American subs fire too few torps on valuable targets

[Rusty1961]

Remember about 5 or 6 years ago when Japanese subs were shooting 6-8 torps per attack on insignificant allied targers like AKLs or DE/DDs? It was a legitimate gripe and you guys fixed it.

What I"m finding in my current game is American subs fire too few at large, valuable targers.

Twice in two months my subs have shot only 2 torperdoes at the Ryujo and yesterday only 2 at the Akagi.

This isn't logical and would defy American doctrine that full spreads should be fired at such valuable targets. If some skipper said he was only going to fire 2 fish as the Akagi-which was in good shape- his XO would immediately remove him from command and the crew would support his action. Not to mention the court-martial the skipper would face upon return to Pearl.

Both attacks happened in the fall of '43.

[btd64]

I'm having the same problem but with more targets in my PBEM with ny59giants. It happens daily, almost. We are in August 43....GP

[Rusty1961]

From now on I'm going to compile stats on these firings.

[Canoerebel]

Some players are experimenting with different settings to see if they enhance sub performance. For instance, Lowpe (I think) is using "Low" aggression sub commanders to see if that persuades them to ignore escorts to target more valuable ships. I don't know what his findings are, to this point. And there may be other settings that enhance how a sub takes on a major target. So there may be an issue or there may not be.

The larger point that the Allied sub game may be way too diluted compared to real life is almost certainly true. I think Bullwinkle has been articulate in setting forth the case for this.

But there's an even larger point. The game has reached a mature state in which both sides pretty much know what they get. There's a balance that's been achieved over the years, so that a remedy applied to any one area may threatend to unbalance the competitive nature of the game.

In many ways AE doesn't model the actual conflict of the war or is an abstract representation of major elements of the war, all in the name of a superb, intricate, complicated, challenging, balanced game that makes Japan strong early and the Allies strong late.

So what I'm saying is: as a community, we'll have to approach "corrections" carefully for the sake of balance.

[Rusty1961]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Some players are experimenting with different settings to see if they enhance sub performance. For instance, Lowpe (I think) is using "Low" aggression sub commanders to see if that persuades them to ignore escorts to target more valuable ships. I don't know what his findings are, to this point. And there may be other settings that enhance how a sub takes on a major target. So there may be an issue or there may not be.

The larger point that the Allied sub game may be way too diluted compared to real life is almost certainly true. I think Bullwinkle has been articulate in setting forth the case for this.

But there's an even larger point. The game has reached a mature state in which both sides pretty much know what they get. There's a balance that's been achieved over the years, so that a remedy applied to any one area may threatend to unbalance the competitive nature of the game.

In many ways AE doesn't model the actual conflict of the war or is an abstract representation of major elements of the war, all in the name of a superb, intricate, complicated, challenging, balanced game that makes Japan strong early and the Allies strong late.

So what I'm saying is: as a community, we'll have to approach "corrections" carefully for the sake of balance.

My point is that aggression should play no part in the decision to fire a full-spread at such a lucrative target. Doctrine would dictate such actions.

Right now America subs are only good for reconissance and nothing else. Asking for a full-spread to be fired at the Akagi isn't upsetting the play-balance.

[Yaab]

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

Remember about 5 or 6 years ago when Japanese subs were shooting 6-8 torps per attack on insignificant allied targers like AKLs or DE/DDs? It was a legitimate gripe and you guys fixed it.

What I"m finding in my current game is American subs fire too few at large, valuable targers.

Twice in two months my subs have shot only 2 torperdoes at the Ryujo and yesterday only 2 at the Akagi.

This isn't logical and would defy American doctrine that full spreads should be fired at such valuable targets. If some skipper said he was only going to fire 2 fish as the Akagi-which was in good shape- his XO would immediately remove him from command and the crew would support his action. Not to mention the court-martial the skipper would face upon return to Pearl.

Both attacks happened in the fall of '43.

- Phew, Akagi? No way, I am saving my torps for Yamato and Musashi.

[spence]

Doctrine would dictate such actions.

