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: Something has to be done about Allied ASW

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: Something has to be done about Allied ASW Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Something has to be done about Allied ASW - 4/12/2005 7:46:47 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Culiacan Mexico


Nikademus

---------------------------------

Would that then mean (Naval Ability):

A group of escorts with commanders in the 50’s searching for a submarine with a commander in the 50’s has an ‘X’ chance of finding and attacking, while the same escort seeking out a submarine with a commander in the 70’s change the equation significantly (x/2 or x/4)? Are they effects of this difference in leadership value actually greater than that? Is it possible that the differences in leaderships first affect the chance of detection then the ability of the submarine to evade/survive the attack. That would mean that any variation in abilities between the commanders would be squared: instead of x/2 or x/4 it would be x/4 or x/16.


A associate of mine insisted that his ASW was much more effective after replacing TF leaders with a better or high quality one. I ran some tests of my own but the results were inconclusive. Given what i've found in regards to the LCU model, I dont doubt that leaders 'can' have a big effect on ASW TF and sub TF effectiveness. Overall, leader ratings are the big "under the hood" modifyer because while their impact can be substantial, often their influence can be buried by all the other checks in the game or simply because the skill rating differences between the opposing sides are such that the impact isn't all that noticible.

_____________________________


(in reply to Culiacan Mexico)
Post #: 151
RE: Something has to be done about Allied ASW - 4/12/2005 7:47:56 PM   
Tom Hunter


Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/14/2004
Status: offline 		jwilkerson, I left Walker out of my posts to stay in the Pacific but your right about him. He was an amazing guy and the Allies owe him a lot.

Bombur the only ships that regulary traveled fast enough to be impossible to torpedo were the 2 Queens Mary and Elizabeth. But they were built for high speed running the way a battleship was built for gun combat and they should not be used for comparison with other ships.

It certainly more difficult to hit a ship going 17 knots than one going 8 but as both sides proved its not impossible.

In other news I had a sub lauch torpedoes at two enemy targets today, and another one attack elsewhere. This is the first turn ever that more than one of my subs has attacked on the same day, and its the first time an Allied sub has attacked twice one of my US torpedos even exploded and hurt the enemy! how is that for luck? The captian of the Finback is getting a medal.

Blackwatch also put some fish into the USS Long Island, proving that you can torpedo a CV and get away from the escorts. Or at least proving that he can.

(in reply to Bombur)
Post #: 152
RE: Something has to be done about Allied ASW - 4/12/2005 7:50:32 PM   
Oznoyng

 

Posts: 818
Joined: 4/16/2004
From: Mars
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Culiacan Mexico
I send most of my Japanese submarines to base on turn one just to replace the ship commander with one that you describe: high naval ability, but low aggression.


I have not been sending my commanders back to change them out. I view the first turn movement bonus as an opportunity for the Japanese player to reshuffle his forces/deployments to fit his plan. I also view the early part of the war as the best time for the Japanese to catch unescorted ships.

Given my experiences so far, I expect that I will be RTB'ing my subs and replacing the commanders, if not on 12/7/41, then soon after.

(in reply to Culiacan Mexico)
Post #: 153
RE: Something has to be done about Allied ASW - 4/12/2005 11:08:38 PM   
Tristanjohn


Posts: 3027
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Daly City CA USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, In early 1945 the USN sent a wolf pack into sea of Japan (including the above mentioned Flying Fish) The pack contained 9 submarines. IJN ASW was at this point nearly non existent. 1 USN submarine was lost.


Well, that was Operation BARNEY under Commander E. T. Hydeman in Sea Dog. This wolf-pack (to include Crevalle, Spadefish, Tunny, Skate, Bonefish, Flying Fish, Bowfin and Tinosa) was known as "Hydeman's Hellcats" and, sailing from Guam 27 May 1945, entered the Sea of Japan through the Tsushima Strait on 5 and 6 June, where, in all, some 57,000 tons of Japanese shipping was sunk, including I-122 (bagged by Skate) and 27 merchants. The boat we lost was Bonefish. She ran into Toyama Wan near Honshu on 18 June. An enemy ship was sunk there the next day, and it is presumed Bonefish got her, but she was never heard from again. Bonefish was the last United States submarine lost in the war.

