Suggested Submarine Aircraft House Rule (all mods)

[el cid again]

Submarine aircraft operations were severely limited by weather. But they offered significant potential - and indeed - USN studied a submarine aircraft carrier as late as the 1950s - and implemented a variation of it in the form of a carrier of unpiloted aircraft (cruise missiles). [USN now has such submarines in service again]


In order that neither side can be sure what might - or might not happen - but to avoid the "sub planes are too effective" complaint (which has some justice in it) - I suggest two restrictions:

1) If the weather forcast is thunderstorms, all submarine based air units are set not to fly. In bad weather, not only will they not fly, the enemy knows they will not fly.

2) If the weather forecast is for good weather, set submarine recon to 50% or less - but never more. That means the owner may not be sure if they can fly as hoped - or not? But the enemy can not be sure either.

[m10bob]

Do you feel the game engine already does not compensate for weather?

[TulliusDetritus]

I always follow this rule:

a) when the weather forecast is "thunderstorms" all the planes rest (except the Naval Search and ASW missions: because that would be a lot of micro-management), so no offensive missions.

b) I never use the submarine planes on naval search mission. Only "recon bases". And I hardly do that since er... I'm playing H2H.

[DuckofTindalos]

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Do you feel the game engine already does not compensate for weather?

It doesn't. Glens are FAR too powerful...

[el cid again]

This appears to be the consensus of experienced players (plain English translation: I agree with Terminus). And I cannot show any data indicating this view is incorrect. Since these aircraft could never fly except in low sea states, my suggestion is to create a simulation of that: if the weather forecast is storms, then the sea state is NEVER low enough for submarine flight operations - as a matter of fact - even if the storms don't happen;

if the forecast is not for storms it is still often not possible to launch and recover seaplanes from a submarine

combining the two rules above, you end up with a case where the planes fly less than half the time - but when wether is good they fly enough of the time the enemy has to worry about it

Note IRL Glen's successfully did both pre and post strike recon of Pearl Harbor - low and slow - obtaining fine photographs. So the weather was good enough on that day - and the next. It might be less than totally reliable, but it was reliable enough to be useful. The pre strike photographs are why the Japanese knew the carriers were absent before they took off. I think Glen searches and recon are an important capability (whereas the Glen as the only bomber of the Continental USA is only a technical footnote of no great meaning). But I don't think the capability should be 100% reliable - nor even as reliable as regular recon is - and so the proposed house rule.

[Dili]

My house rule is to put all floatplanes at 30% recom max.

[spence]

I believe that many of the capable submarines (which could carry a Glen) made their patrols without a Glen embarked. Reading the TROMs at Combined Fleet specific mention seems to be made of each deployment on which a Glen was carried and then the missions flown by the Glen are described for that deployment. For the majority of those subs' missions no mention is made Glen operations.

Certainly no plane could survive twice daily take-off/landings on the open sea over the course of a 40-50 day deployment in good weather and bad. That says nothing of the fact that just to fly directly to and from a hex 240 miles away takes up practically 1/2 the day and consumes the entire endurance of the Glen (flying a single circuit around the submarine at that distance being an impossibility even if it started 240 miles out and had a full tank of gas to begin).

I think a house rule that requires constant attention from turn to turn is too hard for self-enforcement. A one time setting of 20% naval search setting would be relatively fair and wouldn't abuse reality too badly.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Dili

My house rule is to put all floatplanes at 30% recom max.

Do you ignore the weather altogether? My idea is that, when the weather is bad enough, they certainly do not fly, and both sides know they won't fly. But if the weather is not bad enough - it is still not certain they can/will fly. I think 30% is actually generous - although given the weather effect I may be close to that - but I don't want the Allied player to be able to assume "they probably cannot fly" - unless it is certain they cannot (due to weather). I also want something like Pearl Harbor IRL to be possible in a game - two days running of good recon should be a real possibility.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: spence

I believe that many of the capable submarines (which could carry a Glen) made their patrols without a Glen embarked. Reading the TROMs at Combined Fleet specific mention seems to be made of each deployment on which a Glen was carried and then the missions flown by the Glen are described for that deployment. For the majority of those subs' missions no mention is made Glen operations.

Certainly no plane could survive twice daily take-off/landings on the open sea over the course of a 40-50 day deployment in good weather and bad. That says nothing of the fact that just to fly directly to and from a hex 240 miles away takes up practically 1/2 the day and consumes the entire endurance of the Glen (flying a single circuit around the submarine at that distance being an impossibility even if it started 240 miles out and had a full tank of gas to begin).

