Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
- 6/21/2002 7:22:11 AM   
Jagger2002

 

Posts: 674
Joined: 5/20/2002
Status: offline 		Pappy, I think you put your finger on the problem. Just the presense of certain types of units or locations reduces the chance of sub attack except by those especially daring or reckless sub commanders willing to risk the consequences.

Once I had an invasion force at Lunga attacked by 8 subs. My invasion fleet dropping off the marine division was guarded by 10-12 DD's and the sun overhead blackened out with ASW aircraft. Yet the subs attacked over and over until they were out of ammo. They would even surface in broad daylight and sink cargo ships in long term gun duels. Who knows what my DD's and ASW aircraft were doing during those daylight sub attacks. They did sink one sub and damage three. But the invasion fleet was shattered.

The shallow water, the DD's and the ASW patrols just didn't cause even the slightest hesitation in those sub commanders minds.

I believe only the most daring sub captains would go into protected harbors or shallow water against massive DD and ASW presense.

I did learn to never play a PBEM without the IJN sub realism rule in place.

(in reply to Paul Goodman)
Post #: 31
- 6/21/2002 6:01:27 PM   
Didz


Posts: 728
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: UK
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Pappy
[B]I've read a lot about ASW in this thread and in others. Specifically about the sinking or damage done mostly by subs againsts ASW ships but also vice-versa to a lesser extent. I haven't heard mention of suppression though. By this I mean if I put ASW with transport type ships I may not expect sub-ASW battles to occur but I think I would have some kind of expection to prevent subs from attacking the convoy. This would also be true for sub-hunting missions as well. Maybe the game needs to "tone-down" the chance of ASW/sub battles and instead institute more suppression type results where a concerted ASW effort doesn't result in either side receiving damage but results instead in some kind of suppression for that phase only. Suppression results would still be based upon the experience of the ASW units of course. [/B][/QUOTE]

From my understanding of this subject the primary benefit of having ASW escorts is not so much as a deterant to subs attacks on a convoy but as a disruptive influence that prevents those attacks having as much of an effect.

The basic tactic when an ASW escort detects a sub is to 'charge' it as full flank speed.

If the sub is on the surface the destroyer will deliberately attempt to ram it whilst if the sub is at periscope depth it will try to steam straight over it and drop depth charges.

As a consequence the sub is left with little time to set up its attack before it is forced to crash dive to avoid being rammed and/or escape the depth charge attack. So after hours of patiently waiting and stalking the convoy to set up their attack the sub can suddenly be forced to fire too early or with little preparation in order to break off and avoid the escorts. Whereas a convoy without an escort can be stalked repeatedly and the ships picked off without interference.

What I would also add is that the speed and manoeuvrability of the target makes a big difference to the chance of hitting it with a torpedo. Hitting a merchant ship thats chugging along on a fixed course at 10 knots is a doddle, hitting an escort destroyer thats bearing down on you at 34 knots and can zig-zag left or right without warning is quite another matter.

I dont' know how or if, these things are modeled in UV but subs do seem to have an unusual level of success against destroyers and escorts, whereas I would have expected most encounters to have been a 0-0 draw on the grounds that the sub is too deep to fire its torpedoes whilst the escort will have trouble finding it to drop depth charges.

_____________________________

Didz
Fortis balore et armis

(in reply to Paul Goodman)
Post #: 32
- 6/21/2002 9:06:24 PM   
FirstPappy


Posts: 744
Joined: 9/12/2000
From: NY, USA
Status: offline 		Didz,
I agree with one caveat. I would like to know if the sub AI has an algorithm which takes into account the amount of ASW before a sub will even mount an attack. e.g. Are these two examples modeled differently by the AI or is it just attack the TF and display the results?

TF1 with 3 transport types, 9 ASW naval units plus land-based air on ASW mission within range.

TF2 with 9 transport types, 3 ASW naval units and no ASW mission within range.

These are two extremes but I would think only a fanactical sub-commander would elect to attack TF1 (thereby suppressing an attack), while almost all sub-commanders would go for TF2.

