RE: Something has to be done about Allied ASW (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945



Message

Tristanjohn -> RE: Something has to be done about Allied ASW (4/16/2005 10:17:01 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, Sometimes things get lost in the translation. I'm not against changing formula I am against changing them just to get them to produce a set result no matter the cirumstance.


Were' not asking that the same result attain for every combat. We're asking that a screwball result of the kind I just posted represent no more than a statistical outlier, not a kind of game norm as is the case at present.

quote:

Just because 38 USN subs were lost in the Pacific does not mean the USN has to lose 38 in WITP. It certainly does not mean he has to lose 76 either.

Submarines are not supposed to engage enemy ASW. (sinking the DD before it spots you is fine but a submarine should not make an attack when it is clear that if it does it will under go DC attacks)


Attacking minimally-escorted convoys ought to be possible for the IJN submarines, at least early in the war against relatively inexperienced crews handling relatively unsophisticated ASW gear and munitions. At present it is not in my PBEM game. That tells me the model wasn't constructed right.

quote:

In WITP I find it is 33 perecnt in a ASW action. (roughly) 33 percent of the time my sub gets away unharmed. 33 percent it gets hit but survives (now it depends on how close the nearest size 3 port is) and 33 percent of the time my sub is lost. This is only when an actual ASW attack takes place. Quite often there is no attack but if I leave the sub in the hex the following turn the odds get worse.

If in my PBEM games there was a steady result that for each submarine lost a set number of enemy ships were sunk in return it would be easier to make an informed judgement however in some games enemy submarines are sunk for no return while in others fewer subs are lost but they are sinking escorted Japanese ships.

I have a game where 14 USN boats have been lost for 11 sinkings and another where 5 USN boats have been sunk but have accounted for 21 Japanese ships sunk. (there are of course damaged USn boats and damaged Japanese ships as well)

The point here is that 1 player got 2x the results with 1/3 the cost when compared to the other. (I seem to be pretty steady at 3 enemy ships sunk for each sub I lose) My farthest games are Brady and Ron. (Aug 42) Brady has lost about the same number of boats as Ron but has done 10x the damage. (Brady has sunk a large number of Japanese ships with his boats often by laying mines) Brady has also operated in "no mans land" while Ron stays inside Japanese ASW. Japanese results are almost exactly alike. (I've lost less then half their number while sinking about the same number of enemy ships in both games. But then it was the same starting file and Japanese submarine Ops were the same in both games)

There is no denying it that WITP kills submarines. So the questions that need answers are

1. Are there circumstance where a submarine will almost always be detected and attacked


Yes. If an IJN boat attacks an Allied convoy with three or four destroyers in 1942 it is most likely to 1) not sink anything but 2) itself.

quote:

2. Are there circumstance when a submarine will almost always evade detection.


I haven't seen that.

quote:

3. By what degree are these circumstance different (how do you go from never being detected to almost certain detection)

Because if submarines are detected they will be attacked and if they are attacked they will be hit. If a submarine is attacked and hit often enough it will be sunk.


From what I've seen the hit rate is too high for Japanese ASW assets. I'm not sure, as the only game I've studied is my own, but it seems, based on that small sample, that USN ASW early-war assets are too efficient as well. By how much is hard to say, as the Japanese didn't attack our convoys often.

quote:

If there are more attacks in WITP compared to the actual war, WHY? Never mind DC ratings the first step is detecting the submarine. Why are so many players having boats found in the first place?

What are players who lose fewer boats while sinking as many (or more) enemy ships doing differently? Why do these players get these results all the time?



For one thing, the game system allows the Japanese to play ahistorically, and most Japanese players are happy to do so. Why are the Japanese allowed to form ASW packs in 1942? That was unknown. Why isn't there some system restraint?