Hydeman got his command out on the evening of 23 June, returning by way of the Sakhalin Islands to Pearl Harbor, arriving there Indpendence Day.

In fact, Admiral Lockwood sent a second wolf-pack into the Sea of Japan, this one consisting of six boats (Jallao, Stickleback, Torsk, Pargo, Piper and Pogy), where it operated until VJ Day. By the middle of that last summer pickings were slim for USN submarines. The last significant merchant sunk by one of our boats was the cargo-passenger steamer Teihoku Maru of 5,800 tons, sent to the bottom by Jallao in the Sea of Japan 11 August. Within hours of the end, Spikefish sank I-373, this occuring 14 August just south of Shanghai. [Note: Morison makes the point that by the spring of 1945 Army aircraft and mines did more damage to enemy shipping than USN submarines. I haven't seen the data for his remark, but I have no reason to doubt it.]

By the way, at this juncture of the war we'd developed FM sonar for subs to detect mines in the water, and I believe all of Hydeman's boats were so equipped.

Anyway, the Japanese were still running convoys, though until this initial invasion of the waters between their home islands and China I'd guess they were relatively lax in that regard in the Sea of Japan. Of course as far as that goes, by this time there was hardly anything left worth mentioning to make a convoy up of to begin with! (Sorry for my dangling participles, but sometimes it just reads best that way. )

As for IJN ASW work at the end of the war, it was never "good" for them compared to what the Americans and British developed in terms of technology and doctrine, but it did improve somewhat. For instance, Trigger, operating off Okinawa on 20 March, reported she had been forced under and held down there for two days by heavy depth charging after having sunk a freighter out of a convoy. The last contact with her was on 26 March when she sent in a weather report, but then she failed to acknowledge an order to join a wolf-pack that same day. Several USN submarines reported on the 28th of hearing a number of depth-charge attacks, and post-war interrogations revealed that the Japanese had made a combined air and surface attack that same day on one of our boats operating in those waters where Trigger was supposed to be.


(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 154
RE: Something has to be done about Allied ASW - 4/13/2005 1:12:09 AM   
Tristanjohn


Posts: 3027
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Daly City CA USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Tom Hunter

Admiral Laurent seems to be on to something, especially when Force Z is hunting submarines that it just happens to pass over.

Though I suspect fixing this would be either difficult or break some other aspect of submarine and ASW warfare.


That aspect of it has been mentioned before. I don't know exactly how the mechanics work. I don't know that because no one who does know bothers to tell us, or, if this information has been conveyed to the community it was during the year and a half I was off this board.

Whatever those mechanics are, they don't work very well. The result ingame is unacceptable.


(in reply to Tom Hunter)
Post #: 155
RE: Something has to be done about Allied ASW - 4/13/2005 1:21:53 AM   
Bradley7735


Posts: 2073
Joined: 7/12/2004
Status: offline 		Tris, are you sure Bonefish was the last sub lost in the war? I thought there was one more in July or August. I think it was only a few days before the war ended. But, I can't remember the sub's name. Bullhead or something like that.

I could be confused.

_____________________________

The older I get, the better I was.

(in reply to Tristanjohn)
Post #: 156
RE: Something has to be done about Allied ASW - 4/13/2005 1:42:45 AM   
Tristanjohn


Posts: 3027
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Daly City CA USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tom Hunter

I think it should be pointed out that later in the war the Americans did form sub hunting groups that attacked areas where the Japanese were known to be maintaining sub patrol lines.

These attacks were often very effective sinking a number of subs in a short period of days. ASW may be unrealistic in certain respects, or maybe just really hard to model accurately, but there were times where it was really deadly.


That's only from the Allied side. They developed the necessary technology and training and doctrine as the war went along.


