RE: Leo's ASW TEST (and scenario) - problems spotted! (Full Version)

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



Message

madmickey -> RE: Leo's ASW TEST (and scenario) - problems spotted! (10/16/2005 10:09:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nomad


quote:

ORIGINAL: madmickey

Ron is Right


We know that, now convince Matrix Games and 2x3 of that. [:D]

Mission Impossible



DFalcon -> RE: Leo's ASW TEST (and scenario) - problems spotted! (10/16/2005 10:19:50 PM)


Thanks for the tip on "/code". My second test just locked up on me but will get back at it.



Apollo11 -> RE: Leo's ASW TEST (and scenario) - problems spotted! (10/16/2005 10:25:45 PM)

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: DFalcon

My second test just locked up on me but will get back at it.


There is known bug In WitP that freezes the scenario after certain amount of turns if there is too few units used for both sides!

I hope that I used enough units for both sides (bulk of them is on Marcus Island for Japan and Midway for USA) for at least 20 turns...


Leo "Apollo11"



dereck -> RE: Relationship between altitude and enemy submarines sighted... (10/16/2005 10:37:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

Relationship between aircraft used and enemy submarines sighted...


According to test is appears that number of aircraft used scale rather good and linear with submarine spotting.

So... more aircraft used equals better spotting!


NOTE: there were 36 enemy submarines altogether.


Leo "Apollo11"


[image]local://upfiles/3416/D883294FED42422F8D24F2D9D1666659.gif[/image]


Okay now the question is whether it's a question of:

1) Things working as planned but people just overkilling on ASW search
2) People overkilling on ASW search and ASW search too easy
3) ASW search too easy under any circumstances

I would just hate to see a change made with the people using uber-ASW patrols in mind resulting in lowering the chances significantly for people NOT using uber-ASW patrols.



Apollo11 -> RE: Relationship between altitude and enemy submarines sighted... (10/16/2005 11:01:07 PM)

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: dereck
Okay now the question is whether it's a question of:

1) Things working as planned but people just overkilling on ASW search
2) People overkilling on ASW search and ASW search too easy
3) ASW search too easy under any circumstances


IMHO it is "2" and "3" for both sides...

BTW, the ASW from ships is now changed a lot in v1.70 BETA and I must say I like it a lot (I was advocating for something like this with lost of near misses - new messages are doing just that)!


Leo "Apollo11"



Apollo11 -> RE: Relationship between altitude and enemy submarines sighted... (10/16/2005 11:04:39 PM)

Hi all,

From "What's New" PDF:

quote:


6/20/2005 v1.60

8) Air search and air based ASW effectiveness were too effective. Fixed.


So recent work was already done regarding this... perhaps one more look into this issue is needed especially now with recent tests done here in this thread...


Leo "Apollo11"



DFalcon -> RE: Leo's ASW TEST (and scenario) - problems spotted! (10/16/2005 11:21:29 PM)

The second test is complete using Apollo test scenario.

For this test the search aircraft were set as follows.

Emily 6000ft Nav. Search 90%
Betty 6000ft ASW 90%
Jake 6000ft Nav. Search 90%
Alf Nav. Search 90%

The US subs were placed around the base 6 at each range from 1 to 6 and moved each turn maintaining distance from the base to eliminate DL. I ran 10 turns and recorded the results. A brief summary is below.

Average number of Subs spotted each turn 27.4, overall chance of discovery 76%.

The first test there where no hits on US subs. In this second test 4 Subs were hit only 2 had damage worth mentioning, 15/0 and 25/23 after being left on patrol. 


Weather	Partial	Partial	Partial	Overcast	Overcast	Overcast	Thunder	Thunder	Thunder	Rain	
Turn	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	%
Range											
1	6	6	6	6	4	6	6	6	6	5	95.00%
2	6	6	6	6	6	6	6	6	6	4	96.67%
3	5	5	6	6	4	5	6	5	4	6	86.67%
4	6	6	6	6	5	6	4	5	6	6	93.33%
5	4	3	3	1	3	3	2	2	2	2	41.67%
6	1	3	3	5	0	3	3	2	2	4	43.33%
Total	28	29	30	30	22	29	27	26	26	27	76.11%
%	77.78%	80.56%	83.33%	83.33%	61.11%	80.56%	75.00%	72.22%	72.22%	75.00%	
Overall %	76.11%										
Average	27.4



jwilkerson -> RE: Leo's ASW TEST (and scenario) - problems spotted! (10/16/2005 11:31:01 PM)

Try with Lily or Helen at 1000 feet at 100% naval search ..

Or better yet try with Martin or PBM at 1000 feet at 100% naval search !

These combo's are the "sub killers" in the games I've seen ...




dereck -> RE: Relationship between altitude and enemy submarines sighted... (10/16/2005 11:41:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

From "What's New" PDF:

quote:


6/20/2005 v1.60

8) Air search and air based ASW effectiveness were too effective. Fixed.


So recent work was already done regarding this... perhaps one more look into this issue is needed especially now with recent tests done here in this thread...


Leo "Apollo11"


Don't patch to 1.7 right now ... there is a bug in the patch which will make fragments disappear on the allied side.



dereck -> RE: Relationship between altitude and enemy submarines sighted... (10/16/2005 11:43:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: dereck
Okay now the question is whether it's a question of:

1) Things working as planned but people just overkilling on ASW search
2) People overkilling on ASW search and ASW search too easy
3) ASW search too easy under any circumstances


IMHO it is "2" and "3" for both sides...

BTW, the ASW from ships is now changed a lot in v1.70 BETA and I must say I like it a lot (I was advocating for something like this with lost of near misses - new messages are doing just that)!


Leo "Apollo11"


I'm playing devil's advocate right now ... assuming that 2 and 3 IS correct you also have to realize that if someone DOES put out 100 or 200 planes on ASW/Naval patrol and there is something out there that they're almost bound to find something. You can't realistically say that having 200 planes out searching you won't find something.

So that would maybe negate #2 and focus the attention on #3.



dereck -> RE: Leo's ASW TEST (and scenario) - problems spotted! (10/16/2005 11:45:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

Try with Lily or Helen at 1000 feet at 100% naval search ..

Or better yet try with Martin or PBM at 1000 feet at 100% naval search !

These combo's are the "sub killers" in the games I've seen ...




I would like to see how the Allied planes compare against the Japanese. It may be they compare the same with equal experience level but sometimes with this game, you never know.



DFalcon -> RE: Leo's ASW TEST (and scenario) - problems spotted! (10/17/2005 1:18:41 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

Try with Lily or Helen at 1000 feet at 100% naval search ..

Or better yet try with Martin or PBM at 1000 feet at 100% naval search !

These combo's are the "sub killers" in the games I've seen ...




The third test is complete using Apollo test scenario.

For this test I replaced the planes in the Betty group with Helens and the aircraft were set as follows.

Emily 6000ft Nav. Search 90%
Helen 1000ft Nav Search 90%
Jake 6000ft Nav. Search 90%
Alf Nav. Search 90%

The US subs were placed around the base 6 at each range from 1 to 6 and moved each turn maintaining distance from the base to eliminate DL.

If a Sub was damaged more than 50 in float or flooding it was withdrawn out of range. If damage was below 50 it stayed on patrol.

In 10 turns there were 11 hits, 6 subs were notably damaged, (see attached). The two most damaged subs were hit twice each.



[image]local://upfiles/14523/2111EC5D36604ED3AAEB3BC5BCF03EDD.jpg[/image]



jwilkerson -> RE: Leo's ASW TEST (and scenario) - problems spotted! (10/17/2005 2:17:46 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: dereck


quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

Try with Lily or Helen at 1000 feet at 100% naval search ..

Or better yet try with Martin or PBM at 1000 feet at 100% naval search !

These combo's are the "sub killers" in the games I've seen ...




I would like to see how the Allied planes compare against the Japanese. It may be they compare the same with equal experience level but sometimes with this game, you never know.



Since level bombers can "train up" using the "carry supply from one end of the runway to the other" trick ... and since this fairly quickly can get them up into the 80s ... exp = 80+ would not be outrageous in a real game for the plane types that seem to be the most effective sub killers. And 80+ exp bombers are sub killers ( at least prior to 1.7 ... I have no direct experience with 1.7 ... yet )




Captain Cruft -> RE: Leo's ASW TEST (and scenario) - problems spotted! (10/17/2005 4:09:07 AM)

I don't think there's any doubt the effect is too much. As Apollo said, each hex is 3,600 square miles in area. It needs to be toned down by at least 80% IMHO.

The attack routine is AFAIK exactly the same as that used in "Naval Attack" events. Imagine a single plane attacking a ship in the air-naval combat screen ...



aletoledo -> RE: Leo's ASW TEST (and scenario) - problems spotted! (10/17/2005 4:14:20 AM)

great testing leo! I guess this is why you were in the beta. :)



Charles2222 -> RE: Relationship between altitude and enemy submarines sighted... (10/17/2005 7:44:06 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

Relationship between altitude and enemy submarines sighted...


According to test is appears that altitude isn't much affecting submarine spotting.

So... unless some other factors are in play (like enemy flak on submarines in area that can damage your search aircraft or wish to attack more accurately during search if opportunity arises) there is no need to lower the altitude...


Leo "Apollo11"


[image]local://upfiles/3416/635B4A436C094014844EB43C4BDF6A32.gif[/image]


P.S. [Edit]
Typo (last 0 was "lost") - last two numbers in table should be "10000ft" and "20000ft"!


Although they're all low numbers, the difference in you limited test is VERY significant. Note the difference between 1,000 and 10,000ft. Slightly less than 30% better.



Apollo11 -> RE: Relationship between altitude and enemy submarines sighted... (10/17/2005 2:12:25 PM)

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

Although they're all low numbers, the difference in you limited test is VERY significant. Note the difference between 1,000 and 10,000ft. Slightly less than 30% better.


With more runs we would get more data and better patters...

Anyone volunteers?


Leo "Apollo11"



Ron Saueracker -> RE: Leo's ASW TEST (and scenario) - problems spotted! (10/18/2005 2:54:39 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: madmickey

Ron is Right


LOL Better late than never. Cool that Mike Wood is doing this.



Wallymanowar -> RE: Leo's ASW TEST (and scenario) - problems spotted! (10/18/2005 3:19:08 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker


quote:

ORIGINAL: madmickey

Ron is Right


LOL Better late than never. Cool that Mike Wood is doing this.




AHHH!! Ron is getting soft in his old age [:D]

Actually Ron, I've noticed a significant improvment in the survivability of my subs. Allied ASW is no longer getting results that were far superior to anything they were getting in the Atlantic during any time of the Atlantic War. Although Leo's testing seems to show that detection of Subs is still too high, at least the kill results are more in line - and the addition of near misses et al to the animation sequences is a nice touch.



Apollo11 -> RE: Leo's ASW TEST (and scenario) - problems spotted! (10/18/2005 10:14:28 AM)

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Tremblay

Although Leo's testing seems to show that detection of Subs is still too high, at least the kill results are more in line - and the addition of near misses et al to the animation sequences is a nice touch.


I was extremely busy yesterday (Monday)... today (Tuesday) I will be doing "Naval Search" to see how efficient it is for finding subs...

Stay tuned!


Leo "Apollo11"


P.S.
If anyone else wants to test - please do it - wee need as many test resuls as possible to see patterns!



Slaghtermeyer -> RE: Leo's ASW TEST (and scenario) - problems spotted! (10/18/2005 10:35:30 AM)

I think it also would be interesting to substitute sub-size surface ships for the subs to test if it's just as easy to detect subs as it is surface ships. Another interesting test might be to replace all the subs with battleships, and then with PT boats to see if its just as easy to spot a PT boat as a battlewagon.

______________________________

[image]local://upfiles/18497/92402FB86D0945ACACFE6B46A4A68679.jpg[/image]



Apollo11 -> RE: Leo's ASW TEST (and scenario) - problems spotted! (10/18/2005 7:27:40 PM)

Hi all,

Relationship between selected HEX range and enemy submarines sighted...


This time the "Naval Search" was used instead of "ASW Search" (see Page 1 of this thread for results of that one).


Similarly to "ASW Search" test done before in "Naval Search" test it appears that lowering the range in order to increase "density" of search aircraft over some area is not working (i.e. idea that with less range the search will be better because there is less area covered with same number of aircraft used).

Again, same as with "ASW Search" the "Naval Search" produces the best results when the range is left to MAX (this is very very strange indeed)!

So... unless some other factors are in play (like enemy base in range with strong CAP that routinely kills your search aircraft) there is no need to lower the range from MAX...


Please note that submarine detection is much lover with "Naval Search" compared to "ASW Search" if everything else is 100% same!


Leo "Apollo11"


[image]local://upfiles/3416/FD549D474FAF48A8BF5668E5A37C3850.gif[/image]



Kwik E Mart -> RE: Leo's ASW TEST (and scenario) - problems spotted! (10/19/2005 2:03:23 AM)

quick question on the submarine skippers...are any of the subs with lower stat commanders getting spotted more often than the higher stat commanded submarines? or maybe the experience ratings of the crews has some effect? i know this is not the main goal of this testing...just curious...



Sardaukar -> RE: Leo's ASW TEST (and scenario) - problems spotted! (10/19/2005 12:16:50 PM)

BTW, if one adds radar that is capable of detecting aircraft to subs, number of hits on subs seems to get reduced drastically. Try that test with adding new device to those subs, for example "SD Radar" with:
Type=Surface Radar, Range=20, Effect=60, Penetration=500 (that's the switch between air and surface detection, 0=detects ships, 500=detects aircraft, neither will do both), Weight=100. I don't know if number of detections or attacks will reduce, but in my experience, hits reduce to 25 %.



Apollo11 -> RE: Leo's ASW TEST (and scenario) - problems spotted! (10/19/2005 3:30:36 PM)

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kwik E Mart

quick question on the submarine skippers...are any of the subs with lower stat commanders getting spotted more often than the higher stat commanded submarines? or maybe the experience ratings of the crews has some effect? i know this is not the main goal of this testing...just curious...


I think that sumbmarine commander rating is not used in Air based "ASW Search" and "Naval Search" - the submarines detected were everywhere (if I took screenshot of situation after every run of scenario you would see that pattern is very random)...


Leo "Apollo11"



Apollo11 -> RE: Leo's ASW TEST (and scenario) - problems spotted! (10/20/2005 4:39:58 PM)

Hi all,

Anyone (good soul[:)]) possibly created alteration of my scenario and used ships instead of submarines to see how is "Naval Air Search" going?

BTW, "DFalcon" I think your modification of my original scenario (i.e. your "X" shape) would be best suited for this - can you please post it here?


Leo "Apollo11"



worr -> RE: Leo's ASW TEST (and scenario) - problems spotted! (10/20/2005 5:12:37 PM)

Cedric Gibbons would be proud!

Can you place a gushing fountain in the middle of that submarine starfish configuration?

Or perhaps some other floral patterns would be appropriate. Still isn't art deco enough.

Worr, out



Apollo11 -> RE: Leo's ASW TEST (and scenario) - problems spotted! (10/20/2005 8:11:36 PM)

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: worr

Cedric Gibbons would be proud!

Can you place a gushing fountain in the middle of that submarine starfish configuration?

Or perhaps some other floral patterns would be appropriate. Still isn't art deco enough.

Worr, out


Was Cedric Gibbons director of "Forbidden Planet" (SF movie of the 1950's)?

That movie was nice (I watched it as a kid on TV many many times and can retall almost all detail of it even now 20 years after I last saw it)...[;)]


Leo "Apollo11"



worr -> RE: Leo's ASW TEST (and scenario) - problems spotted! (10/20/2005 9:13:43 PM)

He was the art deco set director...also the guy who gave us the Emmy Figurine that we are so familiar with today.

I was trying to think of one of those 1930s swimming films...you know with all the water dances...but couldn't remember a name.

Worr, out



rtrapasso -> RE: Leo's ASW TEST (and scenario) - problems spotted! (10/20/2005 9:44:06 PM)

quote:

I was trying to think of one of those 1930s swimming films...you know with all the water dances...but couldn't remember a name.


Busby Berkeley used to do a lot of those films.

High point: : Ginger Rogers' pig-latin rendition of "We're in the Money" was her own creation; director Busby Berkeley included it in the film after hearing her improvising the song at the piano during rehearsal.




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.28125