+1

Right now US/Allied subs usually fire the same number of torpedoes at Akagi/Yamato as at a PB. Even during the torpedo shortages of the first few months of the war any sub captain that got a chance would fire a full spread at the former (but would probably get cashiered for using even 1 torpedo on a PB).

[Korvar]

The question is what is/are the particular "knob(s)" that dictate how many torps subs launch at which targets?

If it's not a unit stat that can be edited via the game editor, is there anyone left that can make these changes? It is my understanding that Michael was the last person with access to do so, and even he has been moved to other projects.

Also, it's important to try to compare apples to apples. A lot of stuff gets "gelled" once a particular game starts, so even subsequent updates aren't seen until a brand new campaign is started. All WitPAE campaigns take time; in particular, PBEM games can easily last YEARS (as most of you know better than I do). I don't know if the particular knob(s) are buried in the portion of the game that is 'set' at game start, but it's worth considering if older data files / AI files / whatever aren't a lingering contributor to the problem.

Consider all this as nothing more than food for thought; I don't understand the game engine mechanics well enough here to be making any "medical diagnoses".

[BillBrown]

Here is a thread that discusses some of the aspects of "Split" torpedo tubes. tm.asp?m=2646138&mpage=1&key=split&#2646176

[Aurorus]

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

Remember about 5 or 6 years ago when Japanese subs were shooting 6-8 torps per attack on insignificant allied targers like AKLs or DE/DDs? It was a legitimate gripe and you guys fixed it.

What I"m finding in my current game is American subs fire too few at large, valuable targers.

Twice in two months my subs have shot only 2 torperdoes at the Ryujo and yesterday only 2 at the Akagi.

This isn't logical and would defy American doctrine that full spreads should be fired at such valuable targets. If some skipper said he was only going to fire 2 fish as the Akagi-which was in good shape- his XO would immediately remove him from command and the crew would support his action. Not to mention the court-martial the skipper would face upon return to Pearl.

Both attacks happened in the fall of '43.

If I were you, I would ask Apbarog how he manages the submarine war in his AAR. His subs, including the U.S. subs, have been very effective. In March 1942 alone, he scored hits on 2 CAs, 2 CVs, and sank a TK and an AO. His submarines fired full spreads at all of these ships. He also fired a full spread one other time on a CV, but missed. Whatever he is doing, I would consider it "best practices," as his submarines have been the most effective of any allied player that I have played.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

From now on I'm going to compile stats on these firings.

Better include a look at each sub just after to see if maybe some of the torpedo devices were out of ammo when the attack occurred. Also, IIRC, they don't tell us when the rear tubes were calculated to be the only ones able to be fired at a target.

[Rusty1961]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

From now on I'm going to compile stats on these firings.

Better include a look at each sub just after to see if maybe some of the torpedo devices were out of ammo when the attack occurred. Also, IIRC, they don't tell us when the rear tubes were calculated to be the only ones able to be fired at a target.

The last three attacks have been done by subs with a full complement of weapons.

[Rusty1961]

ORIGINAL: BillBrown

Here is a thread that discusses some of the aspects of "Split" torpedo tubes. tm.asp?m=2646138&mpage=1&key=split�

From the link:

"Yes, and it means more.

The code fires a "line" of weapons at a time. No matter how many individual weapons it is, if they are all defined on one line of code, they all fire together.

Also, the code has been enhanced so that a sub might fire more than one line of weapons at a target, depending on what the sub thinks (FOW) that target is. If the sub thinks it's an xAK, it will likely get 1 line fired (2 torpedo tubes). If the sub thinks it is a CV, it will likely fire all lines that bear (remember forward tubes versus rearward tubes), for example a subs with 3 lines of 2 tubes each facing the target would fire all 3 lines (6 torpedo tubes).

The net result is that big targets still get "full service" provided that the sub correctly identifies them (always remember FOW), but small targets get fewer torpedoes resulting in the sub staying on station longer and making more attacks. Deadlier subs overall."