Adding a bit - Cpt Johnny Walker RN was responsible for developing the "Support Group" ... as opposed to the independently operated group. The support group was kind of like an escort force with the mission of prosecuting the submarines ... versus the pure escort group ... which had the mission to protect the merchantmen. But the support group did not operate in a vacuum. They steamed near the convoy's and then went after the subs when they showed up. This technique was very much opposed by the admiralty - but CPT Walker succeeded in proving it out none-the-less. He did so during the period 1942-43. Then during late 43 these tactics were rolled out the to USN which had them available in 1944. In particular the "creeping attack" which used 3-4 ASW ships to attack one submarine - was a part of CPT Walker's tactics.

The independent ASW force was tried briefly - and unsuccessfully in the Atlantic ( at Admiral King's insistance ) in 1942 ... and not retried until 1944 when for example a group containing USS England proved that an indepedent group could provide useful service.

In game terms let the RN use ASW task forces in 1943, and let the USN use them in 1944.


Yes, his first opportunity came with HG76 (Gibraltar to Liverpool) in December of 1941. I was going to do a short piece on that convoy for the CHS project (HMS Audacity, which sailed in escort, had aboard some "Martlets," and the argument at the time over on the CHS AAR was whether these were Mark I/III's or Mark II's) but never got around to it. Walker's an interesting study, though, so maybe I will do the piece at that.

Re his tactics: for openers he arranged the escorts in two separate screens, forming an inner and an outer ring of protection. There's much more, of course. I'm not at home and so don't have my bookmarks in place or I'd provide a few informative links on this story. Here's one that I grabbed quick off Goodgle: Johnny Walker

That is not an especially reliable page. For instance, a quick read suggests Walker held the rank of Captain when this stuff happened, when in fact he was just a (passed-over at that) Commander, etc.

Anyway, Walker more or less invented the proactive ASW defense, at least an effective one. A kind of genius. And keep in mind this was still early in the war, before some of the more sophisticated ASW technology was available. (Have you read about how the ships he was escorting kept losing their heads? Also, Audacity was lost on that voyage, but would not have been in all likelihood had its skipper listened to Walker. )


(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 157
RE: Something has to be done about Allied ASW - 4/13/2005 1:44:20 AM   
Tristanjohn


Posts: 3027
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Daly City CA USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

Tris, are you sure Bonefish was the last sub lost in the war? I thought there was one more in July or August. I think it was only a few days before the war ended. But, I can't remember the sub's name. Bullhead or something like that.

I could be confused.


One of us must be wrong. No matter either way, look it up and get back to me.

(in reply to Bradley7735)
Post #: 158
RE: Something has to be done about Allied ASW - 4/13/2005 1:53:06 AM   
Bradley7735


Posts: 2073
Joined: 7/12/2004
Status: offline 		yup. Looked it up. (it's amazing what I can do with these newfangled computers).

USS Bullhead. Sunk August 6th 1945. It's listed as the last one sunk. Bonefish was sunk in June.

_____________________________

The older I get, the better I was.

(in reply to Tristanjohn)
Post #: 159
RE: Something has to be done about Allied ASW - 4/13/2005 1:58:32 AM   
Tristanjohn


Posts: 3027
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Daly City CA USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

Tris, are you sure Bonefish was the last sub lost in the war? I thought there was one more in July or August. I think it was only a few days before the war ended. But, I can't remember the sub's name. Bullhead or something like that.

I could be confused.


This site agrees with you, listing Bullhead as sunk 6 August 1945: USS Bullhead

As does this one: USS Bullhead 2

So, that takes care of that.


(in reply to Bradley7735)
Post #: 160
RE: Something has to be done about Allied ASW - 4/13/2005 2:06:37 AM   
Bombur

 

Posts: 3642
Joined: 7/2/2004
Status: offline

quote:


Bombur the only ships that regulary traveled fast enough to be impossible to torpedo were the 2 Queens Mary and Elizabeth. But they were built for high speed running the way a battleship was built for gun combat and they should not be used for comparison with other ships.


