RE: Uber Subs

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Uber Subs - Still

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Uber Subs - Still

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Uber Subs - Still - 4/4/2010 3:20:14 PM

Zemke

Posts: 642
Joined: 1/14/2003
From: Oklahoma
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: freeboy

I actually have been fairly effective at anti sub attacks in ae as allies scen 2 pbem, BUT I agree subs attacking is a little high... my thought is the subs vs escorts.. I actually have no issue with this result u posted..
If you use allied improved damage control that ship may only be slowed down... I have had three carriers beached in shallow small ports.. pumped out and limped to a port, then to a larger port then to Pearl.. so good luck

I agree I think subs for both sides should be toned down just a bit, not much but a small amount.

_____________________________

"Actions Speak Louder than Words"

(in reply to freeboy)

Post #: 31

RE: Uber Subs - Still - 4/4/2010 4:53:54 PM

Misconduct

Posts: 1864
Joined: 2/18/2009
From: Cape Canaveral, Florida
Status: offline

Here's my problem with the whole submarine problem, my ASW taskforces have been running around Noumea, Townville for 2 months now without even attacking a single sub, all commanders are highest they can be for naval and Aggressive. Not a single Hit on a submarine in this time.

Now I split 4 carriers up, each got a dedicated ASW taskforce following, one at Townville, Noumea, Sidney, and Luganville with entire air groups dedicated to ASW work and guess what, 4 subs have sank so far after 2 turns. Not from the ASW TF but the aircraft themselves. Who have ASW ratings around 30 where my ASW TF has the best skipper/TF Commander I can afford for them and they don't hit nothing.

I am playing as allies, however on the japanese side I can see where the highest trained crew and skill comes in, because they have been blownig my subs out the water anytime one of the little escort boats lands on my sub hex. So far I have 9 subs sent to Sidney for repair, however the damage the subs have caused pretty much makes up for the nasty ASW the japanese has. I can see where in 44 this is going to be a problem.

Basically as long as the allied ASW groups have low experience they are worthless unless put with a carrier, where they actually shine when hit by a frign bomb from an aircraft since the sub can't escape then.

Only problem I have right now, is the Japanese ASW is way to good, its been well documented Japanese invested no interest in ASW till mid/late 44 so these little SC and escort boats that are shreading my subs in open deep water really come unhistorical - i don't care how good the skipper and crews were.

I think only way to solve this is do something with the depth charges to make them less accurate, because I knew a few instances they mentioned Gato subs would dive deeper the max setting used by japanese ASW groups and escaped simply running deep, so only way I can see this fails is a sub being in a coastal hex where the max Depth would probably be under 100ft. Just my 2 cents i'm not an expert or anything just giving my point of view :)

(in reply to Zemke)

Post #: 32

RE: Uber Subs - Still - 4/4/2010 7:37:04 PM

Herrbear

Posts: 883
Joined: 7/26/2004
From: Glendora, CA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: HHI

I disagree that it is about right. The I class sub was a pig. It was too large, slow diving and, most importantly, could only dive to 200 feet. The diving limitation means the I-class couldn't get under the Pacific thermals, making it a marvelous sonar target. None of these limitations are represented either in the hard code or in the data base, where diving depth is not even indicated and the I-class has about the same durability as the Gato's. I get irritated every time I see the massage 'I-XX diving deep'. It CAN'T dive deep. All I-class subs should be treated as though they were in a shallow water hex. I find it interesting that we have no problem representing the limitations imposed on US subs by torpedoes that don't work but very poor Japanese submarine's limitations are ignored. JFB bias? Naaah, couldn't be.

Diving depth is indicated. For submarines the Durability figure is the maximum dive depth. Per the editor's manual "Durability represents the size and toughness of the ship in terms of how difficult it is to sink. For submarines, this also represents the maximum dive depth of the submarine (in tens of feet, i.e. 30
represents a 300 feet max dive depth)."

(in reply to HHI)

Post #: 33

RE: Uber Subs - Still - 4/4/2010 8:13:41 PM

Dili

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline

quote:

When operating in submarine infested waters, bad things can happen, particularly when the opponent, even in an inferior submarine, has the Long Lance.

Japanese submarines don't have the Long Lance.

(in reply to Herrbear)

Post #: 34

RE: Uber Subs - Still - 4/4/2010 8:16:19 PM

Smeulders

Posts: 1879
Joined: 8/9/2009
Status: offline

Actually, there are a number of Japanese subs that have better durability than the American subs. There is an obvious advantage in manoeuvre for the American subs though, some Japanese classes beat the 69 for Gato and other modern subs, but they pay dearly in durability. I am a bit surprised about the Type ST sub though, it has 92 manvr and 36 durability (both the best), but I'm not sure they are actually in the game.

(in reply to Herrbear)

Post #: 35

RE: Uber Subs - Still - 4/4/2010 8:21:57 PM

Cuttlefish

Posts: 2454
Joined: 1/24/2007
From: Oregon, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Herrbear

quote:

ORIGINAL: HHI

I disagree that it is about right. The I class sub was a pig. It was too large, slow diving and, most importantly, could only dive to 200 feet. The diving limitation means the I-class couldn't get under the Pacific thermals, making it a marvelous sonar target. None of these limitations are represented either in the hard code or in the data base, where diving depth is not even indicated and the I-class has about the same durability as the Gato's. I get irritated every time I see the massage 'I-XX diving deep'. It CAN'T dive deep. All I-class subs should be treated as though they were in a shallow water hex. I find it interesting that we have no problem representing the limitations imposed on US subs by torpedoes that don't work but very poor Japanese submarine's limitations are ignored. JFB bias? Naaah, couldn't be.

