Wolfpacking? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition



Message

Chickenboy -> Wolfpacking? (8/20/2011 7:12:05 PM)

Was wondering if anyone has any late patch observations in AE (not WiTP) regarding the efficacy of wolfpacking? One of my opponents may have recently taken up this activity-just wondering if others have experimented with it and, if so, what did you think re: efficacy?

Note: I would consider 2 subs in a TF as a wolfpack, albeit a small one.



khyberbill -> RE: Wolfpacking? (8/20/2011 7:38:50 PM)

It is my understanding that only one sub in any TF will attack during a particular opportunity. I seem to get more opportunities though and only use 2 sub TF.



oldman45 -> RE: Wolfpacking? (8/20/2011 7:41:26 PM)

I use 2 sub TF's. It seems hit or miss. Sometimes they will both attack one after another and sometimes only one attacks. I have never had them both attack at the same time.



Smeulders -> RE: Wolfpacking? (8/20/2011 8:13:29 PM)

Using the last official patch I had an accidental but highly effective experience with wolfpacks. About 5 subs in a single TF (to be split up later at their hunting grounds) together and ran across a Japanese convoy. All subs attacked and scored hits, but duds prevented the destruction of the convoy.



AW1Steve -> RE: Wolfpacking? (8/20/2011 8:22:37 PM)

I haven't had much luck with them. I've employed them , with as many as 20 (the easiest way to get them to given point where I've then broken them up to cover numerous chokepoints). I've rarely had more than one boat in a pack attack.



Chickenboy -> RE: Wolfpacking? (8/20/2011 10:09:38 PM)

But having a second boat in the TF may increase the enemy DL and therefore result in more reactions / attacks overall?



AW1Steve -> RE: Wolfpacking? (8/20/2011 10:15:29 PM)

Seems odd. In real life it would mean more likelyhood of catching a torpedo. (Easier for them to detect you than them).



JeffK -> RE: Wolfpacking? (8/20/2011 11:18:06 PM)

Not spread out over 40 miles of ocean.

IRL I believe they were more succesful when able to coordinate their attacks, didnt always work out though. If 1 could draw off the escorts the other/s could get into the shipping.

I've just set up a 3 boat pack off Truk, I'll see what happens!




crsutton -> RE: Wolfpacking? (8/21/2011 5:01:12 AM)

But why not just have multiple single boat TFs in one hex?



SqzMyLemon -> RE: Wolfpacking? (8/21/2011 5:13:39 AM)

Smeulders' situation occurred in our game. Four subs from the same TF all got reactions and attacks in on a single Japanese TF escorted by a couple of PB's. If not for duds, that TF would have been massacred.

I can't even get one Japanese sub to react, let alone 4 in the same TF. [8|]



LoBaron -> RE: Wolfpacking? (8/21/2011 9:08:10 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

Smeulders' situation occurred in our game. Four subs from the same TF all got reactions and attacks in on a single Japanese TF escorted by a couple of PB's. If not for duds, that TF would have been massacred.

I can't even get one Japanese sub to react, let alone 4 in the same TF. [8|]


Ok now you all got me alert.

I always considered combining subs something like waste of ressources.
Has something changed in the patches? Was the 1 sub attack limitation just an urban legend?



1275psi -> RE: Wolfpacking? (8/21/2011 10:13:25 AM)

Ok, last official patch, i put two wolfpacks of ten japanese SS each into a single hex occupied by bulk of american carrier fleet
BBF can tell you the real result -but from memory, three maybe four carriers hit over two turns. FOW reported initially 2 sunk.
apparently this single action seriously derailed a few things (mid 43)

I use em almost exclusively.......(but I also spend hours selecting good skippers too)



dr.hal -> RE: Wolfpacking? (8/22/2011 7:39:14 PM)

With the exception of transit, I always put my subs in single sub TFs and if I want many subs in one hex, simple put the TFs in patrol mode with all to the same hex for as many days as I want (max 27, all three points in the same place up to a max of nine days). I don't have any "proof" but intuitively I feel this gives the best chance of one of them getting into a firing position (as a 40 mile "front" of ocean is a lot of water!)... but others might have run tests and proven me wrong. Hal



DivePac88 -> RE: Wolfpacking? (8/22/2011 8:37:59 PM)

After trying many tactical systems with my submarines over the years in both WitP/WitP-AE; I now use them in single TF's on a patrol line, one hex wide by three hexes long.