-Let me correct myself, I don´t think it´s impossible for subs to hit fast warships, but the historical records seem to prove it happened in relatively few instances (except for USA subs from 1944 onwards). What worries me is that, with the changes I introduced, it became too frequent. Don´t you think that 1 CA and 2 DD sunk in 20 days is too much? Compare it with the records of IJN subs for 1942 as a whole.

(in reply to Tom Hunter)
Post #: 161
RE: Something has to be done about Allied ASW - 4/13/2005 2:35:33 AM   
freeboy

 

Posts: 9088
Joined: 5/16/2004
From: Colorado
Status: offline 		Since I am actually playing a pbem game in 44, anyone else? I didn't think so, let me tell you jap subs are darn hard to sink in late war in open water, even with dedicated HK groups

(in reply to Bombur)
Post #: 162
RE: Something has to be done about Allied ASW - 4/13/2005 2:47:07 AM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: freeboy

Since I am actually playing a pbem game in 44, anyone else? I didn't think so, let me tell you jap subs are darn hard to sink in late war in open water, even with dedicated HK groups


Oh my ... Let me make they easier to sink for you! (hearing Ron punch a wall in Toronto)

(in reply to freeboy)
Post #: 163
RE: Something has to be done about Allied ASW - 4/13/2005 3:07:45 AM   
Bombur

 

Posts: 3642
Joined: 7/2/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: freeboy

Since I am actually playing a pbem game in 44, anyone else? I didn't think so, let me tell you jap subs are darn hard to sink in late war in open water, even with dedicated HK groups



-Strange, they are so easy to be sunk in earlier scenario, what about those depth charges with 30 accuracy? On the other hand, how many IJN subs did you sink up to now?


(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 164
RE: Something has to be done about Allied ASW - 4/13/2005 3:29:11 AM   
freeboy

 

Posts: 9088
Joined: 5/16/2004
From: Colorado
Status: offline 		a good amount, I think it dependson if they are shallow and moving, if movinghtey are VERY hard in deep water

(in reply to Bombur)
Post #: 165
RE: Something has to be done about Allied ASW - 4/13/2005 4:01:29 AM   
Bombur

 

Posts: 3642
Joined: 7/2/2004
Status: offline
-In that case, the troubles in sinking submarines in late game aren´t related to the lack of remaining subs?

(in reply to freeboy)
Post #: 166
RE: Something has to be done about Allied ASW - 4/13/2005 5:10:08 AM   
Culiacan Mexico

 

Posts: 8348
Joined: 11/10/2000
From: Bad Windsheim Germany
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus


quote:

ORIGINAL: Culiacan Mexico


Nikademus

---------------------------------

Would that then mean (Naval Ability):

A group of escorts with commanders in the 50’s searching for a submarine with a commander in the 50’s has an ‘X’ chance of finding and attacking, while the same escort seeking out a submarine with a commander in the 70’s change the equation significantly (x/2 or x/4)? Are they effects of this difference in leadership value actually greater than that? Is it possible that the differences in leaderships first affect the chance of detection then the ability of the submarine to evade/survive the attack. That would mean that any variation in abilities between the commanders would be squared: instead of x/2 or x/4 it would be x/4 or x/16.


A associate of mine insisted that his ASW was much more effective after replacing TF leaders with a better or high quality one. I ran some tests of my own but the results were inconclusive. Given what i've found in regards to the LCU model, I dont doubt that leaders 'can' have a big effect on ASW TF and sub TF effectiveness. Overall, leader ratings are the big "under the hood" modifyer because while their impact can be substantial, often their influence can be buried by all the other checks in the game or simply because the skill rating differences between the opposing sides are such that the impact isn't all that noticible.
My 'problem' with leader replacement helping Submarines is that I did at the same time as I upgraded to 1.4 and I started to pay more attention to ship experience. I made all these changes at the same time and found that my sub where not just road kill waiting for an American ship to run them down.

Some of the starting Japanese Submarines are not well trained and have fairly poor commanders (viewed in editor… low naval ability high aggression), which sounds like a very bad combination.

