ASV Mk III radar

This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

adarbrauner
Posts: 1510
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 3:40 am
Location: Zichron Yaaqov, Israel; Before, Treviso, Italy

RE: ASV Mk III radar

Post by adarbrauner »

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
ORIGINAL: witpqs

99% of it is hindsight available to a Japan player and their (wise in-game) decision to use many assets for ASW which were never used that way.

Certain unhistorical performance issues were fixed in Babes - notably the way the Japanese E class performed due to the way the game algorithms function - and those fixes might have been propagated back into stock. Not certain about that last point.

I disagree that 99% of it is that. Japan had no chance of vastly increasing their ASW effort. They had neither the domestic electronics capability nor the shipbuilding capacity to build the fleet of 25kt ASW ships they needed to fight 20kt night surface end-around tactics with radar guidance.

If there is one, single game aspect that nerfs the Allied sub war it is the use of surface-model DL on subs that can submerge. I constantly get 10/10 DLs on subs 250-300 miles out at sea, and the detection is good for the whole turn, not the mere minutes it took a detected sub to clear datum. Subs in air ASW zones patrolled in the day at PD. Not on the surface. And they had air search radar that gave them dive time that allowed them to disappear if detected (rare.)

The shallow water penalty is also too severe. And attacking subs shoot at small escorts far too often. But it's the DL that makes the subs essentially worthless.
99% of it in the game. If a player does not play with that benefit of hindsight - does not do those things - then the game does a decent job vis a vis history.


I tend to agree with both witpqs and Bullwinkle;

yes, if the Japanese player shall employ (or better, disemploy) the real faulty Japanese ASW tactics and resources etc, he's bound to disastrous results close to those obtained IRL.

Try it to have confirmation.

For example, in my games, I try to stick with a self rule not to employ Army air groups in permanent maritime roles;

add to this limitation to the convoy system usage, and ENJOY (not really for Japan) the results;

On the other side, I feel the remark of Bullwinkle regarding detection of subs.

As a future correction, for the perspective WITPAE 2, I'd think at a command option for subs to keep submerged during the day - with all the resulting consequences, both in much lower detection, but also much slower speed and movement during day phase and lower target detection and/or capabilty to catch on with it.
spence
Posts: 5419
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2003 6:56 am
Location: Vancouver, Washington

RE: ASV Mk III radar

Post by spence »

As a future correction, for the perspective WITPAE 2, I'd think at a command option for subs to keep submerged during the day - with all the resulting consequences, both in much lower detection, but also much slower speed and movement during day phase and lower target detection and/or capabilty to catch on with it.

I have little knowledge of hydrophone technology in the 1940s but it seems that have read that submarines were able to detect the passage of ships within several dozen miles (or more) by the sound of their propellers and that they were also able to distinguish between between warships (including size) and merchants. Thus although they might indeed stay submerged and lose their ability to move fast a commander might also decide that the target(s) detected by their hydrophone operator were worth pursuing on the surface even if enemy aircraft might be present.

Thus the tactical aspect of the game would become quite complex if some assignment of tactical priorities for submarine commanders became a decision that the player had to make on an individual submarine patrol.
User avatar
Barb
Posts: 2503
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 7:17 am
Location: Bratislava, Slovakia

RE: ASV Mk III radar

Post by Barb »

As far as I know (and have read several WWII sub books and patrol reports), every skipper has its own "doctrine" - some preferred to patrol on the surface (movement increasing searched area, scope being up and high increased visible area, frequent radar sweeps). Other skippers preferred "low profile" approach - move into area in darkness, submerge for a day, keep just minimal submerged navigable speed, scope observations every 15 minutes, radar observations only from time to time.

Some skippers that found convoys tried to end-around and laid in wait till the convoy run over them and fired from between columns. Other skippers tried to get into on the surface between forward escorts, some skippers run into the convoy from the rear, or positioned themselves as a flank escort - their low profile keeping them unobserved...

Every skipper had its own method of firing torpedoes. Some had relied on TDC calculated spreads, others aimed each torpedo separately.

When formed in a wolfpack, they usually formed a line to sweep ocean, but some wolfpack skippers distributed their subs to specific positions to "guard"...

