Glug, glug, glug in the Aleutians

[Kull]

May 22nd was another bad day. In what is becoming an all-too-familiar sequence, I-31 bumped into a Transport TF, never fired a torpedo, was pounded by the escorts (multiple times...it's ALWAYS multiple times!), took a bunch of hits including two hull penetrations (each of which resulted in MAJOR ENGINE DAMAGE), surfaced helplessly for yet another battering, and sank without a whimper.

FWIW, the action report below isn't completely accurate. ALL the escorts depth charged the sub, not just DD Edwards - in fact, it was DD Coughlan that punctured her twice.

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR May 22, 43
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submarine attack near Dutch Harbor at 166,50

Japanese Ships
SS I-31, hits 13, on fire, heavy damage

Allied Ships
DMS Perry
APA Heywood
LSI(M) Prince Henry
APD Kane
DD Edwards
DD Coghlan


I-31 diving deep ....
DD Edwards attacking submerged sub ....
SS I-31 forced to surface!
DD Edwards firing on surfaced sub ....
DD Coghlan firing on surfaced sub ....
DD Edwards firing on surfaced sub ....
DD Coghlan firing on surfaced sub ....
DD Edwards firing on surfaced sub ....
DD Coghlan firing on surfaced sub ....
DD Coghlan firing on surfaced sub ....
DD Edwards firing on surfaced sub ....
DD Coghlan firing on surfaced sub ....
DD Edwards firing on surfaced sub ....
DD Coghlan firing on surfaced sub ....
Sub slips beneath the waves

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Local Yokel]

ORIGINAL: Kull

And speaking of which, here's another "learning opportunity" (God, I hate those!!! @#@$%) [;)]

I-175 ran out of fuel and has been limping home to Paramushiro. Fortunately I had a replenishment TF with a nearly full AO ready to go in the Paramushiro harbor, so two turns ago she was given the order to "rendevous with" I-175. And then never budged from port. After presenting the skipper with a colorful description of his family's near-certain descent from the slug branch of the evolutionary tree, he was tasked to travel to the same hex that I-175 would occupy on the next turn. And as you can see, there they are, side by side. And the sub TF is "unreplenishable"! Gah!!

I realize the IJN probably (?) didn't have an equivalent of the German u-boat "milch cow", but were subs never refueled at sea by merchants, capital ships, and/or tankers? Or is this a WAD to prevent the kind of gamey refueling tricks I failed to pull off earlier in the AAR?

I think you're fully entitled to feel frustrated by this. An oiler unable to replenish a submarine at sea? Sorry, devs, but I don't think this can be right, particularly with submarines' new propensity for emptying their tanks prematurely. Again, you might have got a bit more mileage out this boat by running her at cruise speed.

The other thing that puzzled me was why you wanted to set a course for a boat through the shallows of the island chain. I've had the same kind of problem doing this with a surface TF, though trying out different waypoints usually gets me the route I want. This is good for a surface TF, because enemy submarines may not wish to enter the shallows. But why route your own boat through shallow waters? If you encounter an ASW TF, you've probably denied yourself the chance of going deep to avoid it. Also, you are more likely to be picked up by any air search the enemy sets up at Adak. My preference would be for a more circuitous approach route to Dutch Harbor.

Another thing about routes through the shallows: I think you now run the risk of hitting an uncharted hazard if you do so. Nice feature, but even more reason for avoiding shallows in a sub.

[Kull]

ORIGINAL: Local Yokel

I think you're fully entitled to feel frustrated by this. An oiler unable to replenish a submarine at sea? Sorry, devs, but I don't think this can be right, particularly with submarines' new propensity for emptying their tanks prematurely. Again, you might have got a bit more mileage out this boat by running her at cruise speed.

I'm going to repost this in the Naval Issues thread, and it could be a bug. Technically, there doesn't seem to be any reason why an Oiler couldn't meet up with a sub and top off her tanks. But I suspect it was done to prevent "gamey" tricks. We'll see what they have to say. Fortunately, the larger issue of subs running out of fuel will be fixed in the first patch, so it should minimize the need for this capability.

The other thing that puzzled me was why you wanted to set a course for a boat through the shallows of the island chain. I've had the same kind of problem doing this with a surface TF, though trying out different waypoints usually gets me the route I want. This is good for a surface TF, because enemy submarines may not wish to enter the shallows. But why route your own boat through shallow waters? If you encounter an ASW TF, you've probably denied yourself the chance of going deep to avoid it. Also, you are more likely to be picked up by any air search the enemy sets up at Adak. My preference would be for a more circuitous approach route to Dutch Harbor.