In my particular case, the biggest reason I've lost so few boats (no doubt) is that the Allied Sub Doctrine rule was toggled on. This makes my boats totally useless until the late summer of 1943, so all they do now is mine and ferry cadres. And I'll ask again, who's bright idea was that? What is the rationale for this Allied Sub Doctrine? Is there any rationale? Did someone just go poll some thread written in block letters one day that screamed for some such thing? What? How can such ridiculous features make it into a game of this kind? Wouldn't it make more sense instead to try to fix some of the stuff that's known to be broken?



jwilkerson -> RE: Something has to be done about Allied ASW (4/16/2005 6:57:53 PM)

My first impression of the ASW "problem" was that subs are detected too easily. If there was an easy way to fix this - then all the other attempts we're making might be unnecessary. So far I've only been "allowed to" play IJN ... so I'll speak from that side. I see allied subs milling around the oil ports and the Rabaul, Lae, Shortlands area ... and it is natural for me to form ASW "hunting" groups to go try to sink them ... and I am successful more often than not ... and the Allies are losing more subs than historically and not getting very many hits on my tankers or transports as they did historically. If I couldn't pin point these subs ... I wouldn't be able to fight them offensively ... and they would probably do better.

Also when ASW groups and subs do have an encounter .. more often than not the ASW group does find the sub ... and get to attack ... even if they often don't get a result ( some of my games use a 3 ship maximum size for ASW task forces - and when these only have IJN PC/PG/MSW they don't get a lot of hits ... though they do gain experience - and even if it takes 5 attack encounters - I usually do get the enemy boat - and it usually hasn't gotten anything in return - since I can route the convoy's around it's position ).

Also anytime a real task force ( with carriers and/or BB/CA and 6+ DD "runs over" a sub ... then 19 times out of 20 ... the sub is glugged ... that didn't happen to that extent IRL ).

If there was anyway to reduce detection of subs ... both by air and surface assets ... I'd welcome that.




mogami -> RE: Something has to be done about Allied ASW (4/16/2005 7:11:31 PM)

Hi, I was not asking about circumstance in game. I was asking about circumstance in real life.
First we have to establish the "norm" for sub encounters and then see where WITP is at variance. It is one thing to say the model is broken. I am interested in what people belive should be the result produced by the "perfect" model.
Forget WITP exists. What was the normal sequence when a submarine encountered an enemy force.
What is the impact of an escort. Numbers of escort, location of encounter, previous exchange between submarine and enemy forces in same location, aircraft.
In short when does a submarine have the advantage and when does the ASW force present have the advantage?
The USN knew where not to send submarines during the war. They also knew when that changed and it was feasable to send submarines to previously restricted zones. What had changed?



jwilkerson -> RE: Something has to be done about Allied ASW (4/16/2005 7:23:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, I was not asking about circumstance in game. I was asking about circumstance in real life.
First we have to establish the "norm" for sub encounters and then see where WITP is at variance. It is one thing to say the model is broken. I am interested in what people belive should be the result produced by the "perfect" model.
Forget WITP exists. What was the normal sequence when a submarine encountered an enemy force.
What is the impact of an escort. Numbers of escort, location of encounter, previous exchange between submarine and enemy forces in same location, aircraft.
In short when does a submarine have the advantage and when does the ASW force present have the advantage?
The USN knew where not to send submarines during the war. They also knew when that changed and it was feasable to send submarines to previously restricted zones. What had changed?


Darn - you have to be asking this now - when I have to go to the airport in 45 minutes to be out of town for 4 days !!! I'd love to dive in - but only have time for short answer ... short answer is sub has advantage until it is located ... and it is often not located ( in 1942 for all sides ... and for entire war for USN ) until it attacks. If I'm not mistaken ... ASW Task forces searches first and if it finds the sub - it attacks first and the sub then cannot attack. Might also be true for any TF. Until real ASW air with radar and ordnance capable of hurting subs exists ( starting in 1943 for most areas ) the ASW air mission should be relatively harmless.

Subs have the initiative until they are detected.

