Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

conclusion of old asw NavB LowN debate?

 
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 >> The War Room >> conclusion of old asw NavB LowN debate? Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
conclusion of old asw NavB LowN debate? - 6/20/2014 7:08:17 AM   
pharmy

 

Posts: 271
Joined: 4/3/2010
From: Bangkok/Budapest
Status: offline 		Can't find the conclusion to the debate whether NavB or lowN was useful for ASW army air and IJN FP groups in damaging subs. Was there ever a conclusion?

< Message edited by icepharmy -- 6/20/2014 8:24:24 AM >
Post #: 1
RE: conclusion of old asw NavB LowN debate? - 6/20/2014 2:30:32 PM   
witpqs


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

ORIGINAL: icepharmy

Can't find the conclusion to the debate whether NavB or lowN was useful for ASW army air and IJN FP groups in damaging subs. Was there ever a conclusion?

The developers have only ever mentioned ASW for attacking subs. Even when naval search skill helps find them, developers have said that ASW is used if the aircraft attacks them. NavB someone (or someones) thought up as a plausible possibility, and it gained its own life from there. So no matter how many people you see repeating it, nor how sincere they are, the actual origin of that (NavB) was only speculation and it has never been confirmed by the developers.

_____________________________

Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/view/staffmonkeys/home

(in reply to pharmy)
Post #: 2
RE: conclusion of old asw NavB LowN debate? - 6/20/2014 2:51:38 PM   
pharmy

 

Posts: 271
Joined: 4/3/2010
From: Bangkok/Budapest
Status: offline 		thanks much appreciated, that saves a whole bunch of time on training. Then I think my army units don't need to learn naval bombing until the allied invasion fleets show up on my doorstep

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 3
RE: conclusion of old asw NavB LowN debate? - 6/20/2014 3:46:02 PM   
EHansen


Posts: 360
Joined: 12/6/2013
Status: offline 		I had a number of B-17s that were on ASW hit subs off of Pearl Harbor in the early part of my PBEM game and if they got any skill increase it was always ASW. They never got any skill increase in NavB or LowN.

(in reply to pharmy)
Post #: 4
RE: conclusion of old asw NavB LowN debate? - 6/20/2014 11:30:05 PM   
obvert


Posts: 14050
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: icepharmy

Can't find the conclusion to the debate whether NavB or lowN was useful for ASW army air and IJN FP groups in damaging subs. Was there ever a conclusion?

The developers have only ever mentioned ASW for attacking subs. Even when naval search skill helps find them, developers have said that ASW is used if the aircraft attacks them. NavB someone (or someones) thought up as a plausible possibility, and it gained its own life from there. So no matter how many people you see repeating it, nor how sincere they are, the actual origin of that (NavB) was only speculation and it has never been confirmed by the developers.


And yet, although I haven't done a formal test, my ASW pilots are trained in low naval bombing when I play Japan. They are set to 1k and they hit a lot of subs. Both the IJAAF and the IJNAF. Using 2E, 1E, FP and TB. I think in the game against Jocke he lost a huge number of subs to air ASW, but I can't remember the number. Something like 140?

I've mentioned this many times, and I know the debs have said something about only ASW being involved, but I find low naval bombing training works. For a Japanese player it also doubles as kami training, so there is really no reason not to train low naval, and I've used FP extensively in a naval strike role using low naval bombing when they're not hunting subs. So, it may be anecdotal, and I can't really test it since there is so little info on sub attacks in the replay and CR, so it will likely remain anecdotal.

_____________________________

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 5
RE: conclusion of old asw NavB LowN debate? - 6/21/2014 12:22:33 AM   
czert2

 

Posts: 508
Joined: 2/10/2013
Status: offline 		I allwas though that best altitude for asw is 4k, so 1k works better ? And yes i use fp for naval atacks too - no much chance to sink anything bigger than tin can, but every point of damage counts, and you can allways knock off some AAA so your normal planes have easier job :), not counting if it help to run out of ammo for them.

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 6
RE: conclusion of old asw NavB LowN debate? - 6/21/2014 10:57:50 AM   
ny59giants


Posts: 9869
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline 		I did ask MichaelM many, many months ago about this and his answer was that just ASW skill is used to attack subs. I know Obvert (Erik) swears by the training of LowN, but I wonder if this training indirectly raises the pilots overall Experience levels and this is why his ASW efforts were so good. Don't overlook how much having a high DL has on successful attacks.

As Allies, I use those 5 plane bomber HQ units that get withdrawn by mid-42 for ASW duty. It gives me a small pool of pilots with decent ASW skill for a dedicated Army bomber group later.

_____________________________


(in reply to czert2)
Post #: 7
RE: conclusion of old asw NavB LowN debate? - 6/21/2014 2:15:09 PM   
obvert


Posts: 14050
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

I did ask MichaelM many, many months ago about this and his answer was that just ASW skill is used to attack subs. I know Obvert (Erik) swears by the training of LowN, but I wonder if this training indirectly raises the pilots overall Experience levels and this is why his ASW efforts were so good. Don't overlook how much having a high DL has on successful attacks.

As Allies, I use those 5 plane bomber HQ units that get withdrawn by mid-42 for ASW duty. It gives me a small pool of pilots with decent ASW skill for a dedicated Army bomber group later.


I wish we could see more info on sub attacks, like how many bombs dropped and how many hit, etc. That would help to clarify a lot. You may be right about exp levels, but something does work there. Also, I also use the planes on search, and the Low Naval skill does work there if they're attacking a sub. Most areas I'll have one IJAAF 2E unit searching to 10-11 hexes, another few 2E or TB groups covering the most vital parts of a convoy route doing ASW, and the FP doing night search. To top it off the convoys have AV using night or day search as well.

After reading a lot about USN subs lately I highly doubt even a concerted training program like this and overlapping search could have done half as well in reality as we can do in game playing Japan. A few subs were sunk by Japanese air but most just ducked under before even being seen when radar or lookouts spotted enemy aircraft.

_____________________________

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 8
RE: conclusion of old asw NavB LowN debate? - 6/21/2014 2:40:56 PM   
ny59giants


Posts: 9869
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline 		It sounds like all your search efforts significantly raised the DL on a sub which in turn made any ASW attacks by either air or surface assets that much more successful.

_____________________________


(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 9
RE: conclusion of old asw NavB LowN debate? - 6/25/2014 11:21:13 PM   
obvert


Posts: 14050
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

It sounds like all your search efforts significantly raised the DL on a sub which in turn made any ASW attacks by either air or surface assets that much more successful.


I'm sure they do. I would imagine that kind of search in critical areas would be standard for a Japanese player though. I know on the Allied side now I see sub DL go up a lot in certain areas, but I've not yet lost a sub to air attack in over four months of play. The crews may not be fully trained, but they could be in one skill at least.

The message doesn't say if the plane attacking the subs is an ASW plane or a search plane, and it could be that those planes at 1k on search could be getting the hits too. Not sure. Either way, it makes sense to train the low naval skill regardless. There is no reason not to.

_____________________________

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 10
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> conclusion of old asw NavB LowN debate? Page: [1]
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

0.891