IJN Submarine Doctrine (Full Version)

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



Message

Subchaser -> IJN Submarine Doctrine (7/4/2005 1:23:33 AM)

I know it was discussed many times before but I want to kick this dead horse once more…

Is there any chance of improving/correcting IJN sub doctrine in the next patch? I suppose there are only few people around here who play with IJN sub doctrine ON, since this makes Japanese submarines virtually useless. But in reality they were not totally useless, especially early in the war.

In game subs under doctrine attack only warships and ignore merchants and auxiliary vessels, that’s okay, the problem is that they attack only those warships that are in the combat TFs. Any warships, including CVE/L, CA, CL that are in the non-combat TFs, such as transport TFs or amphibious forces – are being ignored. It looks like this modifier checks what type of a TF it is. If it is non-combat it doesn’t let to initiate sub combat, even if there are plenty of warships in this TF. Of course I can be wrong here but this is what I see in the game, my subs completely ignore allied transport TFs with 2-3 escort carriers and dozen of cruisers that escort 1 or 2 cargos with troops. Besides that, IJN high command realized later in war that Combat Regulations issued in 1934 were not suitable in 1945 and doctrine was changed, subs had another priorities during the final stages of the war, they failed to achive anything but this time not because of a faulty doctrine. Game doesn’t simulate this in dynamic. I think the following changes should be introduced – 1) Sub doctrine modifier should check for types of the ships in TF and do not check what mission this TF has 2) Player should be able to switch doctrine on/off during the gameplay, it would be nice to be able to switch doctrine on in S and SW zones and have it off in Indian ocean. Is it possible? I really want to play with historical doctrine on but there is no such option actually, what we have simply takes IJN subs out of the game.



Terminus -> RE: IJN Submarine Doctrine (7/4/2005 1:39:45 AM)

Well, they're not that much better with Sub Doctrine off. I've been very disappointed in my I- and RO-boats in a game with Doctrine off.



Belphegor -> RE: IJN Submarine Doctrine (7/4/2005 3:30:01 AM)

I'm one of the few that plays with the IJN sub doctrine on. I have got hits on merchantmen in transport and cargo TFs... few and far between, but they are there. The payoff is when my sub lies undetected on a major route, being crossed over by these same merchant TFs, and gets a hit on a carrier or capital ship in assumed *safe* waters. It has happened enough for me to never want to play with doctrine off which I'm sure my opponents are happy to agree to.

that being said, I don't think your suggestions are bad either.



Charles2222 -> RE: IJN Submarine Doctrine (7/4/2005 7:23:46 AM)

I had one of my I's that carry mines deliver his load, and then sent him back to port. Whether it was a port that would support rearming the mines or not I didn't pay attention to. In any event, when the ship runs out of mines the weapon category remains while the amount of ammo is shown as zero. after a bit I took it out of port (probably left it there to heal a mere damage point) and suddenly the entire mine weapon category was gone and if there was any damage it was fixed! I'll have to try another mine-sub pretty soon and see if the same thing occurs again.



cookie monster -> RE: IJN Submarine Doctrine (7/4/2005 7:35:20 AM)

maybe it upgraded to a later model which has no mines. Much like the allied Argonaut



jwilkerson -> RE: IJN Submarine Doctrine (7/4/2005 8:01:43 AM)

I've played ( as IJN ) with it "off" in all games so far ... and can't even achive historical level sinkings of merchantment ( 60 or so in the first 6 months ) ... and exchange rate for merchant vs sub ... has remained constant since day one at about 1 for 1 ... ( for Germans at high point .. exchange rate was 10 merchants for each sub lost ... when exchange rate reached 1 for 1 in mid 1943 the Germans declared defeat and redeployed ).

Primarily I refer to the attempt ( about which Addmiral King was quite worried for the first half of the war ) to inject significant numbers of I boats between West Coast and Pearl ... I've been able to maintain about 10-15 I boats in the area for several months ... using the Glen carriers to scout and then attempting to "swarm" the other I boats after the convoy ... for a while I can kill at about 2 to 1 rate ... but as PBY coverage increases and escorts increase the ratio changes to 1 to 1.