If this thread is still alive when I get back - I''ll try to add something more meaningful.




mogami -> RE: Something has to be done about Allied ASW (4/16/2005 8:15:30 PM)

Hi, PBEM where I am Allied 3-12-42. I have lost 9 submarines (USN and others) 4 of these in port to air attacks. I have sunk 20 IJN boats. IJN has sunk 16 Allied ships with subs (and damaged others) Allies have sunk 7 Japanese ships with submarines (and damaged others) This is a bit misleading because Allied submarines have mainly been busy with transport missions. (rescuing cut off Allied units that have been forced out of base into non base hexes. ) In the approx 100 turns played thus far Allied submarines have transported over 26k Allied troops to safety. (The subs move troops from where they are stranded to nearest safe port where AP pick them up and move to base to rebuild)
5500 troops evaced to Ceylon
5000 troops evaced to Indian mainland
11,200 troops evaced to Australia

These missions often require submarine to enter hexes that are shallow water and have enemy TF present and are within enemy ASW air patrols.


All Allied submarines now have day/night ratings of at least 55. Currently submarine force is being overhauled to repair system damage aquired in extensive at sea periods.
(Very few Allied submarines were in port in first 90 days as resuce missions were conducted.)



Charles2222 -> RE: Something has to be done about Allied ASW (4/17/2005 10:36:25 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, I was not asking about circumstance in game. I was asking about circumstance in real life.
First we have to establish the "norm" for sub encounters and then see where WITP is at variance. It is one thing to say the model is broken. I am interested in what people belive should be the result produced by the "perfect" model.
Forget WITP exists. What was the normal sequence when a submarine encountered an enemy force.
What is the impact of an escort. Numbers of escort, location of encounter, previous exchange between submarine and enemy forces in same location, aircraft.
In short when does a submarine have the advantage and when does the ASW force present have the advantage?
The USN knew where not to send submarines during the war. They also knew when that changed and it was feasable to send submarines to previously restricted zones. What had changed?


Darn - you have to be asking this now - when I have to go to the airport in 45 minutes to be out of town for 4 days !!! I'd love to dive in - but only have time for short answer ... short answer is sub has advantage until it is located ... and it is often not located ( in 1942 for all sides ... and for entire war for USN ) until it attacks. If I'm not mistaken ... ASW Task forces searches first and if it finds the sub - it attacks first and the sub then cannot attack. Might also be true for any TF. Until real ASW air with radar and ordnance capable of hurting subs exists ( starting in 1943 for most areas ) the ASW air mission should be relatively harmless.

Subs have the initiative until they are detected.

If this thread is still alive when I get back - I''ll try to add something more meaningful.




Maybe one of the ideal ways to approach it would be that an ASW TF wouldn't spot it first, unless it was the sub had been spotted previously, either by another group or itself (which a self-spot would take two turns to attack first then). It could however attack first if it were in the same hex with another TF and that TF had been attacked the same turn. It would probably be better with percentages instead of all or nothing for each category. Maybe ASW attacks sub first, when ASW TF is alone, no more than 20% of the time at worst, whereas it attacking sub first when in the hex with another TF would never go above 90%.



Ron Saueracker -> RE: Something has to be done about Allied ASW (4/17/2005 3:33:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, I was not asking about circumstance in game. I was asking about circumstance in real life.
First we have to establish the "norm" for sub encounters and then see where WITP is at variance. It is one thing to say the model is broken. I am interested in what people belive should be the result produced by the "perfect" model.
Forget WITP exists. What was the normal sequence when a submarine encountered an enemy force.
What is the impact of an escort. Numbers of escort, location of encounter, previous exchange between submarine and enemy forces in same location, aircraft.
In short when does a submarine have the advantage and when does the ASW force present have the advantage?
The USN knew where not to send submarines during the war. They also knew when that changed and it was feasable to send submarines to previously restricted zones. What had changed?


Hmmmm...have the designers read a book or two on the subject before setting the puppy in stone. I think volumes have been posted on what was the "norm" for sub encounters and how WITP should be attempting to model them...I don't think we need to go over this again. From what I understand, it is working as designed and no change will ever come.