I think a house rule that requires constant attention from turn to turn is too hard for self-enforcement. A one time setting of 20% naval search setting would be relatively fair and wouldn't abuse reality too badly.

These are all germane comments - and this is a discussion which is not intended to "proove" one view is "right" and every other view is "wrong."

I myself find that NOT checking every submarine every day is not workable: you often find submarines have changed missions without being told - or are damaged (which may be WHY they changed missions) - or just by ignoring them you may miss an opportunity in the neighborhood. I never have enough of them - so I don't find it too hard to do - and I hate losing them when I was not paying attention. So for me - to look up at the screen top and see THUNDERSTORMS or not see it - makes it easy to do the setting of the air element.

The view that few subs operated planes is widely held in the English literature (but not in other literature). I should add it is usually said MOST of the Glens were never recovered - could not find their mothership again. I think both views are overstated - but that is not the same as saying they are flat wrong. The one case we know a lot about - that of Warrant Officer Fujida - who bombed the USA twice - doing exactly what it is said above "cannot be done" - is a case in point. He also concieved the "submarine aircraft carrier idea" - and sold it to his exec - who forwarded it to one Adm Yamamoto - who got it implemented during the war - a remarkable thing for such a complex idea. I think that this is very similar to midget submarines and even Kaiten: these weapons could be effective and may not have been nearly as effective as their proponants expected/hoped/assumed would be the case. In other words, I take the middle ground between those who write "Deep Blue Fleet" type materials (Japanese pulp fiction in which Japan invariably is victorious) and those who say "it was all junk" or "it was only of the most marginal value."

[Dili]

Well since i dont wish manage carrier aircrafts to check if they an fly or not due to weather/carrier model i think it doesnt make sense to spend my time in a less important issue.

[el cid again]

Well - the idea was meant to address a technical problem - this should be handled by code but is not. Players willing to adopt this rule will get a more realistic campaign.

But now that you bring it up - maybe we SHOULD be managing our aircraft that way. IRL that is EXACTLY how real operations and commanding officers think. Why should we be different? And if we are different- can we have even the illusion that we are simulating anything?

[spence]

Since every conceivable activity of the Glen is well described using only Newtonian Physics the naval search capability of Glen in the game is NOT SIMULATING anything.

[el cid again]

You lost me there - entirely so. Whatever Newtonian physics has to do with Glens - it has the same thing to do with all aircraft - and ships as well. There seems to be a concealed complaint in there somewhere - but it is too obscure for my "read it strait" mind to grasp:

so let me be clear about the Glen: NOT to have it in the game is FAR less simulation than to have it in the game - unaltered from stock

I ONLY propose to limit its search operations because they are not quite as great as other types of aircraft are

A Glen was sighted in the Eastern Pacific the day after Pearl Harbor - and we have utterly no idea how it got there - except it must have been by Japanese submarine (but which one?). Glens were FAR more likely to work than ANYTHING else we ever devised for over the horizon targets from our submarines. A submarine has a very restricted visual horizon - due to low observation height.

All major navies experimented with aircraft on submarines. ONLY IJN successfully turned them into an operationally useful tool. A lot of the complaints leveled against WITP for including them are far overstated - if you are interested in honest simulation - they belong here. So do the M6A1 bombers - which I had to introduce - because no version of WITP had them - even for the two classes of subs present designed for them. I regard Glens and Sirens both as marginal capability aircraft - but it is dead (perfectly, 100%) wrong to regard either as a zero capability aircraft. Both were remarkable success stories of the IJN - the service that fielded more types of floatplanes than any other. In certain conditions they would (and or did) matter. Particularly early in the war - at points distant from land plane operating bases. The problem with Sairen is it was not around early in the war - and by the time it was - the sheer quantity of land and carrier based aircraft are a big problem for it most places. But in 1941 - the Glen is the best submarine aircraft in the world - and it did useful reconnaissance - and might have done more if Japanese submarines had been properly handled (which they were not because Japanese staffs only had one junior sub officer - who was not there so much to advise as to take orders for the subs - so the staffs planning ops were not well qualified to grasp submarine operations).

