Dear USN Sub Commanders,
Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition
- Admiral DadMan
- Posts: 3366
- Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2002 10:00 am
- Location: A Lion uses all its might to catch a Rabbit
Dear USN Sub Commanders,
YOU HAD NEARLY 20 FAT, JUICY, OIL CARRYING SHIPS TO SHOOT AT. WHY THE FLIP ARE YOU SHOOTING AT A LITTLE FLIPPING ESCORT?!?!?!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[font="Courier New"]Sub attack near Saishu To at 96,57
Japanese Ships
E Hiyodori
DD Hagikaze
E Hayabusa
E Otori
E Hachijo
AV Kamikawa Maru
AV Akitsushima
AO Teibo
AO Sata
AO Notoro
AO Hayamoto
AO Erimo
TK Eisho Maru
TK Amato Maru
TK Gyoshin Maru
TK Bushu Maru
TK Kenwa Maru
TK Kyokuho Maru
TK Kurogane Maru
TK Hofuku Maru
TK Toa Maru
TK Tatibana Maru
TK San Clemente Maru
TK Nissyo Maru
TK Hakko Maru
DD Suresushio
DD Katsutade
DD Shikinami
DD Hibiki
Allied Ships
SS Runner, hits 5
SS Runner launches 2 torpedoes at E Hiyodori
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack near Takao at 83,64
Japanese Ships
DD Michishio
xAK Shikano Maru
xAK Sanuki Maru
xAK Kosin Maru
xAK Somedono Maru
xAK Nanko Maru
xAK Syohei Maru
xAK Mogamigawa Maru
xAK Yamazuki Maru
xAK Kenyo Maru
xAK Akiura Maru
DD Arashio
Allied Ships
SS Mingo, hits 2
SS Mingo launches 2 torpedoes at DD Michishio
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack near Torishima at 107,66
Japanese Ships
E W-26
xAP Hoten Maru
xAP Suwa Maru
xAP Katori Maru
E Nasami
Allied Ships
SS Tambor, hits 2, heavy damage
SS Tambor launches 2 torpedoes at E W-26[/font]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[font="Courier New"]Sub attack near Saishu To at 96,57
Japanese Ships
E Hiyodori
DD Hagikaze
E Hayabusa
E Otori
E Hachijo
AV Kamikawa Maru
AV Akitsushima
AO Teibo
AO Sata
AO Notoro
AO Hayamoto
AO Erimo
TK Eisho Maru
TK Amato Maru
TK Gyoshin Maru
TK Bushu Maru
TK Kenwa Maru
TK Kyokuho Maru
TK Kurogane Maru
TK Hofuku Maru
TK Toa Maru
TK Tatibana Maru
TK San Clemente Maru
TK Nissyo Maru
TK Hakko Maru
DD Suresushio
DD Katsutade
DD Shikinami
DD Hibiki
Allied Ships
SS Runner, hits 5
SS Runner launches 2 torpedoes at E Hiyodori
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack near Takao at 83,64
Japanese Ships
DD Michishio
xAK Shikano Maru
xAK Sanuki Maru
xAK Kosin Maru
xAK Somedono Maru
xAK Nanko Maru
xAK Syohei Maru
xAK Mogamigawa Maru
xAK Yamazuki Maru
xAK Kenyo Maru
xAK Akiura Maru
DD Arashio
Allied Ships
SS Mingo, hits 2
SS Mingo launches 2 torpedoes at DD Michishio
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack near Torishima at 107,66
Japanese Ships
E W-26
xAP Hoten Maru
xAP Suwa Maru
xAP Katori Maru
E Nasami
Allied Ships
SS Tambor, hits 2, heavy damage
SS Tambor launches 2 torpedoes at E W-26[/font]
- Bullwinkle58
- Posts: 11297
- Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:47 pm
- Capt Hornblower
- Posts: 244
- Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 4:09 pm
- Location: Massachusetts, USA
RE: Dear USN Sub Commanders,
I'd say it's cuz the 9 escorts were doing their job, keeping the subs at bay. (Were these attacks made at night or during the day?)
- Admiral DadMan
- Posts: 3366
- Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2002 10:00 am
- Location: A Lion uses all its might to catch a Rabbit
RE: Dear USN Sub Commanders,
Night shots, May/June 1943.ORIGINAL: Capt Hornblower
I'd say it's cuz the 9 escorts were doing their job, keeping the subs at bay. (Were these attacks made at night or during the day?)
I'm going to give it until June 1944 before I really start getting ticked off.
- Bullwinkle58
- Posts: 11297
- Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:47 pm
RE: Dear USN Sub Commanders,
ORIGINAL: Admiral DadMan
Night shots, May/June 1943.ORIGINAL: Capt Hornblower
I'd say it's cuz the 9 escorts were doing their job, keeping the subs at bay. (Were these attacks made at night or during the day?)
