subs still broken

[trojan58]

At the risk of starting a arguement.


"SUB's as they stand are still broken. They are far too easy to spot. Any sub commander worth his salt stayed dived during the day and only surfaced at night to move around his patrol area and charge batteries. As they are the best thing the japanese can do with there subs is keep them in port and stop all new construction and use the build points for something usefull. Subs only give your opponent cheap and easy to obtain victory points.[:@][:@][:@]

[Ron Saueracker]

[:D]

[Sardaukar]

There is a way to mod it so that subs won't get hit as much by aircraft. That is to add air-search radar to them. But unfortunately it doesn't help (IMHO, haven't tested it under 1.795beta) with excess sightings.

[aletoledo]

really? so far in 1.795 I've found the results acceptable. I think I've lost one sub to depth charging and about 5 or 6 damaged (but returned to repair yards). I don't think any of mine have been hit by airplanes.

this is however considering that I keep them close to japanese waters. the allies have probably lost 3 subs and 7-8 damaged in the same time period and thats operating right under my nose!

[dereck]

ORIGINAL: trojan

At the risk of starting a arguement.


"SUB's as they stand are still broken. They are far too easy to spot. Any sub commander worth his salt stayed dived during the day and only surfaced at night to move around his patrol area and charge batteries. As they are the best thing the japanese can do with there subs is keep them in port and stop all new construction and use the build points for something usefull. Subs only give your opponent cheap and easy to obtain victory points.[:@][:@][:@]

Actually when newer, younger and more aggressive American sub commanders took over they tended to stay surfaced as much as possible and usually only submerged when they had run ahead of the convoy they were shadowing and had put themselves into an attack position. A submarine has a much lower profile and they could stay just beyond the horizon and out of sight of the convoys while using their periscopes raised on the surface to see and track the convoy without being seen.

They found out early that with extra spotters on the conning tower and their radar they could spot planes in the distance and the US subs could submerge at a very fast rate (faster than the comparable Japanese subs) so they could usually submerge before the aircraft could attack.

[Ron Saueracker]

The problem is bigger than just DL of subs and treating subs like they are surface ships to the point where they are spotted up to a dozen times in a phase and even if not attacked, their DL will be so high they will never attack themselves and will be lit up like a circus if an escort is in the hex. It is the search pattern which allows every plane in a group to search out to its maximum range, but instead of assuming triangular segments are being searched by one plane, and having the number of planes flying determine the number of segments being searched (more planes on search, the smaller the segments, more efficient search and improved sighting), EACH PLANE IS ALLOWED TO SEARCH OUT TO ITS MAXIMUM RANGE FOR A FULL 360 DEGREES, WITH EACH PLANE GETTING A ROLL TO SEE IF ANYTHING IS VISIBLE IN EACH HEX WITHIN THE CIRCLE!!! This is really screwing things and lighting ships and subs up to the point where there is no place to hide and little FOW.

[dereck]

I'm not saying there is or isn't a programming problem Ron. As is well known I only play the AI and the problem I'VE had to deal with is me (the human) not being able to spot the Japanese ships while the AI seems to be able to spot all mine like they had transponders for them.

I'm not denying you make a valid point there. All I was saying was that, for the most part, American submarines stayed on the surface as much as possible. Of course if they were close to land and an air base I would assume they'd be submerged for safety (though with skippers like Dick O'Kane who knows).

Someone in an earlier thread brought up putting SD radar on submarines (which, despite some crys to the contrary) American subs (at least) had even before surface radar. I believe he said that it either cut down the number of sightings or number of attacks. It's been a while so I'm fuzzy on that. It may not be a solution you are looking for (a code change for the search routines) but if MAY be a database change that can be made in scenarios for those who want to maybe alleviate the sub search problem that way.

Here is something I posted earlier on the old Balao sub thread that has devices on US subs and when available:

[niceguy2005]

I haven't had any trouble with this. Seems to work fine.

And submerged subs can be spotted by aircraft.

[Erik Rutins]

The beta has more sightings than previously, but subs are actually less vulnerable in my testing than in previous versions. Sighting != Damage != Sunk Sub. Getting concerned with the number of sightings is well and good, but that's as far as the problem goes in my experience. Subs themselves are not broken.

