Matrix Games Forums

Battle Academy is now available on SteamPlayers compare Ageods Civil War to Civil War IIDeal of the week - An updated War in the East goes half Price!Sign up for the Qvadriga beta for iPad and Android!Come and say hi at Pax and SaluteLegends of War goes on sale!Piercing Fortress Europa Gets UpdatedBattle Academy Mega Pack is now availableClose Combat: Gateway to Caen Teaser TrailerDeal of the Week Alea Jacta Est
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Making sub patrol and react better

 
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 >> Making sub patrol and react better Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Making sub patrol and react better - 1/3/2010 3:13:35 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 12179
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
Hi

From ingame experience and the other thread about subs hitting mines I would like to see an improvement of the sub patrol, which is a toggle that subs should NOT react into enemy bases. Why? Because they hit mines there all the time and it will probably the number one reason why you lose subs over the course of the war. And not just that, everyone that has played WITP and is now playing AE knows (and has always been told ) NOT to move subs into base hexes.

Well, what is the react routine now doing? Moving subs into base hexes on and on when they are sent off their patrol zone. This not just results in mine hits but also makes the subs far more vulnerable. Have not found a possibility to keep my subs out of enemy base hexes. The opposite is true, I see halve a dozen subs and MORE sitting in enemy base hexes as they have constantly been reacting, ending up in enemy bases.

This is pretty off and reminds me of auto sub ops in WITP (and probably AE) with most of your subs sitting in enemy ports.

Anyone ever thought about improving this new feature? The feature itself is a great improvement over WITP but the outcome isn´t really what it should be IMO. At least it should prevent subs from ending up in an enemy base when the set patrol zone is 20 hexes off the base.

< Message edited by castor troy -- 1/3/2010 3:14:15 PM >


_____________________________

Post #: 1
RE: Making sub patrol and react better - 1/3/2010 3:17:12 PM   
cap_and_gown


Posts: 2691
Joined: 3/6/2001
From: Virginia, USA
Status: offline
Please tell my how to get subs to react to enemy ships. I keep reading about this feature but haven't seen in the Guadacanal scenario I played against the AI. I set the "react" range to 6 but nothing happened.

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 2
RE: Making sub patrol and react better - 1/3/2010 3:24:28 PM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8092
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline

Subs in AE will never react into a DETECTED mine field. They will react into an undetected minefield 'cause they don't know it's there.

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 3
RE: Making sub patrol and react better - 1/3/2010 3:27:27 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 12179
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


Subs in AE will never react into a DETECTED mine field. They will react into an undetected minefield 'cause they don't know it's there.



I´ve gut subs sitting in more than a couple of enemy bases where I see the nice red dot, which should mean that there are mines there. I perhaps misunderstand your very apreciated answer Don, does it mean that subs shouldn´t react into the base where a mine field was spotted before (which isn´t happening in my games) or does it mean the subs just won´t hit a spotted minefield anymore?

_____________________________


(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 4
RE: Making sub patrol and react better - 1/3/2010 3:40:37 PM   
khyberbill


Posts: 1933
Joined: 9/11/2007
From: new milford, ct
Status: offline
I suspect it was your subs that detected the mine field-after they entered it. I dont like this feature either and now I put my subs on react range of 3 and try to keep them at least 4 hexes away from enemy ports. Not always succesful. At a few places, I set the range to 1 because the patrol zone is so tight.

_____________________________

"Its a dog eat dog world Sammy and I am wearing Milkbone underwear" -Norm.

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 5
RE: Making sub patrol and react better - 1/3/2010 3:42:59 PM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8092
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


Subs in AE will never react into a DETECTED mine field. They will react into an undetected minefield 'cause they don't know it's there.



I´ve gut subs sitting in more than a couple of enemy bases where I see the nice red dot, which should mean that there are mines there. I perhaps misunderstand your very apreciated answer Don, does it mean that subs shouldn´t react into the base where a mine field was spotted before (which isn´t happening in my games) or does it mean the subs just won´t hit a spotted minefield anymore?


