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: ASW Air is FUBAR

 
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: ASW Air is FUBAR Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: ASW Air is FUBAR - 12/18/2010 3:48:23 PM   
KenchiSulla


Posts: 2948
Joined: 10/22/2008
From: the Netherlands
Status: offline 		If you want your air ASW to be effective (like mine is, I am playing Arnhem - and I knew about those sub sinking because of the "sinking" sound) you have to put effort into it. This means dedicating squadrons (with 250 kg bomb capacity planes and the range to deliver them) to ASW training from the start of war. Make sure you have the baseforces in place to support them.

I sank those subs because I dedicated the resources to do it! Not because of some game inbalance... I bet I could do the same on the allied side.

_____________________________

AKA Cannonfodder

"It happened, therefore it can happen again: this is the core of what we have to say. It can happen, and it can happen everywhere.”
¯ Primo Levi, writer, holocaust survivor

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 61
RE: ASW Air is FUBAR - 12/18/2010 3:58:35 PM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline 		Slightly off topic but I have always wondered if the ASW attack follow similar routines as naval attack.

Which also leads to a follow up question if DBs on ASW perform dive bombing attacks if set to the correct altitude. Personally I doubt it but
it is hard to be sure. Same for any plane that can glide bomb.

_____________________________


(in reply to KenchiSulla)
Post #: 62
RE: ASW Air is FUBAR - 12/18/2010 5:11:02 PM   
LeeChard

 

Posts: 1099
Joined: 9/12/2007
From: Michigan
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: minnowguy

First, insulting the devs isn't going to help.  Nobody is making code changes on a whim.  Clearly there are aspects of the game engine that are less than perfect but overall it is a wonderful game and I, at least, have spent hundreds of enjoyable hours playing it. 

Second, given how many subs the allies have, it is difficult for me to get too worked up about Japanese airborne ASW being too effective.  Yeah, historically ASW (in all its forms) was not a Japanese strong point, but the current model, while not "historical", is at least plausible and it is a long way from a game-ruining problem.  The same logic applies to the relatively high effectiveness of the Japanese subs: not historical, but not implausible given some minor doctrine changes and not nearly significant enough to ruing the game for me.

I haven't seen the game engine code, but after years of playing the game and reading this forum I think I have a pretty good idea what it looks like.  [Note: I've been writing/fixing/swearing-at software for 30 years now.]  Working with less-than-ideally structured legacy code can be insanely frustrating.  If they had to do it all over again, I suspect (and hope) that the devs would implement the engine along with a solid suite of integration tests that would prevent annoying little systemic bugs like the ones that crop up occasionally (radar, search arcs, attack bombers, etc).  Unfortunately, adding comprehensive test coverage to a complex existing application is just insanely difficult and expensive.

I'm consistently amazed that the relatively small AE dev team managed to add so many great features to the older WITP code base without making the game completely unstable and unplayable.  I think many people don't realize just how difficult this is.  Kudos to the development team -- keep up the good work.

Now, about those search arcs ....   :)


I second that.

(in reply to minnowguy)
Post #: 63
RE: ASW Air is FUBAR - 12/19/2010 12:14:44 AM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Slightly off topic but I have always wondered if the ASW attack follow similar routines as naval attack.

Which also leads to a follow up question if DBs on ASW perform dive bombing attacks if set to the correct altitude. Personally I doubt it but
it is hard to be sure. Same for any plane that can glide bomb.


In RL, seeing a sub in even moderate seas from 2-3 miles up is quite a feat. With a wake it's much easier.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 64
RE: ASW Air is FUBAR - 12/19/2010 12:29:31 AM   
CV2

 

Posts: 168
Joined: 11/4/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Cannonfodder

I sank those subs because I dedicated the resources to do it! Not because of some game inbalance... I bet I could do the same on the allied side.


Nope. You sank those subs because the other player was stupid enough to come in close (and likely stay there) to a base. A spotted sub is useless, so why put them on top of bases? Sure, in the first 3-4 months its ok because the other guy is doing stuff with his air, but after things stabilize, there shouldnt be a sub within 6 hexes of an enemy operational base.

(in reply to KenchiSulla)
Post #: 65
RE: ASW Air is FUBAR - 12/19/2010 9:57:18 AM   
KenchiSulla


Posts: 2948
Joined: 10/22/2008
From: the Netherlands
Status: offline 		You think it is normal to call other people stupid? And do you know my opponent? And do you know our game?

Think before you type.. this is just rude...

_____________________________

AKA Cannonfodder

"It happened, therefore it can happen again: this is the core of what we have to say. It can happen, and it can happen everywhere.”
¯ Primo Levi, writer, holocaust survivor

(in reply to CV2)
Post #: 66
RE: ASW Air is FUBAR - 12/19/2010 1:56:40 PM   
mike scholl 1

 

Posts: 1265
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: minnowguy

First, insulting the devs isn't going to help.  Nobody is making code changes on a whim.  Clearly there are aspects of the game engine that are less than perfect but overall it is a wonderful game and I, at least, have spent hundreds of enjoyable hours playing it. 

