RE: IJN Submarine Doctrine

RE: IJN Submarine Doctrine (Full Version)

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

Message

Ron Saueracker -> RE: IJN Submarine Doctrine (7/11/2005 6:56:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Belphegor 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? Yeah, something along this approach would do wonders. I think an ASW TF, because of the bonus it gets and the amount of escorts which can conceivably "hunt" a sub without "getting in the way" should be around 4. Other TFs escorts were there to "escort" their larger counterparts so a fraction of them should be capable of engaging the sub as the majority will continue on with the convoy/TF.

Belphegor -> RE: IJN Submarine Doctrine (7/11/2005 7:14:45 AM)
How about an ASW effectiveness drop (like more than 15 ships in an Air Combat TF) for more than a certain number of ships in an ASW TF? Rather than limit the number of ships, reduce their effectiveness if over 4 (for sake of discussion) same thing? or is it better to have a definite cap. I'd agree with the other TF escorts %, I don't think every escort would pull off station to try for a sub... perhaps 20%?

Oznoyng -> RE: IJN Submarine Doctrine (7/11/2005 6:38:31 PM)
Here is the "killed" list for IJN subs in my game with Mogami. IJN sub ops are off. I'm fairly happy with how the subs are doing, though I steer subs away from contacts with heavy escorts. My subs generally operate in groups, with 1 or more Glen-boats as spotters and 3 to 5 ROw-boats or I-boats as shooters. The Glen-boats are used to bracket likely sea routes and the others are manuevered into place based upon course/speed observations over several turns. If I detect a strong escort, I don't engage. My favorite sub is the Glen-boat, as it has been used to vector other subs, KB, and surface action groups onto contacts to good effect. I generally try to keep them out of areas where a TF will run directly over them, usually a hex or two off the sea lane. [image]local://upfiles/11730/29F97FA3525E4C3A95EAD5B8C6ACB2E0.jpg[/image]

Ron Saueracker -> RE: IJN Submarine Doctrine (7/11/2005 10:04:43 PM)
quote: I'm fairly happy with how the subs are doing, though I steer subs away from contacts with heavy escorts. So, basically you are forced by the game to utilize an entirely different approach with subs due to the ASW model being way off. You shy away from the true Japanese sub doctrine. Japan went for the big fish but in the game it is even deadly going after a small weakly escorted convoy. This is what I mean when I say the model distorts strategy/tactics. How many IBoats are sunk?

Ron Saueracker -> RE: IJN Submarine Doctrine (7/11/2005 10:06:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Belphegor How about an ASW effectiveness drop (like more than 15 ships in an Air Combat TF) for more than a certain number of ships in an ASW TF? Rather than limit the number of ships, reduce their effectiveness if over 4 (for sake of discussion) same thing? or is it better to have a definite cap. I'd agree with the other TF escorts %, I don't think every escort would pull off station to try for a sub... perhaps 20%? Why not?[;)] Anything is better than the gang bang.[8\|]

Oznoyng -> RE: IJN Submarine Doctrine (7/12/2005 12:24:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker So, basically you are forced by the game to utilize an entirely different approach with subs due to the ASW model being way off. You shy away from the true Japanese sub doctrine. Japan went for the big fish but in the game it is even deadly going after a small weakly escorted convoy. This is what I mean when I say the model distorts strategy/tactics. Hmmm.. looked at in that way...yeah, I guess I have adapted a bit. I don't send subs within 3 to 5 hexes of most Allied bases, and I do not send subs in against forces I expect to have even medium sized escorts. Almost all my subs are patrolling in deep water. On the other hand, my goal is to sink ships and my subs are doing that. Aside from the ones sunk directly, intel provided by Glen subs has allowed me to snag 4 CA, 1 CL, 8 DD, 8 AK, 1 PG, 1 DM, 2 MSW, and 1 DMS. (approximately 350 VP worth of ships, plus 8 or 10 aircraft that were deployed to the CA's) quote: ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker How many IBoats are sunk? Four. Two died on the same turn, to the same TF between PH and the West Coast. The other two I forgot the circumstances. On the two sunk the same turn, there were only a couple escorts, but they got lucky rolls both times. My subs have been attacked multiple times, with misses about the same as hits, and with hits being lethal a little less than half the time, I'd say. My subs have made contact quite a bit, and I have 2 subs dinged up in the 20's and 30's from DC attacks they survived in addition to the 4 sunk. In most cases, my attacks were clean, with no retaliation despite the presence of escorts. Things are probably too lethal, but my subs sunk 214 VP worth of ships in return for 32 VP worth of subs lost. If you add the ships sunk as a result of the intel from sub ops, I am at roughly 560 VP gained to 32 VP lost. I have read a lot of complaints about how the IJN should keep it's subs in port. I've probably said a few things myself. Well, if deploying an asset gives me better than a 17 to 1 advantage in Victory points, keeping it in port is a mistake and things on the opposing side can't be too overpowered. The only caveat for me is that each of the ships sunk was in lightly guarded TF's. I don't think any of the TF's I've encountered with my subs had more than 4 or 5 escorts. Given that is the case, things might get stickier once Mogami starts putting 8, 10, and 15 escorts in each TF.