So there is absolutely no windfall capability when playing with sub doctrine off as IJN ...

It is said that the abilty to sink capital ships is enhanced by having doctrine ON ... if true that might be worth considering. But I struggle with the idea that allies "Know" they don't need to escort convoys ... the real life commanders didn't know what the Japanese would do ... IRL the Japanese sank about 2 merchant ships per week in the first six months ... not possible with sub doctrine off ... probably not possible with it on either ... and as I said until as late as 1943 Adm King worried that the Japanese would start copying the Germans and attack our merchant ships in the Pacific.




bradfordkay -> RE: IJN Submarine Doctrine (7/4/2005 8:38:32 AM)

I will agree with Belphegor. I play with IJN sub doctrine on (have done so since the beginning) and they will attack both merchants and combat ships in non-combat TFs. It does tone down those attacks, but it does not eliminate them.



Charles2222 -> RE: IJN Submarine Doctrine (7/4/2005 8:38:52 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: cookie monster

maybe it upgraded to a later model which has no mines. Much like the allied Argonaut


I sent it to Saigon, which if I recall the upgrade rules correctly (size 5 port) it will not upgrade any ships. I'm also pretty sure that there are no upgrades of any IJN ships in 12/41. There are only 4 or 5 of those boogers, so I doubt they would have removed the mine alot in an upgrade anyway.



BlackVoid -> RE: IJN Submarine Doctrine (7/4/2005 1:59:06 PM)

In my opinion, sub warfare is the worst modelled in WITP. The only things subs are good for in WITP is attacking cripples, so that is what I use them for. With IJN, that means sub-doctrine ON. If they do not attack escort TFs, then this is a big problem...
Even Allies have a lot of trouble with subs if they use them historically, because dedicated hunter-killer groups will sink them by the dozen.

As IJN, even with doctrine off, you wont make a dent in allied shipping, you will just get your boats sunk.



Terminus -> RE: IJN Submarine Doctrine (7/4/2005 2:08:11 PM)

Allied subs aren't THAT bad off, since IJN ASW is virtually non-existant. I haven't lost a US, British or Dutch sub in a loooooooooooooooooooooooooong time now.



m10bob -> RE: IJN Submarine Doctrine (7/4/2005 2:44:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Well, they're not that much better with Sub Doctrine off. I've been very disappointed in my I- and RO-boats in a game with Doctrine off.

I play CHS,and ver 1.6,with Jap doctine "off"..They are playing havoc with my Allied ships all up and down the Aussie coast from Brisbane north..(Early '42)..
I now have 4 ASW groups out there at present (rated 4+ each ship),and some of them are sinking as well,with 2 Jap subs sunk,(that I know of).



spence -> RE: IJN Submarine Doctrine (7/4/2005 3:33:06 PM)

My opponent (IJN) and I are both playing with our respective sub doctrines ON. His subs have attacked a few warships but have pretty much left merchies alone. It's Jan 42 now and so far the USN subs have yet to even fire a torpedo AT ANYTHING[:@]. One of them has managed to get sunk and several others have been damaged a bit though not seriously. The Brits and the Dutch subs have each made one attack, I think resulting in at least one maru failing the float test.
The IJN sub doctrine rule has at least some basis (IMO) in historical reality. The USN sub doctrine has virtually none. With its crummy torpedoes the USN subs didn't do very well but at least THEY DID ATTACK.

I forgot to check this but I think the USN PT boats carried the Mk XIV torpedo. In my present PBEM they do not seem to suffer at all from duds. So far in this game they have performed very very well having torpedoed several merchies and small escorts along with 2 of the KB's escorting DDs on the night of Dec 7-8. IRL the PTs didn't often get an opportunity to launch torpedos but if they had it would seem that they would also have been frustrated by duds. It hasn't happened in my PBEM to date, nor in any of the AI games I've messed around with that I can remember. Seems a bit odd.