Another thing about routes through the shallows: I think you now run the risk of hitting an uncharted hazard if you do so. Nice feature, but even more reason for avoiding shallows in a sub.

Everything you say is 100% true if it were applied to "real" submarines! However, I'm sending a midget sub, and those things run out of fuel after only two hexes, and as we've already seen, they can't be refueled by anything other than a port. So I'm sending her through the shallows because of my belief (supported by nothing more than anecdotal evidence) that "damage-caused-by-traveling-in-an-out-of-fuel-condition" mounts up at a slower rate when traversing shallow hexes than it does in ocean hexes.

But you know what? I have a few semi-useless Midget Subs hanging around in Kiska harbor, so let's test that theory out!

[Kull]

Well it's May 25th and with less than 3 weeks to go in the scenario, it's a good time for an "interlude". Look at the whole map, see what's going on, follow up with some of the earlier protagonists, offer some new observations on what might be bugs or at least things to watch out for, and prepare to run some new tests.

The first item worthy of comment is that we only have two sub TFs patrolling the Death Box. I-5 is one of the newbies, and with only 1 sys damage and tons of fuel, she's here for the duration (or at least until her first encounter with an Allied TF). I-7 is one of the original Glen boats, and has enough fuel to last out the scenario (12348). After almost 6 weeks on patrol, she has damage of 14 sys and 3 eng - enough for me to send her home if this were the GC instead of the Aleutians.

That's only two from the original twelve (starting ten plus the two early reinforcements), so where are the others?
- 4 Sunk
- 1 Crippled (and out of the scenario)
- 1 Damaged and repairing (more on this later)
- 2 Refueled and returning
- 2 Returning-to-Port for fuel or repair

So, the good news is we can expect 5 of these to return for one last Death Box patrol before the scenario ends. Of course, if you were a crew member on any of those boats, "good" probably wouldn't be the word of choice.

[Kull]

Midget sub Ha-34 arrived in Adak with more than double the damage incurred by Ha32 a few weeks earlier (44 vs 21). ( EDIT: Deleted earlier hare-brained theories) That's probably attributable to the fact that I'm a moron and in addition to not fueling Ha-34 up to it's maximum of 84 (she departed Kiska with only 42 fuel in the tanks), the REAL factor is almost certainly the fact that Ha-32 traveled at "Cruise" speed whereas Ha-34 traveled at "Mission" speed! Why that would cause lack-of-fuel-travel-damage to double seems odd in the extreme (once your're out of fuel, it's just one hex at a time anyway), but that seems to be the best explanation for the results.

Anyway, if the goal were to reach Dutch Harbor, I *should* send Ha 32 since her damage levels are low enough that it might work. But I have kind of a soft spot for the "boys in the canoe", and don't want to send them off to near certain death. Plus, you'll notice that they've actually repaired 4 sys damage (down to 17 from 21), and I'm curious to see how much more they can do. It certainly seems odd that they could repair a sub while holed up in an enemy port!

Accordingly, the "Death Ride to Dutch Harbor" mission remains in the hands of Ha-34. And if the the damage accrual rate proceeds on a linear basis, they won't make it past the red-circled open ocean hex SW of the destination (ignore the on-screen pathing, as I'm resetting waypoints every other turn to ensure they stay in the shallow water hexes). If it's more of a geometric rate, then one of the black-circled hexes is the likely grave site. Edit: Also going to change the TF speed to "Cruise" and hope that helps their chances.

[Kull]

CAVEAT: The following is a test, not part of the ongoing AAR

Midget Sub Test - Damage caused by Cruise Speed versus Mission Speed

ORIGINAL: Kull

Midget sub Ha-34 arrived in Adak with more than double the damage incurred by Ha32 a few weeks earlier (44 vs 21). ( EDIT: Deleted earlier hare-brained theories) That's probably attributable to the fact that I'm a moron and in addition to not fueling Ha-34 up to it's maximum of 84 (she departed Kiska with only 42 fuel in the tanks), the REAL factor is almost certainly the fact that Ha-32 traveled at "Cruise" speed whereas Ha-34 traveled at "Mission" speed! Why that would cause lack-of-fuel-travel-damage to double seems odd in the extreme (once your're out of fuel, it's just one hex at a time anyway), but that seems to be the best explanation for the results.

And the validity of the "TF Speed Settings impact Damage" theory? Ummm....how 'bout "glug, glug, glug" (because down the drain is where it went). I went back to the May 21st save game and altered the Ha-34 TF speed settings from "Mission" to "Cruise", and here's the resulting damage when she pulled into Adak harbor 4 days later. That's right 40 damage at "Cruise" vs 44 at "Mission" (see picture in the post directly above this one), which is well within the kind of variability one would expect from this kind of algorithm. So what would cause the dramatic difference between the damage incurred by Ha-32 and that experienced by Ha-34? Well, there's another test in process that may answer that question (and simultaneously slay another rabbit-brained theory of mine).