Subs sometimes fired just few torpedoes, but especially within convoy they fired all tubes, and sometimes managed to reload few more tubes and fire them before forced under...

So the whole sub warfare would have to be reprogrammed from the scratch to allow such things to happen in the game.
Image
User avatar
Bullwinkle58
Posts: 11297
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:47 pm

RE: ASV Mk III radar

Post by Bullwinkle58 »

ORIGINAL: Barb

As far as I know (and have read several WWII sub books and patrol reports), every skipper has its own "doctrine" - some preferred to patrol on the surface (movement increasing searched area, scope being up and high increased visible area, frequent radar sweeps). Other skippers preferred "low profile" approach - move into area in darkness, submerge for a day, keep just minimal submerged navigable speed, scope observations every 15 minutes, radar observations only from time to time.

Some skippers that found convoys tried to end-around and laid in wait till the convoy run over them and fired from between columns. Other skippers tried to get into on the surface between forward escorts, some skippers run into the convoy from the rear, or positioned themselves as a flank escort - their low profile keeping them unobserved...

Every skipper had its own method of firing torpedoes. Some had relied on TDC calculated spreads, others aimed each torpedo separately.

When formed in a wolfpack, they usually formed a line to sweep ocean, but some wolfpack skippers distributed their subs to specific positions to "guard"...

Subs sometimes fired just few torpedoes, but especially within convoy they fired all tubes, and sometimes managed to reload few more tubes and fire them before forced under...

So the whole sub warfare would have to be reprogrammed from the scratch to allow such things to happen in the game.

I've read a lot of books, and scores of patrol reports. Doing that doesn't seem to be a thing in the forum community. A lot of airplane lovers. Not so much for the bubbleheads.

Yes, COs differed, but I think it's a mistake to say they had their own doctrines. What they did was environment-driven. Geography primarily, but also weather, era, crew training, target density (also era and geography), torpedo malfunction, etc.

Subs are hunters, but in the sense of wolves, not fat guys sitting in a deer stand drinking brewskis. They operate alone, without aid nearby. The mindset in a sub crew is totally different than that of DD crew or CA, ships that operate with friends nearby. Subs left to patrol thousands of miles behind the front lines, days from any help. No one on shore knew exactly where they were. To live in that war they adapted to conditions. Unfortunately, the original game devs didn't understand this. They were airplane guys. So we get to know the shoe size of each and every pilot, but we see the S-class operate not that much differently than the Balao-class. A Model-T versus a Ferrari in RL. In the game, just a bit of fall off for the S-

To vastly improve the sub war you wouldn't need to go to the extents you describe. We don't fight any ship in the way you describe. It's not a ship sim. But a few tweaks could have made subs relevant. In the real war they were more decisive than the carriers. Just a fact. In the game no Japan player really fears them. They're a bother that has to be countered (they can be countered in the game), but they're not a primary planning variable for any op, and they can't destroy the Japanese economy.

A sub-only DL model, with speed penalties, a reduction in the random number calling for escorts to be targeted when fat tankers are present by the dozen, and a random chance, seasoned by CO stats and crew training, for multiple targets to be engaged per attack, and the sub war works. A switch to keep everything as it is now could be there too I suppose.

To compensate, sub R&R should take 3-4 weeks after every patrol, repairs and upgrades should be at least 5x longer in days, and crew experience should take a 1/4 to 1/3 hit after every 1943-45 patrol to account for crew rotations to new construction. All of that is under-the-hood stuff, not clicking.

Won't happen with AE. Be nice though.
The Moose
User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26376
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: ASV Mk III radar

Post by witpqs »

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

I've read a lot of books, and scores of patrol reports. Doing that doesn't seem to be a thing in the forum community.
I did! I did!


Subs are hunters, but in the sense of wolves, not fat guys sitting in a deer stand drinking brewskis.
Mine layers? [:'(]
A sub-only DL model, with speed penalties, a reduction in the random number calling for escorts to be targeted when fat tankers are present by the dozen, and a random chance, seasoned by CO stats and crew training, for multiple targets to be engaged per attack, and the sub war works. A switch to keep everything as it is now could be there too I suppose.