(in reply to Paul Goodman)
Post #: 33
- 6/22/2002 12:08:36 AM   
Didz


Posts: 728
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: UK
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Pappy
[B]Didz,
I agree with one caveat. I would like to know if the sub AI has an algorithm which takes into account the amount of ASW before a sub will even mount an attack. e.g. Are these two examples modeled differently by the AI or is it just attack the TF and display the results?

TF1 with 3 transport types, 9 ASW naval units plus land-based air on ASW mission within range.

TF2 with 9 transport types, 3 ASW naval units and no ASW mission within range.

These are two extremes but I would think only a fanactical sub-commander would elect to attack TF1 (thereby suppressing an attack), while almost all sub-commanders would go for TF2. [/B][/QUOTE]

This would seem to make sense to a normal sane person but according to the UV manual the IJN Sub-commanders had a policy of deliberately attacking combat vessels in preference to merchantmen which would suggest that they might actually react in exactly the opposite manner.

_____________________________

Didz
Fortis balore et armis

(in reply to Paul Goodman)
Post #: 34
my experiences so far... - 6/22/2002 1:03:07 AM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline 		I also think that Pappy is right, based upon my own experiences in the game. I have only been playing the US so far (Coral Sea, Operation MO, and now I'm playing Turning Tide), and have not had serious problems with Japanese subs.

Every one of my transport TFs receives ASW escort (the local TFs usually only get a MSW and SC escort, more important ones get DDs, my replenishment TF also gets that Dutch CLAA) and I have yet to receive heavy losses to subs, except from my few ASW TFs (surface TFs made up of DDs or SCs). These have been hit reasonably hard. Maybe it's the sub commanders' desire to weaken allied ASW efforts....

I do see the Japanese subs patrolling heavily the triangle of Lunga, Noumea and Luganville. It seems to me that at least a portion of this area was called "Torpedo Junction" and the Japanese subs extracted a heavy toll of US combat vessels during the real war.

Since the patch my ASW a/c have spotted and attacked subs, but no sinkings. However, I do feel that these efforts are suppressing the subs and making them less effective. It is only a feeling, I have no empirical data to support it.


My own subs have been reasonably effective. I order them to choke points in routes I my naval search a/c have detected them using. This has allowed them to nail a decent amount of transport vessels (if they're starving, they can't fight as well). I have lost a couple of subs to japanese DDs. I've also had a couple survive when I couldn't believe it (one limped into Tulagi sporting 91% flotation damage!). I do agree that my sub captains seem to like attacking with their surface guns a little too much, but that could be a result of my not issuing "return" orders soon enough after they use up their torps. I now try to visit any sub who has been in combat to check its ammo load.


In retrospect, to me the game seems to model sub operations in a realistic manner, with only a couple of little details to clean up.

It would be nice to have an ASW TF choice, in which the ASW vessels are more carefully using their ASW tactics. It's possible that in Surface Combat the ships are moving at too high a speed to effectively pursue ASW tactics.

(in reply to Paul Goodman)
Post #: 35
- 6/22/2002 2:34:43 AM   
sw30

 

Posts: 410
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: San Francisco, CA
Status: offline 		I've sworn off UV for the weekend to spend time with my wife, so I can't test this, but reading the above, I'm wondering if setting ASW units (only) in a transport TF might cause greater casualties to the Subs. Maybe stock it with one token AK...

Jeff

_____________________________


(in reply to Paul Goodman)
Post #: 36
- 6/22/2002 5:12:10 AM   
Didz


Posts: 728
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: UK
Status: offline 		Well I don't know if its by luck or design but I have had very little trouble from IJN subs and I've not bothered even assigning ASW escorts (or any escorts for that matter) to my convoys.

The only time I use them is for AA defence over convoys sailing within range of Rabaul.

I wonder if the ASW vessels are actually attracting the subs????

_____________________________

Didz
Fortis balore et armis

(in reply to Paul Goodman)
Post #: 37
- 6/22/2002 6:23:53 AM   
FAdmiral


Posts: 378
Joined: 12/20/2002
From: Atlanta,GA, USA
Status: offline 		If you have the Jap sub doctrine set to on, they will not
bother any of the transport convoys. They go after only
warship fleets. So you can plan your type of gameplay
accordingly.