[Kull]

CAVEAT: The following is a test, not part of the ongoing AAR

Return-to-Base Issues #1 (from Patrol)

As we had seen earlier, I-175 was returning to Paramushiro for refueling but ran dry due to an error in the soon-to-be-patched refueling algorithm. On May 24th she was one hex away from port with empty tanks. My assumption (if we are learning anything in this AAR, it's that "my assumptions" are usually wrong!) was that I-175 would arrive in port to refuel and would wait around for me to hand out "what's next instructions".

[Kull]

CAVEAT: The following is a test, not part of the ongoing AAR

Return-to-Base Issues #2 (from Patrol)

But that was not to be. The very next turn she had refueled and was already four hexes out to sea. So what's going on? Seems I'd forgotten a key point associated with the Patrol Zone feature. When subs are running low on fuel, they'll automatically return home, and then AUTOMATICALLY RESUME PATROL. And sure enough, a look at the Patrol Zone settings from an earlier save confirm that they never changed, even when the sub was on her way back to Paramushiro.

[Kull]

CAVEAT: The following is a test, not part of the ongoing AAR

Return-to-Base Issues #3 (from Patrol)

That's obviously a wonderful micromanagement reduction feature, but I do have a quibble with the damage recognition level. Sending a sub out on Patrol with 20 sys damage is not a good idea, IMO, and if the AI is also doing this (which I'm certain it is), the long term effect on their naval asets is going to be quite detrimental. You can fix low levels of damage fairly quickly, but the larger it gets, the more likely it is to cause OTHER categories of damage that will take a lot longer to repair. And in the case of submarines, it will make them much more susceptible to ASW attacks. If the sub is ALREADY at 30+ damage, the number of hits required to sink it would only damage a healthier vessel. And why do I say "30+" damage? Well, take a look at this sub which survived an ASW assault three turns ago and yet still remains on Patrol!


I don't know what level of Damage is considered to be "enough" to mandate a return to Port for repairs, but if surface vessels are also continuing to operate "normally" with damage of 37 sys and 32 float, that's going to give the human player an enormous advantage over the long term, since by definition those vessels can withstand much less punishment in combat. Initially the AI may have an advantage insofar as they'll have more operational assets early in the game (i.e the AI's ships are still out there "working" instead of repairing in port), but that is going to shift quickly and dramatically in the other direction.

I would urge the Devs to take a harder look at the issue of "acceptable" operational damage.

[jwilkerson]

Actually while we may not take a "harder look" (not sure how to do that without hurtin' my already hurtin' head!) we are definitely discussing the RTB criteria. I also noticed that submarines out of torpedoes but retaining gun ammo, seem to be remaining on patrol. Maybe that was a good idea in WWI, but not sure about WWII. The damage criteria are also being discussed.

[Kull]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

Actually while we may not take a "harder look" (not sure how to do that without hurtin' my already hurtin' head!) we are definitely discussing the RTB criteria. I also noticed that submarines out of torpedoes but retaining gun ammo, seem to be remaining on patrol. Maybe that was a good idea in WWI, but not sure about WWII. The damage criteria are also being discussed.

Good to know you guys are discussing the matter, and I realize the implications could be massive. If the RTB algorithm is the same one that causes units to abort from a TF, grab an escort, and return to base....whew. While it makes sense for a sub on patrol to RTB when it hits 20 damage, you would NOT want Transport TFs to start aborting there-and-back missions because an AK inched up to 21. Unless the sub and ship algorithms are separate things, then I'm beginning to understand why your head is hurting.

[jwilkerson]

Well we're just talking about submarines here, not the whole shebang. They are different shebang's anyway ...

[Kull]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

Well we're just talking about submarines here, not the whole shebang. They are different shebang's anyway ...

Good to know. Very good to know!

[Kull]

CAVEAT: The following is a test, not part of the ongoing AAR

Repair Issues - Major Damage & Pierside Repair Bug #1

When you put ships into Pierside Repair mode at a location which does NOT have the ability to repair major damage, bad things can happen. Not critically bad for the human player, but if it impacts the AI then it could be catastrophic. In the first screen shot we can see two submarines are in Pierside Repair mode at Paramushiro. This is a very useful new feature in AE, and can often cut repair times in half. Both subs are almost done with their repairs: I-34 is estimated complete in one day, and I-169 in two. However, I-169 has a "#" sign next to her "Days estimate", which means that her major damage can't be repaired, and thus the "two days" does not include that. So far so good, and in fact, a HUGE IMPROVEMENT over WitP.