Apologies for my tone but so much (not just ASW) is at an extreme level of variance with the game that completely different tactics and doctrines have been adopted by players to accomodate the game mechanics and design approaches and the end result has almost no reflection of reality.

While it is fun to play, there is not much reality value and we are going to see more "extremes" as we progress deeper into the games time span.



Halsey -> RE: Something has to be done about Allied ASW (4/17/2005 4:01:45 PM)

I've also come to this conclusion.
Maybe in a couple of years the modders will have worked out some of these oddities. Until then it's remains an RTS with bum rushes of land, sea and air forces. Only with the massive implementation of house rules can any resemblence to history be seen. Even then the mechanics will still operate "as designed".

Unlimited stacking and, unlimited supplies/fuel allows impossible operations to be accomplished easily. No command structure allows hundreds of TF's to be created at a whim. Usually for the purpose of padding bases and other TF's.

This is a massive tactical game. No thought was given at all in attempting to create an operationaly restricted command structure. But then, that might have been historical.[;)]

Too bad.[:(]



Tristanjohn -> Two more Japanese submarines sunk (4/18/2005 2:16:16 AM)

In my PBEM game two more Japanese submarines, one RO-class and a fleet boat, have been sunk in the past two days attempting to attack my supply convoys. Details can found here: PBEM AAR



freeboy -> RE: Two more Japanese submarines sunk (4/18/2005 2:25:23 AM)

but where they moving and where they in deep water?



mogami -> RE: Something has to be done about Allied ASW (4/18/2005 2:38:28 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, I was not asking about circumstance in game. I was asking about circumstance in real life.
First we have to establish the "norm" for sub encounters and then see where WITP is at variance. It is one thing to say the model is broken. I am interested in what people belive should be the result produced by the "perfect" model.
Forget WITP exists. What was the normal sequence when a submarine encountered an enemy force.
What is the impact of an escort. Numbers of escort, location of encounter, previous exchange between submarine and enemy forces in same location, aircraft.
In short when does a submarine have the advantage and when does the ASW force present have the advantage?
The USN knew where not to send submarines during the war. They also knew when that changed and it was feasable to send submarines to previously restricted zones. What had changed?


Hmmmm...have the designers read a book or two on the subject before setting the puppy in stone. I think volumes have been posted on what was the "norm" for sub encounters and how WITP should be attempting to model them...I don't think we need to go over this again. From what I understand, it is working as designed and no change will ever come.

Apologies for my tone but so much (not just ASW) is at an extreme level of variance with the game that completely different tactics and doctrines have been adopted by players to accomodate the game mechanics and design approaches and the end result has almost no reflection of reality.

While it is fun to play, there is not much reality value and we are going to see more "extremes" as we progress deeper into the games time span.



Hi, Thanks (for nothing)



Ron Saueracker -> RE: Two more Japanese submarines sunk (4/18/2005 2:45:50 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: freeboy

but where they moving and where they in deep water?


This arguement is getting lame. What is deep water when a sub can only dive to it's crush depth, anywhere from 200' to 500', and it is modelled according to durability? As durability is a sub class definition, this durability can be used in shallow water because the durability is not "reduced" to let's say 10 for the Balao in 100' of water.

Durability seems to greatly affect ability of escorts to detect the sub, but it does not seem to effect the accuracy of the DCs once fired. I'm soooo baffled by the ASW model. It makes absolutely no sense to me the way it is designed.

Here is the list of Allied subs sunk by Japanese escorts...notice all to DCs, no air hits. Not been used aggressively unless placeing subs in shipping lanes is in some way overly aggressive behavior. Heck, Tarpon in my AAR did not even see a comtact so I'm not being that aggressive. Basically sub get's sighted and is attacked by all escorts without firing a shot initially (and can't in defence). Majority are in deep water but as I said, aside from penalizing the sub in some way regarding DC accuracy or detection, the durability of the sub sort of screws with the concept of variable depths due to shallow and deep water (because the durability is this ability and is hard coded into sub specs).