Reaction only. If subs are ordered by a player to move into a mined hex, they will.

With a 40 mile hex, it is difficult to determine exactly where things are in the hex. But, since a sub can attack TFs that are logically at a base in the hex, we had to consider the chance that they will hit mines defending that base.

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 6
RE: Making sub patrol and react better - 1/3/2010 3:53:16 PM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8092
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline

Subs will also not react into larger ports. Don't recall the size but it's fairly small - four maybe??

If someone has a save just before a sub on reaction hits a mine, please post it in the tech support forum. In fact, any save where a sub hits a mine would be useful.

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 7
RE: Making sub patrol and react better - 1/3/2010 4:04:30 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 6833
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: cap_and_gown

Please tell my how to get subs to react to enemy ships. I keep reading about this feature but haven't seen in the Guadacanal scenario I played against the AI. I set the "react" range to 6 but nothing happened.



Four factors that I can see.

1. Crew experience
2. Leadership-especially aggressiveness.
3. Radar. You get radar with the 4/42 upgrade in all your American subs.
4. Detection level. You need to spot the TF. More likely if you have air patrols in the area or other subs.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to cap_and_gown)
Post #: 8
RE: Making sub patrol and react better - 1/3/2010 4:25:52 PM   
Rob Brennan UK


Posts: 3677
Joined: 8/24/2002
From: London UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


Subs will also not react into larger ports. Don't recall the size but it's fairly small - four maybe??

If someone has a save just before a sub on reaction hits a mine, please post it in the tech support forum. In fact, any save where a sub hits a mine would be useful.




I just had SS greenling react into Truk 2 days ago in the guadalcanal scenario PBEM so i dont have a save. I'm pretty sure one will run into Rabaul soon so i'll keep that and mail it in the tech support forums for you Don.

Cap
quote:

Please tell my how to get subs to react to enemy ships. I keep reading about this feature but haven't seen in the Guadacanal scenario I played against the AI. I set the "react" range to 6 but nothing happened.


thats exactly right , mine do react sometimes but not always. are you playing multiple turns ? as a sub may react then lost target and return to patrol routes without you noticing it in 2-3 day turns (just a thought).

_____________________________

sorry for the spelling . English is my main language , I just can't type . and i'm too lazy to edit :)

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 9
RE: Making sub patrol and react better - 1/3/2010 4:33:37 PM   
jb123


Posts: 270
Joined: 8/6/2009
Status: offline
I really don't like the sub react option. In my experience they react to a ship, don't hit anything, I am not informed that they reacted, and then they return to the home port with a full load of torps. Even if I was informed that they reacted, resetting their patrol zones would involve a mind-numbing amount of micromanaging. I take advantage of mid-ocean intercepts, set patrol zones, or leave them on remain on station at key areas. When they shoot or are attacked I move them a few hexes. I have a lot of sub kills, even early war with bad allied torps.

(in reply to Rob Brennan UK)
Post #: 10
RE: Making sub patrol and react better - 1/3/2010 5:11:50 PM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8092
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jb123

I really don't like the sub react option. In my experience they react to a ship, don't hit anything, I am not informed that they reacted, and then they return to the home port with a full load of torps. Even if I was informed that they reacted, resetting their patrol zones would involve a mind-numbing amount of micromanaging. I take advantage of mid-ocean intercepts, set patrol zones, or leave them on remain on station at key areas. When they shoot or are attacked I move them a few hexes. I have a lot of sub kills, even early war with bad allied torps.


If they return to home port after reacting, you are probably using Remain on Station instead of Patrol Zones. You should not do this.

In WITP there was a single function, Remain on Station, that was used both to keep a TF at a location and to specify patroling in that location.

In AE the two functions are separate. Remain on Station should only be used to keep a TF somewhere - and react range should be set to zero. Patrol zones should be used for patrol, along with react. This will allow the TF to react and then return to patrol.

From a purely technical standpoint, Remain on Station and React are incompatabile in AE as the first orders the TF not to move and the other orders the TF to move. This was also true in WITP but the effect is amplified in AE due to the adoption of hex by hex movement.

(in reply to jb123)
Post #: 11
RE: Making sub patrol and react better - 1/3/2010 7:17:51 PM   
cap_and_gown


Posts: 2691
Joined: 3/6/2001
From: Virginia, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


quote:

ORIGINAL: jb123

I really don't like the sub react option. In my experience they react to a ship, don't hit anything, I am not informed that they reacted, and then they return to the home port with a full load of torps. Even if I was informed that they reacted, resetting their patrol zones would involve a mind-numbing amount of micromanaging. I take advantage of mid-ocean intercepts, set patrol zones, or leave them on remain on station at key areas. When they shoot or are attacked I move them a few hexes. I have a lot of sub kills, even early war with bad allied torps.


If they return to home port after reacting, you are probably using Remain on Station instead of Patrol Zones. You should not do this.

In WITP there was a single function, Remain on Station, that was used both to keep a TF at a location and to specify patroling in that location.

In AE the two functions are separate. Remain on Station should only be used to keep a TF somewhere - and react range should be set to zero. Patrol zones should be used for patrol, along with react. This will allow the TF to react and then return to patrol.

From a purely technical standpoint, Remain on Station and React are incompatabile in AE as the first orders the TF not to move and the other orders the TF to move. This was also true in WITP but the effect is amplified in AE due to the adoption of hex by hex movement.


Ok, this is the key I was looking for - patrol zones!

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 12
RE: Making sub patrol and react better - 1/4/2010 12:11:22 AM   
Djordje

 

Posts: 537
Joined: 9/12/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


quote:

ORIGINAL: jb123

I really don't like the sub react option. In my experience they react to a ship, don't hit anything, I am not informed that they reacted, and then they return to the home port with a full load of torps. Even if I was informed that they reacted, resetting their patrol zones would involve a mind-numbing amount of micromanaging. I take advantage of mid-ocean intercepts, set patrol zones, or leave them on remain on station at key areas. When they shoot or are attacked I move them a few hexes. I have a lot of sub kills, even early war with bad allied torps.


If they return to home port after reacting, you are probably using Remain on Station instead of Patrol Zones. You should not do this.

In WITP there was a single function, Remain on Station, that was used both to keep a TF at a location and to specify patroling in that location.

In AE the two functions are separate. Remain on Station should only be used to keep a TF somewhere - and react range should be set to zero. Patrol zones should be used for patrol, along with react. This will allow the TF to react and then return to patrol.

From a purely technical standpoint, Remain on Station and React are incompatabile in AE as the first orders the TF not to move and the other orders the TF to move. This was also true in WITP but the effect is amplified in AE due to the adoption of hex by hex movement.


Thanks for very useful information, this explained a lot!

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 13
RE: Making sub patrol and react better - 1/4/2010 1:29:01 AM   
Titanwarrior89


Posts: 3079
Joined: 8/28/2003
From: arkansas
Status: offline
Ive noticed in my pbem game(gualalcanal) that sub-react is only one hex. It seems they have reduced it. In the campaign pbem I am currently in we are not using the sub react. So I don't know if it applys to both. But I would think it does. This is with hotfix 1097. Has anyone else had the same thing?

_____________________________

"Before Guadalcanal the enemy advanced at his pleasure. After Guadalcanal, he retreated at ours".

"Mama, There's Rabbits in the Garden"

(in reply to Djordje)
Post #: 14
RE: Making sub patrol and react better - 1/4/2010 5:58:08 AM   
Kull


Posts: 1043
Joined: 7/3/2007
From: El Paso, TX
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Titanwarrior89

Ive noticed in my pbem game(gualalcanal) that sub-react is only one hex. It seems they have reduced it. In the campaign pbem I am currently in we are not using the sub react. So I don't know if it applys to both. But I would think it does. This is with hotfix 1097. Has anyone else had the same thing?


Perhaps this:

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

Ok, here is a third (and we expect final) revision of the hot fix for patch 02.

210 - Submarine reaction range toned down for human players and historical difficulty AI players.


Personally I never used a Sub react range greater than 1, precisely because it produced questionable results in game. If that's been hard coded, so much the better.

(in reply to Titanwarrior89)
Post #: 15
RE: Making sub patrol and react better - 1/4/2010 6:22:40 PM   
hunchback77

 

Posts: 189
Joined: 5/13/2002
From: Whitby, Ontario, Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Titanwarrior89

Ive noticed in my pbem game(gualalcanal) that sub-react is only one hex. It seems they have reduced it. In the campaign pbem I am currently in we are not using the sub react. So I don't know if it applys to both. But I would think it does. This is with hotfix 1097. Has anyone else had the same thing?


It has been toned down in Patch 2 Hotfix 3 per Item 210.

210 - Submarine reaction range toned down for human players and historical difficulty AI players.


< Message edited by hunchback77 -- 1/4/2010 6:23:00 PM >

(in reply to Titanwarrior89)
Post #: 16
RE: Making sub patrol and react better - 1/4/2010 10:58:23 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 17372
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: Twin Cities, MN
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

Hi

From ingame experience and the other thread about subs hitting mines I would like to see an improvement of the sub patrol, which is a toggle that subs should NOT react into enemy bases. Why? Because they hit mines there all the time and it will probably the number one reason why you lose subs over the course of the war. And not just that, everyone that has played WITP and is now playing AE knows (and has always been told ) NOT to move subs into base hexes.

Well, what is the react routine now doing? Moving subs into base hexes on and on when they are sent off their patrol zone. This not just results in mine hits but also makes the subs far more vulnerable. Have not found a possibility to keep my subs out of enemy base hexes. The opposite is true, I see halve a dozen subs and MORE sitting in enemy base hexes as they have constantly been reacting, ending up in enemy bases.

This is pretty off and reminds me of auto sub ops in WITP (and probably AE) with most of your subs sitting in enemy ports.

Anyone ever thought about improving this new feature? The feature itself is a great improvement over WITP but the outcome isn´t really what it should be IMO. At least it should prevent subs from ending up in an enemy base when the set patrol zone is 20 hexes off the base.

Hi Castor Troy,

I agree with you about subs REACTING into enemy ports-I'd prefer that they not do that. I certainly have done some sticking a sub into a port hex (less than size 3) in AE to see if there's anything juicy there. Inherently dangerous for the submarine if it's mined or there's active ASW assets present, but it should be my choice as commander to order a submarine to do this.

Bear in mind that when you say "port hex" that you're also talking about much of the Phillipine islands map zone and DEI-the hex that includes a port of any size in it. There's more in the hex than just the port, the hex is also simulating waters up to 20 miles away from the hex. No reason that some of those shouldn't be fair 'coastal hunting grounds', as they were IRL.

_____________________________


(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 17
RE: Making sub patrol and react better - 1/4/2010 11:30:54 PM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8092
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline

Please let me say this again. Reaction should not move a sub into a hex containing a known minefield. It also will not move a sub into a hex with a larger port (don't recall the exact size, somewhere around 4).

If you have a save that shows a sub doing this, please post it.

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 18
RE: Making sub patrol and react better - 1/4/2010 11:38:26 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 17372
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: Twin Cities, MN
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


Please let me say this again. Reaction should not move a sub into a hex containing a known minefield. It also will not move a sub into a hex with a larger port (don't recall the exact size, somewhere around 4).

If you have a save that shows a sub doing this, please post it.

OK, Don. My subs reacted into Singapore on turn 1 prepatch II. I'll send you the saves.

Technically, the minefield wasn't SIGHTED until my submarines were blowing up, but for it to be considered as "unknown" is a bit specious. I mean, c'mon-do you think Singapore harbor might have some defensive minefields even if you can't see them? Apart from Osaka or Tokyo, there's probably not a better protected harbor in the world...

