CHS ASW adjustments?

[bradfordkay]

Check the ASW thread in the support forum. Is the CHS update going to address the situation?

quote:

ORIGINAL: hbrsvl

Hi-Playing US, v1.8, A . Brown's map, 7/42. I hold Rabaul, with a size 8 airbase, plenty of air support points, plenty of supply, no damage to air base, 300+ Allied planes based there. From 7/2-7/6 '42, the Kiddo Butai ( 3-4 CV-CVLs) has been within 2-6 hexes of Rabaul. All air units are set to Naval Attack & rest, with max range set so they don't attack naval units at Truk, etc. PBYs & other air units have repeatedly reported KB in both AM & PM searches, plus I've had some night attacks on the KB. In this WHOLE time, Rabaul has managed to send out 3 B-17s twice & they "couldn't find target". During this same time one of my ASW units, with 7 DDs attacked an I boat. I boat received 15 hits, but wouldn't sink! What's with v1.8? Comments, please.


black mamba:
The current CHS has cut the efficiency of ASW weapons by 50%.
So with the 1.8 and these CHS ASW modifications, submarines are almost indestructable.


jwilkerson:
I guess in this case, 2 rights make a wrong ! CHS will need to back out this "work around" now that the code has caught up. And BTW the ASW code changes have been in WPO since day one and they were in the long running 1.7.9.5 beta as well. They only officially were released with 1.8.

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

Check the ASW thread in the support forum. Is the CHS update going to address the situation?

Yes. All of the reduction applied to ASW weapons in CHS have been removed for the next update. Unfortunately that won't help anyone playing an existing CHS game. To avoid the "double fix" of ASW they will need to continue playing their game with a pre 1.795 exe file, unfortunately. This is one of the hazards of trying to "fix" game problems using data manipulation.

Andrew

[el cid again]

Yes. All of the reduction applied to ASW weapons in CHS have been removed for the next update. Unfortunately that won't help anyone playing an existing CHS game. To avoid the "double fix" of ASW they will need to continue playing their game with a pre 1.795 exe file, unfortunately. This is one of the hazards of trying to "fix" game problems using data manipulation.

What data was manipulated?

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: el cid again
What data was manipulated?

Range, effect AND accuracy of ALL ASW weapons had been halved. Quite a lot of adjustment! I have reversed all of these changes, as well as removed the "armour" added to the subs to provide them with increased durability.

Andrew

[DuckofTindalos]

Damn, Andrew, that must have taken its sweet time!

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Damn, Andrew, that must have taken its sweet time!

Indeed it did...

[JeffroK]

I am up to Feb 42 in 1.8, CHS & extended Map.

I didnt feel that Subs were unsinkable and felt their attacks were reasonable. I'll keep a lookout for their effects.

The USN only lost 52 Subs during the war, including training losses, about 1 every 25 days. (Losses could include Atlantic) so the previous "turkey-shoot" needed a lot of toning down.

[bradfordkay]

Thanks, AB, it looks like another restart is in the works...

[pad152]

I would also advise not removing all of the changes to subs from 1.8. A better plan would be to either remove the sub armor or the half the ASW weapons damage but not both! One thing that 1.8 does is remove the ablility to create a killer sub hunting TF, now the subs will just become damaged and head home for repairs when hit.

[mlees]

The USN only lost 52 Subs during the war, including training losses, about 1 every 25 days. (Losses could include Atlantic) so the previous "turkey-shoot" needed a lot of toning down.

http://www.bluejacket.com/ww2_ship_loss3.html

2 subs in Atlantic: R-12, Dorado.

Pacific losses include the accidental collisions: S-26, S-28;
and grounding (bad navigation): S-27, S-36, S-39, Darter;
and "friendly fire": Seawolf

[JeffroK]

ORIGINAL: pad152

I would also advise not removing all of the changes to subs from 1.8. A better plan would be to either remove the sub armor or the half the ASW weapons damage but not both! One thing that 1.8 does is remove the ablility to create a killer sub hunting TF, now the subs will just become damaged and head home for repairs when hit.

The Allies claim to have sunk a Jab Sub off Townsville, ASW force of 2 x DD & 2 x MSW and a CV TF going through the Coral Sea claim one as well.

EDIT: Whoops, I checked and by 2 Feb 42 there are no REPOTED sub losses, though those wily Japanese dont tell me everything. I was sure of 3 Jap & 1 USN (sunk at Manila) but.......

[el cid again]

I would also advise not removing all of the changes to subs from 1.8. A better plan would be to either remove the sub armor or the half the ASW weapons damage but not both! One thing that 1.8 does is remove the ablility to create a killer sub hunting TF, now the subs will just become damaged and head home for repairs when hit.

For what it is worth,

1) I always objected to armor on subs on principle - it is not designed for in the game and I don't like to use data falsely - I at least want a way to rationalize what I do - and I don't want the database broke when (if) code gets fixed - as in this case

2) I took over the subs from CHS - and Andrew had removed the armor - so I didn't have to

3) I converted to 1.8 devices except for cause - so I inherited the revised weapons data - and I checked.

I also am a test guy - and I have been running tests - and I see nothing whatever wrong with submarines except the way the game is designed to deal with them: I want more control, real sensor modeling, different missions - the list is long. But within the design concept, they seem to be functioning.