Matrix Games Forums

Happy Easter!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 Trailer
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

sub decides to submerge due to (non existant) damage

 
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 >> Tech Support >> sub decides to submerge due to (non existant) damage Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
sub decides to submerge due to (non existant) damage - 2/29/2012 1:11:20 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 12182
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
I have seen this for a long time now, in the last two turns of my PBEM, no less than four potential sub attacks on unescorted enemy freighters failed because of this:


Sub attack near Kendari at 70,106

Japanese Ships
xAK Bunzan Maru

Allied Ships
SS O21, hits 1



SS O21 attacking on the surface
van Dulm, J.F. decides to submerge SS O21 due to damage



now this may have been a nice feature, if there would actually be something that could be called DAMAGE, but the subs are constantly doing this with literally no damage at all.





Turn 23th Jan

Submarine attack near Lomblen at 68,113

Japanese Ships
xAK Daigen Maru, Shell hits 1, on fire

Allied Ships
SS S-18

Japanese ground losses:
9 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled



xAK Daigen Maru is sighted by SS S-18
SS S-18 attacking on the surface
Clark D. decides to submerge SS S-18 due to damage


and

Submarine attack near Kendari at 70,106

Japanese Ships
xAK Bunzan Maru

Allied Ships
SS O21



xAK Bunzan Maru is sighted by SS O21
SS O21 attacking on the surface
van Dulm, J.F. decides to submerge SS O21 due to damage




turn 24th Jan

Sub attack near Kendari at 70,106

Japanese Ships
xAK Bunzan Maru

Allied Ships
SS O21, hits 1



SS O21 attacking on the surface
van Dulm, J.F. decides to submerge SS O21 due to damage


and

Sub attack near Kendari at 70,106

Japanese Ships
xAK Bunzan Maru

Allied Ships
SS O21



SS O21 attacking on the surface
van Dulm, J.F. decides to submerge SS O21 due to damage



sys damage for S-18 and O-21 on the 23th was below 5 and after being hit by the 8cm gun on the 24th (probably FOW and no hit anyway), the sub had a whopping sys damage of 5!

and the "funny" thing about this is that if there would have been escorts for the enemy freighters, the sub would attack submerged and wouldn't break off the attack! NONE of the four attacks on the surface saw a single torpedo fired. I haven't seen this feature for IJN subs, they seem to attack just fine on the surface, don't know if the decision was to make this an Allied only feature but as it stands now, it's a disadvantage for Allied subs to attack on the surface as they decide not to attack as soon as they reach 3 points of sys damage or so, which is nothing in terms of damage.








Attachment (1)

< Message edited by castor troy -- 2/29/2012 1:23:46 PM >


_____________________________

Post #: 1
RE: sub decides to submerge due to (non existant) damage - 2/29/2012 3:15:09 PM   
USS America


Posts: 15867
Joined: 10/28/2002
From: Apex, NC, USA
Status: offline
Aggression rating of the sub skipper?

_____________________________

Mike

"Good times will set you free" - Jimmy Buffett

"They need more rum punch" - Me


Artwork by The Amazing Dixie

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 2
RE: sub decides to submerge due to (non existant) damage - 2/29/2012 3:30:37 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 12182
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: USS America

Aggression rating of the sub skipper?



have replaced all my sub skippers a month ago with the best available. No matter how the skipper looks like, a sub shouldn't break off the attack DUE TO DAMAGE with no damage at all.

_____________________________


(in reply to USS America)
Post #: 3
RE: sub decides to submerge due to (non existant) damage - 2/29/2012 3:55:23 PM   
USS America


Posts: 15867
Joined: 10/28/2002
From: Apex, NC, USA
Status: offline
Well, a wuss skipper "shouldn't" break off the attack, but might officially report anything, just as an excuse to run away.

_____________________________

Mike

"Good times will set you free" - Jimmy Buffett

"They need more rum punch" - Me


Artwork by The Amazing Dixie

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 4
RE: sub decides to submerge due to (non existant) damage - 2/29/2012 4:26:30 PM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8093
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline

The decision to break off combat and submerge can be initiated by three possible events:

1. Float Damage of 20 or more, or
2. Sys Damage of 30 or more, or
3. a random value based on total damage (sys, float, engine) is greater than a similar random value based on the aggression value of the subs skipper

Number 3 is the probable cause as it includes random and can "fire" for a small amount of damage. This was put in intentionally to represent both "cautious" skippers and inaccurate damage estimates.

Also remember that damage can be repaired during the turn and the damage levels that you see after the turn are probably less than the levels at the time of the submerge decision.

As to random, this is done all over the game. It gives a wide set of possible results and (in this case) nicely emulates inaccurate and "fog of war" reports. "Control room, forward torpedo room, we are taking water from somewhere on the engaged side!" - but a careful examination finds only leakage from damp skivvies after a near miss.