To compensate, sub R&R should take 3-4 weeks after every patrol, repairs and upgrades should be at least 5x longer in days, and crew experience should take a 1/4 to 1/3 hit after every 1943-45 patrol to account for crew rotations to new construction. All of that is under-the-hood stuff, not clicking.

Won't happen with AE. Be nice though.
Interesting. Sounds like it might be possible without totally ripping out the innards. Don't know, just speculating out load.
InfiniteMonkey
Posts: 355
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2016 12:40 am

RE: ASV Mk III radar

Post by InfiniteMonkey »

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
ORIGINAL: Barb

As far as I know (and have read several WWII sub books and patrol reports), every skipper has its own "doctrine" - some preferred to patrol on the surface (movement increasing searched area, scope being up and high increased visible area, frequent radar sweeps). Other skippers preferred "low profile" approach - move into area in darkness, submerge for a day, keep just minimal submerged navigable speed, scope observations every 15 minutes, radar observations only from time to time.

Some skippers that found convoys tried to end-around and laid in wait till the convoy run over them and fired from between columns. Other skippers tried to get into on the surface between forward escorts, some skippers run into the convoy from the rear, or positioned themselves as a flank escort - their low profile keeping them unobserved...

Every skipper had its own method of firing torpedoes. Some had relied on TDC calculated spreads, others aimed each torpedo separately.

When formed in a wolfpack, they usually formed a line to sweep ocean, but some wolfpack skippers distributed their subs to specific positions to "guard"...

Subs sometimes fired just few torpedoes, but especially within convoy they fired all tubes, and sometimes managed to reload few more tubes and fire them before forced under...

So the whole sub warfare would have to be reprogrammed from the scratch to allow such things to happen in the game.

I've read a lot of books, and scores of patrol reports. Doing that doesn't seem to be a thing in the forum community. A lot of airplane lovers. Not so much for the bubbleheads.

Yes, COs differed, but I think it's a mistake to say they had their own doctrines. What they did was environment-driven. Geography primarily, but also weather, era, crew training, target density (also era and geography), torpedo malfunction, etc.

Subs are hunters, but in the sense of wolves, not fat guys sitting in a deer stand drinking brewskis. They operate alone, without aid nearby. The mindset in a sub crew is totally different than that of DD crew or CA, ships that operate with friends nearby. Subs left to patrol thousands of miles behind the front lines, days from any help. No one on shore knew exactly where they were. To live in that war they adapted to conditions. Unfortunately, the original game devs didn't understand this. They were airplane guys. So we get to know the shoe size of each and every pilot, but we see the S-class operate not that much differently than the Balao-class. A Model-T versus a Ferrari in RL. In the game, just a bit of fall off for the S-

To vastly improve the sub war you wouldn't need to go to the extents you describe. We don't fight any ship in the way you describe. It's not a ship sim. But a few tweaks could have made subs relevant. In the real war they were more decisive than the carriers. Just a fact. In the game no Japan player really fears them. They're a bother that has to be countered (they can be countered in the game), but they're not a primary planning variable for any op, and they can't destroy the Japanese economy.

A sub-only DL model, with speed penalties, a reduction in the random number calling for escorts to be targeted when fat tankers are present by the dozen, and a random chance, seasoned by CO stats and crew training, for multiple targets to be engaged per attack, and the sub war works. A switch to keep everything as it is now could be there too I suppose.

To compensate, sub R&R should take 3-4 weeks after every patrol, repairs and upgrades should be at least 5x longer in days, and crew experience should take a 1/4 to 1/3 hit after every 1943-45 patrol to account for crew rotations to new construction. All of that is under-the-hood stuff, not clicking.

Won't happen with AE. Be nice though.
WW2 subs are not Modern nukes. Even when snorkeling, a sub was detectable from miles away due to diesel exhaust in good conditions. With a 48 hour endurance at 2 knots submerged, even the Gato fleet boats were limited in their ability to safely operate in a heavy air search window. Moreover, torpedo range meant that you only had to protect a small area around and along the path of the targets. Black Sky ASW combined with tenacious hunter killer teams of ASW craft would have been effective, but historically Japan did not assign sufficient assets to the task. Players lament the performance of Japanese ASW, but the truth is it works because the typical JFB puts a much heavier emphasis into countering Allied subs than was historically done. We know subs killed Japan's economy historicazlly, and we know it will in game if left unchecked so we focus far more on killing them than our historical counterparts did.