Terminus -> RE: IJN Submarine Doctrine (7/4/2005 4:37:17 PM)

PT boats don't carry Mk 14's:



[image]local://upfiles/16369/18353F96CF144F8AB522EB1A48C76C38.gif[/image]



Terminus -> RE: IJN Submarine Doctrine (7/4/2005 4:38:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

I play CHS,and ver 1.6,with Jap doctine "off"..They are playing havoc with my Allied ships all up and down the Aussie coast from Brisbane north..(Early '42)..
I now have 4 ASW groups out there at present (rated 4+ each ship),and some of them are sinking as well,with 2 Jap subs sunk,(that I know of).


I had the same problem with Jap subs for a while in another game, but now most of them are sunk, so...



BlackVoid -> RE: IJN Submarine Doctrine (7/4/2005 4:40:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Allied subs aren't THAT bad off, since IJN ASW is virtually non-existant. I haven't lost a US, British or Dutch sub in a loooooooooooooooooooooooooong time now.


I bet its against the AI.
In 2 PBEMs as IJN I am sinking allied subs left and right, in the Guadalcanal scenario my Allied opponent withdrew his subs from behind enemy lines and only employs them during major naval action (just like me). I sunk about 10 subs in a few months.



Terminus -> RE: IJN Submarine Doctrine (7/4/2005 4:44:58 PM)

That particular game is indeed vs. the Japanese AI, but the picture isn't much different in either of my two PBEM's, where I play the Japanese. Mass ASW tactics with 2-4 groups of 4 ships in ONE hex does nohzing! Noooooooohzing!



spence -> RE: IJN Submarine Doctrine (7/4/2005 5:22:00 PM)

Thanks Terminus for the info re PT Boat torpedos. I sorta have to wonder though about why the Mk 8 torpedo would have had a different exploder(s) and a different depth control mechanism than the Mark 14 (maybe not present in Mk 8 though).

In my PBEM I've been dedicating a pretty considerable effort to ASW (as USN). As I mentioned my opponent has IJN sub doctrine ON. In the various engagements his subs have torpedoed 4-5 ASW platforms and I have sunk 17 I-boats (confirmed on Ship Sunk List). I kinda think my opp left most of his subs on computer control for the first couple of turns anyways since the main killing grounds were near Oahu and Singapore. I would certainly recommend the IJN player take human control of his subs immediately whether or not sub doctrine is on or off.

As far as IJN ASW efforts, I am not really sure whether or not my opp is devoting any effort to ASW TFs or not. His escort vessels may not have sunk many of my subs but they are doing a fine job of suppressing my subs (Allied sub doctrine on). As I mentioned before no USN sub has even launched a torpedo yet (Jan 42). I've tried human control and computer control with single ship sub TFs and multiship sub TFs and have seen no difference in their performance whatever. If any contact at all results with an escorted TF the escorts attack the sub before the sub attacks. Seemingly unescorted ships/TFs are not contacted at all (except once a USN sub lackadaisically attacked an unescorted maru with its deck gun firing a few rounds before apparently breaking off the attack).



Terminus -> RE: IJN Submarine Doctrine (7/4/2005 5:57:13 PM)

No matter which side you play, ALWAYS control your own submarines. The AI does not, and can not be expected to, do a good job with them.



crsutton -> RE: IJN Submarine Doctrine (7/4/2005 9:42:53 PM)

My experience is limited. I am playing the South Pacific scenario so the scope is limited. The Japanese get a lot of subs considering the size of the scenario. The Allies get a moderate number but have to wait for them. Both my opponent and I are fairly skilled and are not careless with subs.

In four months of play, I have lost a dozen Japanese subs. I find them to be totally useless against anything but lone cripples. Any moderately escorted TF will be on them like dirt and generall sinks them. The real problem is not the frequency of attacks but seems to be the deadly acruacy of the attacks. It is not unusual for the ASW ships to get six to eight hits on my subs. They have yet to attack any warship that was not crippled and I don't think they have it any merchants. I don't have a problem with this as a sub attacking a well escorted convoy should not have too many sucessful attacks and should be driven off. My problem is that once detected by the ASW, you can pretty much count of your sub dying. This is just not right.