Ship leaders for APD, PG, PC, and MSW for the Japanese are generally Captain or below with ratings in the low fifties or below for Naval skill; and ship abilities are at or below 50. Having only played the Japanese side, I would guess that the American leaders and ships were not much better. So it would make sense that a well experience submarine crew (70’s) with a talented leader (Naval 70’s) should have a major advantage over an escort with limited experience (50) and a inexperienced Captain (50). I don’t know that it works that way, but it would make sense if it did.



Mogami – “Hi, Well in a system where everything is comparing one rating against another I think the ship ratings matter a lot. We know a ship (combat ship) is trained when it reaches 55. That means any ship with a rating below 55 is not yet fully trained. Expecting units to achive results when they are not fully trained that you would expect from fully trained is unfair to the unit and to the system that advised you at the start what fully trained was.”


< Message edited by Culiacan Mexico -- 4/13/2005 5:19:10 AM >

_____________________________

"If you love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lig

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 167
RE: Something has to be done about Allied ASW - 4/13/2005 5:12:15 AM   
freeboy

 

Posts: 9088
Joined: 5/16/2004
From: Colorado
Status: offline
quote:

In that case, the troubles in sinking submarines in late game aren´t related to the lack of remaining subs


I see them laying mines and being a nuisance, then I run over them, see them in the cr with never a hit

(in reply to Culiacan Mexico)
Post #: 168
RE: Something has to be done about Allied ASW - 4/13/2005 5:19:07 AM   
Culiacan Mexico

 

Posts: 8348
Joined: 11/10/2000
From: Bad Windsheim Germany
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Oznoyng
quote:

ORIGINAL: Culiacan Mexico
I send most of my Japanese submarines to base on turn one just to replace the ship commander with one that you describe: high naval ability, but low aggression.


I have not been sending my commanders back to change them out. I view the first turn movement bonus as an opportunity for the Japanese player to reshuffle his forces/deployments to fit his plan. I also view the early part of the war as the best time for the Japanese to catch unescorted ships.

Given my experiences so far, I expect that I will be RTB'ing my subs and replacing the commanders, if not on 12/7/41, then soon after.

I upgrade to 1.4, I started replacing poor commanders with very good ones, and I paid attention to the Submarines experience ratings. I have less boats sunk and actually have many returning to port for more torpedoes.

Caveat - This is only against the AI. I am not saying the present ASW subroutine works correctly or doesn’t work correctly; I am just speculating that with the current program Leadership and Ship Experience may be critical with the Submarine fleet… both areas I long ignored.


_____________________________

"If you love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lig

(in reply to Oznoyng)
Post #: 169
RE: Something has to be done about Allied ASW - 4/14/2005 12:09:46 AM   
sfbaytf

 

Posts: 1122
Joined: 4/13/2005
Status: offline 		Are there any plans to fix this issue? I looked at the 1.5 list of fixes and don't see anything regarding ASW over effectiveness. I'm surprised this wasn't caught by devs or QA folks.

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 170
RE: Something has to be done about Allied ASW - 4/14/2005 12:15:45 AM   
freeboy

 

Posts: 9088
Joined: 5/16/2004
From: Colorado
Status: offline 		OK, something like 10 asw attacks in a row without a hit in 44, so suck on lemons you bad boys out there talking about allied superiority!

(in reply to sfbaytf)
Post #: 171
RE: Something has to be done about Allied ASW - 4/16/2005 6:10:03 AM   
Tristanjohn


Posts: 3027
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Daly City CA USA
Status: offline 		The following link wil take you to an AAR report of yet another IJN submarine sunk in our PBEM game. The total of IJN boats sent to the bottom now stands at 21 through 15 June 1942.

This submarine had the temerity to try and attack a routine USN supply convoy. All those MSWs you see were being ferried from the west coast to the front, but they participated as well. And check out the hits on this poor boat: nine of them in all!

Anyway, here's the link for anyone with interest: IJN sub sunk

(in reply to freeboy)
Post #: 172
RE: Something has to be done about Allied ASW - 4/16/2005 6:40:59 AM   
Halsey

 

Posts: 5069
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline 		I thought Ron was back when this thread reappeared.

Ron come back, we need you!
This forum doesn't seem right without your insight!