JIM BERG, SR.

(in reply to Paul Goodman)
Post #: 38
- 6/22/2002 8:52:23 AM   
Didz


Posts: 728
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: UK
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by FAdmiral
[B]If you have the Jap sub doctrine set to on, they will not bother any of the transport convoys. They go after only warship fleets. So you can plan your type of gameplay accordingly.

JIM BERG, SR. [/B][/QUOTE]

Oh! That must be it then becuase I'm sure I turned all the historical options on.

_____________________________

Didz
Fortis balore et armis

(in reply to Paul Goodman)
Post #: 39
Me too. - 6/22/2002 10:03:58 AM   
rhohltjr


Posts: 536
Joined: 4/27/2000
From: When I play pacific wargames, I expect smarter AI.
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by kaleun
[B]:D At lats! Finally! My ASW airplanes bagged I-22 near noumea.
The AAR was like this.
I-22 and I-21 both patrolling south of Noumea hit a mine apiece.
The reckless captain of I-22, attempting to rejoin his honorable ancestors then enters the harbor of Noumea where he is seen by a Dauntless that bombs and hits him. Several other planes see him, and some more attack him, but the pilots are so hamfisted, or drunk that they all miss. Eventually a Devastator, also on ASW sees him and, while throwing a bottle of Bud out the canopy, accidentaly trips the bomb release button, just as he was passing overhead, the bomb enters the open hatch of the conning tower, where the sub captain was sunning himself, and the submarine sinks for no apparent reason.
Unfortunately, so did an SC an a DD the same sub hit two days earlier. The third DD limped into harbor with 55SD70FD and 20 Fire damage.
:) K [/B][/QUOTE]

Quite funny. Got a sub today myself. I think the sub skipper came up behind the DD and yelled "boo" which scared the DD so much they threw all the DCs in just to get away.:D

(in reply to Paul Goodman)
Post #: 40
- 6/22/2002 7:29:06 PM   
juliet7bravo

 

Posts: 894
Joined: 5/30/2001
Status: offline 		I'm probably just going to end up editing all subs out. This is ridiculous.

(in reply to Paul Goodman)
Post #: 41
Historical Loses of/to Japanese Submarines - 6/22/2002 8:53:09 PM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline 		During World War II, 2 1/2 Japanese Submarines were sunk by SC (one shared with a DE) and no SC were sunk by Japanese Submarines. 13 U.S. Subchasers were lost (including one subsequently salvaged) - 1 to a Kamikaze, 2 to German Aircraft and 10 to accidents (6 Grounded, 2 Foundered, 1 Collision, 1 Burned).

Japanese Submarine Losses in World War II:

Sunk by Destroyers - 39
Sunk by Destroyer Escorts - 19
Sunk by Submarines - 19
Sunk by Carrier Aircraft -12
Sunk by Aircraft - 3 (plus one more probable)
Sunk by PT- 3
Sunk by Aircraft while in Port - 2
Sunk by DMS - 1
Mined - 2 (plus one more probable)
Sunk by SC - 2
Sunk by PG - 1

Sunk by combination of DD and Aircraft - 2
Sunk by combination of DD and Minesweeper - 1
Sunk by combination of DE and SC - 1
Sunk by combination of DE and Carrier Aircraft - 1
Sunk by combination of PG and Aircraft - 1
Sunk by combination of PG and Minesweeper - 1


Excludes accidental losses and those to unknown causes - compiled from data in Japanese Warships in World War II by A.J. Watts



U.S. Warships sunk by Japanese Submarines in World War II:

CV Wasp
CV Yorktown (previously damaged)

CVE Liscome Bay

CA Indianapolis
CLAA Juneau (previously damaged)

DD Hammann
DD Henley
DD O'Brien
DD Porter

DE Sheldon

SS Covina
SS Grunion (possibly)

No SC

Compiled from data in U.S. Warships of World War II by Paul H. Silverstone

(in reply to Paul Goodman)
Post #: 42
- 6/22/2002 9:50:38 PM   
Paul Goodman

 

Posts: 198
Joined: 7/5/2000
From: Portsmouth, VA, USA
Status: offline 		Good data, just what I would have thought. So the ratio of destroyers (incl. DE) submarine kills to submarine destroyer kills is 58 to 5, or about 12 to 1. Of these, one DD, the Hammann, was heaved to aside the Yorktown (providing power to the pumps attempting to counter the list on the Yorktown). One spread from I-168 sunk both. Certainly an atypical situation. Realistically, the score is 58 to 4. Of the two carriers sunk, Yorktown was immobile. This is certainly what one would expect from I class submarines, too large, not very maneuverable, too noisy and limited diving depth make for a big fat turkey for eager destroyer crews.

