Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

@adarbrauner, you have played only two months into the game - it is a bit early to judge the effectiveness of air ASW. It is also too early to have “more than normally trained“ pilots for ASW. The ASW skills of your pilots are in what range? Get them up to ASW skill 70+ and 60+ exp before you can hope to get results. And what kind of planes do you use? The 30-100kg bombs of float planes and Lilies are too light and most planes carry only one or two. Use planes with 4x 250kg bombs to increase chances of hitting and damaging a sub heavily enough to sink it. Btw, how many subs did the Japanese sink by air ASW on the open seas in the first two months? Right, none.

quote:


How do you know how many hits are "direct" hitting a sub at all? DCs, yes, that you can see, but not aerial ordnance. For a DC attack you have to watch the replay to see if you're getting a direct hit. Usually 2-3 sink a sub. ASW air operates nt eh patrol phase and you don't get to see what happens there other than the messages. Those include FOW.

quote:

ORIGINAL: adarbrauner

quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

@adarbrauner, you have played only two months into the game - it is a bit early to judge the effectiveness of air ASW. It is also too early to have “more than normally trained“ pilots for ASW. The ASW skills of your pilots are in what range? Get them up to ASW skill 70+ and 60+ exp before you can hope to get results. And what kind of planes do you use? The 30-100kg bombs of float planes and Lilies are too light and most planes carry only one or two. Use planes with 4x 250kg bombs to increase chances of hitting and damaging a sub heavily enough to sink it. Btw, how many subs did the Japanese sink by air ASW on the open seas in the first two months? Right, none.

Yes, but here the Artificial Id**ntelligence has been keeping the same 6 subs around the Formosa Straits from day 3, I presume?
And other 6 around the souther-western approaches to Kyushu, both areas heavily or very heavily patroled, as confirmed by the high rate of engagements. Therefore it cannot be confronted to what you are pointing out, I think.

quote:


How do you know how many hits are "direct" hitting a sub at all? DCs, yes, that you can see, but not aerial ordnance. For a DC attack you have to watch the replay to see if you're getting a direct hit. Usually 2-3 sink a sub. ASW air operates nt eh patrol phase and you don't get to see what happens there other than the messages. Those include FOW.

By the attacks in the port. I should not receive such a detailed information as per FOW, but one, two, three bomb hits were not enough (in the port)to sink it. And I wrote before, that in my game one sub once hit a mine (it was a dutch sub, even), and another one got a 120 cm (short barrel) direct hit; both are back in regular service already! I never heard of a submarine hitting a mine, and submerging and cruising as usual business. A 120 cm shell should produce a 1-2 feet large hole in the pressure hull, and a mine worst. am I right?

i don't think that's regular.

twice or three (and no more than that) DCs caused some damage and water intake; from what I now, and I don't think that's untrue, in such a situation a sub should be forced in the majority of cases to emerge (and, BTW, as per FOW I really should not receive so much information...);

quote:

In port ships survive better because it's shallow. Many ships were resurfaced and reused after a successful strike in port.

I hope you mean 12cm shell? (not 120cm)

Depends on where a shell hits.

You should also know that there is a lot of fudging in the AI to make it competitive.

quote:

ORIGINAL: adarbrauner

forwarded that:

1-I've not updated yet to the last betas;

2-I've been running the game since 7thDec 1941 until beginning of February 1942 only, and 3- against the AI meanwhile, unfortunately;

This said, i'm encountering EXACTLY the opposite issue; US-allied subs had been subject to countless, COUNTLESS, attacks by escort vessels and ASW air patrols, without almost any result;

regardless the very low hit percentages by depth charges, the problem and the striking thing is the UNVULNERABILTY of the sub when hit; there was a case where a sub remained sea able AND SUBMERGED after having hit a mine; in another case, a sub, receiveda 120 cm shell direct hit, but still sea able and able to submerge; the very very few hits by DC caused some WATER FLOODING or intake (SIC), according to the report (BTW, why should I see, as opponent, the detailed and true report of the damage caused ??), but still the vessel could keep the submerged course and escape normally;

