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: Japanese ASW not toned down in stock?

 
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: Japanese ASW not toned down in stock? Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Japanese ASW not toned down in stock? - 11/16/2016 8:44:45 AM   
Alpha77

 

Posts: 2116
Joined: 9/24/2010
Status: offline 		Well guess I found the culprit, however it appears in 1/45 incl. updating time numbers of it will be in action in 2/45 or 3/45. I highly doubt at this late time in the war it will have much impact anymore...

.....perhaps it is a case of Allied "overeaction" considering how many high class subs they get and how effective their OWN asw is... Allies should check their ASW ships in 45 they will be not much weaker than this E.








Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Alpha77 -- 11/16/2016 9:22:55 AM >

(in reply to Alpha77)
Post #: 61
RE: Japanese ASW not toned down in stock? - 11/16/2016 6:12:29 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline 		Note that device 707 has the same anti-soft as the 1943 IJA squad. You should look up what unit TOEs that device is in.

Also, all of this stuff has nothing to do with betas. It's all database stuff - the tables the .exe is actually looking at.

(in reply to Alpha77)
Post #: 62
RE: Japanese ASW not toned down in stock? - 11/16/2016 7:58:20 PM   
obvert


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

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

Note that device 707 has the same anti-soft as the 1943 IJA squad. You should look up what unit TOEs that device is in.

Also, all of this stuff has nothing to do with betas. It's all database stuff - the tables the .exe is actually looking at.


So here is a screenshot from one of my games. I'm guessing Scen 30 judging by the top here, but does scenario matter, even?

This makes me think 41 > 43 is an advantageous upgrade. Am I missing something? (I get that there may be fewer total squads, but this upgrade for anti-armor seems good enough to make the unit better and of course the engineers, arty, tanks and other stuff would also upgrade too depending on division type.

I've noticed from playing that a 43 upgraded division is a better unit. That has not been tested outside of a PBEM, but they do hold fast in good terrain better than a 41 division.

Tell me if I'm being an idiot here and missing something else obvious.





Attachment (1)

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 63
RE: Japanese ASW not toned down in stock? - 11/16/2016 8:15:08 PM   
obvert


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

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

Well guess I found the culprit, however it appears in 1/45 incl. updating time numbers of it will be in action in 2/45 or 3/45. I highly doubt at this late time in the war it will have much impact anymore...



They appear in March 44. No. 1 was launched 2/29/44. Both the C and D are tough cookies against subs.

quote:


.....perhaps it is a case of Allied "overeaction" considering how many high class subs they get and how effective their OWN asw is... Allies should check their ASW ships in 45 they will be not much weaker than this E.



This is not an Allied overreaction. It's virtually a guaranteed kill if one of these starts a DC run and finds the sub. They were good boats in the war, but the Allied subs sunk more of these escort classes than they sunk subs by a factor of 2.5:1. Of the C class 10 were sunk by USN subs and they contributed to the sinking of only 4 subs. Of the Type D, 13 were sunk by USN subs while contributing to the sinking of 5 subs (two subs were sunk by a flotilla of escorts including both types, which I left in the type C numbers). Nothing like in game results.

The impact in game is pretty important if the E boats are worth 3 VP and the subs are worth 8-10 VP. If they sink 50 subs between 2/44 and 8/45, which is a reasonable number to expect if the Allies aggressively hunt cargo, and transport convoys, that is not only a lot of VPs gained, but also a lost opportunity cost for the ships those subs might have sunk (and the oil/fuel/resources/supply/troops/airframes carried by those ships).

That adds up to a much bigger impact for these boats than they did or should have in this period of the war.



< Message edited by obvert -- 11/16/2016 8:16:30 PM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Alpha77)
Post #: 64
RE: Japanese ASW not toned down in stock? - 11/16/2016 8:59:58 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline 		Not to mention that in the fixed database, these ships don't have 12 racks. They have 6 (2 racks of 3). They still do OK at sub hunting, though.

For the infantry squads... if you're playing stacking limits, then the impact of the lower squad size on the stacking cost of the division may be important as well.

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 65
RE: Japanese ASW not toned down in stock? - 11/17/2016 11:09:37 AM   
Alpha77

 

Posts: 2116
Joined: 9/24/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

So here is a screenshot from one of my games. I'm guessing Scen 30 judging by the top here, but does scenario matter, even?