I only play the Japanese; so when I have found my opponents choke points, or convoy/single ship routes with Glen equipped I-boats/naval air-search. I deploy three to five I-boat/RO-boat divisions across these routes in series.



Alfred -> RE: Wolfpacking? (8/22/2011 9:32:13 PM)

Gentlemen,

I have dug up a 2009 reference from the granddaddy of naval coding developers regarding wolfpacks. Nothing which has subsequently been added/altered in the game appears to contradict the thrust of the comment made in post #2 of the following thread.[:)]

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2295291&mpage=1&key=sub%2Cwolfpack�

Alfred



dr.hal -> RE: Wolfpacking? (8/22/2011 9:38:15 PM)

Thanks Alfred.... that's what I thought....



SqzMyLemon -> RE: Wolfpacking? (8/22/2011 10:27:02 PM)

This could be tested by some willing sole perhaps? I don't dispute Don's comment that the game isn't geared towards wolfpack style play, but experiencing it first hand I have to respectfully disagree with the comments that state submarines are most effective in single TF's. It may have been a one off, but the fact remains that four submarines in the same TF all got reactions and attacks against a single enemy TF. I'd be very curious to see if these results could be duplicated on a regular basis.



Alfred -> RE: Wolfpacking? (8/22/2011 10:39:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

This could be tested by some willing sole perhaps? I don't dispute Don's comment that the game isn't geared towards wolfpack style play, but experiencing it first hand I have to respectfully disagree with the comments that state submarines are most effective in single TF's. It may have been a one off, but the fact remains that four submarines in the same TF all got reactions and attacks against a single enemy TF. I'd be very curious to see if these results could be duplicated on a regular basis.


Not disputing your observed experience but you could be the victim of misinformation. Some elements of submarine patrols have been made more effective as a result of the changes introduced with the split tubes. When combined with the FOW which may have been incorporated in your CR, you can't really be certain if what you experienced was a real wolfpack or merely a very efficient single submarine.

However remember the split tube era has not removed some of the well known disadvantages in running wolfpacks. Hence I still think Don's comment remains valid.

Alfred



SqzMyLemon -> RE: Wolfpacking? (8/22/2011 11:18:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Not disputing your observed experience but you could be the victim of misinformation. Some elements of submarine patrols have been made more effective as a result of the changes introduced with the split tubes. When combined with the FOW which may have been incorporated in your CR, you can't really be certain if what you experienced was a real wolfpack or merely a very efficient single submarine.

However remember the split tube era has not removed some of the well known disadvantages in running wolfpacks. Hence I still think Don's comment remains valid.

Alfred


Hi Alfred,

Good points as FOW certainly does add the element of misinformation. Smeulders' has posted in this thread about the number of submarines within the same TF that attacked in one turn during our PBEM. I do not know if he actually checked each submarine individually to see if they indeed fired independent salvos or was going from the CR as I did, which stated four different submarines launched attacks in the same hex. Hopefully he's still following this thread and can shed light on the issue you raised. I definitely know and can confirm that the TF consisted of at least four submarines and four torpedo attacks were launched at four different ships in the Japanese TF in the same hex.



Don Bowen -> RE: Wolfpacking? (8/23/2011 3:07:36 PM)


There are several general issues with single/multiple sub TFs.

Chance to find the enemy - each TF has a chance, without regard to number of subs in the TF. So 3 TFs with one sub are more likely to encounter the enemy than one TF with three subs.

Which sub attacks - Only one sub from each TF will attack. In a single sub TF there is no option. In a multiple sub TF the "best" sub will be selected. This is based on damage, ammo, (and fuel?) Basically the least damaged with the most ammo. I think fuel is also considered in the spirit of "one more attack before I have to run home to refuel". Once that single sub attacks, the engagement is over. There is no code to support multiple attacks.

Multiple attacks - There is, however, a chance that the same sub TF will re-contact the same enemy TF. If that happens a different sub from a "wolf pack" might be chosen to attack. This could look like coordinated attacks in the combat report but it is really just a series of attacks.

Detection - I do not know is multiple subs increases the chance of detection of the "wolfpack", but I suspect so. I don't think there is special-circumstance code either way, so whatever the general detection code does... In most circumstances, more ships in the the TF means higher chances of detection.

For the record - I never run wolfpacks. I prefer "line" patrol zones - two points fairly close together so the sub bounces back and forth in the targeted area. Multiple sub TFs can be placed in the same area, with patrol lines crossing.



LoBaron -> RE: Wolfpacking? (8/23/2011 3:13:59 PM)

Alfred, Don, thanks!

This is about what I assumed before I stumbled over this thread.

Ok back to create TF -> assign PZ -> select reaction 1 -> create TF -> assign PZ -> select reaction 1
-> create TF -> assign PZ -> select reaction 1 -> create TF -> assign PZ -> select reaction 1
-> create TF -> assign PZ -> select reaction 1 -> create TF -> assign PZ -> select reaction 1
-> create TF -> assign PZ -> select reaction 1
-> create TF -> assign PZ -> select reaction 1

-> create TF -> assign PZ -> select reaction 1

ups, forgot one...

-> create TF -> assign PZ -> select reaction 1

[sm=00000506.gif]



kfsgo -> RE: Wolfpacking? (8/23/2011 3:24:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

There are several general issues with single/multiple sub TFs.

Detection - I do not know is multiple subs increases the chance of detection of the "wolfpack", but I suspect so. I don't think there is special-circumstance code either way, so whatever the general detection code does... In most circumstances, more ships in the the TF means higher chances of detection.



I was playing around with a multi-sub TF (11 of them) in a testing scenario as a consequence of reading this thread - it certainly seems like detection chances are higher; a single patrol floatplane was enough to keep the TF spotted (and report their numbers reasonably accurately) most of the time.

(Incidentally, I also learned that if you accidentally make your sub TF a Surface Combat TF, they'll engage enemy fleets in surface combat...not advisable, as all 11 of them found when bumping into BB Nagato!)



Don Bowen -> RE: Wolfpacking? (8/23/2011 3:27:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Alfred, Don, thanks!

This is about what I assumed before I stumbled over this thread.

Ok back to create TF -> assign PZ -> select reaction 1 -> create TF -> assign PZ -> select reaction 1
-> create TF -> assign PZ -> select reaction 1 -> create TF -> assign PZ -> select reaction 1
-> create TF -> assign PZ -> select reaction 1 -> create TF -> assign PZ -> select reaction 1
-> create TF -> assign PZ -> select reaction 1
-> create TF -> assign PZ -> select reaction 1

-> create TF -> assign PZ -> select reaction 1

ups, forgot one...

-> create TF -> assign PZ -> select reaction 1

[sm=00000506.gif]


Or: Auto Sub Ops On



Alfred -> RE: Wolfpacking? (8/23/2011 3:56:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Alfred, Don, thanks!

This is about what I assumed before I stumbled over this thread.

Ok back to create TF -> assign PZ -> select reaction 1 -> create TF -> assign PZ -> select reaction 1
-> create TF -> assign PZ -> select reaction 1 -> create TF -> assign PZ -> select reaction 1
-> create TF -> assign PZ -> select reaction 1 -> create TF -> assign PZ -> select reaction 1
-> create TF -> assign PZ -> select reaction 1
-> create TF -> assign PZ -> select reaction 1

-> create TF -> assign PZ -> select reaction 1

ups, forgot one...

-> create TF -> assign PZ -> select reaction 1

[sm=00000506.gif]


Or: Auto Sub Ops On


A third alternative is:

create TF -> assign remain on station.

Over time, as the subs are sunk, the problem is solved.[:D]

Alfred



Smeulders -> RE: Wolfpacking? (8/23/2011 4:15:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Not disputing your observed experience but you could be the victim of misinformation. Some elements of submarine patrols have been made more effective as a result of the changes introduced with the split tubes. When combined with the FOW which may have been incorporated in your CR, you can't really be certain if what you experienced was a real wolfpack or merely a very efficient single submarine.

However remember the split tube era has not removed some of the well known disadvantages in running wolfpacks. Hence I still think Don's comment remains valid.

Alfred


Hi Alfred,

Good points as FOW certainly does add the element of misinformation. Smeulders' has posted in this thread about the number of submarines within the same TF that attacked in one turn during our PBEM. I do not know if he actually checked each submarine individually to see if they indeed fired independent salvos or was going from the CR as I did, which stated four different submarines launched attacks in the same hex. Hopefully he's still following this thread and can shed light on the issue you raised. I definitely know and can confirm that the TF consisted of at least four submarines and four torpedo attacks were launched at four different ships in the Japanese TF in the same hex.


All subs indeed launched torpedoes, looking at Don's post the TF got really lucky and re-contacted a number of times (he says 4 single sub TFs are better than a 4 sub TF, but the 4 sub TF might still be better than a 1 sub TF and thus increased it chances of re-contacting ?).



LoBaron -> RE: Wolfpacking? (8/23/2011 8:40:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
Or: Auto Sub Ops On


Is it competetive on areas I would usually rely on?

Avoid ports with minefields
Estimate air threat
Leave high ASW areas
Upgrade when applicable

Just examples.

I donīt expect the AI to react on a strategic threat with correct timing and I would be handicapped
when coordinating my ops to sub movements. I have to admit it hits both sides, but the lack of including subs
into my planning speaks against it.

Does anybody have long time experiences with auto sub ops?



Alfred -> RE: Wolfpacking? (8/24/2011 3:38:19 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron


quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
Or: Auto Sub Ops On


Is it competetive on areas I would usually rely on?

Avoid ports with minefields
Estimate air threat
Leave high ASW areas
Upgrade when applicable

Just examples.

I donīt expect the AI to react on a strategic threat with correct timing and I would be handicapped
when coordinating my ops to sub movements. I have to admit it hits both sides, but the lack of including subs
into my planning speaks against it.

Does anybody have long time experiences with auto sub ops?


Have a look at Don's comments in this thread:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2560054&mpage=1&key=sub%2Coperations�

In the next post I'll give you a link to another thread where Don specifically addressed your concern about auto subs and minefields.

Alfred



Alfred -> RE: Wolfpacking? (8/24/2011 3:41:18 AM)

LoBaron,

Again it is Don's comments you will find most germane in this thread from January 2010.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2337113&mpage=1&key=sub%2Cminefield�

Alfred



Commander Cody -> RE: Wolfpacking? (8/24/2011 5:29:43 AM)

I've always used auto subs, but I play against the AI.

Mines: I've noticed several doing "minesweeping" at ports in or near Japan.
Air Threat: The IJ AI doesn't seem to have the fantastic air ASW threat that I read about in AARs, so I can't really comment on whether the AI reacts to air threats.
High ASW Areas: Not sure about this. My subs do get hit quite a bit by Super E's as in AARs.
Upgrades: I think my subs only upgrade only when disbanded in port (i.e. when they are damaged). Since my subs seem to get damaged a lot, that's not too much of an issue. I also tend to take over individual subs that I see operating near a new forward base and move their home port up to the new base. That also makes upgrades happen.

Cheers,
CC



Chickenboy -> RE: Wolfpacking? (8/24/2011 10:21:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Gentlemen,

I have dug up a 2009 reference from the granddaddy of naval coding developers regarding wolfpacks. Nothing which has subsequently been added/altered in the game appears to contradict the thrust of the comment made in post #2 of the following thread.[:)]

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2295291&mpage=1&key=sub%2Cwolfpack�

Alfred


Coming late to the discussion, but I believe that Don's comments were related to "Atlantic-style" wolfpacks. I interpret this as meaning that neither game is well suited to handling 20-30 SS coordinating with radio SigInt and / or aerial surveillance / SS scouting to vector in an attack.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.496338E-02