Matrix Games

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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...

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...

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.