As for my Allied opponent, his torpedoes are useless and I don't think he has scored more than one or two hits. This is to be expected in 1942 but I have sunk seven of his subs as well! If the Japanese player masses air assets for ASW patrols, then any Allied sub within six hexes of a major Japanese base is at risk.

Once again my experience is limited but the sub aspect of the game just seems to stink. It was more limited in UV but worked better. In Witp, Japanese subs are better sitting in port or just relagated to mine laying. Allied subs might as well stay home as well.



Subchaser -> RE: IJN Submarine Doctrine (7/4/2005 10:44:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Well, they're not that much better with Sub Doctrine off. I've been very disappointed in my I- and RO-boats in a game with Doctrine off.


Even with doctrine ON there must be success, limited, but success. The problems here are faulty submarine warfare model and doctrines. If you will try to analyze the reasons of IJN submarine fleet failure, you will see how promising their early war opportunities were, missed opportunities. During the entire war sixth fleet served the interests of the Combined Fleet, submarines spent the war getting ready for the decisive battle, which did never occurred. Only very limited number of submarines were used against Allied merchants. In 42-44 large number of subs were constantly in reserve (ready to support Kaigun in the decisive battle) and the rest performing screening, transport and reconnaissance missions. But… from 4/42 till 11/44 the sixth fleet was trying to have at least 4-6 subs on the major allied sea routes. During this period, quite small number of IJN subs sunk 169 merchants (801230 tons) and seriously damaged another 42 ships. Take a look at IJN top killers list, note there are only 14 subs listed, with 3 (maximum 5) anti-merchant patrols each, they sunk 101 ships (damaged another 24), 97 merchants - this is almost 60% of all merchant kills. Now imagine entire Sensuikan fleet aimed at Allied sea communications. Losses should be high… on the both sides!

[image]http://user.rol.ru/~subchase/table%201.jpg[/image]

More statistics

[image]http://user.rol.ru/~subchase/table2.jpg[/image]

140 (109 + 29 + 2 captured) successful attacks during first 13 months of the war. 15-20 attacks on merchants per month and this is with Doctrine ON(!). Is it possible with WitP sub doctrine ON?



Subchaser -> RE: IJN Submarine Doctrine (7/4/2005 10:45:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

I will agree with Belphegor. I play with IJN sub doctrine on (have done so since the beginning) and they will attack both merchants and combat ships in non-combat TFs. It does tone down those attacks, but it does not eliminate them.


Surprised to hear that, in my games sub commanders always follow the manual and attack merchants really “very seldom”, and I never saw attacks against the warships in non-combat TFs with doctrine ON, may be I’m simply unlucky… don’t know. I still feel that some tweaking is required here.



SuperKing -> RE: IJN Submarine Doctrine (7/5/2005 1:24:23 AM)

Did you change your sub commanders to better & more agressive ones?



Subchaser -> RE: IJN Submarine Doctrine (7/5/2005 10:18:41 AM)

Yes. Sub commanders, TF commanders... all maniacs!



BlackVoid -> RE: IJN Submarine Doctrine (7/5/2005 1:43:41 PM)

For subs you should use careful commanders, agressivenes increases the chance of getting sunk by a large margin.

Subs in the game are underpowered and way too easy to spot/kill.



Rainerle -> RE: IJN Submarine Doctrine (7/5/2005 1:58:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BlackVoid


Subs in the game are underpowered and way too easy to spot/kill.

Hi,
this statement ist old and I also thought like that for a long time. But just maybe the real reason why many people come up with that conclusion is that there are so few unsuccessful ASW attacks where 50-60 % of the ASW capacity are expended for nothing. This never happens in WitP even when it was rather the rule in the early years IRL. If most of the time the subs get away even though lots of DC are dumped then players wouldn't neccessarily come up with the conclusion that subs are a one-shot weapon. This effect is created when 1 out of 2 times some escort actually dumps DC's the sub is lost.
OTOH they are too easy to spot. Can't be that IJN spotted 5-7 subs around Formosa/Taiwan every single day !!!
On a further note I read (E. Bagnasco) that in the first year of the war IJN sub skippers approached their admiralty and wanted to conduct anti-merchant warfare but this demand was turned down.



