Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

quote:

So yes, factors are “appreciated” in the game. But no, those factors are not expressly modeled; except in so far as they are held in the mind of the designer. You would not believe the background math that was passed back and forth during the development activity.

If the results people are describing are accurate (i.e. - Allied subs being easy meat in 1944 and on), i'd say that either something has happened in one of the patches, or the model needs serious tweaking.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

In a sense Bob, the answer is both yes and no. You are correct, in the sense that it is just not possible to model this on the basis of “method” or “technique” so, of course, the engine does not calculate probabilities of each and every advantage/disadvantage of the relative combatants (heck, to be precise, you would have to do that for each and every Class and Class upgrade for each and every combatant).

Not quite correct, in the sense that many of these factors were indeed considered when tweaking the algorithm – especially the noise factor differential between US and IJN subs. The model is not based on method (it cannot be), it is based on “relative” result. All the individual factors are in the mind of the designer when they develop the differential probabilities (the randoms).

Results are kinda-sorta broken down into several phases – detection, acquisition, prosecution, and damage.

Detection – there is an Allied/Japan differential that grows year-by-year until it is “substantial” (I hesitate to say dispositive). Informed by data fields of respective radar devices, experience, leadership, etc. While not expressly modeled, HF/DF plays a part in determining the numerical differentiation.

Acquisition – if detected (by however means), can an ASW TF, or Ship, ‘acquire’ the sub in order to attack it. Again, there is an Allied/Japan differential that grows year-by-year until it is “substantial”. While not expressly modeled, ‘noise levels’ play a part in determining the numerical differentiation.

Prosecution – the ASW TF shoots its weapons at a target. How many weapons and what kinds of weapons are a function of data, and how the engine uses that data to calculate ammo expenditure, % hit and “tonnage on target”. This is the case where 16 may not be bigger than 11 and 2 + 2 do not equal 4. The designers understand the concept of salvos, and also understand the concept of coordination between sensors and weapons and forward firing technique. Weapon data has been informed in order to conform with this understanding.

Damage – again a data impetus, with several non-obvious considerations.

So yes, factors are “appreciated” in the game. But no, those factors are not expressly modeled; except in so far as they are held in the mind of the designer. You would not believe the background math that was passed back and forth during the development activity.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso
To add a bit more to the debate: according to the "US Submarine Design" series, USN fleet boats were ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE quieter than I-boats, and at least an order of magnitude quieter than the quietest U-boats... (i didn't see comparisons to British boats...)

This alone gave the USN a tremendous advantage in sub warfare (including sub vs sub, i would think).

As this fact isn't widely appreciated, i am pretty sure it is not in the WITP game design.

I know from RL experience that quiet ops are a factor--95%+--of three things. Good initial design and builder QA, good maintenance practices, and crew training and discipline. Take the best design, but have the crew paint sound mounts to make them stiff, or drop tools while at silent running, and it all goes out the window. In modern sonar world we call ooppsies "transients." They are precious to opposing sonar operators. No narrow-band analysis needed. Drop a wrench in the bilge and you're toast.

WWII USN crews drilled and drilled on silent running. It wasn't just the title of a great novel.

However, if you can get that crew that does everything right, doesn't drop the wrench or paint the sound mounts stiff...then a diesel electric boat running on batteries at low speed makes about as much sound as the lead acid battery in your car (an actual comparison I've seen)....very difficult to detect.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso
To add a bit more to the debate: according to the "US Submarine Design" series, USN fleet boats were ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE quieter than I-boats, and at least an order of magnitude quieter than the quietest U-boats... (i didn't see comparisons to British boats...)

This alone gave the USN a tremendous advantage in sub warfare (including sub vs sub, i would think).

As this fact isn't widely appreciated, i am pretty sure it is not in the WITP game design.

I know from RL experience that quiet ops are a factor--95%+--of three things. Good initial design and builder QA, good maintenance practices, and crew training and discipline. Take the best design, but have the crew paint sound mounts to make them stiff, or drop tools while at silent running, and it all goes out the window. In modern sonar world we call ooppsies "transients." They are precious to opposing sonar operators. No narrow-band analysis needed. Drop a wrench in the bilge and you're toast.

WWII USN crews drilled and drilled on silent running. It wasn't just the title of a great novel.