Belphegor -> RE: IJN Submarine Doctrine (7/12/2005 1:11:24 AM)
quote: Hmmm.. looked at in that way...yeah, I guess I have adapted a bit. I don't send subs within 3 to 5 hexes of most Allied bases, and I do not send subs in against forces I expect to have even medium sized escorts. Almost all my subs are patrolling in deep water I don't think this is a distortion of tactics. Although I am more familiar with the Atlantic, the Germans did as much as possible attempt to place their subs outside patrol range of aircraft as much as possible (not excluding patrolled areas); the ports and coastal areas were sure to be trouble for the sub (except during drumbeat) but that didn't preclude them going there either, just not preferred territory. Closer to ports and land, more easily found TFs, out further, harder to find but still findable. Whether this applies in the Pacific I can't say... I would certainly agree with Ron that huge ASW task forces exploit the game a little bit; but I also think theoretically were possible if not actually used. It is the same argument I think as "how many divisions will fit on Bikini Atoll?" The game doesn't limit you except by supply.... So some common sense should prevail on ASW TF sizes?

Ron Saueracker -> RE: IJN Submarine Doctrine (7/12/2005 1:32:45 AM)
quote: So some common sense should prevail on ASW TF sizes? Some common sense could have been exercised initially regarding many things, and unfortunately players now have to wade though countless house rules to get the game to function anywhere near where us "sticklers" think it should. Oh well... quote: I don't think this is a distortion of tactics. Although I am more familiar with the Atlantic, the Germans did as much as possible attempt to place their subs outside patrol range of aircraft as much as possible (not excluding patrolled areas); the ports and coastal areas were sure to be trouble for the sub (except during drumbeat) but that didn't preclude them going there either, just not preferred territory. Closer to ports and land, more easily found TFs, out further, harder to find but still findable. The Uboats ranged virtually everywhere and only adapted as technology and the strategic situation dictated. They did not stop attacking heavily defended convoys or stooped cruising heavily trafficked convoy routes because the historical submarine/anti submarine combat model was whacked as players have found it necessary to do. If I can't place I-Boats in Torpedo Junction in 1942 in the hopes of taking a crack at a USN CV once in awhile without the CV TF reversing the role and becoming the hunter killer of the very subs deployed against it as was done historically (thanks to the limits of ASW tactics and technique in 1942) then there is a frigging problem with my puddin'.

1275psi -> RE: IJN Submarine Doctrine (7/12/2005 5:16:49 AM)
My two cents in PBEM Im absolutely satisfied with how subs are modelled in this game, its very ,very much how you use em. tabpub is the man to ask how to use USA subs -I think he is "the expert"[:@] As IJN in 6 months Ive lost i think just 3 subs -but Im very, very cautious So, based on my tactics (actually Im also hopeless at finding his merchies), in my next game against wobbly (starting todayactually) Ive asked for doctrine on the IJN. I use mine for scouting, cripples, mines, transport and recon, not merchant warefare. Sounds like doctrine on , does'nt it! so, ok, doctrine on it is! Im after the carriers[:D]

Ron Saueracker -> RE: IJN Submarine Doctrine (7/13/2005 3:49:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker 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. No takers...[8\|]

jwilkerson -> RE: IJN Submarine Doctrine (7/13/2005 4:43:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker <snip> No takers...[8\|] Did you expect any ? [>:] We've been over this ground so many times - including I think asking for exactly this before - that it should be obvious this is a dead herring ... I've given up on having subs fixed ... when 1.5 first came out I thought it was better .. and it is ... but maybe 10% better, though the air asw model got tweaked in the wrong direction by an even greater margin .. so net I'd say we are worse off than before ... I still lose about 2 subs a week as IJN using them "historically" even with some limited a-historical tactics ( moving them every turn ) as an attempt to try to "help" the system not sink my subs too fast ( and I got yelled at by you for doing even that much !!! ). On the other hand Allied subs seem to be doing better in my newest game - they can be used more aggressively ( i.e. more historically ) now and don't suffer the same loss rate as before ( my Allied opponent has lost about 1 sub per month and he is using them very aggressively ( i.e. historically ). Maybe I'm just a lousey ASW commander ! But I do have lots of ASW task groups and I escort most convoy's and I have bombers flying naval search at low altitides, normal range over the areas where I'm sailing ... but this particular game is CHS not stock and you may have made some additional improvements in CHS for Allied subs !? )

