Soon to Come - Not RHS

[JWE]

OK, soon to come.

Because of all the interest by scenario designers, in general, re ASW and Sub parameters, this thread will be directed exclusively to how the game engine accommodates these elements.

Each of the posts will include jpg screenshots that illustrate the specific points under discussion, as well as a general appreciation as to how the game engine uses the editor elements to capture and execute the relevant functions.

This is a general scenario design thread, directed to people who wish to mod WiTP/CHS/BigB/NikMod, etc.. It is not for RHS.

[el cid again]

Which means what - exactly? RHS is not part of the WITP community - or RHS team members are not welcome to comment?

In a technical sense - I think this is correct: RHS has redefined ASW and submarines in important respects - and the latest modification needs testing before the slightest consideration should be given to changing things. On the other hand, few ideas can be contained. The RHS reform of combining all DC into a single mounting probably should become universal. The RHS reform of using a uniform depth rating system - even if it is not the design depth one we chose - probably also should become universal. And RHS itself is both WITP and CHS at its foundation. Beyond that - I buy a game in the hope I can borrow one or two ideas from it. If anything is said here that is of value we will shamelessly adopt it - and equally shamelessly give credit - wether or not we are welcome to do so. Ideas should be used when, where, if and as appropriate - and a general thread for modders should be open - rather than closed. IMHO.

[akdreemer]

ORIGINAL: JWE

OK, soon to come.

Because of all the interest by scenario designers, in general, re ASW and Sub parameters, this thread will be directed exclusively to how the game engine accommodates these elements.

Each of the posts will include jpg screenshots that illustrate the specific points under discussion, as well as a general appreciation as to how the game engine uses the editor elements to capture and execute the relevant functions.

This is a general scenario design thread, directed to people who wish to mod WiTP/CHS/BigB/NikMod, etc.. It is not for RHS.

I will be watching this one closely. No offense el cid, but frankly this forum seems to have become on big RHS design forum. There are other ways to do things as well as other modders who would like some breathing room from the 900lb gorilla.

[Monter_Trismegistos]

JWE simply meant no RHS spamming/advertizing here.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Monter_Trismegistos

JWE simply meant no RHS spamming/advertizing here.

That can be expressed more positively.

E.g., "This is a general scenario design thread, directed to people who wish to mod WiTP/CHS/BigB/NikMod, etc. for AE. It is not focussed on the specialised solutions used in RHS, so please refer those discussions to a RHS-specific thread."

[DuckofTindalos]

JWE did that.

[el cid again]

I will be watching this one closely. No offense el cid, but frankly this forum seems to have become on big RHS design forum. There are other ways to do things as well as other modders who would like some breathing room from the 900lb gorilla.


[/quote]

Someone tried to get Colin Powell on the basis of disproportionate representation of minorities in the US Army. He replied "I refuse to apologize that the US Army has become the leading progressive institution in the United States, and is for that reason attaractive to minorities" (approximately).

If there is somewhat of a lack of posters in the Forum on non RHS threads - there certainly are both such threads and non RHS comments in RHS threads - it is because no one is making the posts (and also possibly because I write more than the average bear - in fact about 20,000 words a day - not even mostly related to gaming - and in legend - Joe once said I write half the throughput of the entire web unless I am isolated from it]. This lack is partly a function of Andrew's decision (and perhaps need) to stop coordingating CHS on a major scale, and partly a function of what Terminus posted about not developing ANY mod until after AE comes out. It may be that many mods are not in active development any more due to the perception that WITP is going away - and even in RHS we are not planning to implement things we might have done (seasonal maps for example) - although in our case that is more related to the loss of our mapmaker than the arrival of AE.

It is formal and official Matrix policy that we are to be polite. Sometimes people think I am not polite - but they can never point to my intentionally not being so - and perception varies with individuals and is not under my control. It is certainly true that RHS ideas have crept even into existing stock updates - and in turn it is absolutely true that most aspects of RHS are borrowed from stock, CHS and NON RHS members of the forums. The free exchange of ideas is vital to a dynamic product that continues to improve - and this should never be discouraged.

For the record, professional programmers I know are unified in the view that the release of AE will not replace WITP immediately - and certainly the RHS community will not have any option for many RHS features if they stop playing WITP before (and unless) a RHS AE is done. The detail work required to do that mostly falls on my head - and the decision to do so is not completely made. I assume we will do it - but if there is a structural problem - we won't - and if there is a war with China - I won't do it until after it is over (assuming I live long enough).
In any case, I regard it of value to continue to develop ideas - and it is less than two weeks since I revisited submarine matters - and less than two days since I issued an update involving a major revision based on them. I have not the slightest objection to other people doing something similar to what I just did - and I think modders of AE are likely to benefit if we come to a better understanding of what has been a less than ideal aspect of WITP.