However, if you can get that crew that does everything right, doesn't drop the wrench or paint the sound mounts stiff...then a diesel electric boat running on batteries at low speed makes about as much sound as the lead acid battery in your car (an actual comparison I've seen)....very difficult to detect.

Yep, which is why the IJN relied on active echo ranging to a great extent. That requires rapid response, or lots of escorts, as the circle of probable error gets real big, real fast.

There are also miscelaneous noises other than main propulsion that can't be completely eliminated. The trim pump, flow noise across hull valves, aux. seawater system pumps, lube oil pumps, hydraulic pumps, some blade noise from the screw, wtc.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

Plus pinging away advertises the convoy's position to every ship or sub with a hydrophone in range to hear it. Which is why passive is preferred. Very easy to avoid the escorts when they are using active sonar.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7


Plus pinging away advertises the convoy's position to every ship or sub with a hydrophone in range to hear it. Which is why passive is preferred. Very easy to avoid the escorts when they are using active sonar.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso
If the results people are describing are accurate (i.e. - Allied subs being easy meat in 1944 and on), i'd say that either something has happened in one of the patches, or the model needs serious tweaking.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso
If the results people are describing are accurate (i.e. - Allied subs being easy meat in 1944 and on), i'd say that either something has happened in one of the patches, or the model needs serious tweaking.

Yes indeed, I do agree, if everybody was seeing this result. But only a couple players have reported it, without going into any detail about 'where' and in what density. About 50 of our regular Babes testers and players have reported just the opposite result.

I can think of several (ot-nay, oo-tay, ight-bray) deployment schemes that would give a lot of dead US subs in '44. Am not particularly interested in having the engine tweaked to minimize sub-optimal utilization.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

As I mentioned, there are several deployment schemes that will allow an Allied player to get their subs killed at an ahistorical rate. But there is no accounting in the code for less than optimal operational competence.


Stupid is as stupid does, Sir.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1
You've said several times now that the only reason for the effectiveness of Japanese ASW is incompetent play by the Allied player. Perhaps you would enlighten the rest of us as to how a competent Allied player deploys his subs.
I've sunk about 825 Jap ships with Mk XIV torpedoes in three years of play..., which I thought was pretty good. But I'm always willing to learn from my betters...

quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

iirc: in the course of actual events, USN subs routinely operated quite close to IJN bases... and didn't get hammered as shown in AE. So, by trying to replicate reality, USN players would be judged incompetent???

quote:

ORIGINAL: vonTirpitz
IMHO, the situation is that players on either side of the board will not stick to historical (but often times deficient or obsolete) doctrines that applied to not only ASW but all other aspects of naval warfare. I personally believe that players can use whatever doctrine they want and change their ways as often as they want (which seems to be the way it is in AE).

Technological differences aside, most players will start off on December 7th using tactics and strategies gleaned from historical knowledge of which tactics and strategies proved effective. Add to that the knowledge learned from other forum members and posted for all to analyze and discuss then you have yourself a fine game of strategy that, with very few exceptions, would follow history in detail.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1
You've said several times now that the only reason for the effectiveness of Japanese ASW is incompetent play by the Allied player. Perhaps you would enlighten the rest of us as to how a competent Allied player deploys his subs.
I've sunk about 825 Jap ships with Mk XIV torpedoes in three years of play..., which I thought was pretty good. But I'm always willing to learn from my betters...

I never said the ONLY reason for anything. Your attempt to put words in my mouth is rather annoying and quite disingenuous. And the "stupid is as stupid does, sir" quote wasn't?

Density of subs is directly proportional to probability of detection;
Proximity of subs is directly proportional to probability of detection;
Density of subs, and magic code, is directly proportional to probability of acquisition;
Density of ASW TF, and magic code, is directly proportional to probability of prosecution;
Pay a certain degree of attention to the diving depth of subs vs the fall depth (range) of late war DCs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

quote:

ORIGINAL: vonTirpitz
IMHO, the situation is that players on either side of the board will not stick to historical (but often times deficient or obsolete) doctrines that applied to not only ASW but all other aspects of naval warfare. I personally believe that players can use whatever doctrine they want and change their ways as often as they want (which seems to be the way it is in AE).

