michealm fixed it in one of the Betas (which are really not betas but as "official" they can get at this stage). I just don't get why people don't use Betas, considering multiple fixes and improvements included. Of course updating while playing PBEM is bit of work, but still.

Procedure is here: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2233574


The official patch supposedly incorporated this fix, so a beta should not be needed. I think is was the fix that the DaBabes folks came up with. I am just getting into the phase of my current campaign where the super E's start to show up. So, it will be interesting to see.

As for the sub war in WITP-AE it really has never been very satisfying as a smart Japanese player can do so many things to counter the Allies sub force that were not really an option in the real war. That said, the Allies do not need their sub force to fully win the game. In my last campaign I modified my sub tactics and did not worry about the Japanese merchant fleet but used them to support my offensive campaign. Focusing on Japanese warships resulted in fewer overall sinkings but a lot more high priority sinkings.

But to Squeeze, this is the way it has always been. You should be able to live with it.


We are using version [1125.10] from 3/416. So fairly recent.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna


Without the updates, they do indeed have the 12x DC's. You should ask your opponent about updating the database, or else change your sub usage as there isn't really anything you can do about it. In Scen 2 (my reference point in Tracker), your opponent gets 58 of these "Super E's" and 70 more of a similar class.

And 30 of another class, roughly the same size, that have 6x DC's, 2x DC's, and 1 ASW Mortar.


To be clear for me, the "Andy files" we uploaded to our game prior to starting are now included in the beta patches to stock? The AA changes too?

If the AA changes are there, obvert really wants to understand them. They change carrier ops a lot.


Do you mean that flak is a total bear? Because I'm seeing that already! [:)]






obvert -> RE: Japanese ASW not toned down in stock? (11/11/2016 11:32:19 PM)

So if we want to update the DB to fix the ASW rating of the Es, can we do that in the middle of a PBEM? Where are the new versions of the DB?




crsutton -> RE: Japanese ASW not toned down in stock? (11/12/2016 3:18:41 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

So if we want to update the DB to fix the ASW rating of the Es, can we do that in the middle of a PBEM? Where are the new versions of the DB?



If I recall the same ASW fix incorporated in Da Babes was also in the last "offical" matrix patch. The same patch that updated the AA values. You need only to have done the last official patch which was some time ago. If MichaelM is still around, he should be able to confirm if that is the case.




geofflambert -> RE: Japanese ASW not toned down in stock? (11/12/2016 10:09:17 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton


quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

So if we want to update the DB to fix the ASW rating of the Es, can we do that in the middle of a PBEM? Where are the new versions of the DB?



If I recall the same ASW fix incorporated in Da Babes was also in the last "offical" matrix patch. The same patch that updated the AA values. You need only to have done the last official patch which was some time ago. If MichaelM is still around, he should be able to confirm if that is the case.


He's still around.

[image]local://upfiles/37002/CD6CB3B0C3C445DA8BB65DB6F2E5772D.jpg[/image]




Sardaukar -> RE: Japanese ASW not toned down in stock? (11/12/2016 10:18:52 AM)

He is definitely still around, but bit more involved with Command Modern Air/Naval Operations now.




ny59giants -> RE: Japanese ASW not toned down in stock? (11/12/2016 1:21:32 PM)

My understanding is you cannot have the devices changed on ships until they go through an upgrade with a data base change. Is that still the case?




Admiral DadMan -> RE: Japanese ASW not toned down in stock? (11/12/2016 6:04:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

My understanding is you cannot have the devices changed on ships until they go through an upgrade with a data base change. Is that still the case?

I have seen them update when disbanding into a level 5+ harbor.




adarbrauner -> RE: Japanese ASW not toned down in stock? (11/12/2016 7:51:26 PM)

forwarded that:

1-I've not updated yet to the last betas;

2-I've been running the game since 7thDec 1941 until beginning of February 1942 only, and 3- against the AI meanwhile, unfortunately;

This said, i'm encountering EXACTLY the opposite issue; US-allied subs had been subject to countless, COUNTLESS, attacks by escort vessels and ASW air patrols, without almost any result;

regardless the very low hit percentages by depth charges, the problem and the striking thing is the UNVULNERABILTY of the sub when hit; there was a case where a sub remained sea able AND SUBMERGED after having hit a mine; in another case, a sub, receiveda 120 cm shell direct hit, but still sea able and able to submerge; the very very few hits by DC caused some WATER FLOODING or intake (SIC), according to the report (BTW, why should I see, as opponent, the detailed and true report of the damage caused ??), but still the vessel could keep the submerged course and escape normally;