Big B -> RE: IJN Submarine Doctrine (7/13/2005 5:13:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Subchaser 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. Well I don't know, But - playing PBEM as American, every time and I mean EVERY TIME I leave Pearl with a TF of BBs or Cvs, jap subs put two torps into something big (it's mid '42). Dosen't seem to matter how many DDs are in the TF (I NEVER have less than 10). so in my eyes, jap subs do just fine.

bradfordkay -> RE: IJN Submarine Doctrine (7/13/2005 9:07:26 AM)
I'd say that you'r enot using all your assets there. If you've had Jap subs regularly put a couple of torps into your important ships, then you need to go on the offensive agaisnt those subs. Tey setting more aircraft in the Hawaiian islands onto ASW patrol, complemented with a couple of ASW TFs consisting 4-6 DDs. This should help chase away those pesky Jap subs.

Big B -> RE: IJN Submarine Doctrine (7/13/2005 6:48:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bradfordkay I'd say that you'r enot using all your assets there. If you've had Jap subs regularly put a couple of torps into your important ships, then you need to go on the offensive agaisnt those subs. Tey setting more aircraft in the Hawaiian islands onto ASW patrol, complemented with a couple of ASW TFs consisting 4-6 DDs. This should help chase away those pesky Jap subs. Sound advice, but every a/c I have is on ASW (flying low) or Air Search all the time, and the ships Seagulls and Kingfishers are always on ASW...go figure? As an aside, I put 10 DDs in merch convoys and they find and SINK japs subs in their hex, I do the same for the big boys (plus the a/c on the hunt) and the jap subs nail me, night or broad daylight. Must be my karma.[:(]

spence -> RE: IJN Submarine Doctrine (7/13/2005 10:16:07 PM)
Just an update for anyone interested. PBEM as ALLIES - 1/08/42 - USN SUB DOCTRINE ON A month of "unrestricted submarine warfare" by COMSUBPAC has not seen a single torpedo launch, let alone hit, by any USN submarine.

Big B -> RE: IJN Submarine Doctrine (7/13/2005 10:22:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: spence Just an update for anyone interested. PBEM as ALLIES - 1/08/42 - USN SUB DOCTRINE ON A month of "unrestricted submarine warfare" by COMSUBPAC has not seen a single torpedo launch, let alone hit, by any USN submarine. Yah, I have my subs under strict orders to be inept as well.... and they follow it to the letter!

Ron Saueracker -> RE: IJN Submarine Doctrine (7/14/2005 12:15:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jwilkerson quote: ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker <snip> No takers...[8\|] Did you expect any ? [>:] We've been over this ground so many times - including I think asking for exactly this before - that it should be obvious this is a dead herring ... I've given up on having subs fixed ... when 1.5 first came out I thought it was better .. and it is ... but maybe 10% better, though the air asw model got tweaked in the wrong direction by an even greater margin .. so net I'd say we are worse off than before ... I still lose about 2 subs a week as IJN using them "historically" even with some limited a-historical tactics ( moving them every turn ) as an attempt to try to "help" the system not sink my subs too fast ( and I got yelled at by you for doing even that much !!! ). On the other hand Allied subs seem to be doing better in my newest game - they can be used more aggressively ( i.e. more historically ) now and don't suffer the same loss rate as before ( my Allied opponent has lost about 1 sub per month and he is using them very aggressively ( i.e. historically ). Maybe I'm just a lousey ASW commander ! But I do have lots of ASW task groups and I escort most convoy's and I have bombers flying naval search at low altitides, normal range over the areas where I'm sailing ... but this particular game is CHS not stock and you may have made some additional improvements in CHS for Allied subs !? ) Only thing we did was cut all devices related to ASW by 50% and added 1-5 mm of armor to subs depending on the dive depth. I have not been able to play at all lately so I can't tell if Nik's take on weird behaviour between DCs and armor on subs is true or not. (It was not when I tested my modifications but the amount of armour I used was much less than that used by Nik...I think his was in the area of 10mm whereas the CHS maxes out at 5) I did expect them to post a poll since they are so confident all is well regarding this.[8D] I might actually shut up about it if they did post a simple poll....is it pranged or not?

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

4.408203