User avatar
Bullwinkle58
Posts: 11297
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:47 pm

RE: ASV Mk III radar

Post by Bullwinkle58 »

ORIGINAL: InfiniteMonkey


WW2 subs are not Modern nukes.

Of course not.

Even when snorkeling,

USN subs in WWII never had snorkels.

a sub was detectable from miles away due to diesel exhaust in good conditions.

Nope. Diesel smoke is white and minimal. And USN subs exhausted through wet mufflers that eliminated smoke and sound. In any decent sea state the mufflers were underwater anyway. Details here if you like engines:

https://maritime.org/doc/fleetsub/diesel/chap6.htm#6A


With a 48 hour endurance at 2 knots submerged, even the Gato fleet boats were limited in their ability to safely operate in a heavy air search window.

Patrol at PD in daylight. Plenty of battery for that. Surface at dusk, recharge. Air search radar gave plenty of warning to dive. It's in the patrol reports. And unlike in the game, the number of Japanese islands that could maintain blanketing air ASW was extremely limited. Their planes burned av gas, not rice.


Moreover, torpedo range meant that you only had to protect a small area around and along the path of the targets.

Roughly a mile in all directions, 24/7, for weeks. But really more like 15 miles, as the end-around began with radar contact on the convoy, and ended with the sub attacking from forward of the track, often on the opposite side from the radar hit. Again, read the reports. In an overwhelming number of cases, the first knowledge the IJN had that a sub was in the area was a torpedo explosion on a target. Zig patterns did not change prior, searchlights not illuminated, no increase in speed, no evasive action of any kind, no change in the screen. Just BOOM. After-attack prosecution, sometimes. Often just a desultory string of DCs far away from the sub datum, then the survivors plowed on.

A long time ago I posted a link to the official USN list of ASW attacks that were survived by USN subs. We lost, I believe, 52. But there were only about 70 attacks where the sub survived and the damage was more than minor. In the whole war. I can get 70 attacks in the game in two months.


Black Sky ASW combined with tenacious hunter killer teams of ASW craft would have been effective, but historically Japan did not assign sufficient assets to the task.

Again. THEY DID NOT HAVE THEM. They could not build them. They had neither the building ways, the engines, nor the electronics to mount a better ASW effort than they did. Post-war analysis of captured sonar gear showed pitiful levels of technology. In some escorts the sound head was lowered over the side by fishing pole. Their gear was not built to handle tropical humidity and heat. This is documented in links posted in this forum more than once. To fight night surface end-arounds at 20kts they needed at minimum a 25kt escort, and they needed hundreds, if not low thousands. They did not have a point-to-point problem as was the case in the Atlantic. They had a web problem due to islands. They could never adequately escort those supply routes.


Players lament the performance of Japanese ASW, but the truth is it works because the typical JFB puts a much heavier emphasis into countering Allied subs than was historically done.

Ridiculous. It works because the DL model gives Japan a datum on a distant sub after one contact, and it's good for a whole day. It works because there are no sensor models in the game. If the asset has ASW or radar gear, the DL module kicks in. That was not the case in RL. And I haven't even talked about IJN sensor training, which was woeful as well compared to ours.

We know subs killed Japan's economy historicazlly, and we know it will in game if left unchecked so we focus far more on killing them than our historical counterparts did.

If you can point me to an AAR where Allied subs sink 4 million tons of shipping I'll read it.

The Moose
spence
Posts: 5419
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2003 6:56 am
Location: Vancouver, Washington

RE: ASV Mk III radar

Post by spence »

+1
We lost, I believe, 52.