I don't like that; I don't like unnatural unvulnerabilty not for US subs, nor for my Jap subs;

I could have singled ONLY ONE effective hit by airplane bomb, in a time span of two months, out of some good hundreds of "a submarine has reported been hit" (yes,a joke);

subs are seemingly never ever modeled to be operating at surface (how is that possibl, I have the impression i'm dealing with some Typhoon or Oscar II classes rather than Gato or earlier even), apart from the cases where the y attack , on surface;

I couldn't discern any Sonar-ASDIC technology improvenment or development, nor Huff Duff, Metox or their Pacific equivalents, either, why?

I think and feel this is a big flaw in the game model which should be corrected the earliest, and I'm sure many others have had the same thought - in spite of what described here by the original poster, who's describibg exactly the opposite issue (if possible) just happening, in game's model, some years later.

Thank you for reading and relating to this

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

quote:

ORIGINAL: adarbrauner

forwarded that:

1-I've not updated yet to the last betas;

2-I've been running the game since 7thDec 1941 until beginning of February 1942 only, and 3- against the AI meanwhile, unfortunately;

This said, i'm encountering EXACTLY the opposite issue; US-allied subs had been subject to countless, COUNTLESS, attacks by escort vessels and ASW air patrols, without almost any result;

regardless the very low hit percentages by depth charges, the problem and the striking thing is the UNVULNERABILTY of the sub when hit; there was a case where a sub remained sea able AND SUBMERGED after having hit a mine; in another case, a sub, receiveda 120 cm shell direct hit, but still sea able and able to submerge; the very very few hits by DC caused some WATER FLOODING or intake (SIC), according to the report (BTW, why should I see, as opponent, the detailed and true report of the damage caused ??), but still the vessel could keep the submerged course and escape normally;

I don't like that; I don't like unnatural unvulnerabilty not for US subs, nor for my Jap subs;

I could have singled ONLY ONE effective hit by airplane bomb, in a time span of two months, out of some good hundreds of "a submarine has reported been hit" (yes,a joke);

subs are seemingly never ever modeled to be operating at surface (how is that possibl, I have the impression i'm dealing with some Typhoon or Oscar II classes rather than Gato or earlier even), apart from the cases where the y attack , on surface;

I couldn't discern any Sonar-ASDIC technology improvenment or development, nor Huff Duff, Metox or their Pacific equivalents, either, why?

I think and feel this is a big flaw in the game model which should be corrected the earliest, and I'm sure many others have had the same thought - in spite of what described here by the original poster, who's describibg exactly the opposite issue (if possible) just happening, in game's model, some years later.

Thank you for reading and relating to this

You do know that the Allies lost only seven subs total in all of 1942? Only three were actually lost in combat. Just how many would you like to lose to stay happy? For the whole war the Allies averaged less than one sub lost per month in the Pacific. I don't think I have seen a game where the Allies have lost less than this historical average. Japanese ASW skills were less than stellar throughout the war. My own experience after two full (2,000 turns) campaigns mirrors that of the OP. And, what the OP is referring to is the appearance in late 1943 of what we derisively call the "Super E" class of Japanese escorts which are quite deadly for Allies subs. In my last campaign I lost about 80 subs after these guys appeared and had to withdraw them from any job but close invasion support. On the other hand after the beginning of 1943 in both campaigns I was able to fairly neutralize the Japanese sub force in about six to eight months-which is about the way it should be. A skilled human can take the Japanese ASW forces and be quite deadly with them. A skilled Allied player can do even more. I think anyone here can confirm that.

quote:

You do know that the Allies lost only seven subs total in all of 1942? Only three were actually lost in combat. Just how many would you like to lose to stay happy? For the whole war the Allies averaged less than one sub lost per month in the Pacific. I don't think I have seen a game where the Allies have lost less than this historical average. Japanese ASW skills were less than stellar throughout the war. My own experience after two full (2,000 turns) campaigns mirrors that of the OP. And, what the OP is referring to is the appearance in late 1943 of what we derisively call the "Super E" class of Japanese escorts which are quite deadly for Allies subs. In my last campaign I lost about 80 subs after these guys appeared and had to withdraw them from any job but close invasion support. On the other hand after the beginning of 1943 in both campaigns I was able to fairly neutralize the Japanese sub force in about six to eight months-which is about the way it should be. A skilled human can take the Japanese ASW forces and be quite deadly with them. A skilled Allied player can do even more. I think anyone here can confirm that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: adarbrauner

Yes but merchant ships losses by Allied submarines for December, January until 15th February 1942 were only of 16 vessels
( https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/Japan/IJN/JANAC-Losses/JANAC-Losses-4.html) if you want to check the coordinates , here they are enclosed in the link, but i'd bet that it could hardly be found a sinking in the Chinese Seas or along the Japanese home island, wherever in my game I've already suffered 28 -against the AI - all in the aforementioned waters;

look, I seek only realism, nothing more or less, and the way is done now, within this aspect, is not; don't understand the point against really;

Edit: grossly not, frustratingly not, painfully not (realistic, the asw warfare...)

Edit2: and i'm repaying back the Us in the same right way! 46 Allied merchant ships sunk by subs only, until the 7th of February!! How do i do it, simple, I loiter and camp around Pearl Harbour, with impunity (around Sidney), and soon around S Francisco as well...tell this realistic?

what would you say, i'm going to force bankruptcy over the Allies? I'd be delighted to!

quote:

ORIGINAL: General Patton

AE stops being Historical on December 7th, 1941 with the first attack. Deployment of subs varies. Thus ASW varies. As far as the super "E's" go, I remember a fix for asw in one of the betas. So, update to the betas and play for a few more months, then let the community know....GP

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert
This thread began as a look at Japanese ASW in 1944. I'd really like to return to that in order to find some clear information about whether the Super_E fix is in the betas or if a Database update needs to be done to reduce their effectiveness.

quote:

ORIGINAL: US87891

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert
This thread began as a look at Japanese ASW in 1944. I'd really like to return to that in order to find some clear information about whether the Super_E fix is in the betas or if a Database update needs to be done to reduce their effectiveness.

The ASW fix has nothing whatever to do with any the betas. The fix is in scenario data, NOT the code in the .exe file. The fix works with any game version, including the original game executable from 2009. It was implemented too late to make it into the last ‘official’ Matrix update – the only one that ‘officially’ updated the scenario database files.

All of Babes has the fix, Andy Mac’s scenarios are based on Babes, so they too have the fix.

Only a few classes have the problem; Ukuru, Type C and Type D. It is easy to see if your scenario has the fix or not. Open your scenario in the editor; go to ship classes; go to Ukuru, or Type C, or Type D; if it has 12 or 14 launchers on the center-line, you are using old, un-fixed, data.

The issue is with probability convergence with numbers larger than 6 in the NUM column for the ASW algorithm.

Matt

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Thanks for clarifying. Before reading your post I carefully went over the read me notes for the last official patch and there is no mention of an ASW fix. So, you will have to play a later beta or Da Babes to see the fix.

quote:

ORIGINAL: US87891

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert
This thread began as a look at Japanese ASW in 1944. I'd really like to return to that in order to find some clear information about whether the Super_E fix is in the betas or if a Database update needs to be done to reduce their effectiveness.

The ASW fix has nothing whatever to do with any the betas. The fix is in scenario data, NOT the code in the .exe file. The fix works with any game version, including the original game executable from 2009. It was implemented too late to make it into the last ‘official’ Matrix update – the only one that ‘officially’ updated the scenario database files.

All of Babes has the fix, Andy Mac’s scenarios are based on Babes, so they too have the fix.