The life saver for a submerged submarine is a thermal layer. This strata of cold water reflects sonar back to the receiver. A sub that can get under this is hard to detect (with WWII stuff). These thermals occur frequently in the North Atlantic and saved many a deep diving U-boat. In the tropical waters of the South Pacific, they are very deep, certainly well below the diving depth of an I boat. All subs were more vulnerable here than in colder waters, but particularly the I-boats.

May I suggest that very few Jp. submarines were sunk by Allied land-based aircraft simply because patrolling close to these bases was certain death. Surface for a snort of air and a charge and a Catalina or Avenger or (horror of horrors) a PB4Y is on you in minutes. The slow diving I-boat is dead.

So, it is obvious to all, I think, that I-boats were hopelessly outclassed by U.S. ASW capability. I personally consider the idea that great problems could have been created by the use of this capability for commerce warfare to be nonsense. The I boat had some assets, but basically, it was not nearly the quality of a U-boat and really unsuited for convoy interdiction. Long range and first rate torpedoes are the extent of the I boats assets.

Now to the real question. All these facts are well known to the creators of UV. Why have they elected to portray the Jp. submarine in a completely unrealistic manner? To which we should add, following in the tradition of PacWar.

Paul

(in reply to Paul Goodman)
Post #: 43
Thoughts... - 6/22/2002 11:18:59 PM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline 		I agree, in that as a player the one remaining area of ASW that I feel could use some tweaking is the aggressiveness and success of subs against sub-hunters of various kinds. While these subs were well-armed, relatively large ships, they did not tend to engage ASW craft to the degree that they seem to do in UV, nor with as much success.

I think that the sub vs. non-ASW and Air vs. sub combat seems about right, but even Japanese subs shouldn't go after ASW craft quite as much as they do. If they do, they should have more trouble getting good results. In any case, this is another thing for the designers/developers to decide if they want to revisit. However, from my perspective the sub vs. ASW ship concern is a valid one and should go on the eventual "tweak" list.

Regards,

- Erik

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC



For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to Paul Goodman)
Post #: 44
Re: Thoughts... - 6/23/2002 1:56:04 AM   
Didz


Posts: 728
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: UK
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Erik Rutins
[B]I agree, in that as a player the one remaining area of ASW that I feel could use some tweaking is the aggressiveness and success of subs against sub-hunters of various kinds. While these subs were well-armed, relatively large ships, they did not tend to engage ASW craft to the degree that they seem to do in UV, nor with as much success.

I think that the sub vs. non-ASW and Air vs. sub combat seems about right, but even Japanese subs shouldn't go after ASW craft quite as much as they do. If they do, they should have more trouble getting good results. In any case, this is another thing for the designers/developers to decide if they want to revisit. However, from my perspective the sub vs. ASW ship concern is a valid one and should go on the eventual "tweak" list.

Regards,

- Erik [/B][/QUOTE]

There should certainly be some formula built in to the torpedo success calculations that adjusts the chance of a hit according to the speed, manoeuvrability, size and draft of the target vessel.

I had assumed that was the case.