We lost 52 subs during WW2 (and not to denigrate their sacrifice at all) that includes submarines that ran aground, were sunk in "friendly fire" or were otherwise lost to causes that had nothing whatever to do with ASW by the IJN.
User avatar
MakeeLearn
Posts: 4274
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 1:01 pm

RE: ASV Mk III radar

Post by MakeeLearn »

"WHY JAPAN'S ANTI-SUBMARINE WARFARE FAILED" By ATSUSHI Oi IJN"
"THE FAILURE OF THE JAPANESE CONVOY ESCORT" By Major Y. Horie IJA
Views from the Navy and Army
http://dreadnoughtproject.org/friends/d ... %20asw.pdf






User avatar
Bullwinkle58
Posts: 11297
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:47 pm

RE: ASV Mk III radar

Post by Bullwinkle58 »

ORIGINAL: MakeeLearn

"WHY JAPAN'S ANTI-SUBMARINE WARFARE FAILED" By ATSUSHI Oi IJN"
"The FAILURE OF THE JAPANESE CONVOY ESCORT" By Major Y. Horie IJA
Views from the Navy and Army
http://dreadnoughtproject.org/friends/d ... %20asw.pdf

Very interesting.

Could monkeys have done a better job? Perhaps.

The organizational failings were legion, but underlying it all was a total lack of hardware. Even the understanding they lacked hardware didn't happen until 1944. The USN was on a totally different timetable.
The Moose
Alfred
Posts: 6683
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 7:56 am

RE: ASV Mk III radar

Post by Alfred »

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
ORIGINAL: witpqs

99% of it is hindsight available to a Japan player and their (wise in-game) decision to use many assets for ASW which were never used that way.

Certain unhistorical performance issues were fixed in Babes - notably the way the Japanese E class performed due to the way the game algorithms function - and those fixes might have been propagated back into stock. Not certain about that last point.

I disagree that 99% of it is that. Japan had no chance of vastly increasing their ASW effort. They had neither the domestic electronics capability nor the shipbuilding capacity to build the fleet of 25kt ASW ships they needed to fight 20kt night surface end-around tactics with radar guidance.

If there is one, single game aspect that nerfs the Allied sub war it is the use of surface-model DL on subs that can submerge. I constantly get 10/10 DLs on subs 250-300 miles out at sea, and the detection is good for the whole turn, not the mere minutes it took a detected sub to clear datum. Subs in air ASW zones patrolled in the day at PD. Not on the surface. And they had air search radar that gave them dive time that allowed them to disappear if detected (rare.)

The shallow water penalty is also too severe. And attacking subs shoot at small escorts far too often. But it's the DL that makes the subs essentially worthless.

In theory all this could be implemented/abstracted into the game as most, but significantly not all, sub operations are handled within its own dedicated pulse. It would entail a substantial coding effort. The problem lies in intergrating these enhancements outside of the discrete sub operations pulse. Once down this path then anti sub air dropped ordnance would also need to be introduced.

Alfred
User avatar
MakeeLearn
Posts: 4274
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 1:01 pm

RE: ASV Mk III radar

Post by MakeeLearn »

"Japanese Undersea Surveillance Systems, 1920–45"

http://press-files.anu.edu.au/downloads ... /ch062.pdf

"The Japanese navy began research on hydrophones in 1920, initially
experimenting with foreign models, although it ‘failed to produce a workable
copy’.
1
In the early 1930s, after further foreign purchases, it developed systems
for installation aboard ships as well as on the sea bottom. The first ship-borne
systems, the models 93 and 0, were based on the US MV-type hydrophone,
which was imported in 1930; they were deployed aboard all Imperial Japanese
Navy (IJN) battleships and destroyers until being superseded in 1943."



"By around 1937, ‘coastal hydrophones’ had been laid in
the Tsugaru and Shimonoseki straits, both of which are narrow and shallow.
It was reckoned that those in the Tsugaru Strait ‘could give ample warning of
the appearance of a hostile submarine’; however, the hydrophone detection in
the Shimonoseki (or Kanmon) Strait, between Honshu and Kyushu, would have
been ‘imperfect ... due to domestic [shipping] traffic in these waters’"

"The Type 97 hydrophones had a major weakness. The noise made by schools of
‘snapping shrimp’ feeding in the harbours obfuscated the sound of submarines.
Indeed, ‘sometimes the noise of ships directly over the underwater phones was
drowned out completely’. It was revealed after the war that US submarines
had used the shrimp noise ‘as a screen to hide from’ the hydrophone detectors
‘many’ times when entering Japanese harbours in 1944–45"







adarbrauner
Posts: 1510
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 3:40 am
Location: Zichron Yaaqov, Israel; Before, Treviso, Italy

RE: ASV Mk III radar

Post by adarbrauner »

+1 MakeeLearn!
If you have more on this subject or related, please share.



