Matrix Games Forums

To End All Wars: Video, AAR and Interview!Ageod's To End All Wars: Video, AAR and Interview!To End All Wars: Artillery Battle Academy 2: Eastern Front - End of Early Access Space Program Manager unveils its multiplayer modes Another update for Commander: The Great War!Distant Worlds: Universe gets a new updateDeal of the Week: Eagle Day to Bombing the Reich Advanced Tactics Gold is coming to SteamMatrix Games now speaks German!
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Leo's ASW Test on 1.8.0.6

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Leo's ASW Test on 1.8.0.6 Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Leo's ASW Test on 1.8.0.6 - 10/11/2007 12:06:35 AM   
matchwood

 

Posts: 63
Joined: 9/9/2004
Status: offline
Summary of results from Leo's ASW stock test:

4 squadrons on full range ASW at 1000 feet over 30 turns:

9xH8K - 0 hits
27xG4M1 - 0 hits
27xJake - 1 hit
27xHelen - 30+ hits

There appears to be a problem with torp armed planes using bombs against subs? I have run this test several times and the results are always similar to above.
Post #: 1
RE: Leo's ASW Test on 1.8.0.6 - 10/11/2007 12:09:17 AM   
VSWG


Posts: 3432
Joined: 5/31/2006
From: Germany
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: matchwood

Summary of results from Leo's ASW stock test:

4 squadrons on full range ASW at 1000 feet over 30 turns:

9xH8K - 0 hits
27xG4M1 - 0 hits
27xJake - 1 hit
27xHelen - 30+ hits

There appears to be a problem with torp armed planes using bombs against subs? I have run this test several times and the results are always similar to above.

No, all planes carry bombs when set to 'ASW' This setting also halves the range setting.

_____________________________


(in reply to matchwood)
Post #: 2
RE: Leo's ASW Test on 1.8.0.6 - 10/11/2007 12:19:05 AM   
matchwood

 

Posts: 63
Joined: 9/9/2004
Status: offline
Ok...so you don't see any problem with these results then?

< Message edited by matchwood -- 10/11/2007 12:24:17 AM >

(in reply to VSWG)
Post #: 3
RE: Leo's ASW Test on 1.8.0.6 - 10/11/2007 12:23:02 AM   
niceguy2005


Posts: 12510
Joined: 7/4/2005
From: Super secret hidden base
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: matchwood

Summary of results from Leo's ASW stock test:

4 squadrons on full range ASW at 1000 feet over 30 turns:

9xH8K - 0 hits
27xG4M1 - 0 hits
27xJake - 1 hit
27xHelen - 30+ hits

There appears to be a problem with torp armed planes using bombs against subs? I have run this test several times and the results are always similar to above.

How many subs were in the area? I assume they were stationary?

_____________________________


Artwork graciously provided by Dixie

(in reply to matchwood)
Post #: 4
RE: Leo's ASW Test on 1.8.0.6 - 10/11/2007 12:39:27 AM   
VSWG


Posts: 3432
Joined: 5/31/2006
From: Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: matchwood

Ok...so you don't see any problem with these results then?

I certainly do see a problem. Only the Jake's short range (3 hexes for ASW) can explain his poor performance (depending on how many subs had been within range). The Betty (ASW range 10) and Emily (ASW range 12) should hit at least as many subs as the Helen (ASW range 4). Both have torpedoes as 'primary' weapon, but apparently are not able to use their 'replacement' bombs against subs.

BTW, because of the decrease in range most players have stopped using the ASW setting altogether and spot subs using the naval search setting.

_____________________________


(in reply to matchwood)
Post #: 5
RE: Leo's ASW Test on 1.8.0.6 - 10/11/2007 12:53:04 AM   
2ndACR


Posts: 5648
Joined: 8/31/2003
From: Irving,Tx
Status: offline
Not me. I use the heck out of my Helens for ASW. Once a sub is spotted, it is doomed to the face swarms of high experienced Helens and ASW groups built around my APD's.

The allies have any ship with a depth charge, I have my Helens.

(in reply to VSWG)
Post #: 6
RE: Leo's ASW Test on 1.8.0.6 - 10/11/2007 2:36:16 AM   
Dili

 

Posts: 2881
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline
All things equal: "We have a problem Houston"

(in reply to 2ndACR)
Post #: 7
RE: Leo's ASW Test on 1.8.0.6 - 10/11/2007 6:19:30 AM   
Ron James


Posts: 330
Joined: 6/18/2005
From: North Carolina
Status: offline
I went out with a girl called Helen in my youth, fair maiden but she couldn't spot my sub for toffee , vast amounts of beer and boiled eggs cured that problem, fair winds.

ronnie

(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 8
RE: Leo's ASW Test on 1.8.0.6 - 10/11/2007 9:01:14 AM   
Yakface

 

Posts: 713
Joined: 8/5/2006
Status: offline
There is a problem with Nells/betties, Emily, Kate etc.  I have tried naval search and ASW but never achieved a hit with any torp armed plane in the 18 months of my current game.  They launch attacks, but never hit.  They also never hit shipping during the search phase.

(in reply to Ron James)
Post #: 9
RE: Leo's ASW Test on 1.8.0.6 - 10/11/2007 9:18:04 AM   
JeffK


Posts: 5152
Joined: 1/26/2005
From: Back in the Office, Can I get my tin hut back!
Status: offline
1st thought, a squadron (27 Betties) searching a radius of 600miles is covering a lot of territory, its chance of finding a sub (without top rate ASW gear) is minimal, maybe it suppresses through forcing it to dive rather than combat it. Maybe fiddle with the height settings, a bit higher may be better? Does it carry fewer, larger bombs?

But the Jakes should be more effective?, but IMHO searching out to 240miles with 27 slow floatplanes isnt very efficient.

I dont know what range the Helen covers, does it carry more, smaller bombs?

I'm totally unsurprised that the 9 Emily's covering a radius of 720miles doesnt do much. (1,627,776sq miles or 180,864sq miles each)



< Message edited by JeffK -- 10/11/2007 9:23:00 AM >


_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to Yakface)
Post #: 10
RE: Leo's ASW Test on 1.8.0.6 - 10/11/2007 9:46:58 AM   
matchwood

 

Posts: 63
Joined: 9/9/2004
Status: offline
For those of you not familiar with Leo's excelent test scenario:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=967245




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by matchwood -- 10/11/2007 9:50:17 AM >

(in reply to niceguy2005)
Post #: 11
RE: Leo's ASW Test on 1.8.0.6 - 10/11/2007 10:21:30 AM   
matchwood

 

Posts: 63
Joined: 9/9/2004
Status: offline
Have just redone the test with the standard armament for Betty's and H8K set to bombs - results were comparable to the KI-49, possibly slightly less because of a lower manuver, but hits none the less.

Conclusion: ASW bomb equipping for planes with a primary armament of torps is faulty. Until it is fixed some players might want to change the default armament for the H8K?

(in reply to Yakface)
Post #: 12
RE: Leo's ASW Test on 1.8.0.6 - 10/11/2007 12:43:28 PM   
Apollo11


Posts: 22577
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline
Hi all,

Nice test guys - thanks!


Leo "Apollo11"

_____________________________



Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

(in reply to matchwood)
Post #: 13
RE: Leo's ASW Test on 1.8.0.6 - 10/12/2007 12:09:39 AM   
VSWG


Posts: 3432
Joined: 5/31/2006
From: Germany
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: matchwood

Conclusion: ASW bomb equipping for planes with a primary armament of torps is faulty. Until it is fixed some players might want to change the default armament for the H8K?

If you listen really carefully, you can hear some devs grinding their teeth...

Thanks for all those tests, matchwood.

_____________________________


(in reply to matchwood)
Post #: 14
RE: Leo's ASW Test on 1.8.0.6 - 10/12/2007 12:19:02 AM   
niceguy2005


Posts: 12510
Joined: 7/4/2005
From: Super secret hidden base
Status: offline
Not to be a wet blanket, but well...is the issue here that the torp planes aren't hitting enough or that Helens are hitting too much.  That looks like a lot of hits to me.

_____________________________


Artwork graciously provided by Dixie

(in reply to VSWG)
Post #: 15
RE: Leo's ASW Test on 1.8.0.6 - 10/12/2007 1:48:57 AM   
VSWG


Posts: 3432
Joined: 5/31/2006
From: Germany
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL:  niceguy2005

Not to be a wet blanket, but well...is the issue here that the torp planes aren't hitting enough or that Helens are hitting too much.  That looks like a lot of hits to me.

36 subs + 30 days + 27 Helens = 30+ hits... Sounds about right to me.

BTW, what was the experience level of these air groups, matchwood?

_____________________________


(in reply to niceguy2005)
Post #: 16
RE: Leo's ASW Test on 1.8.0.6 - 10/12/2007 4:21:38 AM   
matchwood

 

Posts: 63
Joined: 9/9/2004
Status: offline
Average exp 75

(in reply to VSWG)
Post #: 17
RE: Leo's ASW Test on 1.8.0.6 - 10/12/2007 5:10:55 AM   
RUPD3658


Posts: 6920
Joined: 8/28/2002
From: East Brunswick, NJ
Status: offline
I have scored hits with Bettys but Sallys and Helens are far more effective.

_____________________________

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has limits"- Darwin Awards 2003

"No plan survives contact with the enemy." - Field Marshall Helmuth von Moltke


(in reply to matchwood)
Post #: 18
RE: Leo's ASW Test on 1.8.0.6 - 10/12/2007 10:04:50 AM   
mc3744


Posts: 1957
Joined: 3/9/2004
From: Italy
Status: offline
Great info. Just what I was looking for.

Thank you

_____________________________

Nec recisa recedit

(in reply to RUPD3658)
Post #: 19
RE: Leo's ASW Test on 1.8.0.6 - 10/12/2007 3:14:01 PM   
Apollo11


Posts: 22577
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline
Hi all,

Again - thanks for not forgetting my (old - I did it in v1.4 I think - I am at work now) test and testing with latest version!

The more tests the more things we can, hopefully and possibly, report as not OK and let our valiant programmers fix!


Leo "Apollo11"

_____________________________



Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

(in reply to mc3744)
Post #: 20
RE: Leo's ASW Test on 1.8.0.6 - 10/13/2007 12:21:48 AM   
Halsey


Posts: 4919
Joined: 2/7/2004
From: Indianapolis Indiana USA
Status: offline
So, here's something to try.

If you put torp bombers on airfield attack, with a high naval search %.
Will the loadout definitely be bombs?

_____________________________

AE WITP Land Air Bitmap downloads

https://sites.google.com/site/aewitplandairartwork/home/ae-witp-bitmap-downloads

(in reply to Apollo11)
Post #: 21
RE: Leo's ASW Test on 1.8.0.6 - 10/13/2007 1:27:03 PM   
Charles_22


Posts: 3993
Joined: 3/12/2001
From: Dallas, Texas, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: matchwood

Have just redone the test with the standard armament for Betty's and H8K set to bombs - results were comparable to the KI-49, possibly slightly less because of a lower manuver, but hits none the less.

Conclusion: ASW bomb equipping for planes with a primary armament of torps is faulty. Until it is fixed some players might want to change the default armament for the H8K?


But how many spotted subs were actually torped in the war? It would seem to me the sub would have to be very shallow, unless those sort of torps have some diving and homing capabilities.

(in reply to matchwood)
Post #: 22
RE: Leo's ASW Test on 1.8.0.6 - 10/13/2007 4:12:26 PM   
VSWG


Posts: 3432
Joined: 5/31/2006
From: Germany
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

But how many spotted subs were actually torped in the war? It would seem to me the sub would have to be very shallow, unless those sort of torps have some diving and homing capabilities.

You're missing his point: they switch from torpedoes to bombs when flying ASW. However, these "replacement" bombs seem to be not working, as matchwood didn't record a single hit.

_____________________________


(in reply to Charles_22)
Post #: 23
RE: Leo's ASW Test on 1.8.0.6 - 10/14/2007 9:52:49 AM   
Charles_22


Posts: 3993
Joined: 3/12/2001
From: Dallas, Texas, USA
Status: offline
So maybe they switch the load but the bombs behave like torps against subs? Maybe it's a training thing, that they set the torp planes with only torp training and are really bad bombing (no training). That is a bit illogical though, because why would you send out guys with no training with bombs, to hit a not terribly easy target to hit that way? The answer could be that you as commander are supposed to know that, and therefore even though they have ASW missions being possible, you shouldn't use them that way (long shot).

(in reply to VSWG)
Post #: 24
RE: Leo's ASW Test on 1.8.0.6 - 10/14/2007 4:13:46 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: matchwood

Summary of results from Leo's ASW stock test:

4 squadrons on full range ASW at 1000 feet over 30 turns:

9xH8K - 0 hits
27xG4M1 - 0 hits
27xJake - 1 hit
27xHelen - 30+ hits

There appears to be a problem with torp armed planes using bombs against subs? I have run this test several times and the results are always similar to above.



Given that Japanese ASW in ALL forms (planes, ships, mines, and shore batteries) managed to sink just over one Allied Sub a month during the real war...., I'd say that the problem is the number of "hits" by the Helens in a daily turn is about 2700% too large. You're talking about the wrong problem.. Even the Allies weren't as good as those Helens until 1943/44...

(in reply to matchwood)
Post #: 25
RE: Leo's ASW Test on 1.8.0.6 - 10/15/2007 7:00:31 PM   
Jim D Burns


Posts: 3124
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
Given that Japanese ASW in ALL forms (planes, ships, mines, and shore batteries) managed to sink just over one Allied Sub a month during the real war...., I'd say that the problem is the number of "hits" by the Helens in a daily turn is about 2700% too large. You're talking about the wrong problem.. Even the Allies weren't as good as those Helens until 1943/44...


I agree completely, in my PBEM games we have a house rule no ASW searches below 6000 feet and no more than 1 squadron in a CV task force can be set to ASW search. I'd be interested in the results for both NS and ASW search at that altitude.

But I agree with Mike, the Helens look like the problem to me, not the other planes. Do a 6 month test, if they each get 1 or 2 hits that'd be just about right.

Jim

_____________________________



(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 26
RE: Leo's ASW Test on 1.8.0.6 - 10/15/2007 8:19:23 PM   
Panther Bait


Posts: 507
Joined: 8/30/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


quote:

ORIGINAL: matchwood

Summary of results from Leo's ASW stock test:

4 squadrons on full range ASW at 1000 feet over 30 turns:

9xH8K - 0 hits
27xG4M1 - 0 hits
27xJake - 1 hit
27xHelen - 30+ hits

There appears to be a problem with torp armed planes using bombs against subs? I have run this test several times and the results are always similar to above.



Given that Japanese ASW in ALL forms (planes, ships, mines, and shore batteries) managed to sink just over one Allied Sub a month during the real war...., I'd say that the problem is the number of "hits" by the Helens in a daily turn is about 2700% too large. You're talking about the wrong problem.. Even the Allies weren't as good as those Helens until 1943/44...


Did the Japanese use Helens (or any other medium-type army bomber) as anti-sub platforms in the war? Part of the reason for the excessive number of hits in the test is likely due to the extremely ahistorical nature of the test scenario he is using. How many times did the US station 36 subs within 300 miles of a enemy base?

The test intentionally uses excessive targets to get a better sample in a reasonable amount of turns. If you want to test whether the Helens are over-producing hits, you'd need to reduce the US sub presence to something like 4 or 5 subs and re-run the test.

_____________________________

When you shoot at a destroyer and miss, it's like hit'in a wildcat in the ass with a banjo.

Nathan Dogan, USS Gurnard

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 27
RE: Leo's ASW Test on 1.8.0.6 - 10/16/2007 8:40:40 PM   
spence

 

Posts: 3906
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: vermont
Status: offline
quote:

Given that Japanese ASW in ALL forms (planes, ships, mines, and shore batteries) managed to sink just over one Allied Sub a month during the real war...., I'd say that the problem is the number of "hits" by the Helens in a daily turn is about 2700% too large. You're talking about the wrong problem.


Actually if you subtract the US subs lost due to accidents, non-combat reasons and the sub hit by bombers in the Cavite shipyard on day 2 of the war the score for all forms of Japanese ASW (including mines) falls substantially below 1 per month.

(in reply to Panther Bait)
Post #: 28
RE: Leo's ASW Test on 1.8.0.6 - 10/17/2007 12:40:01 PM   
Charles_22


Posts: 3993
Joined: 3/12/2001
From: Dallas, Texas, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

quote:

Given that Japanese ASW in ALL forms (planes, ships, mines, and shore batteries) managed to sink just over one Allied Sub a month during the real war...., I'd say that the problem is the number of "hits" by the Helens in a daily turn is about 2700% too large. You're talking about the wrong problem.


Actually if you subtract the US subs lost due to accidents, non-combat reasons and the sub hit by bombers in the Cavite shipyard on day 2 of the war the score for all forms of Japanese ASW (including mines) falls substantially below 1 per month.


With allied repair advantages I'm surprised if any of them sink, to wit, 30 hits do not generate 30 sinkings. With that many subs it was probably fortunate for IJ if two of them sank. 30 hits with 4-5 subs, possibly big trouble, even for the allies, but this many subs with 30 hits? - pfft.


< Message edited by Charles_22 -- 10/17/2007 12:42:57 PM >

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 29
RE: Leo's ASW Test on 1.8.0.6 - 10/17/2007 3:36:44 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

quote:

Given that Japanese ASW in ALL forms (planes, ships, mines, and shore batteries) managed to sink just over one Allied Sub a month during the real war...., I'd say that the problem is the number of "hits" by the Helens in a daily turn is about 2700% too large. You're talking about the wrong problem.


Actually if you subtract the US subs lost due to accidents, non-combat reasons and the sub hit by bombers in the Cavite shipyard on day 2 of the war the score for all forms of Japanese ASW (including mines) falls substantially below 1 per month.



But you have to include British and Dutch Subs lost as well..., I said Allied.

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Leo's ASW Test on 1.8.0.6 Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.117