Regards,

- Erik

[dereck]

The problem I have with the new ASW routine is that in the game I had going since February 2005 and finally quit when I had got into April 1945 was that I had purposely reduced the effectiveness of depth charges in the editor to where, though I did lose submarines it was at a pretty much historic rate.

After patching up to 1.795 NONE of my submarines survived an ASW attack by ships. Attacks they would have survived before suddenly gave them 30+ float and/or sys damage and very few ever managed to make it back to port without sinking.

I never figured out just why the power of an ASW attack would go so far to one extreme when I specifically changed it in my editor and never had this problem for months (of playing 12 hours a day at times) until 1.795 and the new ASW routines. In the new game I've started I reduced the depth charge effectiveness even more and just hope that I can achieve a happy medium without being affected by another obvious code change somewhere down the line.

[Erik Rutins]

Dereck,

ORIGINAL: dereck
The problem I have with the new ASW routine is that in the game I had going since February 2005 and finally quit when I had got into April 1945 was that I had purposely reduced the effectiveness of depth charges in the editor to where, though I did lose submarines it was at a pretty much historic rate.

After patching up to 1.795 NONE of my submarines survived an ASW attack by ships. Attacks they would have survived before suddenly gave them 30+ float and/or sys damage and very few ever managed to make it back to port without sinking.

I never figured out just why the power of an ASW attack would go so far to one extreme when I specifically changed it in my editor and never had this problem for months (of playing 12 hours a day at times) until 1.795 and the new ASW routines. In the new game I've started I reduced the depth charge effectiveness even more and just hope that I can achieve a happy medium without being affected by another obvious code change somewhere down the line.

Unfortunately, I can't speak to how the new routines might interact with any data changes outside the default as we only tested them with the normal database. I know that some of the depth charge data is non-intuitive in terms of how it is used by the game, so perhaps something that you tweaked actually was seen as making them more effective by the new code. Did you try v1.795 with the default data files and experience the same results?

Regards,

- Erik

[el cid again]

"SUB's as they stand are still broken. They are far too easy to spot. Any sub commander worth his salt stayed dived during the day and only surfaced at night to move around his patrol area and charge batteries. As they are the best thing the japanese can do with there subs is keep them in port and stop all new construction and use the build points for something usefull. Subs only give your opponent cheap and easy to obtain victory poi

First of all, my experience is that Japanese subs are deadly - one player said I "use them like SSNs" - if I cripple a carrier I will sink it with a sub.
As happened to USS Yorktown - under orders - not an accident.

Second, German and US subs did like to stay surfaced (until it became fatal for German subs - and we would have done the same thing in like conditions). Submerging meant the subs became almost useless - and very slow. I have a snorkel that helps - but I force the subs to be slow if they use it. Which is correct.

Third, proper ASW is hard, but mostly a function of resources. Even Japan was up to this - when they got a shot at USS Wahoo (which they hated) she never had a chance against a coordinated air-sea campaign. This is not that wrong - IF a player devotes a lot of air and backs it up - subs should have trouble! I also think Ron is incorrect - but I would like to know why he writes each plane searches each hex? I think it is the squadron that does - at least I never send out just one plane! The planes don't do much but set up the other units - and suck operations points from the sub - and that sounds correct to me.

Finally, I do NOT like the sub routines because I have too little control over how they operate. But it is not totally busted either - and I can use them with deadly effect.

[dereck]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Dereck,

Unfortunately, I can't speak to how the new routines might interact with any data changes outside the default as we only tested them with the normal database. I know that some of the depth charge data is non-intuitive in terms of how it is used by the game, so perhaps something that you tweaked actually was seen as making them more effective by the new code. Did you try v1.795 with the default data files and experience the same results?

Regards,

- Erik

Not to appear rude but 1.795 is a patch I'm staying away from like it has the plague. It wouldn't be so bad if the games people like me (who only play the AI) could be edited during play to try to recify these things, but since they can't I'm not going to invest time in a patch version that seemed to create as many new bugs as it tried to fix. I started a new game but it's under 1.3 and I'm waiting for 1.8 to come out and for reviews of how it did before I upgrade again.