Only a few classes have the problem; Ukuru, Type C and Type D. It is easy to see if your scenario has the fix or not. Open your scenario in the editor; go to ship classes; go to Ukuru, or Type C, or Type D; if it has 12 or 14 launchers on the center-line, you are using old, un-fixed, data.

The issue is with probability convergence with numbers larger than 6 in the NUM column for the ASW algorithm.

Matt

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Thanks for clarifying. Before reading your post I carefully went over the read me notes for the last official patch and there is no mention of an ASW fix. So, you will have to play a later beta or Da Babes to see the fix.

There is also a stand-alone "Andy file" that has the DaBabes ASW and AA changes and can be spliced into a stock game. Lokasenna and I have been playing with it for about three years.

But I'm darned if I know where to find it now. One of the problems with the forum--pretty poor corraling for the various change files.

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: US87891

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert
This thread began as a look at Japanese ASW in 1944. I'd really like to return to that in order to find some clear information about whether the Super_E fix is in the betas or if a Database update needs to be done to reduce their effectiveness.

The ASW fix has nothing whatever to do with any the betas. The fix is in scenario data, NOT the code in the .exe file. The fix works with any game version, including the original game executable from 2009. It was implemented too late to make it into the last ‘official’ Matrix update – the only one that ‘officially’ updated the scenario database files.

All of Babes has the fix, Andy Mac’s scenarios are based on Babes, so they too have the fix.

Only a few classes have the problem; Ukuru, Type C and Type D. It is easy to see if your scenario has the fix or not. Open your scenario in the editor; go to ship classes; go to Ukuru, or Type C, or Type D; if it has 12 or 14 launchers on the center-line, you are using old, un-fixed, data.

The issue is with probability convergence with numbers larger than 6 in the NUM column for the ASW algorithm.

Matt

Thanks. Ours definitely have 12 DCs in the centre position. So we could also just edit the numbers ourselves for he scenario 1 and both use that file, I guess?

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: US87891

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert
This thread began as a look at Japanese ASW in 1944. I'd really like to return to that in order to find some clear information about whether the Super_E fix is in the betas or if a Database update needs to be done to reduce their effectiveness.

The ASW fix has nothing whatever to do with any the betas. The fix is in scenario data, NOT the code in the .exe file. The fix works with any game version, including the original game executable from 2009. It was implemented too late to make it into the last ‘official’ Matrix update – the only one that ‘officially’ updated the scenario database files.

All of Babes has the fix, Andy Mac’s scenarios are based on Babes, so they too have the fix.

Only a few classes have the problem; Ukuru, Type C and Type D. It is easy to see if your scenario has the fix or not. Open your scenario in the editor; go to ship classes; go to Ukuru, or Type C, or Type D; if it has 12 or 14 launchers on the center-line, you are using old, un-fixed, data.

The issue is with probability convergence with numbers larger than 6 in the NUM column for the ASW algorithm.

Matt

Thanks. Ours definitely have 12 DCs in the centre position. So we could also just edit the numbers ourselves for he scenario 1 and both use that file, I guess?

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Thanks for clarifying. Before reading your post I carefully went over the read me notes for the last official patch and there is no mention of an ASW fix. So, you will have to play a later beta or Da Babes to see the fix.

There is also a stand-alone "Andy file" that has the DaBabes ASW and AA changes and can be spliced into a stock game. Lokasenna and I have been playing with it for about three years.

But I'm darned if I know where to find it now. One of the problems with the forum--pretty poor corraling for the various change files.

Actually I think I just found them. This is it, right?

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3198064

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

This fix is from 2012 and is not included in the last official patch ? Which came much later. Also willthis fix the IJA infantery squad issue ? I would trade less ASW for some better squads in 43

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

This fix is from 2012 and is not included in the last official patch ? Which came much later. Also willthis fix the IJA infantery squad issue ? I would trade less ASW for some better squads in 43

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: US87891

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert
This thread began as a look at Japanese ASW in 1944. I'd really like to return to that in order to find some clear information about whether the Super_E fix is in the betas or if a Database update needs to be done to reduce their effectiveness.