Technological differences aside, most players will start off on December 7th using tactics and strategies gleaned from historical knowledge of which tactics and strategies proved effective. Add to that the knowledge learned from other forum members and posted for all to analyze and discuss then you have yourself a fine game of strategy that, with very few exceptions, would follow history in detail.

And that would be a "Bingo". I think someone just won an all expense paid trip to b-yew'-tee-ful downtown Tijuana for that one. That is exactly how it's supposed to work, vonTirpitz. Glad to see that somebody "gets it".

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

how many people won money figuring this thread would be hijacked almost instantaneously into an IJN ASW is overpowered rant?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

how many people won money figuring this thread would be hijacked almost instantaneously into an IJN ASW is overpowered rant?

quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

Good to know more of the math, JWE. For my current game I suspected something along those lines re the ratings, so I edged the Type 2 DC down a bit on Accuracy, to an 8. I probably should have toned down the E's launcher count instead. Next time I will, and leave the DDs' Type 2s alone.

You probably would like, as much as any of us, to get into the sensor code and re-model it to make it the huge game-changer it really was and is. I know, from forums for past sub games by Sonalysts, that sonar modeling is a math Everest, and radar not much different. If ever there's a WITP2 I hope that can be funded in the design specs.

Thanks for the knowledge.

To add a bit more to the debate: according to the "US Submarine Design" series, USN fleet boats were ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE quieter than I-boats, and at least an order of magnitude quieter than the quietest U-boats... (i didn't see comparisons to British boats...)

This alone gave the USN a tremendous advantage in sub warfare (including sub vs sub, i would think).

As this fact isn't widely appreciated, i am pretty sure it is not in the WITP game design.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Frank

quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

Good to know more of the math, JWE. For my current game I suspected something along those lines re the ratings, so I edged the Type 2 DC down a bit on Accuracy, to an 8. I probably should have toned down the E's launcher count instead. Next time I will, and leave the DDs' Type 2s alone.

You probably would like, as much as any of us, to get into the sensor code and re-model it to make it the huge game-changer it really was and is. I know, from forums for past sub games by Sonalysts, that sonar modeling is a math Everest, and radar not much different. If ever there's a WITP2 I hope that can be funded in the design specs.

Thanks for the knowledge.

To add a bit more to the debate: according to the "US Submarine Design" series, USN fleet boats were ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE quieter than I-boats, and at least an order of magnitude quieter than the quietest U-boats... (i didn't see comparisons to British boats...)

This alone gave the USN a tremendous advantage in sub warfare (including sub vs sub, i would think).

As this fact isn't widely appreciated, i am pretty sure it is not in the WITP game design.

Could you please add the weblink?
I can hardly imagine, that a XXI sub should be so much worse than a Balao etc.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Misconduct

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

how many people won money figuring this thread would be hijacked almost instantaneously into an IJN ASW is overpowered rant?

I won a new pair of briefs, does that count? I played both sides of the board and see no evidence of overpowering, one can conclude I must simply be stupid to not see it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Frank

quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

Good to know more of the math, JWE. For my current game I suspected something along those lines re the ratings, so I edged the Type 2 DC down a bit on Accuracy, to an 8. I probably should have toned down the E's launcher count instead. Next time I will, and leave the DDs' Type 2s alone.

You probably would like, as much as any of us, to get into the sensor code and re-model it to make it the huge game-changer it really was and is. I know, from forums for past sub games by Sonalysts, that sonar modeling is a math Everest, and radar not much different. If ever there's a WITP2 I hope that can be funded in the design specs.

Thanks for the knowledge.

To add a bit more to the debate: according to the "US Submarine Design" series, USN fleet boats were ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE quieter than I-boats, and at least an order of magnitude quieter than the quietest U-boats... (i didn't see comparisons to British boats...)

This alone gave the USN a tremendous advantage in sub warfare (including sub vs sub, i would think).

As this fact isn't widely appreciated, i am pretty sure it is not in the WITP game design.

Could you please add the weblink?
I can hardly imagine, that a XXI sub should be so much worse than a Balao etc.

A lot of the noise is in the design details (and the training of the crew). If you put a lot of men into a U- or I-boat, you don't have as much room to isolate the machinery, and you have a high probability of someone wedging their toolkit between some machinery and the hull to store it out of the way.