PBEM House Rules for AE

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: BeastieDog

SO IMHO it is better to set the CAP low which brings the combat to lower altitude allowing the defender to get more guys in the fight and fight at a better performance altitude for the aircraft...

Would this be a disadvantage for bomber intercept? I'm thinking Midway.

I was strictly speaking of Land Based CAP...not sure how Sweeps interact with CV v CV combat.

[BeastieDog]

ORIGINAL: treespider

ORIGINAL: BeastieDog

SO IMHO it is better to set the CAP low which brings the combat to lower altitude allowing the defender to get more guys in the fight and fight at a better performance altitude for the aircraft...

Would this be a disadvantage for bomber intercept? I'm thinking Midway.

I was strictly speaking of Land Based CAP...not sure how Sweeps interact with CV v CV combat.

Would setting CAP at a lower altitude to optimize reaction to sweeps be less effective against bombing missions?

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: BeastieDog

ORIGINAL: treespider

ORIGINAL: BeastieDog





Would this be a disadvantage for bomber intercept? I'm thinking Midway.

I was strictly speaking of Land Based CAP...not sure how Sweeps interact with CV v CV combat.

Would setting CAP at a lower altitude to optimize reaction to sweeps be less effective against bombing missions?

Depends on the altitude the bombers come in at ...notice in the above screen shot Yammy likes to bring in his bombers at 6000' ...my Buffalos have exacted a price especially when he is unescorted...if it forces the bombers higher he suffers from reduced accuracy and starts to get hit by heavier AA.

Speaking of which the flak "Gap" is "fuzzy" now...meaning 6000' is no longer a "safe" altitude.

[Yamato hugger]

ORIGINAL: treespider

Depends on the altitude the bombers come in at ...notice in the above screen shot Yammy likes to bring in his bombers at 6000' ...my Buffalos have exacted a price especially when he is unescorted...if it forces the bombers higher he suffers from reduced accuracy and starts to get hit by heavier AA.

Speaking of which the flak "Gap" is "fuzzy" now...meaning 6000' is no longer a "safe" altitude.

Its true. A lot of my bombing raids have come in unescorted because my escorts have been assigning themselves to other missions. A lot of my escorts flew with the sweeps and left the bombers to face 20+ Buffs alone and I took a lot of losses. Since I switched back to max alt sweeps (I didnt start the game doing it and most of the sweep losses shown by Tree occurred with these lower altitude sweeps) and moving those sweeps to other bases and leaving just the bombers and escorts at the base of origin, the bombers have been flying with escort most of the time. Although a lot of the time (almost always) fighters escorting naval attack "lose contact" with their bombers and thus the bombers come in alone on land based naval attack missions. I believe this issue is being worked on.

As for the 6000' thing: I do that because of my WitP days. Extra fatigue for flying at 5000- so I fly at 6000 ft. to avoid the fatigue penalty. Frankly, I dont even know if that still applies in AE. That would involve reading the manual [;)] But I dont do it to avoid AA. I do it for bombing accuracy.

[Kull]

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

5) The more I see of it the more I am convinced that sub react distances should be limited or eliminated.

How much of this success is due to the fairly sophisticated interlocking patrol system that you utilize? Based on your AAR, you have 2-3 subs patrolling in the same area, backed up by a float plane carrying sub. In effect, you are replicating the radio-based coordination that made u-boat wolfpack tactics so successful. Have you tried out some isolated (i.e. single sub), non-interlocking, non-float plane supported sub patrols to see if the intercept rate is the same? If single subs can follow follow targets, then this is a big problem. Otherwise it's just a reflection of the successes which the technology of that era allowed - but it took years to figure out (a learning curve the modern day hind-sighter doesn't have to climb).

[Yamato hugger]

Well, Ive attacked and sunk 2 TKs in 1 turn off Java and a loaded AP the next with a single sub on a single patrol route. It wasnt a Glen boat and I have no search aircraft close enough to spot in the area. Also several attacks (a few hits but I dont think any sinkings) off Sumatra as well (including the ill fated attack on the PoW). Again, no Glens or land based air to spot and some of these attacks were well off the patrol lanes. I doubt this issue will be addressed before release (I could be wrong of course but Don has been hit with the busy stick as of late) and therefore I recommend a house rule in the mean time. Just my personal observation based on 3 days of trial in 1 game. Until now I have never tried putting subs on react.