Diving depth is indicated. For submarines the Durability figure is the maximum dive depth. Per the editor's manual "Durability represents the size and toughness of the ship in terms of how difficult it is to sink. For submarines, this also represents the maximum dive depth of the submarine (in tens of feet, i.e. 30
represents a 300 feet max dive depth)."

I-16, the sub the OP was complaining about, was a C-1 class. The game gives this class a durability of 33, which according to Herrbear's information should give the class a maximum depth of 330'. Interestingly, every resource I can find gives the C-1 class a maximum depth of 330'. It seems the vast, meatball-wing JFB conspiracy messed up and accidentally gave I-16 its historic capabilities.

(in reply to Herrbear)

Post #: 36

RE: Uber Subs - Still - 4/4/2010 8:44:21 PM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cuttlefish

I-16, the sub the OP was complaining about, was a C-1 class. The game gives this class a durability of 33, which according to Herrbear's information should give the class a maximum depth of 330'. Interestingly, every resource I can find gives the C-1 class a maximum depth of 330'. It seems the vast, meatball-wing JFB conspiracy messed up and accidentally gave I-16 its historic capabilities.

Dateline: The Internet

JFB Conspiracy Doctors All Historical Records!

Film at 11:00!

(in reply to Cuttlefish)

Post #: 37

RE: Uber Subs - Still - 4/4/2010 8:50:09 PM

chesmart

Posts: 908
Joined: 1/14/2007
From: Malta
Status: offline

Guys Before continueing the Discussion Please remember the subs in WITP.

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 38

RE: Uber Subs - Still - 4/4/2010 9:01:37 PM

Chickenboy

Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zemke_4

quote:

ORIGINAL: freeboy

I actually have been fairly effective at anti sub attacks in ae as allies scen 2 pbem, BUT I agree subs attacking is a little high... my thought is the subs vs escorts.. I actually have no issue with this result u posted..
If you use allied improved damage control that ship may only be slowed down... I have had three carriers beached in shallow small ports.. pumped out and limped to a port, then to a larger port then to Pearl.. so good luck

I agree I think subs for both sides should be toned down just a bit, not much but a small amount.

Patch III already toned it down 'just a bit'. I'm quite satisfied with how things are now.

_____________________________

(in reply to Zemke)

Post #: 39

RE: Uber Subs - Still - 4/4/2010 11:38:20 PM

Sheytan

Posts: 863
Joined: 11/28/2006
Status: offline

Agreed. The entire sub/asw model needs to be reexamined. I find myself more so in fear of IJN subs then any other single factor in day to day operations in my current game. With carriers bieng the only effective spear point you have early on as allies, the fact that allied asw is ineffective, and the IJN subs so effective makes me want to actually again table the game.

Im not sure how all this is scripted, but each DD/DE etc in a TF should reduce sub effectiveness and further screen the TF from direct torpedo attack. At any rate as I understand it this was the doctrine and it was generally effective.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Misconduct

Here's my problem with the whole submarine problem, my ASW taskforces have been running around Noumea, Townville for 2 months now without even attacking a single sub, all commanders are highest they can be for naval and Aggressive. Not a single Hit on a submarine in this time.

Now I split 4 carriers up, each got a dedicated ASW taskforce following, one at Townville, Noumea, Sidney, and Luganville with entire air groups dedicated to ASW work and guess what, 4 subs have sank so far after 2 turns. Not from the ASW TF but the aircraft themselves. Who have ASW ratings around 30 where my ASW TF has the best skipper/TF Commander I can afford for them and they don't hit nothing.

I am playing as allies, however on the japanese side I can see where the highest trained crew and skill comes in, because they have been blownig my subs out the water anytime one of the little escort boats lands on my sub hex. So far I have 9 subs sent to Sidney for repair, however the damage the subs have caused pretty much makes up for the nasty ASW the japanese has. I can see where in 44 this is going to be a problem.

Basically as long as the allied ASW groups have low experience they are worthless unless put with a carrier, where they actually shine when hit by a frign bomb from an aircraft since the sub can't escape then.

Only problem I have right now, is the Japanese ASW is way to good, its been well documented Japanese invested no interest in ASW till mid/late 44 so these little SC and escort boats that are shreading my subs in open deep water really come unhistorical - i don't care how good the skipper and crews were.

I think only way to solve this is do something with the depth charges to make them less accurate, because I knew a few instances they mentioned Gato subs would dive deeper the max setting used by japanese ASW groups and escaped simply running deep, so only way I can see this fails is a sub being in a coastal hex where the max Depth would probably be under 100ft. Just my 2 cents i'm not an expert or anything just giving my point of view :)

_____________________________

(in reply to Misconduct)

Post #: 40

RE: Uber Subs - Still - 4/5/2010 12:03:27 AM

Misconduct

Posts: 1864
Joined: 2/18/2009
From: Cape Canaveral, Florida
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zemke_4

quote:

ORIGINAL: freeboy

I actually have been fairly effective at anti sub attacks in ae as allies scen 2 pbem, BUT I agree subs attacking is a little high... my thought is the subs vs escorts.. I actually have no issue with this result u posted..
If you use allied improved damage control that ship may only be slowed down... I have had three carriers beached in shallow small ports.. pumped out and limped to a port, then to a larger port then to Pearl.. so good luck

I agree I think subs for both sides should be toned down just a bit, not much but a small amount.

Patch III already toned it down 'just a bit'. I'm quite satisfied with how things are now.

Problem I pointed out, is the Sub chasers and escorts start the war with such a high experience its unfair to allied players that Japanese ASW is so accurate early on when historically it was extremely inaccurate. I believe till 1944 they should be useless and only gain their ASW uber skills in 1944.

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 41