Worst thing for a sub to do is cross the path of a major surface TF...a dream during the war which fetched enormous dividends but in WITP usually means sub gets sighted first and gets sunk. In an test during beta I placed three or four subs in the path of a fast moving US CV TF and all subs were sunk or damaged in one turn as TF passed by!

I'm tempted to tell Mogami about a patrol line I have and have him run KB along it's axis. In fact I will and we can test it.


[image]local://upfiles/5522/7C2677EE5BD74FC4BD6CF59BFABB56EA.jpg[/image]



Ron Saueracker -> RE: Two more Japanese submarines sunk (4/18/2005 2:51:15 AM)

Russ. As a test, run your CV TF you have lurking off Amboina providing LR CAP and run it along the axis of this sub patrol line and see what happens. I show this and offer this as the odds of me hitting anything are soo long and most likely I'll have at least 2 of the four subs damaged/sunk.

[image]local://upfiles/5522/9BBC219474A14B9D8459E63F6FFC50BF.jpg[/image]



mogami -> RE: Two more Japanese submarines sunk (4/18/2005 3:15:31 AM)

Hi, Are you nuts? I provide escort to CV to keep subs away but I'm not sending them after subs either. I'll send an ASW TF.



Ron Saueracker -> RE: Two more Japanese submarines sunk (4/18/2005 3:20:38 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, Are you nuts? I provide escort to CV to keep subs away but I'm not sending them after subs either. I'll send an ASW TF.


Fair enough...make it a surface combat TF of DDs, not ASW. We know the ASW is brutal, I just want to see how bad the basic warship TFs are. I am confident the subs would not have hit anything anyway.



mogami -> RE: Two more Japanese submarines sunk (4/18/2005 3:41:52 AM)

Hi, Last turn Brady sank a CL and a DD no harm to his subs.



freeboy -> RE: Two more Japanese submarines sunk (4/18/2005 3:45:09 AM)

I am telling you, I get lots of asw groups either not getting attacks or not getting hits.. if his subs are moving and in deep water.. HELLO[:-]



mogami -> RE: Two more Japanese submarines sunk (4/18/2005 3:49:37 AM)

Hi, I don't think many of the subs Ron has lost have been "undiscovered". They had been spotted before the actions occured.



freeboy -> RE: Two more Japanese submarines sunk (4/18/2005 3:52:42 AM)

does he just let them sit? Move them or lose them!



jwilkerson -> RE: Two more Japanese submarines sunk (4/18/2005 3:59:10 AM)

And there are those of us like me who say more than half the time - every time one of my IJN subs gets seen by a TF - it gets sunk. So Hello back at ya !


I don't know why we have such vastly different experiences but I've been playing since July and have done ( or am doing ) 6 PBEM and numerous AI games. Same thing happens if I'm playing Allies against AI .. I run over many IJN subs and sink most of them - it is even worse against the AI because the AI doesn't even try to position subs smartly or to pull out of areas infected by Alles ASW.





Ron Saueracker -> RE: Two more Japanese submarines sunk (4/18/2005 3:59:47 AM)

Hey, let's watch what happens for pure wargaming science. I'm risking subs here to make a point and we can all see what happens. Deep water vs a passing surface combat TF. I predict maybe 1 sub fires out of the four, other three will be "spotted first" somehow and two of four will take damage as a result of gang bang attacks, which of course will not restrict the DDs from doing same in each successive hex illuminating many problems.

just some of the problems....
-for some reason, subs rarely have the initiative and are spotted first, regardless of enemy speed
-subs don't defend, they just get pounded
-all ASW armed ships attack, regardless of number
-attacks made by ships don't seem incur ops costs...the ships will proceed to at same rate despite having "hunted" sub, in this case, possibly on four occasions
-DCs are too accurate...accuracy of dropped DCs will be around 75%
-escorts which don't actually drop DCs in animations but are said to have to explain model will show no ammo expenditure.