If I have a technical concern it is this: detection. There is no real analog to radar for ASW detection. I have a semi-abstract idea of how to rationalize the WITP system - but we lack ASW devices (hydrophones, sonar, MAD) - although I myself do have a pseudo MAD device (it is a zero range radar in fact - and it works because submarines are treated as if they are surface ships). Is there a way we can simulate upgrading a ship from hydrophones to sonar, or distinguish between sonars? [A German ship has sonar that works in convergence zones - something no Allied sonar does - but can we simulate that? The Prinz Eugen sonar became the foundation for post war US submarine sonar development - see US Submarines Since WWII]

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Monter_Trismegistos

JWE simply meant no RHS spamming/advertizing here.

Possibly we need a different language? I thought I knew what both those words meant - but if I do - there has never been a single instance of either. What in the world are you talking about?

[herwin]

Marshall and Eisenhower made the US Army a place where minorities could rise on the basis of their talent... I'm watching China, too.

Re: Sonar.

I did my PhD thesis on active sonar (A Computational Sensorimotor Model of Bat Biosonar). I also have a background in ASW. I did the system modelling for the IBM BSY-2 proposal, and later I did similar modelling for the Centurion class. I also worked on OBU, SOSUS, and other systems.

WWII active sonar really didn't have much of a range. Improvements effectively reduced the CEP for the weapons they were used to control, so you can model improvements in active sonar by improvements in weapons system effectiveness.

Passive sonar is another story, but during WWII, it played more of a role in target acquisition and tracking (by submarines) than in weapons control. The USN and other navies have been doing TMA (bearing-only tracking) for a long time. You can probably model it as a form of search radar.

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior
I will be watching this one closely. No offense el cid, but frankly this forum seems to have become on big RHS design forum. There are other ways to do things as well as other modders who would like some breathing room from the 900lb gorilla.

Yo Alaska,

M'kay, first thread is going up now. Trying to keep it simple at first for the newby modders out there, but I imagine there will be folks who want to delve into the depths of the game's treasures. So if you or anybody else gots questions, maybe we can find the answers together.

ASW is just the first thread, perhaps others will wish to have different aspects of the game explained in order to better design their specific scenarios. Kinda the purpose of these little notes. Bring 'em on. Ciao.

John

<edit> think we have a very good idea, now, about what Monter was saying about spamming/advertising

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: JWE

<edit> think we have a very good idea, now, about what Monter was saying about spamming/advertising

yep. No new language needed to interpret it either. [;)]

[akdreemer]

ORIGINAL: JWE

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior
I will be watching this one closely. No offense el cid, but frankly this forum seems to have become on big RHS design forum. There are other ways to do things as well as other modders who would like some breathing room from the 900lb gorilla.

Yo Alaska,

M'kay, first thread is going up now. Trying to keep it simple at first for the newby modders out there, but I imagine there will be folks who want to delve into the depths of the game's treasures. So if you or anybody else gots questions, maybe we can find the answers together.

ASW is just the first thread, perhaps others will wish to have different aspects of the game explained in order to better design their specific scenarios. Kinda the purpose of these little notes. Bring 'em on. Ciao.

John

<edit> think we have a very good idea, now, about what Monter was saying about spamming/advertising

Okay I have questions.

First, you explained DC's, but not the ahead firing weapons like hedgehog. Do these weapons also work the same way?

If so then would it make sense to make a hedgehog pattern equal to the number fired?

Depth charges have no facing, so we could mod load outs on ships that mimic standard patterns instead of using 'weapon mounts', and have appropriate reloads, usually expressed in x standard patterns?


Does the ASW task force exhibit any significant effectiveness is asw than say surface combat or escort task force?


Do the various ship classes have any effect on asw effectiveness? Some ships were built with asw as primary purpose, such as DE's, Frigates, Corvettes, etc. (no that Frigates or Corvettes are actually modeled in the game).

What are the values in a submarine that affect asw, and how do they do this?


More questions later.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior

ORIGINAL: JWE

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior
I will be watching this one closely. No offense el cid, but frankly this forum seems to have become on big RHS design forum. There are other ways to do things as well as other modders who would like some breathing room from the 900lb gorilla.

Yo Alaska,

M'kay, first thread is going up now. Trying to keep it simple at first for the newby modders out there, but I imagine there will be folks who want to delve into the depths of the game's treasures. So if you or anybody else gots questions, maybe we can find the answers together.