I think many people tend to read history far too narrowly: what some people DID do is not always the limit of what they COULD do with this or that. Just because this was not tried at all - or that was tried very little - does not mean it could not have been done. If you spend some time in real operations, you will get a sense of how many choices exist - and that thinking in terms of what is possible - for either side - is far better than thinking in terms of what has been done. Military operations in general, and naval operations in particular, are very flexable - they can be attempted in many ways - for many objectives - and the primary limitations are those self imposed by the minds of the staffs/commanders. To be sure, no one ever can violate the laws of physics: Glen's coult not and did not - nor would anyone every try to do such a thing. Putting them in the game was a good idea - it helps distinguish the difference between some IJN subs and most others - and it is indeed outstanding simulation. I only want to make it better - and I at least am not running them down.

[Dili]

And if we are different- can we have even the illusion that we are simulating anything?

 
Well the pure simulation concept ends at start when we have instant combat/recon results and we control all. While i agree that every step towards it is positive i prefer to make use the 30% (i would like to know more about the way the game  handles recon and what means 100% vs 30% in this context.)

[el cid again]

I regret to say that game air recon may be way too effective - in all flavors. It might be more realistic to set ALL aircraft to 50% and the Glens to a still lower value????? [After some thought I think 60 or 70% for normal planes would be about right - no flying when thunderstorms are forecast - and your 30% for Glens WHEN there are no storms forecast as well. ] More specifically, it appears that search is of uniform effectiveness for 360 degrees, out to the range set, without much regard for the relationship for the number of aircraft, the search pattern, or the distances involved. A single Glen (nor anything else) can search in all directions at one time. A study of Hawaii in 1941 concluded 180 B-17s were needed for a near certainty of detection of a major enemy force - more than were available anywhere. And the Japanese two phase search is more effective - but requires twice as many planes to implement. The code system for search is way too simple - and depends on die rolls rather than actual tactical or geometric analysis to function - in the main. Or that is the impression after analytical testing of search aircraft. Related to this, it does not appear weather is nearly as big a problem as it ought to be. You don't get Japan socked in (I mean everywhere) 5/6 of the time. Nor fog in the Aleutians even more. Nor do storms prevent as many operations/detections as they probably should - although there was an effort to do both and it kind of sort of works to a degree.

A more complex variation might be:

Land based air search: 80% when no storms forecast; 40% when storms are forecast
Carrier based air search: 70% when no storms forecast; 30% when storms are forecast
Non sub ship seaplane search: 60% when no storms forecast; 20% when storms are forecast
Sub based air search: 40 or 50% when no storms are forecast; Not allowed if storms are forecast.

[spence]

Newtonian Physics are germaine to the discussion because the Glen was limited as to speed (V), and could remain in the air a limited time (T) and thus could cover a limited distance (D). I don't recall the exact values but speed was a max of around 130 and endurance was limited to around 4 hours. (D=V x T)

If a Glen was to take off and fly 80 miles (almost 1 and 1/2 hexes) due North, turn right and fly a circular track it would complete about 1/2 of a circle and then have to return to the sub for fuel. That would consume the morning. It could then refuel and fly due South, turn right and cover the remaining half of the circle in the afternoon. Thus during the course of a turn its speed/range limitations would allow it to "search" (an absurdly kind description) an area of 20000 square miles every 24 hours (I wonder how the USCG SEARCH and RESCUE Manual would evaluate an 80 mile track spacing for a visual search).

The game allows this single a/c to search an area of 175,000 square miles TWICE (AM and PM air phases) in that time frame. It may have served well as a recon plane but its search capabilities are so grossly overstated as to in effect SIMULATE nothing at all.

[okami]

A question: With all the objections stated against float planes launched from subs, should not your Houserule encompass float planes also launched from ships? The seastate argument would apply to them as well. The D=VxT arguement could also be applied as many of these ships only have one or two such planes. The limiting factors are ability to launch and recover and the patrol distances and I think they would apply to most seaplane platforms.

[spence]

The search system is kinda borked in any case but the smaller the searching unit the more pronounced the "borking" becomes.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: spence

Newtonian Physics are germaine to the discussion because the Glen was limited as to speed (V), and could remain in the air a limited time (T) and thus could cover a limited distance (D). I don't recall the exact values but speed was a max of around 130 and endurance was limited to around 4 hours. (D=V x T)

If a Glen was to take off and fly 80 miles (almost 1 and 1/2 hexes) due North, turn right and fly a circular track it would complete about 1/2 of a circle and then have to return to the sub for fuel. That would consume the morning. It could then refuel and fly due South, turn right and cover the remaining half of the circle in the afternoon. Thus during the course of a turn its speed/range limitations would allow it to "search" (an absurdly kind description) an area of 20000 square miles every 24 hours (I wonder how the USCG SEARCH and RESCUE Manual would evaluate an 80 mile track spacing for a visual search).