_____________________________

Didz
Fortis balore et armis

(in reply to Paul Goodman)
Post #: 45
- 6/23/2002 1:56:38 AM   
entemedor

 

Posts: 65
Joined: 6/14/2002
From: Barcelona (Spain)
Status: offline 		It's true that 58 Jap subs were sunk by DDs and DEs, but of these, how many in 1942? And in 1943? The vast majority were destroyed in 1944. Better radar, better sonar, better tactics and training... But out of the time-frame of UV.
And sunk by aircraft... three plus one probable in the whole war. No wonder in our UV games we seldom see a sub killed from the air. We can't compare the battle of the Atlantic with the Pacific. In the Atlantic, more than 2/3 of U-boats destroyed by aircraft (not including carrier hunter-killer groups) were lost in the way in/way out of their patrol, this is, when crossing the Bay of Biscay (if based in France) or around the Shetland / Hebrides (if coming/going to Germany). Relatively small areas, patrolled day and night by British, Canadian, Australian and American aircraft. In the vast Pacific, there were no such easy 'kill zones'.
As for surface gun attacks, there were a lot of them in the Pacific. The Japanese used large numbers of small vessels for coastal traffic and for its protection, even sampans and other sail types. US submarines killed them in huge numbers, but they are hardly mentioned in books; "US submarine operations in WW2" by Roscoe, for example, does not even list them in the official scores of the submarines. However, if you take a look at the Japanese side (for example "Warships of the IJN 1869-45" by Jentschura & Jung), you will learn how many auxiliary sub-chasers and minesweepers, tiny patrol craft etc were sunk by gunfire from US submarines. I will concede, however, that submarines in UV should submerge as soon as effective return fire is received.

Excuse me for all this bla-bla-bla... The reason for it? Just to say that in my opinion, ASW operations for the period 1942-43 are reasonably well reproduced in UV. Although if anything is sure after reading all the posts in this thread, is that results vary enormously from game to game (good replay value for UV, then!).

Last but not least, a petition! I want a list of successes by my individual submarines, just the way Top Kills are available for aircraft pilots. That would save me a lot of book-keeping... I just want to give some medals to my best commanders!

Regards,

(in reply to Paul Goodman)
Post #: 46
- 6/23/2002 5:17:51 AM   
Paul Goodman

 

Posts: 198
Joined: 7/5/2000
From: Portsmouth, VA, USA
Status: offline 		Excuse me, but I, and many others, have lost more destroyers in a week than were actually lost in the entire war. I don't see anything even close to reality.

Paul

(in reply to Paul Goodman)
Post #: 47
- 6/23/2002 8:12:05 AM   
FirstPappy


Posts: 744
Joined: 9/12/2000
From: NY, USA
Status: offline 		If you define ASW to mean literally Anti-Sub-Warfare which are DDs, DEs, SCs, Air etc. abilities against subs I would tend to agree. But I definetly think there is something very wrong with SW - Submarine Warfare. Specifically direct sub attacks on either warships or transports by either side. I'm writing this while taking a break from my present game as the Japs. I had a TF with about 9 APs, 2 CLs, 3 DDs and 1 PG. This TF was invading GG in the early part of the war. While the TF was unloading troops and supplies at GG and GG was held by the Allies a US sub surfaced and began to pound one of my APs with it's deck gun. This AP had previously been torpedoed by this same sub two hexes to the right of GG. Although the AP was damaged, it was still within the limits to stay with the TF and unload. I guess this US sub commander was really pissed that he didn't sink the AP earlier, ran out of torpedoes and decided to open up with the deck gun to finish the job which is exactly what happened. Now what sub commander in real life would surface against a TF that included 5 good-sized warships to blast away at one damaged AP? This is no different in my opinion than a Jap sub attacking a TF of 9 SCs either with torpedoes or deck guns. I can see taking a chance against 9 SCs if there's a CV in the middle, but otherwise logic would have it that the rewards are not worth the risks in either case.

(in reply to Paul Goodman)
Post #: 48
Historical Loses of Japanese Submarines - 6/23/2002 8:28:25 AM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline 		************************************
It's true that 58 Jap subs were sunk by DDs and DEs, but of these, how many in 1942? And in 1943? The vast majority were destroyed in 1944. Better radar, better sonar, better tactics and training... But out of the time-frame of UV.
************************************

A very good point. Here is the loss data by year (subject to finger errors - its a lot of data handling!):