ASW is just the first thread, perhaps others will wish to have different aspects of the game explained in order to better design their specific scenarios. Kinda the purpose of these little notes. Bring 'em on. Ciao.

John

<edit> think we have a very good idea, now, about what Monter was saying about spamming/advertising

Okay I have questions.

First, you explained DC's, but not the ahead firing weapons like hedgehog. Do these weapons also work the same way?

If so then would it make sense to make a hedgehog pattern equal to the number fired?

Depth charges have no facing, so we could mod load outs on ships that mimic standard patterns instead of using 'weapon mounts', and have appropriate reloads, usually expressed in x standard patterns?


Does the ASW task force exhibit any significant effectiveness is asw than say surface combat or escort task force?


Do the various ship classes have any effect on asw effectiveness? Some ships were built with asw as primary purpose, such as DE's, Frigates, Corvettes, etc. (no that Frigates or Corvettes are actually modeled in the game).

What are the values in a submarine that affect asw, and how do they do this?


More questions later.

Sonar doesn't work at all well behind the ship (the baffles).

The ahead-thrown stuff only exploded on contact, so a good sonar operator could keep a track on the sub.

The lethal area of a sub under DC attack was about 1000 square meters (rmax of 30 meters), and the sonar tracking error could be brought down to 100 meters. A typical pattern consisted of 13 DCs fused to go off at a specific depth, with a width of about 100 meters and a length of 200 meters. If you have the target localised to about 30 meters in depth, you could probably kill it with that pattern (with a single DC causing the kill). Figure the pkill (taking into account depth uncertainty) on a localised sub to be about 2.5% per DC. In reality almost all DCs were used to keep a sub pinned down, rather than to kill it, so the lethality worked out to about 0.1% per DC/thrown ahead charge expended in 1944.

A side comment: patrol aircraft were quite weak at killing subs but a lot better at tracking subs. Dropping one or two depth bombs only worked if the sub were surprised on the surface.

[el cid again]

A hedgehog - and its cousins (mousetrap for example) - was designed so that it fired a pattern such that it would have a minimum warhead hit a submarine somewhere - provided the aim point was right. That is - no matter the aspect of the target - certainly one - and possibly two - of the projectiles might hit the target. That assumes that it was aimed at the right point in the sea - which of course it might not be. But if it was - the target depth didn't matter - nor did the target aspect matter- you were going to hit it regardless. That means that one mount should equal one warhead value - however you do that. [WITP basic is projectile weight in pounds] If there are two mounts - this was common - you get two patterns. Since they are ahead firing weapons - they should face forward - and they should have a range (depending on the weapon - not much but something).

Depth charges, on the other hand, are fired off to the side or dropped over the fantail - but do not go off for a significant time - and they are intended to form a pattern - which is why we call them patterns. The idea was similar to that of Hedgehog - but the pattern size and spacing was not totally fixed - it varied ship to ship and it could be varied by a ship. But in principle the DC form a sort of circle - or oblong circle - which if it is large eough also has another drop in the center. Regardless of details - DC patterns always go off astern of the firing ship - and the firing ship always had to close to zero range before dropping them. So they should have a facing of aft and a range of zero. The largest possible pattern a ship can fire should be the number of "tubes" for a single DC mounting - facing aft. Extensive testing indicates this works very well - it is anything but not effective with WITP code.

The combination of ahead throwing weapons and stern dropping DC patterns may mean a ship gets more than one attack by different weapons - but only later in the war after ahead throwing weapons become available.

Other ASW weapons include ASW rockets fired from aircraft - and it appears these do work - in particular if the aircraft also has a ship hunting radar. Again - we have been using this for a couple of years - and it does seem to get along with the code.

During the night I came up with the idea suggested above - radar can simulate sonar. The only problem is - we lack the slots - but maybe we will get more in AE. Otherwise - we have to use the same devices for both purposes. But in that case - we pretty much have it now. The problem is - sonar range is not very large - these would be very short range radars in most cases.

I am wondering if it might not be better to do DC like Hedgehog? That is - rate an entire pattern as the hit value of a single DC? That is what really happened after all. [It isn't like in the movies] The problem is - how to give different sized patterns? A separate device for each is too slot demanding - at least in WITP.

[herwin]

Active sonar functioned much like fire control radar, with shorter ranges.

Passive sonar was longer range and functioned like search radar. I doubt TMA (bearing only track) was good enough for targeting during WWII.

Dunking sonar and sonobuoys weren't good enough for targeting, either.

[el cid again]

TMA was certainly a challenge. Popular in the 1930s, it fell into general disuse during WWII. Nevertherless, there are several attacks that used it - and others that likely used it. Similarly, sonabouys are credited with some successes.