I don't like that; I don't like unnatural unvulnerabilty not for US subs, nor for my Jap subs;

I could have singled ONLY ONE effective hit by airplane bomb, in a time span of two months, out of some good hundreds of "a submarine has reported been hit" (yes,a joke);

subs are seemingly never ever modeled to be operating at surface (how is that possibl, I have the impression i'm dealing with some Typhoon or Oscar II classes rather than Gato or earlier even), apart from the cases where the y attack , on surface;

I couldn't discern any Sonar-ASDIC technology improvenment or development, nor Huff Duff, Metox or their Pacific equivalents, either, why?

I think and feel this is a big flaw in the game model which should be corrected the earliest, and I'm sure many others have had the same thought - in spite of what described here by the original poster, who's describibg exactly the opposite issue (if possible) just happening, in game's model, some years later.

Thank you for reading and relating to this




BBfanboy -> RE: Japanese ASW not toned down in stock? (11/12/2016 9:04:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: adarbrauner

forwarded that:

1-I've not updated yet to the last betas;

2-I've been running the game since 7thDec 1941 until beginning of February 1942 only, and 3- against the AI meanwhile, unfortunately;

This said, i'm encountering EXACTLY the opposite issue; US-allied subs had been subject to countless, COUNTLESS, attacks by escort vessels and ASW air patrols, without almost any result;

regardless the very low hit percentages by depth charges, the problem and the striking thing is the UNVULNERABILTY of the sub when hit; there was a case where a sub remained sea able AND SUBMERGED after having hit a mine; in another case, a sub, receiveda 120 cm shell direct hit, but still sea able and able to submerge; the very very few hits by DC caused some WATER FLOODING or intake (SIC), according to the report (BTW, why should I see, as opponent, the detailed and true report of the damage caused ??), but still the vessel could keep the submerged course and escape normally;

I don't like that; I don't like unnatural unvulnerabilty not for US subs, nor for my Jap subs;

I could have singled ONLY ONE effective hit by airplane bomb, in a time span of two months, out of some good hundreds of "a submarine has reported been hit" (yes,a joke);

subs are seemingly never ever modeled to be operating at surface (how is that possibl, I have the impression i'm dealing with some Typhoon or Oscar II classes rather than Gato or earlier even), apart from the cases where the y attack , on surface;

I couldn't discern any Sonar-ASDIC technology improvenment or development, nor Huff Duff, Metox or their Pacific equivalents, either, why?

I think and feel this is a big flaw in the game model which should be corrected the earliest, and I'm sure many others have had the same thought - in spite of what described here by the original poster, who's describibg exactly the opposite issue (if possible) just happening, in game's model, some years later.

Thank you for reading and relating to this

The first IJN depth charge had a maximum depth of only 150 feet. That is why you will often get the message about the D/C exploding above sub depth.

As for USN ships, their general crew experience is much lower than the IJN so they will have fewer detections and make fewer attacks. They DO get better sonar and other detection gear but this is not detailed separately on the ship devices (there are only so many device slots available, and most are needed for AA guns). Instead the upgrade happens within the game engine - in 1943 IIRC.

And aircraft reporting hits that never happened is a sign of inexperience of the pilot. They get better at accuracy of bomb dropping and hit reporting as time goes on.

Meantime, check your ship captains. ASW work requires high Naval Skill to carry out an attack successfully and high Aggression to be persistent in searching after losing contact.




adarbrauner -> RE: Japanese ASW not toned down in stock? (11/12/2016 11:04:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: adarbrauner

forwarded that:

1-I've not updated yet to the last betas;

2-I've been running the game since 7thDec 1941 until beginning of February 1942 only, and 3- against the AI meanwhile, unfortunately;

This said, i'm encountering EXACTLY the opposite issue; US-allied subs had been subject to countless, COUNTLESS, attacks by escort vessels and ASW air patrols, without almost any result;

regardless the very low hit percentages by depth charges, the problem and the striking thing is the UNVULNERABILTY of the sub when hit; there was a case where a sub remained sea able AND SUBMERGED after having hit a mine; in another case, a sub, receiveda 120 cm shell direct hit, but still sea able and able to submerge; the very very few hits by DC caused some WATER FLOODING or intake (SIC), according to the report (BTW, why should I see, as opponent, the detailed and true report of the damage caused ??), but still the vessel could keep the submerged course and escape normally;