The game allows this single a/c to search an area of 175,000 square miles TWICE (AM and PM air phases) in that time frame. It may have served well as a recon plane but its search capabilities are so grossly overstated as to in effect SIMULATE nothing at all.

Just why are you picking on the poor Glen here? It is actually the very same for all aircraft - except you plug in different speeds - cruising speeds for search - and endurance values - and range values. Many are right down there near the Glen. My point is that Newtonian Physics applies equally to everything - not just to Glen's - and the problem is endemic to the system - not just to submarine based aircraft (which, by the way, also include other aircraft - or can and should - see the First Submarine Flotilla operations when the war ended - in principle any I-12 or I-400 class submarine can operate any Japanese floatplane - were intended to operate M6A1s - and actually operated that aircraft as well as a recon type which was not the Glen).

IF you want to attack search algorithms / routines - or discuss general ways to mitigate this problem - fine. The original point of this thread was to deal with the problem of submarine aircraft (all types) not being able to operate in all sea states. It was not trying to somehow penalize/criticize sub air recon on a different (and inconsistent) standard with other types.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: okami

A question: With all the objections stated against float planes launched from subs, should not your Houserule encompass float planes also launched from ships? The seastate argument would apply to them as well. The D=VxT arguement could also be applied as many of these ships only have one or two such planes. The limiting factors are ability to launch and recover and the patrol distances and I think they would apply to most seaplane platforms.

Two different issues here. To deal with the second one first, it was improperly brought up - or else it was improperly limited to submarine aircraft. It applies with equal force to ALL aircraft, land or sea based, seaplane, carrier plane, amphibian, land plane, flying boat, name it. I don't mind discussing this matter - but the idea it should somehow be limited to floatplanes launched from ships is a misunderstanding. IF we address this at all - we need to understand - consider and possibly adopt measures that concern ALL FORMS of air search operations (and probably recon as well, and maybe other air ops as well).

The first question is easier to address: in general, surface ship floatplane operations are NOT identical to submarine floatplane operations. In particular, it depends on the specific ship and its equipment. A Japanese CS, for example, usually can recover seaplane while underway, using a Hein Mat system, and does not need to stop to crane aboard a plane which landed on the sea. Other ships - many (but not all) AV for example - do not operate aircraft while underway at all - but only at an anchorage. Still others - some AV, cruisers, battleships, many auxiliary ships - operate aircraft in a way generally similar to submarines - stopping to pick up a landed plane - but not to launch. Yet even in this case, while the methodology is similar, the problem of sea state is not as severe. Submarines have a great deal less freeboard than surface ships do, they have a great deal less reserve buoyancy, and they are not well enough behaved to be able to hook on and recover a seaplane except in the very lowest sea states. This same problem DOES occur at HIGHER sea states for other kinds of ships. In fact - it DOES occur for ALL sorts of ships at some point - even aircraft carriers not operating seaplanes at all. [During the Falklands war, often only a helicopter could operate from a carrier deck - and then only ONE helicopter could take off or land at a time - becuase it could ONLY do so from the center of the deck - which didn't change height very much - during the most severe seas] More than this, severe enough sea states will cause problems even for seaplanes or flying boats in sheltered anchorages. And severe enough winds will prevent all air operations from any airfield. IF we had sea states in the game (they are associated with wind velocities) - we might consider a way of restricting air ops at different levels. Since we don't have sea states, we are forced to use statistical methods - or ignore the issue altogether.

Because the submarine float planes are so severely restricted - I think it is clear we can rule out any ops on a day that thunderstorms are expected. Even if they don't develop - the sea state is almost certainly too high - everywhere. That was the point of one of my original proposals above.

But submarine float planes are not the same as other ship or land based floatplanes - nor the same as carrier aircraft - nor flying boats - nor land planes. These all can fly in many conditions - and none of them can fly in the very worst of conditions. Hence the scale I proposed above for search operations. We also might use those % as a die roll - if you want to fly an air strike - you must roll that % on percentile dice - or you cannot. IF you object "that is unfair - maybe the enemy can launch and we cannot" I would reply "that is how it works - sometimes." The only question is - "do players want the dirt of having to do this sort of thing." As for me - no problem - and working out a reasonable system is IMHO a worthy discussion. But don't lets restrict it to one plane - or submarine aircraft.