ORIGINAL Alfred
Once down this path then anti sub air dropped ordnance would also need to be introduced.

Alfred

A most welcome change.
User avatar
MakeeLearn
Posts: 4274
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 1:01 pm

RE: ASV Mk III radar

Post by MakeeLearn »

ORIGINAL: adarbrauner

+1 MakeeLearn!
If you have more on this subject or related, please share.


Here are some

"A CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF THE U.S. NAVY'S USE OF UNRESTRICTED SUBMARINE WARFARE IN THE PACIFIC THEATER DURING WWII"
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a253241.pdf


"Radar and the American Submarine War, 1941 -1945: A Reinterpretation"
https://www.cnrs-scrn.org/northern_mari ... _27-40.pdf






User avatar
MakeeLearn
Posts: 4274
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 1:01 pm

RE: ASV Mk III radar

Post by MakeeLearn »


"U.S. PACIFIC SUBMARINES IN WORLD WAR II"
https://maritime.org/doc/subsinpacific.htm



"Japanese Anti-Submarine Warfare and Weapons"
https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/re ... R58-3.html






User avatar
MakeeLearn
Posts: 4274
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 1:01 pm

RE: ASV Mk III radar

Post by MakeeLearn »

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!




"Submarine Report

Depth Charge, Bomb, Mine, Torpedo and Gunfire Damage
Including Losses in Action
7 December 1941 to 15 August 1945"

https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/re ... #contents1






User avatar
Bullwinkle58
Posts: 11297
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:47 pm

RE: ASV Mk III radar

Post by Bullwinkle58 »

ORIGINAL: Alfred

In theory all this could be implemented/abstracted into the game as most, but significantly not all, sub operations are handled within its own dedicated pulse. It would entail a substantial coding effort. The problem lies in intergrating these enhancements outside of the discrete sub operations pulse. Once down this path then anti sub air dropped ordnance would also need to be introduced.

Alfred

In my Lokasenna game he has successfully used 2E bombers and 250kg bombs to sink or bingo scores of subs. I don't recall exactly which turn phase the air ASW flies, but it works now, too well. The Jake is also the top-lost plane model of the war for him, and many of them are on ASW and fall to ops loss. I think he's lost circa 1500 in October 1944.

Thinking about coding, which I know will not happen, I wonder if the current code could be left intact and a splice inserted after the submarine DL module. The splice would "stupid-fy" the calculation, taking the variable loaded with the new DL and applying a first cut of, say, 90% probability to re-set it to zero, and then apply a random number to the last 10% of tries that set the DL at between 1 and 7. (For example) I assume the variable needs to remain an integer. I would be inefficient in that the calculations would happen, then be immediately reversed, but in the scheme of turn resolution it's nothing. The object methods would still be passed the same variable as now in the same range, and nothing else would need change. This would not adjust sub speed, as that would take a lot of coding, but it might make the sub war more useful. Balance issues, etc., as always. But it might not be a huge coding effort.
The Moose
User avatar
Zecke
Posts: 1329
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 10:50 pm
Location: Hitoeton

RE: ASV Mk III radar

Post by Zecke »

just figure out if the japans....(they knew) puts radars without the look-out soldier...the sun always rise..OK, but you should used...AT THE BEGUINIG thats why the surface attacks always...happend.


ALWAYS REARM your upgrades. ON
Epsilon Eridani


Alfred
Posts: 6683
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 7:56 am

RE: ASV Mk III radar

Post by Alfred »

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
ORIGINAL: Alfred

In theory all this could be implemented/abstracted into the game as most, but significantly not all, sub operations are handled within its own dedicated pulse. It would entail a substantial coding effort. The problem lies in intergrating these enhancements outside of the discrete sub operations pulse. Once down this path then anti sub air dropped ordnance would also need to be introduced.

Alfred

In my Lokasenna game he has successfully used 2E bombers and 250kg bombs to sink or bingo scores of subs. I don't recall exactly which turn phase the air ASW flies, but it works now, too well. The Jake is also the top-lost plane model of the war for him, and many of them are on ASW and fall to ops loss. I think he's lost circa 1500 in October 1944.