(in reply to USS America)
Post #: 5
RE: sub decides to submerge due to (non existant) damage - 2/29/2012 5:13:01 PM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4376
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy
have replaced all my sub skippers a month ago with the best available. No matter how the skipper looks like, a sub shouldn't break off the attack DUE TO DAMAGE with no damage at all.


CT, I noticed the high ammount of aborted attacks in your AAR too. Its seems high if theres no explanation.

But, as an example see my sceenshot below, I sorted the sub drivers by skill.
If you look on the aggression rating a lot of high skill commanders have low agg. If you only looked
at Nav skill on selection you might have some pretty low agg commanders in charge.

Those might be good at recon or minelaying but not as ship hunters...



_____________________________

S**t happens in war.

All hail the superior ones!

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 6
RE: sub decides to submerge due to (non existant) damage - 2/29/2012 5:20:16 PM   
witpqs

 

Posts: 14131
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy
have replaced all my sub skippers a month ago with the best available. No matter how the skipper looks like, a sub shouldn't break off the attack DUE TO DAMAGE with no damage at all.


CT, I noticed the high ammount of aborted attacks in your AAR too. Its seems high if theres no explanation.

But, as an example see my sceenshot below, I sorted the sub drivers by skill.
If you look on the aggression rating a lot of high skill commanders have low agg. If you only looked
at Nav skill on selection you might have some pretty low agg commanders in charge.

Those might be good at recon or minelaying but not as ship hunters...




+1. In fact the very first criteria I look at is the highest aggressiveness rating available. I will skip a commander if he is too bad in one or more other ratings, but I haven't so far. Both of my current opponents have commented on the results.

Look for commanders who in today's PCBS world would be diagnosed as "Attention Deficit Psycho Aggressive".

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 7
RE: sub decides to submerge due to (non existant) damage - 2/29/2012 9:44:31 PM   
Dan Nichols


Posts: 863
Joined: 8/30/2011
Status: offline
Moore, J A should follow a ship right into Toyko Bay on the surface and sink it.

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 8
RE: sub decides to submerge due to (non existant) damage - 3/1/2012 5:37:14 AM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4376
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
Moore, J A was relieved of command after

- repeatedly banging his head against the hull of Guardfish when receiving his lunch more than 30 seconds late.
- slicing the throat of the ship´s mascot "Fluffy", and eating it´s innards "for educational purposes", after a loud bark cost him a black eye while peeking
through the periscope.
- attacking a protected convoy on the surface in broad daylight and, after finding out that all torps were duds, relocating to the bridge and starting to
throw plates and coffeecups in the direction of two engageing escorts.

He might still be assigned on single crew cruise missions on days where theres no foam on his mouth....


_____________________________

S**t happens in war.

All hail the superior ones!

(in reply to Dan Nichols)
Post #: 9
RE: sub decides to submerge due to (non existant) damage - 3/1/2012 7:50:46 AM   
castor troy


Posts: 12182
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


The decision to break off combat and submerge can be initiated by three possible events:

1. Float Damage of 20 or more, or
2. Sys Damage of 30 or more, or
3. a random value based on total damage (sys, float, engine) is greater than a similar random value based on the aggression value of the subs skipper

Number 3 is the probable cause as it includes random and can "fire" for a small amount of damage. This was put in intentionally to represent both "cautious" skippers and inaccurate damage estimates.

Also remember that damage can be repaired during the turn and the damage levels that you see after the turn are probably less than the levels at the time of the submerge decision.

As to random, this is done all over the game. It gives a wide set of possible results and (in this case) nicely emulates inaccurate and "fog of war" reports. "Control room, forward torpedo room, we are taking water from somewhere on the engaged side!" - but a careful examination finds only leakage from damp skivvies after a near miss.




thanks for this info Don and I'am absolutely fine with this. In my case it seems the random value based on the agression value kicks in all the time, but don't you think it exagerates it a little, as my subs really aren't damaged at all. And it only keeps my subs from attacking on the surface, they just break off, is there an escort, they do attack, which makes it a bit strange IMO. No matter how agressive a skipper is, seeing the sub break off due to 2 sys points, well, what can one say if that happens halve a dozen times a month, pretty much depending on how many times you encouter unescorted freighters.

I know that damage can be repaired at Sea but in my case I don't think that this was the reason. When I look at my subs on day x and they show 2 sys dam and look at them at day x+1 and they have 2, 3 or 4 sys dam then I doubt that during the replay when they break off they took 10 damage points and repaired 8 of it until I get to look at them again. Other than fire or minor flt damage, you hardly ever see something repaired at Sea.