Ron Saueracker -> RE: Two more Japanese submarines sunk (4/18/2005 4:06:09 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, I don't think many of the subs Ron has lost have been "undiscovered". They had been spotted before the actions occured.


In game terms they were spotted. It would help the player greatly if spotted TFs were clearly marked next orders phase. The hex is still 60 miles across so you are saying these subs should be as vulnerable as they are in the game? Man, just trying to hit a sub which had dived maybe a mile ahead of the escort running it down was a toss up yet because a sub was spotted in a 60 mile hex the day before makes it a dead duck in WITP. This assumes that the sub CO is dumber than a big tittied blond weather girl. Why is it assumed that the sub is on the surface all the time?



freeboy -> RE: Two more Japanese submarines sunk (4/18/2005 4:20:13 AM)

lmao ron



tsimmonds -> RE: Two more Japanese submarines sunk (4/18/2005 4:21:42 AM)

Oh Ron, you are so FOS!![:@]

(they don't all have tetas grandes)[;)]



Ron Saueracker -> RE: Two more Japanese submarines sunk (4/18/2005 5:05:10 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

Oh Ron, you are so FOS!![:@]

(they don't all have tetas grandes)[;)]

[:D][&o]



Tristanjohn -> RE: Something has to be done about Allied ASW (4/18/2005 5:47:23 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, I was not asking about circumstance in game. I was asking about circumstance in real life.
First we have to establish the "norm" for sub encounters and then see where WITP is at variance. It is one thing to say the model is broken. I am interested in what people belive should be the result produced by the "perfect" model.
Forget WITP exists. What was the normal sequence when a submarine encountered an enemy force.
What is the impact of an escort. Numbers of escort, location of encounter, previous exchange between submarine and enemy forces in same location, aircraft.
In short when does a submarine have the advantage and when does the ASW force present have the advantage?
The USN knew where not to send submarines during the war. They also knew when that changed and it was feasable to send submarines to previously restricted zones. What had changed?


Hmmmm...have the designers read a book or two on the subject before setting the puppy in stone. I think volumes have been posted on what was the "norm" for sub encounters and how WITP should be attempting to model them...I don't think we need to go over this again. From what I understand, it is working as designed and no change will ever come.

Apologies for my tone but so much (not just ASW) is at an extreme level of variance with the game that completely different tactics and doctrines have been adopted by players to accomodate the game mechanics and design approaches and the end result has almost no reflection of reality.

While it is fun to play, there is not much reality value and we are going to see more "extremes" as we progress deeper into the games time span.



Hi, Thanks (for nothing)


Well, had I answered you, Russ, I would have been compelled to say about the same thing. It seems fruitless to put forth yet more logical explanation for how and why the game model is in error for the simple reason each and every time such explanation is put forward it is either 1) totally ignored and/or 2) met with a sort of gibberish in response. So what's the point of further intelligent critical examination of what is, to me at least, an utterly thoughtless model?

The WitP ASW game model doesn't work because it can't work and never could work, and this is because it wasn't designed correctly. It was desinged incorrectly.

How many different ways do you want to hear it? How many different ways must you hear it? What's going on with you?





Tristanjohn -> RE: Two more Japanese submarines sunk (4/18/2005 6:05:04 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: freeboy

but where they moving and where they in deep water?


If you'd bother to click on the link provided you could check for yourself whether it was deep water or shallow.



freeboy -> RE: Two more Japanese submarines sunk (4/18/2005 6:47:11 AM)

not trying to annoy, guess THAT is my greattest skill[:D], often aar's do not reveal what a simple response would.. thanks



ChezDaJez -> RE: Something has to be done about Allied ASW (4/18/2005 6:47:28 AM)

quote:

I forgot to ask Chez this turn what his mortality rate has been on submarine attacks, but as I noted in a previous post it must be running on the order of 70% if not higher still. And again, the majority of these kills by the USN have been when his I-boats (mostly) have attacked my supply convoys, which are, to repeat myself, escorted by just three or four destroyers as a rule. In all of these attacks on my supply convoys he has managed to sink just one AP.