The ASW fix has nothing whatever to do with any the betas. The fix is in scenario data, NOT the code in the .exe file. The fix works with any game version, including the original game executable from 2009. It was implemented too late to make it into the last ‘official’ Matrix update – the only one that ‘officially’ updated the scenario database files.

All of Babes has the fix, Andy Mac’s scenarios are based on Babes, so they too have the fix.

Only a few classes have the problem; Ukuru, Type C and Type D. It is easy to see if your scenario has the fix or not. Open your scenario in the editor; go to ship classes; go to Ukuru, or Type C, or Type D; if it has 12 or 14 launchers on the center-line, you are using old, un-fixed, data.

The issue is with probability convergence with numbers larger than 6 in the NUM column for the ASW algorithm.

Matt

Thanks. Ours definitely have 12 DCs in the centre position. So we could also just edit the numbers ourselves for he scenario 1 and both use that file, I guess?

No - since the stock scenarios are not save-able by non-devs, you will need to find Andy's updates.

This will also change your shipborne flak values...

quote:

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

I'm losing almost a submarine a day to Japanese ASW. I just encountered an E Boat that dropped 4 x 12 depth charge spreads and sunk yet another Allied submarine. I thought the Japanese E Boats had been fixed in updated stock patches, or is DaBabes the only platform where Japanese ASW was corrected?

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

This fix is from 2012 and is not included in the last official patch ? Which came much later. Also willthis fix the IJA infantery squad issue ? I would trade less ASW for some better squads in 43

My squads are IJA 43. They usually arrive with the old 41 squads but will upgrade with supply around. No worries.

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert
Aren't the flak values also changed in the betas though? Ours got significantly stronger when we changed to the 1125.10 after Joseph took over the game. Fixed a bunch of things actually since this was originally a stock seen 1 game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77
Now the questions are which fix or database upgrade for STOCK (not mods) has the updated squads and b) is it the same fix which also downgrades the IJN ASW.. and c) is this really a fix from 2012 the last official patch came after this fix, so it should be in the last patch (which I use)..

quote:

ORIGINAL: US87891

The so-called fix is found ...

There is no so-called fix ...

Army Regulation "A" No.55 ...
Matt

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

Now the questions are which fix or database upgrade for STOCK (not mods) has the updated squads and b) is it the same fix which also downgrades the IJN ASW.. and c) is this really a fix from 2012 the last official patch came after this fix, so it should be in the last patch (which I use)..

quote:

ORIGINAL: US87891

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert
Aren't the flak values also changed in the betas though? Ours got significantly stronger when we changed to the 1125.10 after Joseph took over the game. Fixed a bunch of things actually since this was originally a stock seen 1 game.

The ‘official’ Matrix UpdateComps merely roll-up MichaelM’s .exe betas and wrap them up together with the last ‘official’ versions of the scenario files, art files, sound, etc… None of these ‘other’ files are updated by the ‘official’ UpdateComps. The ‘official’ UpdateComps routinely package the new .exe file with the ‘other’ game files in the ‘official’ barrel, dated 6/30/2012.

quote:

... the rest of the Babes accessions, ASW, Naval Guns, plane stats, sub depth characteristics, internal data self-consistency, etc.. are present only in Babes scenario files.

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

Naval Guns __ what is this change?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lok

Also, I put forward that while the anti-soft decreases from 22 to 20 due to the squad size being reduced, it is really not that big of a deal. You also do not have the option to stockpile these squads - they will stop being produced whatsoever in beginning February 1943, and Japan does not really build up pools of devices as they mostly build them on demand. If you do not upgrade your units, you will eventually run out of these squads. For example, if you are currently in 2/43 or later, then those 63 squads in the pools are the last "new" squads of that type you will ever get. The production system does not allow you to produce devices that are out of the availability window.