_____________________________


(in reply to Tristanjohn)
Post #: 173
RE: Something has to be done about Allied ASW - 4/16/2005 6:49:55 AM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

The following link wil take you to an AAR report of yet another IJN submarine sunk in our PBEM game. The total of IJN boats sent to the bottom now stands at 21 through 15 June 1942.

This submarine had the temerity to try and attack a routine USN supply convoy. All those MSWs you see were being ferried from the west coast to the front, but they participated as well. And check out the hits on this poor boat: nine of them in all!

Anyway, here's the link for anyone with interest: IJN sub sunk



Hi, I have a PBEM game that has reached 9 May 1942.
Total number of submarines sunk to date (FOW) 3 Allied 1 Japanese. (1 Allied and the Japanese boat were sunk by bombs while in port)
Japanese submarines have sunk at least 11 Allied ships and damaged others. Allied submarines have sunk at least 4 ships and damaged a number of others.
There have been many encounters with submarines and escorts that produced no result.
At least 4 IJN Boats have been hit by DC and survived. (current most damaged boat has 19 sys and has been in repair yard for some time now.)
Another 10 or so Japanese ships have been damaged or sunk by mines laid by Allied submarines.
It is not that I am not seeing Allied submarines. I spot them and send ASW TF but they have been eluding me or my ASW has been unable to hit them. Japanese submarines have been quite good at being gone the turn after they attack.
I think Lee has been very busy training his boats for the future.

< Message edited by Mogami -- 4/16/2005 6:52:29 AM >

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Tristanjohn)
Post #: 174
RE: Something has to be done about Allied ASW - 4/16/2005 6:53:30 AM   
Tristanjohn


Posts: 3027
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Daly City CA USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

The following link wil take you to an AAR report of yet another IJN submarine sunk in our PBEM game. The total of IJN boats sent to the bottom now stands at 21 through 15 June 1942.

This submarine had the temerity to try and attack a routine USN supply convoy. All those MSWs you see were being ferried from the west coast to the front, but they participated as well. And check out the hits on this poor boat: nine of them in all!

Anyway, here's the link for anyone with interest: IJN sub sunk



Hi, I have a PBEM game that has reached 9 May 1942.
Total number of submarines sunk to date (FOW) 3 Allied 1 Japanese. (1 Allied and the Japanese boat were sunk by bombs while in port)
Japanese submarines have sunk at least 11 Allied ships and damaged others. Allied submarines have sunk at least 4 ships and damaged a number of others.
There have been many encounters with submarines and escorts that produced no result.
At least 4 IJN Boats have been hit by DC and survived. (current most damaged boat has 19 sys and has been in repair yard for some time now.)


All that tells us is that, quite typically for Grigsby's games, the results his models give are all over the map! That is hardly a good thing, indeed, it is just one more benchmark of a bad model.

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 175
RE: Something has to be done about Allied ASW - 4/16/2005 6:58:21 AM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Hi, I think it shows that players are not restricted in how they play GG games and the results follow the play styles to a great extent.

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Tristanjohn)
Post #: 176
RE: Something has to be done about Allied ASW - 4/16/2005 7:09:44 AM   
freeboy

 

Posts: 9088
Joined: 5/16/2004
From: Colorado
Status: offline 		It is 08 44 in our pbem.. whenjap suvs are moving it is almost impossible to get contacts, and then hard to get hits... I think I sunk one out of 25+ contacts and maybe 12 attacks

I agree with Mogami on this one

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 177
RE: Something has to be done about Allied ASW - 4/16/2005 8:41:00 AM   
jwilkerson


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

ORIGINAL: Halsey

I thought Ron was back when this thread reappeared.

Ron come back, we need you!
This forum doesn't seem right without your insight!



I think Ron has beat his head against the wall on this one so many times its sore - that's kinda how my head feels - what's the point of introducing the same facts over and over again - when they're ignored -over and over again ?

I just wish we wouldn't blame the players when the model is so obviously broke - but we do - over and over.