Mortality Rate? Let's put it this way.... at the current loss rate, I will have no subs left by Feb 43. Both sub doctrines are on.

I have lost 23 subs with another 3 currently heavily damaged (1 still at sea trying to make port with 67 flot damage). 2 others were also heavily damaged but have since been repaired.

18 of the subs were sunk in deep water, most by convoy or surface escorts. 2 were sunk while laying mines in an enemy port. 1 was sunk by acft.

Losses break down as follows:

1 sunk by 500lb GP bomb (US)
14 sunk by Mk 7 DC (US)
8 suunk by MK VII DC (US)

ASW Attacks through 6/20/1942

Allied ASW Results: 71 attacks, 23 sunk, 5 damaged
Hit Percentage: 39.4% Sunk Percentage: 32.3% Damage Percentage: 7.0%

IJN ASW Results: 54 attacks, 4 sunk, 3(?) damaged
Hit Percentage: 12.9% Sunk Percentage: 7.4% Damage Percentage: 5.5%
All Allied subs sunk by Type 95 DC

Japanese subs have sunk 2 DDs, 4 AKs, 1 AP and 1 PG. US subs have not sunk any ships of any type.

Basically, 2 out of 5 Allied ASW attacks in the game result in a sinking. This is way out of proportion even for the Atlantic in 1945 IRL where the sink rate was less than 20% per attack. The real life Japanese loss rate was 1.41:1 subs per month in 1942. In our game, it is 3.28:1 per month

As an aside, I am currently reading Clay Blair's "Silent Victory" about the US submarine war in the Pacific and from what I've read so far, the majority of Japanese merchants and tankers overe 1000 tons in 1942 were escorted by at least 1 destroyer. Every single submarine skipper stated that the Japanese ASW was very good and nearly every sub attack resulted in a depthcharging, sometimes very severe. The US lost 3 boats to enemy ASW. Substantially more boats would have been lost if the Japanese had set their depth charges deeper than 150 feet.

US subs sank only 2 major combatants during 1942, the CA Kako and the CL Tenryu. They conducted 23 attacks on battleships and carriers resulting in 1 torpedo hit on a BB for slight damage. Most of these attacks came as a result of Ultra intercepts. Japanese merchants losses were 180 ships for 725,000 tons. The Japanese actually ended the year with more tonnage than they began. US subs fired 10.8 torpedoes for every ship sunk.

In contrast, Japanese subs in 1942 sank the CVs Yorktown (previously damaged at Midway) and Wasp. The also sank the CL Juneau and torpedoed the Saratoga on 2 separate occasions and heavily damaged BB North Carolina and the CA Chester.

The Japanese lost 23 submarines in all of 1942, 6 of them to US subs. I have lost 23 in just 7 months and this is without aggressive play. I have tried to use IJN subs as they were IRL, that is primarily scouting.

Chez



Ron Saueracker -> RE: Something has to be done about Allied ASW (4/18/2005 6:59:40 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, I was not asking about circumstance in game. I was asking about circumstance in real life.
First we have to establish the "norm" for sub encounters and then see where WITP is at variance. It is one thing to say the model is broken. I am interested in what people belive should be the result produced by the "perfect" model.
Forget WITP exists. What was the normal sequence when a submarine encountered an enemy force.
What is the impact of an escort. Numbers of escort, location of encounter, previous exchange between submarine and enemy forces in same location, aircraft.
In short when does a submarine have the advantage and when does the ASW force present have the advantage?
The USN knew where not to send submarines during the war. They also knew when that changed and it was feasable to send submarines to previously restricted zones. What had changed?