I don't like that; I don't like unnatural unvulnerabilty not for US subs, nor for my Jap subs;

I could have singled ONLY ONE effective hit by airplane bomb, in a time span of two months, out of some good hundreds of "a submarine has reported been hit" (yes,a joke);

subs are seemingly never ever modeled to be operating at surface (how is that possibl, I have the impression i'm dealing with some Typhoon or Oscar II classes rather than Gato or earlier even), apart from the cases where the y attack , on surface;

I couldn't discern any Sonar-ASDIC technology improvenment or development, nor Huff Duff, Metox or their Pacific equivalents, either, why?

I think and feel this is a big flaw in the game model which should be corrected the earliest, and I'm sure many others have had the same thought - in spite of what described here by the original poster, who's describibg exactly the opposite issue (if possible) just happening, in game's model, some years later.

Thank you for reading and relating to this

The first IJN depth charge had a maximum depth of only 150 feet. That is why you will often get the message about the D/C exploding above sub depth.

As for USN ships, their general crew experience is much lower than the IJN so they will have fewer detections and make fewer attacks. They DO get better sonar and other detection gear but this is not detailed separately on the ship devices (there are only so many device slots available, and most are needed for AA guns). Instead the upgrade happens within the game engine - in 1943 IIRC.

And aircraft reporting hits that never happened is a sign of inexperience of the pilot. They get better at accuracy of bomb dropping and hit reporting as time goes on.

Meantime, check your ship captains. ASW work requires high Naval Skill to carry out an attack successfully and high Aggression to be persistent in searching after losing contact.


Dear Sir,

I can understand everything, but not the high unvulnerabilty rate of such a frail frame like that of that era's submarine, nor the inabilty for abundant, available and more than normally trained air crews to ever hit this target - as if it was permanently submerged, really (although the movement rate is calculated on the base of permanent "cruise" or "mission" surface speeds), neither the fact that the ship is NEVER caught at surface - or at least, always succeed in emergency immersion without apparent resulting disadvantges in the following engagement;

I find this strange for an over detailed game like this - this partial neglect, renounce or otherwise oversight regarding aspects in submarine warfare;
is it provided a command or some other automatism to order or keep preferebly the sub submerged during day but surface at night (for example)?

Do you realize that i've never EVER sank an allied sub in spite of countless, countless attacks (how is that possible), besides those sunk in port by air attacks (BTW, it takes 3-4-5 direct hits by a bomb to sink it, and no less but sometimes more)?
I've not checked the statistics of the Royal Navy against the German U bootes for the beginning of the war, but sincerely, I don't think it as a wrong assumption; even the Italians scored "scores" of successes throuout their whole campaign, an helluva seamless bleeding for the British forces.

Any shnorkel innovation (maybe yes, i don't know), or provision or allowance for high performing electric subs toward the end of the war?
American subs got equipped with electronic calculators for torpedo firing control, by far the most advanced in the category, isn'it? But Germans also had their good achievements in the sector, and something or more than this may have been filtered to the Japanese.




obvert -> RE: Japanese ASW not toned down in stock? (11/13/2016 12:00:48 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Admiral DadMan


quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

My understanding is you cannot have the devices changed on ships until they go through an upgrade with a data base change. Is that still the case?

I have seen them update when disbanding into a level 5+ harbor.


These are ships just being built. They arrive in 44, so would they still need an upgrade? That doesn't make sense, really.




obvert -> RE: Japanese ASW not toned down in stock? (11/13/2016 12:11:09 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: adarbrauner


quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: adarbrauner

forwarded that:

1-I've not updated yet to the last betas;

2-I've been running the game since 7thDec 1941 until beginning of February 1942 only, and 3- against the AI meanwhile, unfortunately;

This said, i'm encountering EXACTLY the opposite issue; US-allied subs had been subject to countless, COUNTLESS, attacks by escort vessels and ASW air patrols, without almost any result;

regardless the very low hit percentages by depth charges, the problem and the striking thing is the UNVULNERABILTY of the sub when hit; there was a case where a sub remained sea able AND SUBMERGED after having hit a mine; in another case, a sub, receiveda 120 cm shell direct hit, but still sea able and able to submerge; the very very few hits by DC caused some WATER FLOODING or intake (SIC), according to the report (BTW, why should I see, as opponent, the detailed and true report of the damage caused ??), but still the vessel could keep the submerged course and escape normally;