I'm consistently amazed that the relatively small AE dev team managed to add so many great features to the older WITP code base without making the game completely unstable and unplayable.  I think many people don't realize just how difficult this is.  Kudos to the development team -- keep up the good work.




MINNOWGUY is right on target. Claiming the Dev's deliberately sabotaged the code to favor one side or the other is stupid and insulting. Not to mention just plain wrong.

However, this code being what it is (a convoluted mess), it is very easy for "The Law of unintended Consequences" to rear it's ugly head. The skills of Japanese Army Bombers get raised to try and duplicate historical results against land targets..., and the changes made unintentionally make Sally's the most effective ASW platforms in the game. Tweeks are made to Japanese Naval Torpedo Bombers to improve their torpedo attacks..., and the changes made unintentionally allow Kates to "level bomb" TF's from 9,000 feet with 50-60% accuracy (Far, far better than they did against the stationary targets on "Battleship Row" at PH).

To claim that this was the designer's intent is both insulting and silly. The only thing the designer's stand convicted of is that when an "unintended consequence" starts to be reported on the forum they have been slow to react in trying to correct it (possibly from not wanting to wade in to the code morass again).

(in reply to minnowguy)
Post #: 67
RE: ASW Air is FUBAR - 12/25/2010 8:40:28 PM   
Alpha77

 

Posts: 2116
Joined: 9/24/2010
Status: offline 		Yep, seems ASW air might be FUBAR. However I guess my planes don´t have the magical 70 skill anywhere. They have good exp therefore. This is 11/1942. I have not seen much subs sunk by air at all, by both sides. In fact the gunners on the JAP merchantmen are deadlier than the Jap air it seems. However we can adapt to the fact: You need to send out surface forces to detected subs, it just the way it is  Use 2 DDs at best- not only 1 ship - 1 ship might be sunk by JAP subs easily (cause they sank quite much ASW ships in my games, mostly KVs and AMs though). So even if the first ASW ship is sunk the 2nd will mostly strike back at the sub. This is easily possible to do starting in late 42 when the Allied get much more smaller ASW ships.

I am "quiet" ok with the sinking of JAP subs in my games - but only with ships. The ASW search umbrella however works ok to lower attacks by enemy subs on your ships.

So far my experience.

(in reply to mike scholl 1)
Post #: 68
RE: ASW Air is FUBAR - 12/26/2010 3:57:37 PM   
jwilkerson


Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

quote:

My suspicion falls on a kludge that some "genius" (Could it be the same one who mucked up the search arcs?) stuck in the code to "balance" the game to some friend's liking, making tactics - good or bad - illogical and meaningless.


I actually resent that, but I am not going to get into a discussion/argument about it.



Actually, you shouldn't resent that, I should I'm the one who decided to tone down the effectiveness of ASW air, it was overpowerful previously, and a few have pointed out.

If the OP was saying that ASW air is too powerful, I'm surprised, since we did tone it down. But if the OP was saying it was not powerful enough, then against I'm surprised, since we did tone it down. But having read the OP, I'm not sure what is being said .

But if people want to beat on someone about it - I would be their huckleberry not Michael - reducing detection of submarines by maritime reconnaissance missions was one of my inputs.



_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to michaelm75au)
Post #: 69
RE: ASW Air is FUBAR - 12/27/2010 2:22:19 AM   
Halsey

 

Posts: 5069
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline 		Don't tone it down anymore...

Instead increase the effectiveness of airborne radar, so that dedicated mission platforms get their deserved mission enhancements.

(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 70
RE: ASW Air is FUBAR - 12/27/2010 3:20:23 AM   
witpqs


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

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

quote:

My suspicion falls on a kludge that some "genius" (Could it be the same one who mucked up the search arcs?) stuck in the code to "balance" the game to some friend's liking, making tactics - good or bad - illogical and meaningless.


I actually resent that, but I am not going to get into a discussion/argument about it.



Actually, you shouldn't resent that, I should I'm the one who decided to tone down the effectiveness of ASW air, it was overpowerful previously, and a few have pointed out.

If the OP was saying that ASW air is too powerful, I'm surprised, since we did tone it down. But if the OP was saying it was not powerful enough, then against I'm surprised, since we did tone it down. But having read the OP, I'm not sure what is being said .

But if people want to beat on someone about it - I would be their huckleberry not Michael - reducing detection of submarines by maritime reconnaissance missions was one of my inputs.


I'm sure it was toned down - that's fine. What I think is presently happening with air ASW (and naval attack, and airfield attack, and ground attack - my opponent talks of "JDAM's!") is that when pilots' (appropriate) skill starts getting much above 70, they get such a skill bonus that the attacks are overpowered.