[EUBanana]

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

Well, Ive attacked and sunk 2 TKs in 1 turn off Java and a loaded AP the next with a single sub on a single patrol route. It wasnt a Glen boat and I have no search aircraft close enough to spot in the area. Also several attacks (a few hits but I dont think any sinkings) off Sumatra as well (including the ill fated attack on the PoW). Again, no Glens or land based air to spot and some of these attacks were well off the patrol lanes. I doubt this issue will be addressed before release (I could be wrong of course but Don has been hit with the busy stick as of late) and therefore I recommend a house rule in the mean time. Just my personal observation based on 3 days of trial in 1 game. Until now I have never tried putting subs on react.

This sounds like they are reacting against units with no detection factor?

Are they actually reacting?

[Yamato hugger]

They are well off their patrol routes. If not react, how did they get there? [;)] And they seem to be reacting from the places they reacted to, drawing them out still further. Its hard to track this in a live game because I cant see both sides so frankly I cant really comment on what exactly is going on with them. Here is the start of the current turn, pretty sure these are all react attacks (including the allied subs) except Jolo. Note sub names and the hex numbers. Before I turned on react, I was lucky to have more than 1 attack every other day.

Edit: Note: I-18 made 5 separate attacks today.

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Jan 04, 42
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submarine under attack near Siberoet Island at 41,85

Japanese Ships
SS I-153

Allied Ships
xAKL Parigi, Shell hits 8, heavy fires, heavy damage



SS I-153 is sighted by xAKL Parigi
SS I-153 attacking on the surface


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submarine under attack near Tambelan Islands at 53,90

Japanese Ships
SS I-18

Allied Ships
xAKL Lee Sang, Shell hits 9, heavy fires, heavy damage



SS I-18 is sighted by xAKL Lee Sang
SS I-18 attacking on the surface


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submarine under attack near Pontianak at 54,90

Japanese Ships
xAK Iwashiro Maru, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage

Allied Ships
SS KXI

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



SS KXI is sighted by xAK Iwashiro Maru
SS KXI launches 2 torpedoes


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submarine under attack near Muntok at 50,89

Japanese Ships
SS I-18

Allied Ships
xAKL Prominent, Shell hits 5, heavy fires, heavy damage



SS I-18 is sighted by xAKL Prominent
SS I-18 attacking on the surface
SS I-18 low on gun ammo, Araki N. breaks off surface engagement and submerges


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASW attack near Jolo at 74,90

Japanese Ships
DD Hokaze
DD Yakaze
DD Okikaze
DD Minekaze

Allied Ships
SS S-37



S-37 bottoming out ....
DD Hokaze fails to find sub and abandons search
DD Yakaze fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Okikaze fails to find sub and abandons search
DD Minekaze fails to find sub and abandons search
DD Yakaze fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Yakaze fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Yakaze fails to find sub, continues to search...
Escort abandons search for sub


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submarine under attack near Muntok at 50,89

Japanese Ships
SS I-18

Allied Ships
xAKL Prominent, Torpedo hits 2, heavy fires, heavy damage



SS I-18 is sighted by xAKL Prominent
SS I-18 launches 2 torpedoes


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submarine under attack near Siberoet Island at 42,86

Japanese Ships
SS I-153

Allied Ships
xAP President Madison, Torpedo hits 3, on fire, heavy damage



SS I-153 is sighted by xAP President Madison
SS I-153 launches 8 torpedoes
Submarine under attack near Billiton at 52,92

Japanese Ships
SS I-9

Allied Ships
xAKL Sibolga



SS I-9 is sighted by xAKL Sibolga
SS I-9 attacking on the surface
Kanda B. decides to submerge SS I-9 due to damage


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submarine under attack near Toboali at 51,93

Japanese Ships
SS I-18

Allied Ships
xAKL Sibolga, Shell hits 1, on fire



SS I-18 is sighted by xAKL Sibolga
SS I-18 attacking on the surface
SS I-18 low on gun ammo, Araki N. breaks off surface engagement and submerges
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submarine under attack near Toboali at 51,93

Japanese Ships
SS I-18

Allied Ships
xAKL Sibolga, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage



SS I-18 is sighted by xAKL Sibolga
SS I-18 launches 6 torpedoes

[Yamato hugger]

You can see how far she is off her patrol route and her current ammo status (I-18):

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

You can see how far she is off her patrol route and her current ammo status (I-18):

I would say she is returning to port to replenish and passed through a target rich environment.

[treespider]

You also finally found a target rich environment...I would guess I have (or had) somewhere in the neighborhood of 20 unescorted cargo/transport/amphib TF in this region for some time with no ASW to speak of....

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

They are well off their patrol routes. If not react, how did they get there? [;)] And they seem to be reacting from the places they reacted to, drawing them out still further. Its hard to track this in a live game because I cant see both sides so frankly I cant really comment on what exactly is going on with them. Here is the start of the current turn, pretty sure these are all react attacks (including the allied subs) except Jolo. Note sub names and the hex numbers. Before I turned on react, I was lucky to have more than 1 attack every other day.