I don't like that; I don't like unnatural unvulnerabilty not for US subs, nor for my Jap subs;

I could have singled ONLY ONE effective hit by airplane bomb, in a time span of two months, out of some good hundreds of "a submarine has reported been hit" (yes,a joke);

subs are seemingly never ever modeled to be operating at surface (how is that possibl, I have the impression i'm dealing with some Typhoon or Oscar II classes rather than Gato or earlier even), apart from the cases where the y attack , on surface;

I couldn't discern any Sonar-ASDIC technology improvenment or development, nor Huff Duff, Metox or their Pacific equivalents, either, why?

I think and feel this is a big flaw in the game model which should be corrected the earliest, and I'm sure many others have had the same thought - in spite of what described here by the original poster, who's describibg exactly the opposite issue (if possible) just happening, in game's model, some years later.

Thank you for reading and relating to this

The first IJN depth charge had a maximum depth of only 150 feet. That is why you will often get the message about the D/C exploding above sub depth.

As for USN ships, their general crew experience is much lower than the IJN so they will have fewer detections and make fewer attacks. They DO get better sonar and other detection gear but this is not detailed separately on the ship devices (there are only so many device slots available, and most are needed for AA guns). Instead the upgrade happens within the game engine - in 1943 IIRC.

And aircraft reporting hits that never happened is a sign of inexperience of the pilot. They get better at accuracy of bomb dropping and hit reporting as time goes on.

Meantime, check your ship captains. ASW work requires high Naval Skill to carry out an attack successfully and high Aggression to be persistent in searching after losing contact.


Dear Sir,

I can understand everything, but not the high unvulnerabilty rate of such a frail frame like that of that era's submarine, nor the inabilty for abundant, available and more than normally trained air crews to ever hit this target - as if it was permanently submerged, really (although the movement rate is calculated on the base of permanent "cruise" or "mission" surface speeds), neither the fact that the ship is NEVER caught at surface - or at least, always succeed in emergency immersion without apparent resulting disadvantges in the following engagement;

The terms in which you speak have no relation to the game you're playing. In the war USN subs had radar and did submerge regularly when a patrol was sighted, and were rarely caught on the surface. In game they're caught a lot, but later.

ASW air in game is very effective, too effective once you have trained crews. You don't have effective air patrols for ASW yet. You can't in Feb 42. You have to train them in ASW skill to 70 to get a good percentage of hits.


quote:



Do you realize that i've never EVER sank an allied sub in spite of countless, countless attacks (how is that possible), besides those sunk in port by air attacks (BTW, it takes 3-4-5 direct hits by a bomb to sink it, and no less but sometimes more)?


How do you know how many hits are "direct" hitting a sub at all? DCs, yes, that you can see, but not aerial ordnance. For a DC attack you have to watch the replay to see if you're getting a direct hit. Usually 2-3 sink a sub. ASW air operates nt eh patrol phase and you don't get to see what happens there other than the messages. Those include FOW.

quote:


Any shnorkel innovation (maybe yes, i don't know), or provision or allowance for high performing electric subs toward the end of the war?
American subs got equipped with electronic calculators for torpedo firing control, by far the most advanced in the category, isn'it? But Germans also had their good achievements in the sector, and something or more than this may have been filtered to the Japanese.


Attacking Allied subs early is tough, and you'll not have great success due to the poor Japanese equipment to start the war.

If you want help post combat reports, not history lessons. We all know the history too. [;)]




LargeSlowTarget -> RE: Japanese ASW not toned down in stock? (11/13/2016 12:12:24 AM)

@adarbrauner, you have played only two months into the game - it is a bit early to judge the effectiveness of air ASW. It is also too early to have “more than normally trained“ pilots for ASW. The ASW skills of your pilots are in what range? Get them up to ASW skill 70+ and 60+ exp before you can hope to get results. And what kind of planes do you use? The 30-100kg bombs of float planes and Lilies are too light and most planes carry only one or two. Use planes with 4x 250kg bombs to increase chances of hitting and damaging a sub heavily enough to sink it. Btw, how many subs did the Japanese sink by air ASW on the open seas in the first two months? Right, none.




Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.8300781