This makes me think 41 > 43 is an advantageous upgrade. Am I missing something? (I get that there may be fewer total squads, but this upgrade for anti-armor seems good enough to make the unit better and of course the engineers, arty, tanks and other stuff would also upgrade too depending on division type. And ofc in the mods, scens most play - the 43 inf is a better unit, but not in stock

I've noticed from playing that a 43 upgraded division is a better unit. That has not been tested outside of a PBEM, but they do hold fast in good terrain better than a 41 division.



Once again, I play STOCK scen2. You play scen 30 (which obviously is not stock), it seems you have the values from DaBabes mod. I played this one before vs. the AI and this has indeed the better AT values. Also mot. squads are a bit better. You also get heavy squads which get the better AT, you do not have any heavy squads at all in stock. See that is what I meant with mods,betas,fixes...confusion

So which fix for STOCK, would tone down my "super-E"? I would be fine with that it seems overboard. But has this same fix then also the better squads ? I happily trade better AT value (even if not much) for more "realistic" ASW on some Es late in the war But the FLAK seems already deadly enough at least the Allied ones. With this fix the FLAK will get even more severe (as people report above)?? I was thinking it may be overboard then esp. vs. planes over 10k.

Also this super E issue was talked about on here for a longer while (even 3 years ago or so) but was not fixed in the last OFFICIAL patch ? So the "officials" aka devs must have some reason to leave it as is in stock...

< Message edited by Alpha77 -- 11/17/2016 11:24:22 AM >

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 66
RE: Japanese ASW not toned down in stock? - 11/18/2016 10:46:56 AM   
Alpha77

 

Posts: 2116
Joined: 9/24/2010
Status: offline 		Btw, the reason these escorts have 12 x DC in the game, seems because they had (at least Wiki says so):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_C_escort_ship

2 × 120 mm (4.7 in)/45 cal DP guns
6 × Type 96 25 mm (0.98 in) AA machine guns (2×3)
12 × Type 3 depth charge throwers
1 × depth charge chute
120 × depth charges
From 1944 :
as above, plus
1 × 80 mm (3.1 in) mortar

(in reply to Alpha77)
Post #: 67
RE: Japanese ASW not toned down in stock? - 11/18/2016 9:36:07 PM   
obvert


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

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

So here is a screenshot from one of my games. I'm guessing Scen 30 judging by the top here, but does scenario matter, even?

This makes me think 41 > 43 is an advantageous upgrade. Am I missing something? (I get that there may be fewer total squads, but this upgrade for anti-armor seems good enough to make the unit better and of course the engineers, arty, tanks and other stuff would also upgrade too depending on division type. And ofc in the mods, scens most play - the 43 inf is a better unit, but not in stock

I've noticed from playing that a 43 upgraded division is a better unit. That has not been tested outside of a PBEM, but they do hold fast in good terrain better than a 41 division.



Once again, I play STOCK scen2. You play scen 30 (which obviously is not stock), it seems you have the values from DaBabes mod. I played this one before vs. the AI and this has indeed the better AT values. Also mot. squads are a bit better. You also get heavy squads which get the better AT, you do not have any heavy squads at all in stock. See that is what I meant with mods,betas,fixes...confusion

So which fix for STOCK, would tone down my "super-E"? I would be fine with that it seems overboard. But has this same fix then also the better squads ? I happily trade better AT value (even if not much) for more "realistic" ASW on some Es late in the war But the FLAK seems already deadly enough at least the Allied ones. With this fix the FLAK will get even more severe (as people report above)?? I was thinking it may be overboard then esp. vs. planes over 10k.

Also this super E issue was talked about on here for a longer while (even 3 years ago or so) but was not fixed in the last OFFICIAL patch ? So the "officials" aka devs must have some reason to leave it as is in stock...


If you'll notice above in this thread the game in question is a scene 1 game stock.

This screenshot is from a different game with GreyJoy earlier. It is DBB.

Can you post the number of these units from the database in your game setup?

I'm not sure why a "fix" was not added to game, but as you know, this has been an ongoing process of addressing issues via the betas. If you look at the data above and notice that these boats were not effective in the war even with their 12 DCs you'll understand why a fix would be preferable.

< Message edited by obvert -- 11/18/2016 9:38:48 PM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Alpha77)
Post #: 68
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Japanese ASW not toned down in stock? 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

3.390