The success rates for ASW ships and aircraft were usually so low it might be better modeling to give them NO chance of success. On the other hand - a really good ship might never miss after it worked up.

Another aspect of ASW that showed itself during WWII was submarine vs submarine: in 1945 the most dangerous enemy vessel likely to sink a USN submarine was a IJN submarine - that was the official opinion of the submarine board. And we do know of cases where submarines were sunk by other submarines. One case - a Russian sub sunk by IJN - was not understood until after the war - and one member of this Forum posted he thought it might have been USN that did it (a common opinion in Russia). As far as I can tell - WITP does not permit subs to kill subs.

As far as I know, long range passive sonar was only used by the Germans. I have seen no indication we understood convergence zone detection. And radar is not a good model - convergenze zone detection is in rings - the size of the rings varies somewhat with conditions - but it is like "we can see em at 20, 40 or 60 miles - but not at 30 or 50" - radar lets you see em all the time.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

TMA was certainly a challenge. Popular in the 1930s, it fell into general disuse during WWII. Nevertherless, there are several attacks that used it - and others that likely used it. Similarly, sonabouys are credited with some successes.

The success rates for ASW ships and aircraft were usually so low it might be better modeling to give them NO chance of success. On the other hand - a really good ship might never miss after it worked up.

Another aspect of ASW that showed itself during WWII was submarine vs submarine: in 1945 the most dangerous enemy vessel likely to sink a USN submarine was a IJN submarine - that was the official opinion of the submarine board. And we do know of cases where submarines were sunk by other submarines. One case - a Russian sub sunk by IJN - was not understood until after the war - and one member of this Forum posted he thought it might have been USN that did it (a common opinion in Russia). As far as I can tell - WITP does not permit subs to kill subs.

As far as I know, long range passive sonar was only used by the Germans. I have seen no indication we understood convergence zone detection. And radar is not a good model - convergenze zone detection is in rings - the size of the rings varies somewhat with conditions - but it is like "we can see em at 20, 40 or 60 miles - but not at 30 or 50" - radar lets you see em all the time.

TMA is the only way to make sense of bearing-only data. I still suspect bats can use it--some bats are passive listeners and others use CW signals.

The sub kill rates are not zero, just very low. ASW vessels should be rated in terms of the full patterns they can deliver. A 13-charge pattern should have 1% chance of getting a critical hit and scale down from there. Also, the recon and patrol missions are more important than is modelled.

Sub-versus-sub: there were 80-90 IJN/USN engagements in 1942-1944. About 40% resulted in losses. Neither side showed superiority.

In game terms, the sweep rate of a sub was two hexes a day. Convergence zone detections would perhaps triple that.

[spence]

Sub-versus-sub: there were 80-90 IJN/USN engagements in 1942-1944. About 40% resulted in losses. Neither side showed superiority.

Having been through the TROMs of all the IJN subs a few times I am not inclined to do it again but the number of IJN subs sunk (in many cases ambushed due to the very specific SIGINT that is utterly lacking in WitP) was several times the number of Allied submarines sunk by IJN subs.

One must keep in mind that the US lost a total of 52 subs to all causes in WWII. A third of those were to accidents or friendly fire. The Japanese lost more than twice as many submarines as the US and of those not sunk more than 50% of the survivors were not serviceable at the end of the war.

[Kereguelen]

ORIGINAL: JWE

OK, soon to come.

Because of all the interest by scenario designers, in general, re ASW and Sub parameters, this thread will be directed exclusively to how the game engine accommodates these elements.

Each of the posts will include jpg screenshots that illustrate the specific points under discussion, as well as a general appreciation as to how the game engine uses the editor elements to capture and execute the relevant functions.

This is a general scenario design thread, directed to people who wish to mod WiTP/CHS/BigB/NikMod, etc.. It is not for RHS.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: spence

Sub-versus-sub: there were 80-90 IJN/USN engagements in 1942-1944. About 40% resulted in losses. Neither side showed superiority.

Having been through the TROMs of all the IJN subs a few times I am not inclined to do it again but the number of IJN subs sunk (in many cases ambushed due to the very specific SIGINT that is utterly lacking in WitP) was several times the number of Allied submarines sunk by IJN subs.

One must keep in mind that the US lost a total of 52 subs to all causes in WWII. A third of those were to accidents or friendly fire. The Japanese lost more than twice as many submarines as the US and of those not sunk more than 50% of the survivors were not serviceable at the end of the war.

Morse and Kimball estimates the number of USN subs lost to IJN subs at 15-18, and the number of IJN subs lost to USN subs at 17. That's an exchange ratio not significantly different from 1:1.