[Erik Rutins]

Dereck,

ORIGINAL: dereck
Not to appear rude but 1.795 is a patch I'm staying away from like it has the plague. It wouldn't be so bad if the games people like me (who only play the AI) could be edited during play to try to recify these things, but since they can't I'm not going to invest time in a patch version that seemed to create as many new bugs as it tried to fix. I started a new game but it's under 1.3 and I'm waiting for 1.8 to come out and for reviews of how it did before I upgrade again.

Er... in your previous post you mentioned that you were running 1.795, hence my question. No problem if you'd rather not run it as it's a beta with bugs, but I can't really speak to your point without info on what you see with 1.795 + default data, which seems to be working in my testing as far as ASW balance.

Regards,

- Erik

[dereck]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Dereck,

ORIGINAL: dereck
Not to appear rude but 1.795 is a patch I'm staying away from like it has the plague. It wouldn't be so bad if the games people like me (who only play the AI) could be edited during play to try to recify these things, but since they can't I'm not going to invest time in a patch version that seemed to create as many new bugs as it tried to fix. I started a new game but it's under 1.3 and I'm waiting for 1.8 to come out and for reviews of how it did before I upgrade again.

Er... in your previous post you mentioned that you were running 1.795, hence my question. No problem if you'd rather not run it as it's a beta with bugs, but I can't really speak to your point without info on what you see with 1.795 + default data, which seems to be working in my testing as far as ASW balance.

Regards,

- Erik

In the game I started last February I HAD upgraded to 1.795 because I got hit by the pilot replacement bug and was forced to upgrade if I wanted to keep the game going. Sorry for the confusion. All I can say is that since I started that game under version 1.00 and upgraded the same game as I played through to 1.795 - and played as many as 7 turns a day - I may have noticed changes that others who may have restarted their games when new patches came out didn't. This ASW was one item which I noticed and which after trying to deal with eventually forced me to just give up on the one game.

The NEW game I've started has been started under 1.3 and I "hope" to be able to upgrade to 1.8 and not have any need for further upgrades but we'll see.

I know this may be an unrealistic "wish" but if the fields in the database could be explained sufficiently so that people could make informed changes to the data that would be nice. Sometimes you make a change and just hope it works and won't find out until you've invested months in the game.

[BLUESBOB]

This reminds me of something that happened in my Navy days. I was on a DDG. We were in route to P.I., somewhere between Pearl and Guam when a lookout reported a contact on the horizon (about 12+ miles?). After confirming with others, the OOD came about and we headed toward the contact at full speed. Turns out it was an American sub cruising on the surface. We suprised the hell out of them because their lookouts never spotted us, although we were a larger target. The sub never showed up on the radar screens. Other than seeing subs at dock, or pulling into or out of bases, that's the only time I ever saw a submarine.

[KDonovan]

like Eric says...i don't believe the subs routine's are broken. In my PBEM, i've lost only 2 subs (1 to DC and 1 air attack) and 3 heavily damaged in 3 months of warfare. And this was with heavy use of my subs. On the other hand my oppenant, with little use of his subs, i've only significantly damaged 3...and sunk none. So that seems about right to me.

Combat replay report of sub sighting is defintley bothersome though...but just hitting a letter on the keyboard speeds of the process

[Nomad]

The only problem with using the letter key to avoid the air search sub contacts is that you also avoid all the other air search contacts( you know, like KB bearing down on you [:D] )

[Ron Saueracker]

It's the search routines that are off, Erik. Subs are more detectable than surface TFs. Real simple issue. Apollo even has a test which shows just how vulnerable to sighting subs are to even one single aircraft. As for the surface ship vs sub ASW routines I am a big fan of what you guys did given the scale, and that takes some doing to satisfy a p---k like me.[;)]

[Tophat1815]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

The beta has more sightings than previously, but subs are actually less vulnerable in my testing than in previous versions. Sighting != Damage != Sunk Sub. Getting concerned with the number of sightings is well and good, but that's as far as the problem goes in my experience. Subs themselves are not broken.

Regards,

- Erik

You are 100% correct,subs are regularly depth-charged but suffer much less damage than in other builds. If Ron S. actually played the 1.795beta he'd even have to force himself to continue his unending bitching about the games ASW model.[:D]