Hmmmm...have the designers read a book or two on the subject before setting the puppy in stone. I think volumes have been posted on what was the "norm" for sub encounters and how WITP should be attempting to model them...I don't think we need to go over this again. From what I understand, it is working as designed and no change will ever come.

Apologies for my tone but so much (not just ASW) is at an extreme level of variance with the game that completely different tactics and doctrines have been adopted by players to accomodate the game mechanics and design approaches and the end result has almost no reflection of reality.

While it is fun to play, there is not much reality value and we are going to see more "extremes" as we progress deeper into the games time span.



Hi, Thanks (for nothing)


Fine...I'll give a basic example of what happens for Allied...then what happens for Japanese with different doctrines/poor tech.

Basic norm for Allied sub encountering a TF.

If in enemy waters, sub is usually submerged during daylight and surfaced at night. With new radars, subs began to stay surfaced during daylight as well as the technology allowed them to evade (aircraft) or attempt to get into attack position prior to attacking (submerged during daylight, surfaced at night )depending on visibility. Very rarely were subs so equipped spotted and attacked yet in WITP this appears to be reversed.

If able to get into position to attack, subs usually fire first as they are still undetected, and usually at more than one target with both bow and stern tubes, depending on number of tubes, number of remaining torps, TF disposition, target priority etc. In WITP, we see subs discovered first (despite having the initiative, concealment, and lower silouette. If they attack, they only fire bow or stern tubes, always at one target, and all torps...regardless of target type. No doctrinal priority or torpedo expenditure variances here.

If discovered a sub would in many cases fire torps defensively and then attempt to evade. Evasion by Allied subs was generally successful as Japanese both lacked the technology and doctrine to consistently pursue submerged subs, at least early on. Only a fraction of the escort would attack as the main goal was to foil any attack and to remain with the ships they were escorting, which were generally getting out of dodge.In WITP, subs don't fire defensively and are subject to the "gang bang" where all escorts have a go when historically the majority of the escorts were sailing away with the ships which they are assigned to escort. In many cases the ASW attacks were so brief that the sub could resurface and end around for another crack but no such pursuit happens in the game.

I do not know where the notion that aggressive use of submarines was not practiced. Was it conceived during playtesting when players stacked multiple subs in base hexes or something? Historically the Allies even ventured into the fishbowl of the Yellow Sea and Sea of Japan as early as 1943, and did so without loss despite attacks. US subs were ordered to run the defences at Lingayan Gulf in Dec 41, braving multiple lines of ASW pickets without loss, and even managed to sink a transport. Yet we se players being admonished for placing subs in busy shipping lanes because this is dangerous to the sub. Complete malarkey.

For Japanese subs, the situation was somewhat different. Allied technology was better and the Japanese subs were for the most part poor underwater performers, being big , unwieldly and poor diving limits, all of which were detrimental in a three dimensional battle of wits. Many Japanese subs were caught on the surface during daylight by aircraft because the subs were operating aircraft themselves, had no air warning radar and generally did not dive as fast. At night, many Jap subs were caught recharging batteries by Allied ships bearing down on them guided by radar. These deficiencies only became more glaring as the war progressed and Allied tech and expertise increased.

But Japanese subs had many sucesses as well as we all know but, as with the Allied example above, subs in general usually do not benefit from the inherent initiative given a submerged sub over a surface TF in this model. All too often the sub somehow gets spotted by ships travelling at speeds too great for sonar and get slammed without firing a shot.

I have not even mentioned the accuracy of DCs in the game as I've mentioned this BS innumerable times. DCs are blind bombs folks, but the model has them performing better than present day ASW weapons which are guided in so many different ways.

Basically, if one turned the model inside out and reversed every dynamic, it might resemble something. As it is it is a joke. Don't even get me going on the doctrines.[8|]

What is really glaring is the lack of sub vs sub capability. A large percentage of Japanese subs were sunk by US subs. I believe one USN sub was sunk by a Japanese sub.





Page: <<   < prev  4 5 6 [7] 8   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.859375