Belphegor -> RE: IJN Submarine Doctrine (7/10/2005 6:49:18 PM)

quote:

140 (109 + 29 + 2 captured) successful attacks during first 13 months of the war. 15-20 attacks on merchants per month and this is with Doctrine ON(!). Is it possible with WitP sub doctrine ON?



Do you not have to still do math on that particular stat? I seem to remember early on there was a statement that not every ship (especially merchant) was represented in the game. So if not every ship is represented, it would likely be much more difficult to approach the historical result. Most of those successful attacks were in the Indian Ocean, how many subs do most players send there?

Because of the abstraction and the missing merchants, perhaps the subs are getting proportionally similar results? Just asking.



Ron Saueracker -> RE: IJN Submarine Doctrine (7/10/2005 8:13:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BlackVoid

In my opinion, sub warfare is the worst modelled in WITP. The only things subs are good for in WITP is attacking cripples, so that is what I use them for. With IJN, that means sub-doctrine ON. If they do not attack escort TFs, then this is a big problem...
Even Allies have a lot of trouble with subs if they use them historically, because dedicated hunter-killer groups will sink them by the dozen.

As IJN, even with doctrine off, you wont make a dent in allied shipping, you will just get your boats sunk.


I would really like to see a well worded poll about this. I'm not the only one here who thinks the submarine/anti-submarine model is off. First poll I'd like to see is a simple one...
A) Do you think the sub/anti-sub model is good?
B) Do you think the sub/anti-sub model is bad?

From there we can get more detailed breakdowns of what is perceived to be the biggest issues and then perhaps something will get done about it. There are enough people playing with serious WITP time that we can get some headway going. I am so fed up with the excuse that no test results have been sufficiently supplied by myself or any other critic but given the huge variations within the context of the model/historical fact, no single test is sufficient to illustrate the point being made without some "defender of the faith" disecting it and thereby losing the gist of the example or test case. I believe, given the limitations of any series of tests as mentioned, the mean "feel" of the model within the WITP community is more important for what we need and constitutes the "tests" requested.



Belphegor -> RE: IJN Submarine Doctrine (7/10/2005 8:51:29 PM)

I think the first poll should be

"Are you a 'critic' or a 'defender of the faith'" [;)]


Personally I haven't been convinced by either side so I'd prefer the "bloody fence-sitter" category added in.

Ron: If you could change 1 thing about the sub/ASW model what would it be... in other words, what change would be the most dramatic to bringing this around for you?



Ron Saueracker -> RE: IJN Submarine Doctrine (7/11/2005 5:56:24 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Belphegor

I think the first poll should be

"Are you a 'critic' or a 'defender of the faith'" [;)]


Personally I haven't been convinced by either side so I'd prefer the "bloody fence-sitter" category added in.

Ron: If you could change 1 thing about the sub/ASW model what would it be... in other words, what change would be the most dramatic to bringing this around for you?


There are obviously a number of things which I believe need attention. Nik has shown that durability plays a HUGE factor as it is tied in with dive depth, detectability, ASW weapon accuracy etc. If some way could be found to untie the VP and production costs from the durability rating, players could tweak the sub durability to their hearts content.

For me, however, the present ability of surface TFs to use every available ship with an ASW ability vs the sub (the "gang bang") is the biggest problem. This turns the ASW model into a pure game of numbers, with players forming these massive ASW hunter killer TFs...look in the AARs to see some of these 20+ ship TFs. Some sort of partially random percentage of escorts being able to involve themselves would be great.





Belphegor -> RE: IJN Submarine Doctrine (7/11/2005 6:41:07 AM)

So a random % of escorts engaging when in a TF not totally dedicated to ASW (ie. destroyers in a Air Combat TF) and a TF max ship limit in dedicated ASW TFs in the same manner as other TFs have ship limits except potentially much smaller?



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.890625