Edit: Note: I-18 made 5 separate attacks today.

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Jan 04, 42
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submarine under attack near Siberoet Island at 41,85

Japanese Ships
SS I-153

Allied Ships
xAKL Parigi, Shell hits 8, heavy fires, heavy damage



SS I-153 is sighted by xAKL Parigi
SS I-153 attacking on the surface


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submarine under attack near Tambelan Islands at 53,90

Japanese Ships
SS I-18

Allied Ships
xAKL Lee Sang, Shell hits 9, heavy fires, heavy damage



SS I-18 is sighted by xAKL Lee Sang
SS I-18 attacking on the surface


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submarine under attack near Pontianak at 54,90

Japanese Ships
xAK Iwashiro Maru, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage

Allied Ships
SS KXI

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



SS KXI is sighted by xAK Iwashiro Maru
SS KXI launches 2 torpedoes


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submarine under attack near Muntok at 50,89

Japanese Ships
SS I-18

Allied Ships
xAKL Prominent, Shell hits 5, heavy fires, heavy damage



SS I-18 is sighted by xAKL Prominent
SS I-18 attacking on the surface
SS I-18 low on gun ammo, Araki N. breaks off surface engagement and submerges


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASW attack near Jolo at 74,90

Japanese Ships
DD Hokaze
DD Yakaze
DD Okikaze
DD Minekaze

Allied Ships
SS S-37



S-37 bottoming out ....
DD Hokaze fails to find sub and abandons search
DD Yakaze fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Okikaze fails to find sub and abandons search
DD Minekaze fails to find sub and abandons search
DD Yakaze fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Yakaze fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Yakaze fails to find sub, continues to search...
Escort abandons search for sub


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submarine under attack near Muntok at 50,89

Japanese Ships
SS I-18

Allied Ships
xAKL Prominent, Torpedo hits 2, heavy fires, heavy damage



SS I-18 is sighted by xAKL Prominent
SS I-18 launches 2 torpedoes


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submarine under attack near Siberoet Island at 42,86

Japanese Ships
SS I-153

Allied Ships
xAP President Madison, Torpedo hits 3, on fire, heavy damage



SS I-153 is sighted by xAP President Madison
SS I-153 launches 8 torpedoes
Submarine under attack near Billiton at 52,92

Japanese Ships
SS I-9

Allied Ships
xAKL Sibolga



SS I-9 is sighted by xAKL Sibolga
SS I-9 attacking on the surface
Kanda B. decides to submerge SS I-9 due to damage


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submarine under attack near Toboali at 51,93

Japanese Ships
SS I-18

Allied Ships
xAKL Sibolga, Shell hits 1, on fire



SS I-18 is sighted by xAKL Sibolga
SS I-18 attacking on the surface
SS I-18 low on gun ammo, Araki N. breaks off surface engagement and submerges
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submarine under attack near Toboali at 51,93

Japanese Ships
SS I-18

Allied Ships
xAKL Sibolga, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage



SS I-18 is sighted by xAKL Sibolga
SS I-18 launches 6 torpedoes

[Kull]

ORIGINAL: treespider

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

You can see how far she is off her patrol route and her current ammo status (I-18):

I would say she is returning to port to replenish and passed through a target rich environment.

That should be easy to check - has the sub's destination changed? As you test this further back in the lab, try setting the ammo loads to ludicrously high levels (400 torps per sub) to see just how far "off-patrol" a sub will go based on the reaction-after-a-reaction algorithm. If she's supposed to be patrolling around Singapore and winds up near Darwin......

[Yamato hugger]

ORIGINAL: treespider

I would say she is returning to port to replenish and passed through a target rich environment.

Well, you certainly COULD say that, but you would be wrong. I-9 is on her way home to reload. Note the notation on the top:

(The text in red that you cant read says: retruning to port to replenish)

Edit: I-9 hit a mine in the straight between Java and Sumatra on the way to her patrol area, after which she patrolled off Java sinking 2 TKs and an AP and is now headed home because she is out of torps so the damage isnt the cause of her returning.



It is possible she is on her way TO her patrol area after replenishing. Frankly until this turn I hadnt even noticed her. Regardless, I think 5 attacks in 1 day in 3 different hexes is excessive and deserves a house rule.

[Kull]

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

Regardless, I think 5 attacks in 1 day in 3 different hexes is excessive and deserves a house rule.