_____________________________


(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 19
RE: Making sub patrol and react better - 1/5/2010 2:29:07 AM   
Kull


Posts: 1043
Joined: 7/3/2007
From: El Paso, TX
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Technically, the minefield wasn't SIGHTED until my submarines were blowing up, but for it to be considered as "unknown" is a bit specious. I mean, c'mon-do you think Singapore harbor might have some defensive minefields even if you can't see them? Apart from Osaka or Tokyo, there's probably not a better protected harbor in the world...


Let's not beat the devs up for no reason. According to Don's post, subs won't react into a port IF it contains a "known minefield", but ALSO if it's larger than size 4. So that would certainly cover Singapore. Now maybe there's a bug and it's not working as intended, but the DESIGN covered exactly the contingency you're talking about. So spare him the "c'mon".

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 20
RE: Making sub patrol and react better - 1/5/2010 2:46:11 AM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8092
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


Please let me say this again. Reaction should not move a sub into a hex containing a known minefield. It also will not move a sub into a hex with a larger port (don't recall the exact size, somewhere around 4).

If you have a save that shows a sub doing this, please post it.

OK, Don. My subs reacted into Singapore on turn 1 prepatch II. I'll send you the saves.

Technically, the minefield wasn't SIGHTED until my submarines were blowing up, but for it to be considered as "unknown" is a bit specious. I mean, c'mon-do you think Singapore harbor might have some defensive minefields even if you can't see them? Apart from Osaka or Tokyo, there's probably not a better protected harbor in the world...


Post the save(s) in the Tech Support Forum. And remember, the computer can not make assumptions. Either the "detected" indicator is on, or it ain't.

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 21
RE: Making sub patrol and react better - 1/5/2010 3:40:13 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8022
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kull

Personally I never used a Sub react range greater than 1, precisely because it produced questionable results in game. If that's been hard coded, so much the better.


To each his own. My play style is hang it all out compared to many here, but I think that restricting your subs to such a strict react range underproduces, as well as being ahistoric for USN subs. These units are lone hunters. With an aggressive CO thay can do the damage of a CV raid, with far less risk. If you lose some subs you lose some subs. That's historic, although even with my common 6-reaction range I've only lost about 30% of the historical quantity to date in my August 1943 AI game.

Example of why you should let your boats roam free: I had a fully-armed Gato class at the northern head of the strait from Balikpapan. Convoy with three fat TKs and two escorts (a PB and an E) came by. Sub sank one tanker; convoy fled southwest. Boat pursued and sank both of the other two TKs on subsequent turns. In August 1943 I would have glady traded 1 for 1 subs for tankers. I got three, with no losses. If I had hamstrung my sub I would have gotten only one.

Accept losses; it's war. Let your subs be subs.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Kull)
Post #: 22
RE: Making sub patrol and react better - 1/5/2010 6:05:48 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 12179
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kull

Personally I never used a Sub react range greater than 1, precisely because it produced questionable results in game. If that's been hard coded, so much the better.


To each his own. My play style is hang it all out compared to many here, but I think that restricting your subs to such a strict react range underproduces, as well as being ahistoric for USN subs. These units are lone hunters. With an aggressive CO thay can do the damage of a CV raid, with far less risk. If you lose some subs you lose some subs. That's historic, although even with my common 6-reaction range I've only lost about 30% of the historical quantity to date in my August 1943 AI game.

Example of why you should let your boats roam free: I had a fully-armed Gato class at the northern head of the strait from Balikpapan. Convoy with three fat TKs and two escorts (a PB and an E) came by. Sub sank one tanker; convoy fled southwest. Boat pursued and sank both of the other two TKs on subsequent turns. In August 1943 I would have glady traded 1 for 1 subs for tankers. I got three, with no losses. If I had hamstrung my sub I would have gotten only one.

Accept losses; it's war. Let your subs be subs.



if you have lost only 30% of the historical in your AI game, you would have lost 300% of the historical losses (probably even more) in a PBEM...

_____________________________


(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 23
RE: Making sub patrol and react better - 1/5/2010 8:18:48 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8022
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

if you have lost only 30% of the historical in your AI game, you would have lost 300% of the historical losses (probably even more) in a PBEM...


Yeah, I keep being told this, but no one to date has offered any explaination of how, given that the ASW code is the same for both.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 24
RE: Making sub patrol and react better - 1/5/2010 8:22:21 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 12179
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

if you have lost only 30% of the historical in your AI game, you would have lost 300% of the historical losses (probably even more) in a PBEM...


Yeah, I keep being told this, but no one to date has offered any explaination of how, given that the ASW code is the same for both.



that´s an easy explanation, no human player would set up his convoys like the AI does, no human player sets up his ASW like the AI does, no matter if air or naval ASW. And a human player certainly doesn´t use the same convoy routes 100% of the time.

edit: and your kills would also only be 25% of the kills you achieve vs AI.

_____________________________


(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 25
RE: Making sub patrol and react better - 1/5/2010 8:31:59 PM   
John Lansford

 

Posts: 2653
Joined: 4/29/2002
Status: offline
So in order to get subs to react to targets, I've got to give them a patrol zone?

What if I tell them to patrol only one hex and set the react range higher than zero?  Will they then "remain on station" and still react to nearby targets?

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 26
RE: Making sub patrol and react better - 1/5/2010 8:36:47 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8022
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

if you have lost only 30% of the historical in your AI game, you would have lost 300% of the historical losses (probably even more) in a PBEM...


Yeah, I keep being told this, but no one to date has offered any explaination of how, given that the ASW code is the same for both.



that´s an easy explanation, no human player would set up his convoys like the AI does, no human player sets up his ASW like the AI does, no matter if air or naval ASW. And a human player certainly doesn´t use the same convoy routes 100% of the time.


Well, that's a start. HOW would a human player do convoys differently? The number of ASW vessels is the constraint in both cases. If you massively overload your convoys, yes, you might get some more subs (not 270% more though), but your surface TFs are going to be undefended. If you put out dozens of ASW TFs, I'll still go there, because they don't sink anything (on either side), and again, they eat up escorts. OTOH, my subs have radar that works, and I give them the authority to move away if need be. The AI already runs huge numbers of airborne ASW missions, so if you want to do more of those, knock yourself out. I haven't lost a sub to them in almost two years, and they eat up supply.

As to routes, I KNOW where the oil and resources are and I know where they have to go, and you have to go through choke points. I'll be there. Outbound, I do lots of overlapping barrier patrols--near the Jimas, in the Marianas, and up north to close off the Kuriles--with sides 8-12 hexes long, with varying loiters and speeds. If you want to waypoint to Alaska to get to Truk, go ahead. I'll take the lack of attacks for your consumption of fuel and time.

The sub war in the PTO is fundamentally different than in the Atlantic. The PTO isn't continent-to-continent. It doesn't lend itself to efficient convoys. There are chokepoints everywhere. There are lots, and lots (and lots) of islands where I can attack from 360 degrees, going or coming, and you have to resupply or lose in a cakewalk.

I've said a couple of times that I think ASW on both sides is a bit underpowered, especially airborne. But when the USN's torpedoes start working, the Japanese player, human or electron, is going to bleed badly. It's inevitable. It's built into the geography and force structures.

< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 1/5/2010 8:59:46 PM >


_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 27
RE: Making sub patrol and react better - 1/5/2010 8:45:10 PM   
John Lansford

 

Posts: 2653
Joined: 4/29/2002
Status: offline
The Allies have a ton of short ranged ASW assets that can operate in long-range convoys as long as they've got something to refuel them.  Those Aussie minesweepers are numerous and have effective ASW capabilities.  I use them on all the Oz coastal TF's and even over to Suva/Bora Bora; they slow down the TF when they need refueling but they insure the ships get there in one piece.  For the longer trips to Pearl or the WC I use the shorter ranged USN DD's and fleet minesweepers; again, there's enough that I can keep my longer ranged DD's for fleet use.  The AI's subs get detected and sometimes attacked by these ships, but I'm more interested in them NOT sinking my ships rather than trying to sink them myself.  The only sinkings I suffer are when I get in a hurry and send out TF's with no ASW escort at all.

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 28
RE: Making sub patrol and react better - 1/5/2010 8:58:47 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8022
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

The Allies have a ton of short ranged ASW assets that can operate in long-range convoys as long as they've got something to refuel them.  Those Aussie minesweepers are numerous and have effective ASW capabilities.  I use them on all the Oz coastal TF's and even over to Suva/Bora Bora; they slow down the TF when they need refueling but they insure the ships get there in one piece.  For the longer trips to Pearl or the WC I use the shorter ranged USN DD's and fleet minesweepers; again, there's enough that I can keep my longer ranged DD's for fleet use.  The AI's subs get detected and sometimes attacked by these ships, but I'm more interested in them NOT sinking my ships rather than trying to sink them myself.  The only sinkings I suffer are when I get in a hurry and send out TF's with no ASW escort at all.


I agree with all you've said. Please note that my comments to Castor come from playing as Allies in an AI game and are focused on learning how the Japanese player can best historical results.

I use a lot of ASW TFs, because I have hundreds of short-range DC-droppers, no fuel worries, and so why not? I also give their COs a 6-react-range and they react all over the place. Rarely sink any subs, but they dent them, and sometimes drive them off home. I'm starting to get a few Hedgehogs here and there, and they seem to do their historical number on high-DL subs.

My best, though accidental, tactic to make the West Coast of the US as well as PH safer was to CV-raid the IJN's submarine tenders located at that base they're located at (no spoilers!) Once that base was put OOC the West Coast threat dropped at least 75%. A human player would probably re-establish the forward base, but now, in late summer 1943, I occupy that island chain anyway.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to John Lansford)
Post #: 29
RE: Making sub patrol and react better - 1/5/2010 9:13:06 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 12179
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

if you have lost only 30% of the historical in your AI game, you would have lost 300% of the historical losses (probably even more) in a PBEM...


Yeah, I keep being told this, but no one to date has offered any explaination of how, given that the ASW code is the same for both.



that´s an easy explanation, no human player would set up his convoys like the AI does, no human player sets up his ASW like the AI does, no matter if air or naval ASW. And a human player certainly doesn´t use the same convoy routes 100% of the time.


Well, that's a start. HOW would a human player do convoys differently? The number of ASW vessels is the constraint in both cases. If you massively overload your convoys, yes, you might get some more subs (not 270% more though), but your surface TFs are going to be undefended. If you put out dozens of ASW TFs, I'll still go there, because they don't sink anything (on either side), and again, they eat up escorts. OTOH, my subs have radar that works, and I give them the authority to move away if need be. The AI already runs huge numbers of airborne ASW missions, so if you want to do more of those, knock yourself out. I haven't lost a sub to them in almost two years, and they eat up supply.

As to routes, I KNOW where the oil and resources are and I know where they have to go, and you have to go through choke points. I'll be there. Outbound, I do lots of overlapping barrier patrols--near the Jimas, in the Marianas, and up north to close off the Kuriles--with sides 8-12 hexes long, with varying loiters and speeds. If you want to waypoint to Alaska to get to Truk, go ahead. I'll take the lack of attacks for your consumption of fuel and time.

The sub war in the PTO is fundamentally different than in the Atlantic. The PTO isn't continent-to-continent. It doesn't lend itself to efficient convoys. There are chokepoints everywhere. There are lots, and lots (and lots) of islands where I can attack from 360 degrees, going or coming, and you have to resupply or lose in a cakewalk.

I've said a couple of times that I think ASW on both sides is a bit underpowered, especially airborne. But when the USN's torpedoes start working, the Japanese player, human or electron, is going to bleed badly. It's inevitable. It's built into the geography and force structures.



start a PBEM and you´ll find out soon that you will take at least 3x as many losses and only achieve 1/4 of the kills if you think you can still behave like against the AI. Trust me, the difference is like a cliff. If you think you´re good vs the AI you´re nowhere yet vs a human player. Been there, done that...

< Message edited by castor troy -- 1/5/2010 9:14:16 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Making sub patrol and react better 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

0.122