- - 1941 - -
Carrier A/C - 1
DD - 1


- - 1942 - -
DD - 4
DD and A/C - 1
DD and M/S - 1
DMS - 1
Mine - 1
PT - 2
SS - 3


- - 1943 - -
Aircraft - 2 Plus 1 Probable
Carrier A/C - 1
DD - 14
DD and A/C - 1
Mine - 1
PT - 1
PG - 1
PG and A/C - 1
SC - 2
SS - 2


- - 1944 - -
Carrier A/C - 4
DD - 16
DE - 14
DE and SC - 1
PG and M/S - 1
SS - 7


- - 1945 - -
Aircraft - 2
Carrier A/C - 6
DD - 4
DE - 5
DE and Carrier A/C - 1
Mine - 1
SS - 7

(in reply to Paul Goodman)
Post #: 49
Sub vs sub - 6/23/2002 8:42:04 AM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline 		I've yet to see this attack resolution...I wonder if it's possible. As for all the ahistorical results, how much ya want to wager ASW and SW will be fixed like all our other complaints.:) Great support, thanks guys!

_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to Paul Goodman)
Post #: 50
Historical Loses of Japanese Submarines - Whoops! - 6/23/2002 11:29:01 AM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline 		Losses to Aircraft in 1943 should be:

2 INCLUDING 1 probable

not

2 plus 1 probable


Don Bowen

-----------------------------------
How can one teach logic in a world that still speaks of sunrise when we have known for generations that it is really horizon-fall?
(A. Einstein)

(in reply to Paul Goodman)
Post #: 51
- 6/23/2002 3:30:22 PM   
Didz


Posts: 728
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: UK
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Pappy
[B]Now what sub commander in real life would surface against a TF that included 5 good-sized warships to blast away at one damaged AP? This is no different in my opinion than a Jap sub attacking a TF of 9 SCs either with torpedoes or deck guns. I can see taking a chance against 9 SCs if there's a CV in the middle, but otherwise logic would have it that the rewards are not worth the risks in either case. [/B][/QUOTE]


More to the point what the hell were the 3 DD's, 2 CL's and the PG doing whilst this US sub was pounding away at one of their charges.

Presumably, as this was an invasion they had no anchored or finished with engines so why the hell weren't all 6 of them hurlting down on the US sub like a pack of avenging demons. A US sub on the surface in shallow water even at night would be a sitting duck.

_____________________________

Didz
Fortis balore et armis

(in reply to Paul Goodman)
Post #: 52
Historical data - 6/23/2002 8:22:37 PM   
entemedor

 

Posts: 65
Joined: 6/14/2002
From: Barcelona (Spain)
Status: offline 		Don, thanks a lot for all the information. So the 58 to 5 rate for the whole war is reduced to a 5 to 3 for 1942. I just wanted to point out that in the UV period ASW warfare was not so much lethal.
And yes Pappy, I was meaning just ASW. I would agree that there are too much attacks by subs in UV, from what I'm hearing from some of you (although that has not yet happened in my campaign, but as I already said there seem to be huge differences from game to game).
As for the escorts sitting down while the AP was blasted by gunfire, you could blame it to a rain squall, communications mix-up or any other SNAFU situation... Just a freaky event! Of course if this happens too often, it shall get annoying... About subs stalking destroyers (and not vice-versa), USS HARDER sank IJN destroyers MINATSUKI, HAYANAMI and TANIKAZE (plus one more probable) in a three-day period, off the Japanese fleet anchorage of Tawi Tawi. And about rash commanders... I think it was HERRING (writing by memory there) which sank some small vessels by cannon, under the gunfire of coastal batteries!

Never mind, Ron is absolutely right, and all these subjects will surely be patched-up in a near future. GREAT GAME, CHAPS (NOT PERFECT YET, BUT LET'S GIVE THEM TIME...)

Regards,

(in reply to Paul Goodman)
Post #: 53
- 6/23/2002 9:35:00 PM   
FirstPappy


Posts: 744
Joined: 9/12/2000
From: NY, USA
Status: offline 		I agree. It is a great game and this is just a bit of annoyance. Although I can't wait for the Yamato to arrive in my game. I just bet that US sub commander is planning to pull along side it at night with a boarding party to capture it! I'll keep you advised if that happens.