(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 71
RE: ASW Air is FUBAR - 12/27/2010 3:40:16 AM   
Mac Linehan

 

Posts: 1484
Joined: 12/19/2004
From: Denver Colorado
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus


quote:

ORIGINAL: hjalmar99
My suspicion falls on a kludge that some "genius" (Could it be the same one who mucked up the search arcs?) stuck in the code to "balance" the game to some friend's liking, making tactics - good or bad - illogical and meaningless.



Your partially right. Don, Joe and Michael have to have genius qualities to interpret the code. The small portions i saw while helping work the ASW angle gave me a new appreciation. But thx for the kind words.




Nikademus - very well said! I must enthusiastically agree! It would be hard to describe the adrenalin surge that I experience when a new patch is released; this game is so incredibly deep, detailed (now that's an understatement!) and fulfilling that it keeps me coming back for more - to see what new magic the AE Team has conjured for our enjoyment!

El Mac (That's Mac in Spanish)

"Excellence will always meet resistance in mediocrity"

P.S. - I always knew you were from a different planet - but what happen to the Penguins?

_____________________________

LAV-25 2147

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 72
RE: ASW Air is FUBAR - 12/27/2010 3:44:04 AM   
stuman


Posts: 3907
Joined: 9/14/2008
From: Elvis' Hometown
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson


quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

quote:

My suspicion falls on a kludge that some "genius" (Could it be the same one who mucked up the search arcs?) stuck in the code to "balance" the game to some friend's liking, making tactics - good or bad - illogical and meaningless.


I actually resent that, but I am not going to get into a discussion/argument about it.



Actually, you shouldn't resent that, I should I'm the one who decided to tone down the effectiveness of ASW air, it was overpowerful previously, and a few have pointed out.

If the OP was saying that ASW air is too powerful, I'm surprised, since we did tone it down. But if the OP was saying it was not powerful enough, then against I'm surprised, since we did tone it down. But having read the OP, I'm not sure what is being said .

But if people want to beat on someone about it - I would be their huckleberry not Michael - reducing detection of submarines by maritime reconnaissance missions was one of my inputs.





Is it ok to also blame you for my ineptitude, laziness and general lack of skill at AE ?

_____________________________

" Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room. " President Muffley


(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 73
RE: ASW Air is FUBAR - 5/29/2011 6:18:58 AM   
HexHead

 

Posts: 464
Joined: 2/9/2010
From: I'm from New Hampshire; I only work in cyberspace
Status: offline 		If i may, I would like to introduce some RL iformation here.

First, I am not a submariner, but I worked at Portsmouth Naval Shipyard and have had a lot of conversations with submariners. I also, since I was a kid, have done a lot of reading on the subject - decades. I also have played the Silent Hunter series a lot. I know the US experiences in WW2 very well and am knowledgable about the German service.

* From the beginning of the Pacific War, most, not all, boats at the start, had air warning radar.

* From my SH experience, particularly in SH IV "ver 6", this is the routine:

1) Any air contact - crash dive immediately (unless you're in shallow water, which is another can of beans to start with - this applies to the Java Sea and other spots). Resist the temptation to shoot it out - that is folly, just folly. The small arms are there for emergencies only. Crash dive at flank speed. Do not maeuver, just get her down as quickly as you can at flank.

2) With any boat, I am at 40' in 35 seconds, 60' in 50 secs, and at the crucial 100' in 75 seconds or less (visibilty drops sharply at 100' and below). I dove at flank, so on the surface from a cruise of 9 kts, I dove at about 11 - 12 kts, and my momentum plus flank submerged means I am still at 7 - 8 kts, minimum.

3) I have maintained course and not lost way. Get down to 165' - aerial DCs are still a headache at 150'.

4) At 165+ feet, maneuver sharply to starboard or larboard, to get at about 30, 45, or 60 degrees from the original course. Maintain flank.

5) Run for about another minute or so. Even before this step, my previous drill has put me roughly 200 yards away from where I pulled the plug (do the arithmetic - 5 kts is about 10 feet per sec).

6) Throttle back to 1/3. Go to silent running if desired. Stay on new course or establish another one, if desired. Run for one hour at 1/3.

7) Come up to 80' and listen. Come up to periscope depth. Raise the observation scope. Scan the sea and scan the sky. Do this thoroughly.

8) Surface.

Haven't lost a boat yet. Few US boats were lost directly to enemy air assets - some, yes, and the chief factor seems to have been surprise.

Enemy air can keep ypur head down and be the prelude to a nasty party with waterborne ASW, but good skippers shouldn't be losing their boats to airborne ASW. Again, I know the US service the best, but even Mark I eyeballs with a decent watch crew should give you just enough, just enough, to crash dive and be below visiblity and at least 100 - 200 yards away from your last position on the surface - hard to put that DC within instant kill range.

Just trying to introduce a few considerations that I believe are realistic.

< Message edited by HexHead -- 5/29/2011 6:24:48 AM >

_____________________________

"Goddamn it, they're gittin' away!!"
- unknown tincan sailor near the end of Leyte Gulf, when Kurita retired

(in reply to stuman)
Post #: 74
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: ASW Air is FUBAR Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
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

0.703