I'm going to give it until June 1944 before I really start getting ticked off.
It doesn't really change. I think the escort/no escort is a coefficient of some kind, modified by a small random or randoms. I've tried all kinds of CO stats, boat classes, deep versus shallow, etc. and I don't see any trend lines. The escort attack rate is HUGE versus history. Enough to get the COs relieved if it had happened in RL. You just have to deal with the fact the sub war will never be very historical.
The Moose
RE: Dear USN Sub Commanders,
Always has and always will be the case. Sorry. I don't think any American commander should expect to win the war with his subs. I pretty much bitched this one to death in the early days of the game, but not much was done to fix targeting. I doubt at this stage you will ever see anything different from what we have now. You are just going to have to find your pleasure elsewhere.[;)]
I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.
Sigismund of Luxemburg
Sigismund of Luxemburg
RE: Dear USN Sub Commanders,
At least DaBabes fixed it for partial shots instead of six bow shots with each firing. That is about as positive of message as I can give...
Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.
- Bullwinkle58
- Posts: 11297
- Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:47 pm
RE: Dear USN Sub Commanders,
ORIGINAL: John 3rd
At least DaBabes fixed it for partial shots instead of six bow shots with each firing. That is about as positive of message as I can give...
I don't think I've ever run out of torpedoes before I ran out of fuel.
The Moose
- Admiral DadMan
- Posts: 3366
- Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2002 10:00 am
- Location: A Lion uses all its might to catch a Rabbit
RE: Dear USN Sub Commanders,
I thought that I remembered that USN subs were working ok during development. I can't find my notes about it.
I went dark soon after release, and didn't come back until about a 18 months ago. I can say that they are not working as they should, at least from an historical context. The Allied player should be able to start having a major impact in the shipping lanes by late 1943. Even with crap torps, USN subs did considerable damage.
As memory serves, there was concern in alpha/beta about USN subs breaking the game from 1944 onward. So perhaps that is why USN subs are behaving as they are.
IJN subs are crazy effective unless you ASW them to death. They scare the hell out of me, as they should.
Sorry for the rant. It must mean I'm enjoying the hell out of myself.
I went dark soon after release, and didn't come back until about a 18 months ago. I can say that they are not working as they should, at least from an historical context. The Allied player should be able to start having a major impact in the shipping lanes by late 1943. Even with crap torps, USN subs did considerable damage.
As memory serves, there was concern in alpha/beta about USN subs breaking the game from 1944 onward. So perhaps that is why USN subs are behaving as they are.
IJN subs are crazy effective unless you ASW them to death. They scare the hell out of me, as they should.
Sorry for the rant. It must mean I'm enjoying the hell out of myself.
RE: Dear USN Sub Commanders,
ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
ORIGINAL: John 3rd
At least DaBabes fixed it for partial shots instead of six bow shots with each firing. That is about as positive of message as I can give...
I don't think I've ever run out of torpedoes before I ran out of fuel.
Jocke just had a sub fire something like 12 torpedoes during a surface fight with one of my AK's. They all missed, and then the sub ate an 8cm shell hit to boot![;)]
I think it takes a lot of clicks and work and observation to make subs work somewhat better,but they do seem to target the escorts a lot. I can only imagine how much more clicks per turn that would take in 1944 and 1945 for the Allies.
Certainly using subs somewhat historically you get subpar results.
RE: Dear USN Sub Commanders,
ORIGINAL: Admiral DadMan
IJN subs are crazy effective unless you ASW them to death. They scare the hell out of me, as they should.
I am hearing that a lot lately.
RE: Dear USN Sub Commanders,
I recall that PACWAR allowed you to set a target priority, pity this didnt come along as the game evolved.
PS I'm sure the IJB subs could be softened a bit if the ratings are looked at and edited.
PS I'm sure the IJB subs could be softened a bit if the ratings are looked at and edited.
Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum
RE: Dear USN Sub Commanders,
ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
ORIGINAL: John 3rd
At least DaBabes fixed it for partial shots instead of six bow shots with each firing. That is about as positive of message as I can give...
I don't think I've ever run out of torpedoes before I ran out of fuel.
Mine run out of torpedoes on occasion. It's rare, though. I also tend to use pretty small PZs.
ORIGINAL: Lowpe
ORIGINAL: Admiral DadMan
IJN subs are crazy effective unless you ASW them to death. They scare the hell out of me, as they should.
I am hearing that a lot lately.
I really think it's a function of crew experience and it being compared to late war Allied ASW - check the manual on the multipliers, and check what the Allied crew experience is at the start. Also, the actual ASW devices themselves in the early war are really awful.
