The program is just that, a program, it can and will have strange things happen, no matter how well it is written, since it uses a randomizer to determine hits. My question is how come the sub didnt sink with 11 hits, you sure it wasnt on the surface and got gunned not depth charged?
The sub sunk. It was not on the surface. It is never listed in the AAR - it appears after you click the DONE button.
Before 1.30 I never saw more than 5 hits on a sub - and those were with 8-10 escorts. This is three escorts and 11 hits!
This is somewhat like the naval bombing where if a ship gets hit once with a bomb it becomes a bomb magnet.
Quote from Snigbert -
"If you mess with the historical accuracy, you're going to have ahistorical outcomes."
"I'll say it again for Sonny's sake: If you mess with historical accuracy, you're going to have
ahistorical outcomes. "
51 sunk. And majority of them in Jan-march 1942. And around Townswille. Now it's July and I haven't met a single sub in 2 months. Did I sink them all?
Good gawd! This is the most extreme figure I've heard of but it is not overly surprising vs the AI if you want to be aggressive. Illustrates just how overly accurate the ASW weapons are and how having all DD/escorts attacking may corrupt the model.
Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan
FWIW, in our PBEM game, our IJN opponents are doing a pretty good job on our Allied subs. Can't say for sure how many have sunk (information is classified). And we've sunk more IJN subs than we've lost (9 by the end of December). However, his own ASW efforts have not been shabby. While we haven't lost as many subs (still several sunk), we've got quite a few that are gonna be in the repair yard for quite some time. So it's not just the Allied ASW that can be punishing, it -does- work both ways. Altho the Allied ASW has a higher chance of actually being fatal, I think this can be attributed just as much to the Allied damage control.
Cheers.
-F-
"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me
Anyone have a list of actual Japanese (and Allied, for preference [:)] ) sub losses?
I don't know if the IJN loss rate I'm seeing (zero up to early April 42, now up to 8 by early June after I took over from the ai) is historical or hysterical... [;)]
Steve.
Hmmm...I actually went to Nihon Kaigun and counted up all the Japanese subs killed Dec. 7 41 to Dec. 31 1942, and I KNOW I posted on it here, but I've been searching on my screen name and cannot find the thread.
I BELIEVE it was around 26 Japanese subs killed in the first 13 months of the war. But I'm not sure. Not motivated to go count again but I may eventually.
ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
Illustrates just how overly accurate the ASW weapons are and how having all DD/escorts attacking may corrupt the model.
Actually the biggest problem is that there are too many subs at sea in operational areas TO be killed, IMHO.
One of my next research projects will be to figure out what % of time an average sub was at sea on patrol.
In modern, highly efficient navies, a typical ship may spend about 1/3rd of its time on patrol in an operational area; 1/3rd of its time is spent being maintained/refitted and the other 1/3rd is spent training crew in short cruises near base.
I suspect the % of time on operational patrol for WWII subs was even less. But of course in WITP the average sub spends 90% of its time on patrol till it's killed or severely damaged.
One of the reasons I really support the "no subs leave port with ANY SYS damage" house rule for PBEM.
Anyone have a list of actual Japanese (and Allied, for preference [:)] ) sub losses?
I don't know if the IJN loss rate I'm seeing (zero up to early April 42, now up to 8 by early June after I took over from the ai) is historical or hysterical... [;)]
Steve.
Hmmm...I actually went to Nihon Kaigun and counted up all the Japanese subs killed Dec. 7 41 to Dec. 31 1942, and I KNOW I posted on it here, but I've been searching on my screen name and cannot find the thread.
I BELIEVE it was around 26 Japanese subs killed in the first 13 months of the war. But I'm not sure. Not motivated to go count again but I may eventually.
The US Navy lost approximately 50 submarines during all of the Pacific War. Not sure of the exact number though but it was roughly 25% of the total boats they had.
PO2 US Navy (1980-1986);
USS Midway CV-41 (1981-1984)
Whidbey Island, WA (1984-1986)
Naval Reserve (1986-1992)
When compared to loss rates in PBEM games, it would point to employment being the primary issue with sub losses.
The AI is not capable of managing subs, particualry with respect to adapting to the opponents ASW tactics.
Sub doctrine and ASW doctrine evolved through the war based on experience. WitP is much the same. Since the AI is unable to learn, it keeps making the same mistakes (Putting and keeping subs in the same place despite continually losing them). A human player, on the other will learn and adapt.
ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
ORIGINAL: testarossa
51 sunk. And majority of them in Jan-march 1942. And around Townswille. Now it's July and I haven't met a single sub in 2 months. Did I sink them all?
Good gawd! This is the most extreme figure I've heard of but it is not overly surprising vs the AI if you want to be aggressive. Illustrates just how overly accurate the ASW weapons are and how having all DD/escorts attacking may corrupt the model.