(in reply to Halsey)
Post #: 178
RE: Something has to be done about Allied ASW - 4/16/2005 9:08:55 AM   
Tristanjohn


Posts: 3027
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Daly City CA USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, I think it shows that players are not restricted in how they play GG games and the results follow the play styles to a great extent.


Play styles would affect the results, no doubt about that. But it's possible to eliminate this factor easily enough by simply running tests. I haven't bothered to because I already know from my play in the game so far, a game which is being conducted soberly and reasonably by two mature wargamers and is not some willy-nilly affair, that the ASW model needs work. And from what I've seen thus far plenty of it, too.

I forgot to ask Chez this turn what his mortality rate has been on submarine attacks, but as I noted in a previous post it must be running on the order of 70% if not higher still. And again, the majority of these kills by the USN have been when his I-boats (mostly) have attacked my supply convoys, which are, to repeat myself, escorted by just three or four destroyers as a rule. In all of these attacks on my supply convoys he has managed to sink just one AP.

In this example I just gave, only two of the destroyers had night experience ratings of 55 or greater (in fact both of those destroyers had ratings of exactly 55), the other had a rating of 52, the DMS a rating of 47, and the MSWs were rated anywhere from 34-41. And nine hits were recorded on his I-boat.

That's a sad story, Russ.


(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 179
RE: Something has to be done about Allied ASW - 4/16/2005 9:45:39 AM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Hi, Sometimes things get lost in the translation. I'm not against changing formula I am against changing them just to get them to produce a set result no matter the cirumstance.
Just because 38 USN subs were lost in the Pacific does not mean the USN has to lose 38 in WITP. It certainly does not mean he has to lose 76 either.
Submarines are not supposed to engage enemy ASW. (sinking the DD before it spots you is fine but a submarine should not make an attack when it is clear that if it does it will under go DC attacks)
In WITP I find it is 33 perecnt in a ASW action. (roughly) 33 percent of the time my sub gets away unharmed. 33 percent it gets hit but survives (now it depends on how close the nearest size 3 port is) and 33 percent of the time my sub is lost. This is only when an actual ASW attack takes place. Quite often there is no attack but if I leave the sub in the hex the following turn the odds get worse.

If in my PBEM games there was a steady result that for each submarine lost a set number of enemy ships were sunk in return it would be easier to make an informed judgement however in some games enemy submarines are sunk for no return while in others fewer subs are lost but they are sinking escorted Japanese ships.

I have a game where 14 USN boats have been lost for 11 sinkings and another where 5 USN boats have been sunk but have accounted for 21 Japanese ships sunk. (there are of course damaged USn boats and damaged Japanese ships as well)

The point here is that 1 player got 2x the results with 1/3 the cost when compared to the other. (I seem to be pretty steady at 3 enemy ships sunk for each sub I lose) My farthest games are Brady and Ron. (Aug 42) Brady has lost about the same number of boats as Ron but has done 10x the damage. (Brady has sunk a large number of Japanese ships with his boats often by laying mines) Brady has also operated in "no mans land" while Ron stays inside Japanese ASW. Japanese results are almost exactly alike. (I've lost less then half their number while sinking about the same number of enemy ships in both games. But then it was the same starting file and Japanese submarine Ops were the same in both games)

There is no denying it that WITP kills submarines. So the questions that need answers are

1. Are there circumstance where a submarine will almost always be detected and attacked
2. Are there circumstance when a submarine will almost always evade detection.
3. By what degree are these circumstance different (how do you go from never being detected to almost certain detection)

Because if submarines are detected they will be attacked and if they are attacked they will be hit. If a submarine is attacked and hit often enough it will be sunk.

If there are more attacks in WITP compared to the actual war, WHY?
Never mind DC ratings the first step is detecting the submarine. Why are so many players having boats found in the first place?
What are players who lose fewer boats while sinking as many (or more) enemy ships doing differently? Why do these players get these results all the time?


< Message edited by Mogami -- 4/16/2005 9:47:58 AM >

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Tristanjohn)
Post #: 180
Page:   <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: Something has to be done about Allied ASW Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
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

3.422