As it is now, you can choose, take a skipper being an agressive dork, to fail in his attack most often (I would assume that, haven't tried it, perhaps nav rating doesn't matter at all?) and have the sub sunk when a good skipper may save it or a potent skipper with no agressiveness that decides not to attack due to 2 sys points - only valid when he attacks surfaced, not valid when he attacks submerged due to enemy escorts around.

It just makes me a bit sceptic that a skipper with a good naval rating would break off an attack with a brand new, undamaged sub against an unescorted freighter, no matter how low the agressiveness rating is.

< Message edited by castor troy -- 3/1/2012 7:59:34 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 10
RE: sub decides to submerge due to (non existant) damage - 3/1/2012 7:55:53 AM   
castor troy


Posts: 12182
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron


quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy
have replaced all my sub skippers a month ago with the best available. No matter how the skipper looks like, a sub shouldn't break off the attack DUE TO DAMAGE with no damage at all.


CT, I noticed the high ammount of aborted attacks in your AAR too. Its seems high if theres no explanation.

But, as an example see my sceenshot below, I sorted the sub drivers by skill.
If you look on the aggression rating a lot of high skill commanders have low agg. If you only looked
at Nav skill on selection you might have some pretty low agg commanders in charge.

Those might be good at recon or minelaying but not as ship hunters...





I actually did look at both the nav and agg ratings but if you need to chose 4 dozen skippers then it's quite a task to have a competent nav rating and an aggr rating high enough the skipper isn't a dork to flee from an unescorted freighter when the sub has no damage at all. To me this is a bit too much going into one direction. Perhaps the pacifistic agression ratings of the skippers is what has to be looked at then. As you can see in your screenshot, 75% of the best skippers would be a drop out if you go with agression rating.

< Message edited by castor troy -- 3/1/2012 7:56:44 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 11
RE: sub decides to submerge due to (non existant) damage - 3/1/2012 1:38:05 PM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 2651
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: The deepest, darkest pit of hell
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dan Nichols

Moore, J A should follow a ship right into Toyko Bay on the surface and sink it.


The President of the United States of America takes pride in presenting a Second Gold Star in lieu of a Third Award of the Navy Cross (Posthumously) to Commander John Anderson Moore, United States Navy, for extraordinary heroism in the line of his profession as Commanding Officer of the U.S.S. GRAYBACK (SS-208), on the TENTH War Patrol of that submarine during the period 26 January 1944 to 26 February 1944, in enemy controlled waters of the East China Sea. While conducting the patrol of his ship in Japanese-infested waters, Commander Moore skillfully penetrated strong escort screens to deliver smashing torpedo attacks against hostile shipping. By his daring, aggressive tactics he succeeded in sinking and damaging an important amount of hostile tonnage. The conduct of Commander Moore throughout this patrol reflects great credit upon himself, and was in keeping with the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service. He gallantly gave his life for his country.

_____________________________

Carpe Cerevisiam



WitP AAR "Six Years of War"

(in reply to Dan Nichols)
Post #: 12
RE: sub decides to submerge due to (non existant) damage - 3/2/2012 2:36:25 AM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8214
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline
"He gallantly gave his life for his country. "

...and his crew's lives...



_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 13
RE: sub decides to submerge due to (non existant) damage - 3/2/2012 8:04:33 PM   
btbw

 

Posts: 360
Joined: 11/1/2011
Status: offline
Yes need more agressive and experienced captain. Or you can died from toilet.

Sinking

U-1206 was one of the late war boats fitted with new deepwater high-pressure heads which allowed them to be used while running at depth. Flushing these facilities was extremely complicated and special technicians were trained to operate them.
Type VIIC U-Boat

On April 14, 1945, 8 miles (13 km) off Peterhead, Scotland, while cruising at a depth of 200 feet (61 m), misuse of the new head caused large amounts of water to flood the boat. According to the Commander's official report, while in the engine room helping to repair one of the diesel engines, he was informed that a malfunction involving the head caused a leak in the forward section. The leak flooded the submarine's batteries (located beneath the toilet) causing them to release chlorine gas, leaving him with no alternative than to surface. Once surfaced, U-1206 was discovered and bombed by British patrols, forcing Schlitt to scuttle the submarine. One man died in the attack, three men drowned in the heavy seas after abandoning the vessel and 46 were captured.

(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 14
RE: sub decides to submerge due to (non existant) damage - 3/2/2012 11:52:58 PM   
Califvol


Posts: 123
Joined: 11/8/2002
From: The Land of Yore
Status: offline
removed

< Message edited by Califvol -- 3/3/2012 12:42:23 AM >

(in reply to btbw)
Post #: 15
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Tech Support >> sub decides to submerge due to (non existant) damage Page: [1]
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

0.090