"Life is tough, it's even tougher when you're stupid" -SGT John M. Stryker, USMC
I've just glanced at the histories at DANFS for American subs and it appears that typically a US sub that was undamaged on a war patrol spent one to two months in port till the next war patrol...and would have longer refits every few patrols on a fairly routine basis, at times going all the way back to California for them.
As has been mentioned we probably need morale and fatigue ratings for ships though I'm sure we'll never get them.
I really loved that Uncommon Valor had ships accumulating SYS damage at sea, though people who had gotten used to computer games treating unrealistically ships as perfect robots whined incessantly about it...but actually ships don't get ENOUGH sys damage at sea.
However the problem is battle damage and routine wear and tear damage need to be differentiated....a ship over time can accumulate problems that will eventually need maintenance (that may take a long time) without its speed dropping catastrophically.
WITP needs some means to force refits or long port stays without it being "real" damage that drastically reduces speeds.
ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
Illustrates just how overly accurate the ASW weapons are and how having all DD/escorts attacking may corrupt the model.
Actually the biggest problem is that there are too many subs at sea in operational areas TO be killed, IMHO.
One of my next research projects will be to figure out what % of time an average sub was at sea on patrol.
In modern, highly efficient navies, a typical ship may spend about 1/3rd of its time on patrol in an operational area; 1/3rd of its time is spent being maintained/refitted and the other 1/3rd is spent training crew in short cruises near base.
I suspect the % of time on operational patrol for WWII subs was even less. But of course in WITP the average sub spends 90% of its time on patrol till it's killed or severely damaged.
One of the reasons I really support the "no subs leave port with ANY SYS damage" house rule for PBEM.
This is what really cheezes me about this game. This is what, the sixth or seventh naval game of this sort that GG has released and still the ships in the game are basically crewless and have no real operational limitations like HQs, port limitations, distinction between naval bases and Crab Apple Cove etc... ! Crew factors could have been modelled in with fatigue, morale, and experience could have been an average based on the crew factors present on each ship. They could be lost in combat and some to new construction, so that new crew would have to be drawn from a pool. This would have reflected the real world issues a bit more and add some reality to the pace. Major league oversite to not advance over previous projects.
Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan
I really loved that Uncommon Valor had ships accumulating SYS damage at sea, though people who had gotten used to computer games treating unrealistically ships as perfect robots whined incessantly about it...but actually ships don't get ENOUGH sys damage at sea.
Being a Navy vet who spent more time haze gray and underway than I'd like to think about I'd beg to differ that ships take TOO much system damage at sea. US Naval ships practice preventive maintenance on EVERYTHING so that, barring a major mishap they can remain at sea until their next planned overhaul which could be 18 months or longer.
Having a DD go from 0 system damage to 3 system damage just from San Francisco to Pearl Harbor is ridiculous.
PO2 US Navy (1980-1986);
USS Midway CV-41 (1981-1984)
Whidbey Island, WA (1984-1986)
Naval Reserve (1986-1992)
Well, they need to do something to slow down ops, I think it is a tad bit fast ). Though I must admit, it pisses me off no end when I haul my carrier into port for an upgrade and have to wait weeks to repair a couple points of damage to get to the magic 4 before it will upgrade.
Another thing I don't think is realistic but I need to dig out the facts is the fact that during World War II American aircraft carriers routinely spent nearly 12 or more months AT SEA without hitting a port. They conducted flight ops, resupplied and conducted routine repairs at sea. Other navies had to stop when they resupplied at sea but the US navy was, at that time, the only navy in the world who underway replenished.
Unless a ship had reached it's routine schedule for overhaul there literally was no reason for it to be in a port other than to give the crew a break. Ships were meant to be at sea and not sitting in port. Of course as was posted in another thread you never had ALL your ships at sea at once. You always had a portion at sea and a portion in port (for routine repairs, crew rest, reserves, etc). In my case I may be using, in total, maybe 100-120 AK ships in supply convoys yet I have over 100 AKs in port in Pearl Harbor and over 200 AKs in San Francisco I use to rotate with the ships in my routine convoys and for troop transports or other unforseen needs. Doing that I'm keeping my supply depots well stocked yet I have reserves of ships so that even if an entire AK convoy gets wiped out I'm not disasterously hurt but only greatly annoyed.
I do the same thing with my DDs since they take SYS damage so much. The only time I sortie ALL my DDs is when I locate a Jap sub and then I pull a Bismark and go after it with everything I have until I sink it.