Thinking about coding, which I know will not happen, I wonder if the current code could be left intact and a splice inserted after the submarine DL module. The splice would "stupid-fy" the calculation, taking the variable loaded with the new DL and applying a first cut of, say, 90% probability to re-set it to zero, and then apply a random number to the last 10% of tries that set the DL at between 1 and 7. (For example) I assume the variable needs to remain an integer. I would be inefficient in that the calculations would happen, then be immediately reversed, but in the scheme of turn resolution it's nothing. The object methods would still be passed the same variable as now in the same range, and nothing else would need change. This would not adjust sub speed, as that would take a lot of coding, but it might make the sub war more useful. Balance issues, etc., as always. But it might not be a huge coding effort.

Well ... [:)]

I totally agree that the single biggest factor which works against sub operations is how detection level is computed and handled.

Whilst I agree that the extra computation involved in your "stupid-fy" suggestion would be trivial in the overall scheme of things it wold still have to be taken into account. However that is not the reason why I would not be in its favour. I just don't think it would accomplish the improvement you would like to see. It only addresses the DL factor and leaves untouched the MDL factor. This is before even considering the interaction with non sub operations.

In simple terms, DL has a direct impact on combat results but MDL is more to do with tracking and providing general intel on enemy assets, be they maritime (both surface and sub-surface) or terrestrial. The DL of all task forces (again both surface and sub-surface) is already reset to 0 at the start of the night and day resolution phase. Your observation in post #15 that the 10/10 DL detection is good for the whole turn is therefore not quite correct. What you are overlooking is that the MDL declines at a much slower rate. For surface task forces the MDL reduction is only 1. For sub task forces their MDL is cut in half (rounded down) each 12 hours. The consequence of this is that even though the ASW attack (either air or maritime) may not inflict much damage because the DL is low the higher MDL allows for "harassment" which severely reduces the sub task force's own effectiveness.

Clearly in terms of DL and MDL, the devs have attempted to differentiate between surface and sub-surface task forces. How well their "solution" plays out can be debated. However before passing a definitive judgement on the success or otherwise of their "solution" it is necessary to also bear in mind the need to integrate it with the rest of the game. A simple example is that a task force which contains a submarine may be identified as either a sub task force or a surface task force. Furthermore it may be spotted by a dedicated air ASW patrol (most likely to correctly identify it as a sub task force) or the general air naval search patrol (most likely to report it as generic surface task force). There would be merit in removing totally the existing reduced odds of a naval search patrol spotting any sub task force but that has other ramifications which extend to how surface assets are deployed against any "spotted" enemy task force outside of the dedicated sub combat phase. I also strongly suspect that this feeds into the technical difficulties alluded to by Don Bowen when he stated ASW task forces do not react towards enemy sub task forces.

Then there are all the other factors identified in post #15 which would also need to be addressed in order to satisfactorily tweak the sub war.

Alfred
User avatar
Bullwinkle58
Posts: 11297
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:47 pm

RE: ASV Mk III radar

Post by Bullwinkle58 »

All good points, and yes, I didn't consider MDL. But half-rounded-down is perhaps the main culprit; a sub MDL ought to deteriorate by the max submerged speed in a circle-of-probability--roughly seven kts. Over 1-2 hours the detection would be completely worthless, if not much sooner, geography constrained of course.

I tend to think, having seen subs at sea versus surface ships at sea, that the devs were too generous in their granting sighting confusion in air search algos. If you can see a surfaced sub at all it looks like a sub. Mostly they are all but invisible past about 10,000 yards in any sort of sea state. From above they leave very little wake relative to a skimmer. And most air sightings were not from directly overhead, but rather on a closing course.

The other issues, especially the escort probability, might even be easier to tweak in the EXE. That one is infuriating to me, but has always seemed less so to the general forum.

Overall, in a game that can teach so much about the PTO and the challenges faced by the various combatants, the fact that the Allied sub war is so "broken" has always been a great disappointment to me. That so many players think that all Japan had to do was try harder and the subs could have been neutered is testament to how broken the models are in practice. When I stop playing this game and move on it will mostly be due to the subs. They are an every-turn frustration.
The Moose
Post Reply

Return to “War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition”