Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Submarines

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Submarines Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 4 [5]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Submarines - 1/6/2010 10:53:24 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 18505
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline
I know how damaging the Allied subs were to Japan and that really wasn't the point of my concern.  I've had three main concerns, one of which has been addressed:  (1) Sub effectiveness against ASW [already addressed]; (2) Ability of subs to hang around major ports and hammer enemy ships despite mines, ASW TFs, ASW air patrols, etc. and (3) Japanese subs are far too lethal in the game.

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 121
RE: Submarines - 1/6/2010 10:58:26 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11298
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

I didn't much like the sub reaction range 6, my subs stationed south of Japan were sometimes chasing contacts to Aleutians or even to China Sea!  

This latest restriction should stop subs stalking slower TFs (fast ones were of course more safe) half Pacific. I think there was also toning down of subs entering large ports.


I loved reaction ranges of 6. Bird-in-the-hand for me. No reqson to let a spotted target go in order to perhaps aimlessly cover an empty hex in hopes of something else next week. I also looked at long reaction ranges as pseudo Magic intel intercepts, which were used a lot by USN subs.

I've only had one react into a mined port in my August 1943 game. USS Shad into Fusan. Boom. 43/38/0/0 damage, limping home.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 122
RE: Nuclear Subs - 1/6/2010 11:02:52 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11298
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

I think subs are probably too good in general. I'm surprised JFBs are complaining more about it, even with crappy Allied torpedoes it seems to me that Allied subs are ripping a new <censored> out of the Japanese merchant fleet.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - you just wait until a campaign reaches 1/1/43. In my experience in the Guadalcanal scenario it's like a switch is flipped - suddenly Allied subs become twice as deadly. By mid 43 the JFBs will be screaming blue murder about this.

Submarine survivability seems about right but they seem too good on the attack.


I'd reverse it. The Allied attack successes are about right (although there was no magic switch in Jan. 1943--torpedoes got better in fits and starts, often by each boat taking matters into its own hands), but the subs are too durable. Loss rates are far below historic in my game, and I'm wild and crazy in emplyment of boats. I don't know how you'd tweak this. Probably have to play with individual weapons, one by one. I think playing with class durabilities for the subs might break everything else, including damage from shellfire and bombs.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to EUBanana)
Post #: 123
RE: Nuclear Subs - 1/6/2010 11:31:46 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11298
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Astarix

Granted that this has been against 3 AI games and a hotseat game with my son, but my personal experience with sub ops has been the following.

As the allies, I train my Air assets until the average pilot ASW experience is in the 50's.  Especially the restricted command bombers on the US west coast and then all of the float plane groups that start arriving.  And I assign commanders with high Nav and aggression ratings to these air groups.  For my ASW TF's I don't bother using the YP's.  They just have ASW ratings of 1 and are floating coffins for their crews.  Instead, I convert them to ACM's and stick em in my major ports to maintain the minefields.  Minefields are a wonderful ASW platform.  For my other ASW assets, as the SC's and other dedicated ASW ships arrive I change their commanders, to commanders with the best available Nav and Aggression ratings I can and then stick them in TF's with the highest aggression and leadership rated available TF Leader possible. 

Keep in mind that for air groups that are smaller than size 10 they can either do ASW or Search effectively or both along a very narrow arc.  I prefer to dedicate my smaller groups to search only.  Along the U.S. West Coast, I have a Kingfisher group at every coastal base.  Either I parked an AV/D/P at the port or I moved one of the inland base forces to the coastal base.  I have approximately 16 Air units along the US/Canadian coast with overlapping ASW arcs completely blanketing the coast. 

For my ASW groups, I set them on patrol zones between 1-3 bases with transit paths that are no more than 6 hexes in length between Patrol points.  I set them for 1 day delays at each patrol point.  As of January 1943 I have approximately 10-15 of these HK groups consisting of AM/SC class ships on overlapping patrol patterns.  I don't just park them at a single port, but every port has at least 1 group in it nearly every day, especially San Francisco and Los Angeles.

So far in my game with my son, I've lost maybe half a dozen AM and SC's and a handful of merchants in return I've sunk about 10 I-boats.  I get at least 1 sub prosecution from my ASWTF's or my Airborne ASW every turn.  Most of the time I don't actually hit the subs, I see a lot of "Sub spotted", "Sub evaded contact" messages, but when I do prosecute contacts I am damaging the subs as often as not.  My son has complained that he subs spend more time getting repaired than they do shooting at my ships.  A result I am more than happy with.

For Convoy escorts, I generally try to stick with the longer range YMS/AM/SC ships.  Again, I replace crappy leaders with the best available ones, especially those with higher aggression ratings.  Generally I will put at least 6-10 of the small escorts into every convoy and I don't leave unescorted merchant ships sitting in TF's.  I've found one of the real threats with the AI is that it is incredibly aggressive with the midget subs and I had the Lexington take a fish 2x now in one of my AI games from midget subs.

As far as allied submarine warfare.  I let the computer handle the long range fleet boats.  I just stick em in single ship TF's put em on max react range and let em go.  Whenever I see one was attacked by ASW or Air assets, I go check on it and move it if necessary, or if its been damaged, I send it back to port if its sys damage is 10 or higher.  The Japanese AI has been very aggressive using ASW TF's but not so good at escorting its own convoys.  I find that when my subs have been spotted by Aircraft is when they are most vulnerable.  I keep control of the S, dutch and British boats myself and use them in known choke points using patrol zones.  I found them to be incredibly effective early in defense of Java as I literally saturated the coasts around Palembang, Batavia and Soerbaja with these subs.

Even early in the war, both against the AI and my son, I was averaging at least 1 sub attack a day, the more aggressive commanders would surface and use their deck guns as often as not, especially early with the dud torps on the Fleet Boats.  Now that its 1943, my subs are suddenly the terror of the South China Sea, but even in 1942 I was killing a merchant ship about every 3 days with the Fleet Boats.  Now its obscene how effective my subs are.  With the lower dud rate, I'm killing at least 1.5 Japanese ships a day, even in escorted convoys, especially against the AI.  My son has had a bit better success against my subs by using many of the same tactics that I do, particularly with Airborne ASW.  He indicated that once he started training his patrol aircraft to get their ASW ratings into the 50's his ship losses have mitigated and effective attacks have gone up significantly.

Anyway that's been my experience.  Not every game has been exactly the same, the AI particularly, seems to have a large variability.



This is an excellent summary, and should be read by every beginning player. I especially like your use of the Kingfishers along the coast. The Allied player gets a bunch of these groups very early, and they are great for spotting. I've gradually learned to not expect the airborne assets to attack and hit anything. They are just "reaction engines" for the ASW TFs, which do in fact react like crazy if you let them off the leash. I also echo your thoughts on YPs. Pretty much a waste of time. OTOH, the Canadian KVs have been great little assets.

< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 1/7/2010 12:52:14 AM >


_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Astarix)
Post #: 124
RE: Submarines - 1/6/2010 11:35:00 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11298
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

That tactic may not work as well as you think. The game engine does special things with those little ants that few people care about; YPs, AMCs, yadda, yadda. They are there for a reason, and the engine uses them to populate "local" ASW TFs to preclude precisely that behavior. If you know how to use your ants, and you have sufficient ants in port, those ports will be substantially immune.


Hmm. Well, that's good to know. I have probably 100 YPs whose crews are tired of acey-deucey and Betty Grable. Guess I better get them formed up.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 125
RE: Nuclear Subs - 1/6/2010 11:47:22 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11298
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152

Is the game really that random or is there that much of a difference between PBEM and playing against the AI?

In my game (Japan vs Allied AI) IJN subs sunk 13 ships in just one day! After the 1097 patch, subs are again sinking escorts (DD's, PC's).

I've seen up to 19 sub attacks in a single day (both allied and Japanese).

I have yet to have a sub damaged or sunk a sub with ASW.



I doubt there is a core difference in detection and attack code between AI and PBEM. A dev can tell me otherwise.

Also, the decision to surface and gun it out is out of the player's hands in both cases.

What I've not seen the AI do is send an I- or R-boat into a major base hex as Canoerebel describes, or sink a docked ship. What the AI has done and continues to do in summer 1943 is aggressively employ midgets in major base hexes, sometimes with effect. A week ago another rolled up on the beach in Bombay, fortunately with its torpedoes in the tubes. About half of my IJN sub sinkings have been midgets.

In almost two years of war I've never come close to seeing 19 total attacks in a day. Probably 6-7 is the max. Nor have I seen anything close to 13 sunk ships--on either side--in one day. I'd welcome other player inputs, but I think these results would be strong outliers.

I have seen hundreds of ASW damaged subs by now (8/1943), mostly minor damage, and some sinkings. Probably 30-40%% of the time the sub attempts a battle surface after sustaining critical damage, and is sunk by naval gunfire. I have sunk IJN subs, and the AI has sunk mine as well. If you're past early 1942 and you've seen no damage or sinkings, something is wrong.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to pad152)
Post #: 126
RE: Nuclear Subs - 1/6/2010 11:55:33 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11298
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CarnageINC


I've trained my air crews to 40's so far for ASW, i have dedicated ASW fleets 2-3 ships in size, 2-3 per major port, and I'm escorting with 1-2 DD's for most convoys. I have maybe sunk ONE sub...ONE in 1.5 months of war......ONE! I have lost umteen hundred AK's and TK's not to mention at least 8 warships......FOR ONE SUB! Yes I've changed poor ship commanders. And yes taking all these counter measures has diminished attacks a bit, but come on.....ONE SUB?!?



Six weeks in and you're bitchin'? You WILL lose a lot of ships until the first ASW upgrades. DO THEM no matter the cost in time and effort. You need DC capacities and you need K-guns. Don't run ASW tfs with less than four ships; less and you don't have DC volumes to sustain an attack early on. Even later, you'll sometimes run out in the middle of an attack. It happens.

Six weeks into the war you don't have anything to complain about, yet. Maybe later.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to CarnageINC)
Post #: 127
RE: Submarines - 1/7/2010 12:07:28 AM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11298
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

I know how damaging the Allied subs were to Japan and that really wasn't the point of my concern.  I've had three main concerns, one of which has been addressed:  (1) Sub effectiveness against ASW [already addressed]; (2) Ability of subs to hang around major ports and hammer enemy ships despite mines, ASW TFs, ASW air patrols, etc. and (3) Japanese subs are far too lethal in the game.


1) Agree with this. Too many ASW asset attacks as the game was shipped. Not a problem recently.
2) Haven't seen this in AI game, except midgets. As you said elsewhere, it's hard from a code standpoint to test for targets moving in or through the hex, versus docked. It's tempting to think of the base hex as "harbor", but it extends four horizons out to sea in many cases. Lots of room to hide during the day, and surface to charge batteries at night.

I agree that I'd be crazy if I had lost dozens of DOCKED ships to subs in major ports. I hope this can be addressed code-wise if need be.
In light of JWE's comments, I'll also look at spreading out my "ants." Right now they are clustered in their building ports, especially around Seattle. Many ports have none.

3. This is the biggie, and I fear hardest to address in code. I agree that they get "too many", but, if there is no doctrine (and that horse left the barn), how can one say it's not the "right amount"? IJN subs did sink a lot of non-naval ships. If the attack code is shared, tweaking on this could break the far more strategically important Allied sub attack rate.

< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 1/7/2010 12:58:35 AM >


_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 128
RE: Submarines - 1/7/2010 12:37:37 AM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 18505
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline
I hadn't thought of it that way, Bullwinkle.  Thanks for chiming in.  Perhaps we need something akin to the hobble cowboys used on their horses to keep them from straying at night.  Hobble the Japanese submarines!

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 129
RE: Submarines - 1/7/2010 1:05:37 AM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 24846
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline
Nein nein nein.

I would oppose any unilateral hobbling of any one sides naval forces (submarines included) until we had conclusively heard from a large number of participants throughout their entire war PBEM situation that nearly every instance was massively and irrevocably 'borked'.

With all due respect, you're not far enough along in your game to be demanding such hobbling changes to the other side's equipment. There are others here whose game experience is different than yours that would have their gameplay irrevocably diminished by these changes that you want for yourself. Coding changes have got to be evenly applied and cautiously administered so's they don't get out of hand and ruin the game for half the players.

Make a HR in your game to suit your immediate needs. Don't bork my playing experience or those silent masses that aren't participating in this increasingly repetitive thread.

_____________________________


(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 130
RE: Submarines - 1/7/2010 1:07:40 AM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
Well, fwiw, I don't see too many issues with subs and asw but I'm only mid Jan 42 vs Japan AI. Happily, much of what bugged the heck out of me with WITP such as endless air attacks vs surfaced subs in daylight is no longer a prob. Don't forget, air ASW did little vs subs prior to the advent of MAD and airborne radar, aside from keeping them submerged in daylight in enemy air patrolled areas (until the advent of sub air warning radar). More time is needed but so far it "feels" pretty darn good.

_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 131
RE: Submarines - 1/7/2010 1:08:33 AM   
Cathartes

 

Posts: 2155
Joined: 1/5/2001
Status: offline
It's work, but a detailed, NO FOW, long-running report of sub interactions and ASW response/success&failure will be valuable information in the debate. It requires good communication with a willing PBEM opponent.

Free of emotion and editorial (not accusing here, just hinting for all that might contribute). If there's a problem, pure data will help narrow the issue. Vulcan approach to the Data (pardon the Trekkie pun).

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 132
RE: Submarines - 1/7/2010 2:47:18 AM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8667
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline
"Vulcan approach to the Data (pardon the Trekkie pun)."

It's a good thing that you put in the parenthetical comment at the end.. I was thinking that you would start receiving 6000 combat reports per minute!


_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to Cathartes)
Post #: 133
RE: Submarines - 1/7/2010 2:55:47 AM   
88l71


Posts: 218
Joined: 9/17/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

"Vulcan approach to the Data (pardon the Trekkie pun)."

It's a good thing that you put in the parenthetical comment at the end.. I was thinking that you would start receiving 6000 combat reports per minute!



And here I thought he might have been referring to the Roman deity...

(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 134
RE: Submarines - 1/7/2010 8:52:05 AM   
castor troy


Posts: 12370
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs
John, Would you clarify a bit? Which of the 'little fellers' need to be in TF's and which should be left disbanded in the port? And for TF's do they have to be undocked & remain-on-station?

YPs, and AMcs, don't have the list in hand. Maybe Don could get more specific. But ants. And they aren't in TFs, they just sit disbanded in port and the engine grabs tham and makes TFs and confronts subs, and puts them back after the excitement is over. Basically, the teensy weensy guys we are pinging on in Da Babes mod.



wow, is this in the manual and I´ve just missed it or is this something only the devs get to know? I have yet to see the "ants" attack any subs though, not in the replay, not in the report.

_____________________________


(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 135
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 3 4 [5]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Submarines Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 4 [5]
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

0.226