PO2 US Navy (1980-1986);
USS Midway CV-41 (1981-1984)
Whidbey Island, WA (1984-1986)
Naval Reserve (1986-1992)
System damage is too high for sailing etc. It should if anything max out at 5%. There should be a chance for breakdowns requiring repairs and there should be a "days at sea" max which would neccesitate an "overhaul" of a few months duration. Having crews would have helped slow down the pace as well.
Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan
System damage is too high for sailing etc. It should if anything max out at 5%. There should be a chance for breakdowns requiring repairs and there should be a "days at sea" max which would neccesitate an "overhaul" of a few months duration. Having crews would have helped slow down the pace as well.
The system damage at 5% makes sense. Though I don't think there should be a max "days at sea" per se - some ships may be required to spend more time at sea than others due to operational requirements, etc. Maybe after the "max" let the SYS damage increase. Also I don't know if a few months overhaul would be required all the time. The carrier I was on spent quite a lot of time at sea (forward deployed to Japan during the cold war) and in the three years I was stationed on her there was only one scheduled dry-dock period and if I can remember (it was early 80s) I don't think it was more than 2 months.
Every normal in-port period the ship was constantly swarming with dock workers who did a lot of work. I don't know if they did a lot more than normal because they were Japanese workers or not so if someone served on a stateside-based carrier disagrees with my dry-dock period time for their ship then that could be the difference.
PO2 US Navy (1980-1986);
USS Midway CV-41 (1981-1984)
Whidbey Island, WA (1984-1986)
Naval Reserve (1986-1992)
Why not tie fuel consumption to sys damage. More sys damage, higher fuel consumption. So somebody with 0 sys dmg burns fuel at a rate +0% per day. 5 sys damage, will burn 5% more fuel. 25 sys damage burns +25% more fuel.
Before you jump at me, this isn't meant to be reflected in the LITTERAL sense. Not that you're actually buring MORE gas. It's just what it accomplishes...
It means that as sys damage accumlates (thru the normal engine), it means you make shorter cruises. It forces you back into port more frequently. And your choice is to SIT in port to actually work down the sys damage (to give you the extended cruising range), or go back out with 15% less fuel efficiency (w/ 15 sys dmg), and a shorter cruise...
Whaddya think?
-F-
"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me
I think we are approaching a more reasonable method. I like the decrease in efficiency of fuel consumption and the higher system damage if too much time is spent on constant duty. I just don't think anything is going to be done about much at this point except fix a few major screw ups and bugs.
Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan
It means that as sys damage accumlates (thru the normal engine), it means you make shorter cruises. It forces you back into port more frequently. And your choice is to SIT in port to actually work down the sys damage (to give you the extended cruising range), or go back out with 15% less fuel efficiency (w/ 15 sys dmg), and a shorter cruise...
Every ship, from a small tin can to a large flat top has engineers and mechanics dedicated to keeping the ships engines in top working order. Normal wear and tear like you are suggesting simply doesn't happen. If it did the ships's Chief Engineer would be charged with dereliction of duty.
PO2 US Navy (1980-1986);
USS Midway CV-41 (1981-1984)
Whidbey Island, WA (1984-1986)
Naval Reserve (1986-1992)
However, I belive what folks are trying to do (fundamentally) is contrain player from ahistorical keeping their ships at sea 100% the time. For the very reason you stated, I don't belive that the sys dmg model should be messed with. I think it's fine, because yes, ships don't actually accumalte DAMAGe, because there is a whole crew of guys whose orders (and best interest) to keep their ship in top condition.
If you want to know what the real problem is that, it's too easy to deploy large TFs, and from teh smallest base. You can rearm/refuel an eitire carrier battle-group at a island with single palm tree (and a gazillion supplies), in one day. We both know, that doesn't happen.
I actually think they should have "port points", which are genreated each turn by a port. The larger the port, the more port points per turn (up to a max number, depending on the size, where smaller ports have smaller max than large ones). As you form a TF at the port, you expend port-points as you add ships to your TF. Smaller ships are cheap, bigger ships are more.
Something like this...
1 = 5 port points per turn, max 15.
2 = 10 port points per turn, max 30.
3 = 15 port points per turn, max 45.
4 = 20 port points per turn, max 80.
5 = 25 port points per turn, max 100.
6 = 30 port points per turn, max 120.
7 = 35 port points per turn, max 140.
8 = 40 port points per turn, max 200.
9 = 45 port points per turn, max 225.
10 = 50 port points per turn, max 250.
Cost to add ship to TF
PT/PG/PC/SC = 1
DD = 10
CL = 40
CA = 50
BB/BC = 110
CV = 135
It's simuates the ability to "make ready to get underway". It might take a week, to get that CV group ready to sail (much more reasonable). It also compells you to keep your capital ships at the bases which could actually handle them.
My 2 pfennigs.
-F-
"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me