I agree. Six hexes is far too much, unless the sub/ship is being vectored in through information gained from other sources. And even then, for a submarine to locate a small moving target 240 miles away requires the kind of luck that is clearly absent from the algorithm. Maybe a 1-hex reaction zone, and even that would iffy. For what it's worth, here's some information on the visibility at sea:

Source: http://www.sailnet.com/forums/cruising- ... ility.html

Thanks for getting in touch with your question about visibility. The short answer is that a person of average height can see almost three miles at sea level, actually 2.8 miles to be exact. However, that answer assumes that the person's eyes are at six feet above sea level and the conditions are near perfect.

For a more thorough, you might want to look at what John Rousmaniere has written in his very useful tome, The Annapolis Book of Seamanship, but I'll summarize that here. In his chapter on navigation aids, he explains two ranges of visibility. One he terms the "nominal range of visibility," and the other the "geographic range of visibility." The former, says Rousmaniere, relates to the visibility of the light from a lighthouse, for instance. A light from a lighthouse may be bright enough to have a nominal range of visibility that measures 13 miles, but its geographic range of visibility—the distance at which you can actually see the lighthouse—would be much smaller. You can find a standard table of distances listed in Rousmaniere's book on page 214, with references to the height off the water required to see those distances.

The kind of visibility that you're asking about—geographical visibility—refers to the distance at which any object can be seen. This distance is limited by the curvature of the earth, and it's greatly influenced by height. Of course atmospheric conditions will also influence this distance, but for the purposes of this explanation let's just assume they are perfectly clear: no clouds, no haze, no smog. Let's say same the same hypothetical lighthouse is 50 feet tall. According to Rousmaniere's table, it would only be visible for 8.1 miles. Now, if you were standing on deck aboard a medium-sized sailboat and you were of average height, that would put your eyes about 10 feet off the water. From that vantage point, you should be able see 3.6 nautical miles, but you could see the light house at a distance of 11.7 n.m. (According to Rousmaniere's table, the 50-foot-high lighthouse is visible for 8.1 n.m. Combine that with your geographic range of visibility at 10 feet above sea level [3.6 n.m.] and you get a distance of 11.7 n.m.)

So whoever told you that you should be able to see the horizon from the shore 13 miles away was mistaken. If you could climb a 130-foot tower, then yes, you could see 13.1 miles out to sea. Or if the object at sea was 125 feet off the water, then you should be able to see it from a shoreline 13 miles away (125 feet added to your own five-or-so feet of height). I hope that this helps you understand the concepts at work here. If it doesn't, I'd recommend you get a copy of Rousmaniere's book and study that section more closely. Or just get the book anyway because It's a great resource for sailors.

[Ramjet]

For those of us that have been to sea, you can see the mast and superstructure up to 20 miles away depending on your height advantage. For subs, that was not too great. But could a sub crew sight a ship 13 miles away? Quite possible espically if you life depended on it!

As for the house rules; if this is all anyone can come up with, then the development team has exceeded my wildest expectations!

[Don Bowen]

1. Task Forces will only react to detected enemy TFs. Most likely the detection is by some means other than the reacting TF (such as air recon).

2. TFs will always react from their current position, including on the way to a patrol zone or from a point on the way to a reaction or on the way back.

3. TFs on patrol will return to their patrol zones after reaction (unless damaged, short on ammo/fuel)

4. TFs may switch targets in the middle of a reaction if a closer/better target is detected.

5. If TFs switch targets during reaction, they may go after the original target once the switcheroo is taken care of.

6. There is no limit to the number of TFs that a single TF can react to and/or engage - just fuel, ammo, and damage considerations.

[BeastieDog]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


1. Task Forces will only react to detected enemy TFs. Most likely the detection is by some means other than the reacting TF (such as air recon).

An effective tactic would then have one sub TF with a Glen set to zero react to spot with other sub TFs set at max react.

[TMFoss]

The formula for visible ranges to the horizon is distance is miles = the square root of 1.5 times the height in feet.  So, a six foot tall man standing at sea level would theoretically be able to see 2.89 miles to the horizon.  If the observed object is above the horizon, then you add the height of both objects to get the range.  Due to atmospheric refraction, the actual distances can be up to 20% higher.  Of course, this is assuming very clear weather.  So, and I am just going to throw some very numbers here, a sub commander on the surface with eye level at 15 feet above sea level looking at a ship with a superstructure 40 feet above sea level should be able to see it at a range of a little over 9 miles- maybe as much a 10.5 with atmospheric refraction.

[Yamato hugger]

Well thats not always true with subs. The Barb for example used to raise its periscope and observe a target while they maneuvered to get in front of it thus staying over the targets horizon. Makes sense that they would probably use that method (periodically if nothing else) to spot as well, so that would increase the observation range a lot.

[EUBanana]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
6. There is no limit to the number of TFs that a single TF can react to and/or engage - just fuel, ammo, and damage considerations.

What about ops points?