...and that isn't what I'm seeing. It was a CV and a CVL and the minumum of fish were shot at it.

[btd64]

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

From now on I'm going to compile stats on these firings.

Better include a look at each sub just after to see if maybe some of the torpedo devices were out of ammo when the attack occurred. Also, IIRC, they don't tell us when the rear tubes were calculated to be the only ones able to be fired at a target.

The last three attacks have been done by subs with a full complement of weapons.

Ditto....GP

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: btd64

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

ORIGINAL: witpqs



Better include a look at each sub just after to see if maybe some of the torpedo devices were out of ammo when the attack occurred. Also, IIRC, they don't tell us when the rear tubes were calculated to be the only ones able to be fired at a target.

The last three attacks have been done by subs with a full complement of weapons.

Ditto....GP

Sure, but if you guys start taking tallies to figure stats, you have to allow for all cases.

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

Remember about 5 or 6 years ago when Japanese subs were shooting 6-8 torps per attack on insignificant allied targers like AKLs or DE/DDs? It was a legitimate gripe and you guys fixed it.

What I"m finding in my current game is American subs fire too few at large, valuable targers.

Twice in two months my subs have shot only 2 torperdoes at the Ryujo and yesterday only 2 at the Akagi.

This isn't logical and would defy American doctrine that full spreads should be fired at such valuable targets. If some skipper said he was only going to fire 2 fish as the Akagi-which was in good shape- his XO would immediately remove him from command and the crew would support his action. Not to mention the court-martial the skipper would face upon return to Pearl.

Both attacks happened in the fall of '43.

Check the aggression and naval ratings on your commanders.

[K 19]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

Remember about 5 or 6 years ago when Japanese subs were shooting 6-8 torps per attack on insignificant allied targers like AKLs or DE/DDs? It was a legitimate gripe and you guys fixed it.

What I"m finding in my current game is American subs fire too few at large, valuable targers.

Twice in two months my subs have shot only 2 torperdoes at the Ryujo and yesterday only 2 at the Akagi.

This isn't logical and would defy American doctrine that full spreads should be fired at such valuable targets. If some skipper said he was only going to fire 2 fish as the Akagi-which was in good shape- his XO would immediately remove him from command and the crew would support his action. Not to mention the court-martial the skipper would face upon return to Pearl.

Both attacks happened in the fall of '43.

Check the aggression and naval ratings on your commanders.

I have to agree with Rusty. Due to standard naval combat doctrine, wouldn't the commander be required to attack with more than just one or two torps instead of a full salvo on such a valuable target, regardless of his supposed 'aggression rating'. Surely such an incompetent or overly-cautious sub commander would have been immediately relieved of duty or court-martialed (as mentioned above) in real life.

In my opinion, the game places way too much emphasis on aggression rating, which in turn overrides and ignores historical standard combat doctrine and procedures. Basically, every couch potato or overly-cautious sub commander in the navy can do whatever they want and still automatically keep their command. This over-emphasis on the aggression stat vs historical accuracy and doctrine reminds me too much of an RPG game.

[witpqs]

They don't "keep their command" unless you leave them in place instead of relieving them.

[K 19]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

They don't "keep their command" unless you leave them in place instead of relieving them.

So the player has to keep track and make a list of each sub commander that doesn't properly attack a valuable target and manually replace each of them? Sounds like micromanaging overkill to me.

[Aurorus]

ORIGINAL: K 19

ORIGINAL: witpqs

They don't "keep their command" unless you leave them in place instead of relieving them.

So the player has to keep track and make a list of each sub commander that doesn't properly attack a valuable target and manually replace each of them? Sounds like micromanaging overkill to me.

For its large scale, WiTP:AE is an operations-level game. He who is best operationally is often best, regardless of strategic considerations. Does this mean that the game can become a contest as to who is willing to micro-manage the most? At times, it can be. Such is the nature of WiTP:AE. If you do not enjoy managing the details of the game, often you will be frustrated playing against someone who does commit the time necessary to managing details.