(in reply to Paul Goodman)
Post #: 54
Ha! - 6/23/2002 10:22:50 PM   
rhohltjr


Posts: 536
Joined: 4/27/2000
From: When I play pacific wargames, I expect smarter AI.
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Pappy
[B]...I just bet that US sub commander is planning to pull along side it at night with a boarding party to capture it! I'll keep you advised if that happens. [/B][/QUOTE]

ROTFL!! US Subs are US warships correct? So there are Marines on board correct? I bet those submarine Marines are the same squad that "hijacked" some Japanese transports at Lunga in an earlier AAR I was reading!!! What great fun.!!!:D

(in reply to Paul Goodman)
Post #: 55
- 6/24/2002 1:11:22 AM   
Paul Goodman

 

Posts: 198
Joined: 7/5/2000
From: Portsmouth, VA, USA
Status: offline 		Add this to the mix. See Mike Wood's reply to my thread on a task force with two 15 knot ships outrunning a fast carrier task force (slowest ship 28 knots). He suggests that this could be caused by more destroyers in the fast carrier task force (which was correct). He further points out that a task force of 4 cruisers will be faster than a task force of the same 4 cruisers and a destroyer! Now, since we have seen that destroyers are totally ineffective against submarines, why have them in the task forces to start with? Form destroyer squadrons (destroyers were, in fact, attached to squadrons for administrative purposes and still are to this day) which can trail behind the task force and refuel from fleet oilers. I'm gonna go do that right now!

Really sounds gamey, doesn't it? But, in fact, the destroyers quite often slowed the carrier TF down due to bad weather.

Paul

(in reply to Paul Goodman)
Post #: 56
- 6/24/2002 10:01:05 AM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline 		"See Mike Wood's reply to my thread on a task force with two 15 knot ships outrunning a fast carrier task force (slowest ship 28 knots). He suggests that this could be caused by more destroyers in the fast carrier task force (which was correct)."


Since having more destroyers in a TF probably means that you're wanting them to perform ASW ops, then of course your TF will be moving slower. A destroyer at 30 knots is not going to pick up anything on its sonar. The ships found that they did their best work at much slower speeds.

Add to that the need for carriers to turn into the wond for air ops, and you can see more time to destination being lost.

My transport TFs almost always include at least a SC, so in my game they do not travel faster than the combat TFs. Thus I never noticed this phenomena. If the game is modelling the lost time due to ASW ops, it doesn't seem that the ASW ops are being very effective. Then again, I'm one of those commanders who never fells like his forces are effective enough.

(in reply to Paul Goodman)
Post #: 57
Incorrect raverdave - 6/24/2002 10:34:01 AM   
Michael Chan

 

Posts: 8
Joined: 6/24/2002
From: Japan
Status: offline 		I think you maybe incorrect raverdave I think the reason you not chase Jap subs is because jap subs are superor in build and technology

(in reply to Paul Goodman)
Post #: 58
Re: Incorrect raverdave - 6/24/2002 11:57:19 AM   
Raverdave


Posts: 6520
Joined: 2/8/2002
From: Melb. Australia
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Michael Chan
[B]I think you maybe incorrect raverdave I think the reason you not chase Jap subs is because jap subs are superor in build and technology [/B][/QUOTE]

Well seeing as this is your first post I will be gentle with you;) .
Within the game it seems that it is the lack of training of my ship's crew that is causing the problem, rather than the "superor" quality of the build. I have after, many months of training now got my SC exp level upto 52. And have not seen a IJN sub for about 6 weeks now.........and believe I have been looking.....I have many ships that I want to seek revenge for.

_____________________________




Never argue with an idiot, he will only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

(in reply to Paul Goodman)
Post #: 59
- 6/24/2002 1:11:05 PM   
Michael Chan

 

Posts: 8
Joined: 6/24/2002
From: Japan
Status: offline 		This is not my first post RAVERDAVE I have many posts.....

My SC exp is upto 88 and I have sen many superor IJN subs that I have in my fleet , I have sent many inferior navel vessals to the watery grave of the ocean, so you can see the training has nothing to do with it, it is the superor JAPENESE vessals just like during all the conflicts of the world wars.

(in reply to Paul Goodman)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.922