Aside from the super-E's (which DBB and Andy's database changes fixed), how often do IJN depth charges actually sink an Allied submarine? How often do Allied depth charges actually sink an IJN submarine? A USN sub might have to return to base after an attack and the ensuing ASW due to maybe one hit, whereas an IJN submarine that gets hit usually gets finished off once the Allied war machine has ramped up. But people see that, or remember that from their last game, and then start a new one where the Allied ASW is really crappy by comparison, and well...
- Bullwinkle58
- Posts: 11297
- Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:47 pm
RE: Dear USN Sub Commanders,
ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
Aside from the super-E's (which DBB and Andy's database changes fixed), how often do IJN depth charges actually sink an Allied submarine? How often do Allied depth charges actually sink an IJN submarine? A USN sub might have to return to base after an attack and the ensuing ASW due to maybe one hit, whereas an IJN submarine that gets hit usually gets finished off once the Allied war machine has ramped up. But people see that, or remember that from their last game, and then start a new one where the Allied ASW is really crappy by comparison, and well...
In our game in April 1944, when I have used my subs in places they aren't safe, you have sunk 16 by DC. (The most-productive device for you. Mines are one, and air-dropped bombs and torpedoes are only a handful more.) The DC bag is low by historical standards as that includes a bunch of Dutch. And I'm fine with it, if only they were more productive. When the code prevents multi-ship attacks per encounter, having them also over-target escorts just makes them a relative non-factor in the strategic picture of the war.
The Moose
- geofflambert
- Posts: 14887
- Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 2:18 pm
- Location: St. Louis
RE: Dear USN Sub Commanders,
I think this is perhaps well modeled. In a circumstance like the one given the sub commander sometimes opts for self defense. On the other flipper, if he spots a CV and isn't willing to risk the ship to get her, that would be an offense appropriate to a court-martial.
- geofflambert
- Posts: 14887
- Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 2:18 pm
- Location: St. Louis
RE: Dear USN Sub Commanders,
Did I say "on the other flipper"? Oops. Obviously I meant "in the other claw".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azEOeTX1LqM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azEOeTX1LqM
- HansBolter
- Posts: 7191
- Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 12:30 pm
- Location: United States
RE: Dear USN Sub Commanders,
ORIGINAL: geofflambert
I think this is perhaps well modeled. In a circumstance like the one given the sub commander sometimes opts for self defense. On the other flipper, if he spots a CV and isn't willing to risk the ship to get her, that would be an offense appropriate to a court-martial.
Yes, but that is also highly situational.
In the example provided by the OP with 9 escorts shepherding 18 charges I can understand it would be difficult for the sub to get into position for a firing solution on a fat target without having to deal with one of the escorts.
In a situation where one escort is assigned to shepherd 12 charges, the sub would have a far better change of getting into position without having to deal with the escort.
I have no idea if the targeting algorithm is sophisticated enough to assess an escort/escorted ratio to provide a modicum of situational variability, but it sure doesn't seem like it.
Hans
RE: Dear USN Sub Commanders,
ORIGINAL: HansBolter
ORIGINAL: geofflambert
I think this is perhaps well modeled. In a circumstance like the one given the sub commander sometimes opts for self defense. On the other flipper, if he spots a CV and isn't willing to risk the ship to get her, that would be an offense appropriate to a court-martial.
Yes, but that is also highly situational.
In the example provided by the OP with 9 escorts shepherding 18 charges I can understand it would be difficult for the sub to get into position for a firing solution on a fat target without having to deal with one of the escorts.
In a situation where one escort is assigned to shepherd 12 charges, the sub would have a far better change of getting into position without having to deal with the escort.
I have no idea if the targeting algorithm is sophisticated enough to assess an escort/escorted ratio to provide a modicum of situational variability, but it sure doesn't seem like it.
I don't think it does, really. I mean, more escorts should mean the escorts have a better chance of sighting the sub before it can attack.
However, I think once you reach a certain point (like 3-5 escorts for any size of convoy), escorts get attacked far more than they should and the rate doesn't really vary.
RE: Dear USN Sub Commanders,
I do not see anything odd in this attack,
The American commander went for the Warships, instead of the unarmed cargo ship on a peaceful mission for humanity.
I take it the commander is now counting the dents in his sub, and pumping water.
And the name of the sub was not a big inspiration for the crew as well.
Next shipment will be tankers full of sunscreen for the troops as they are now sunbathing 7 months on the beaches of tropical islands.
[8D]
The American commander went for the Warships, instead of the unarmed cargo ship on a peaceful mission for humanity.
I take it the commander is now counting the dents in his sub, and pumping water.
And the name of the sub was not a big inspiration for the crew as well.
Next shipment will be tankers full of sunscreen for the troops as they are now sunbathing 7 months on the beaches of tropical islands.
[8D]
DR
RE: Dear USN Sub Commanders,
that's a massive IJ convoy, given the # of escorts, so let's drop some several mines at its point of origin.