[Kull]

CAVEAT: The following is a test, not part of the ongoing AAR

Repair Issues - Major Damage & Pierside Repair Bug #2

One day later we can go into the "Manage Repair" screen and see that things have changed. As expected, I-34 is no longer at Pierside, since her repairs are complete. I-169 still is, but something puzzling has happened. There are no "Days to Repair", just a big "X". The legend at the bottom of the screen tells us that "X = can't be repaired under this mode". And if you highlight I-169 and look to the upper right of the screen, we can see that everything has been repaired except for the major damage. Fair enough. However. If that's all true, why is she still sitting here in Pierside Repair mode?? Because you can click the "end turn" button until the end of time, and the computer will not return her to duty - she'll stay here forever.

So here's the first comment: Is the AI placing ships with Major Damage into Pierside repair modes at locations that can't repair Major Damage? If so, does it "know" how to get them out and return them to duty?

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: Kull
If that's all true, why is she still sitting here in Pierside Repair mode?? Because you can click the "end turn" button until the end of time, and the computer will not return her to duty - she'll stay here forever.

Not an issue - it stays in Pierside because there's a cost in time to move it out of Pierside and players may not want to incur that cost. You can switch it from Pierside to Shipyard without a delay, which is what some will want to do, use Pierside to reduce the minor damage and gradually shift ships into Shipyard as space is available.

This does not affect the AI in any adverse way as far as when the AI is playing either Japan or the Allies entirely, but it does affect "Auto Sub Ops" for the human side. Not sure it's an issue though, as the human player gets a reminder in the Ops report every turn of any ships that are in "offline" repair modes and can't be repaired any further. As soon as the human player decides what to do with them, they should be available for duty again.

Regards,

- Erik

[Kull]

CAVEAT: The following is a test, not part of the ongoing AAR

Repair Issues - Major Damage & Pierside Repair Bug #3

The good news is that the human player can manually change the Repair Mode from "Pierside" to "Readiness". Just click the text under the "Repair Allocation" heading at the far right side of the screen, make your selection and save your change (As an aside, I can't tell you how much I LOVE the "must save changes" feature here. It makes ALL the difference between a wonderfully useful new ship repair method and a "feature" that would have me howling at the moon in frustration. Nice job!) Here's where it becomes annoying. The ONLY way to take a ship with an "X" out ofpierside is to make the manual change. But when you do that, the ship isn't actually ready. If we take a look at the "Port" screen, both I-169 and I-34 are visible, and we know that each one has completed their pierside repairs on the same turn. But because you have to manually change I-169's mode, it's going to take her three days to achieve readiness!

So this is clearly a bug. The repair code should be able to recognize when repair is no longer possible, and automatically return the ship to service.

[Kull]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

ORIGINAL: Kull
If that's all true, why is she still sitting here in Pierside Repair mode?? Because you can click the "end turn" button until the end of time, and the computer will not return her to duty - she'll stay here forever.

Not an issue - it stays in Pierside because there's a cost in time to move it out of Pierside and players may not want to incur that cost. You can switch it from Pierside to Shipyard without a delay, which is what some will want to do, use Pierside to reduce the minor damage and gradually shift ships into Shipyard as space is available.

Thanks for taking the time to respond. As noted in the post above, this isn't a huge issue for the Human player, and I can definitely understand imposing a penalty on randomly yanking units in and out of Pierside Repair mode. The problem comes when there is no "higher level" of repair (ala "Shipyard"). At this point the repair is as complete as it will ever be - in this port - and yet the unit will not be automatically placed in readiness, as is done with a unit that has finished all repairs. There doesn't seem to be a logical reason why one has the penalty and the other does not. So if a solution could be coded, one hopes it would be.

This does not affect the AI in any adverse way as far as when the AI is playing either Japan or the Allies entirely, but it does affect "Auto Sub Ops" for the human side.

The concern (and admittedly I could be completely off base), is will the AI place a unit into a Repair Mode that it cannot automatically extricate itself from? In the example above, if the AI placed a sub into Pierside Repair mode, the code would never remove it (unless the code is different for AI control than it is for Human control).

[Kull]

CAVEAT: The following is a test, not part of the ongoing AAR

Midget Sub Test - Damage in Shallow Hexes versus Ocean Hexes #1

ORIGINAL: Kull

ORIGINAL: Local Yokel

The other thing that puzzled me was why you wanted to set a course for a boat through the shallows of the island chain. I've had the same kind of problem doing this with a surface TF, though trying out different waypoints usually gets me the route I want. This is good for a surface TF, because enemy submarines may not wish to enter the shallows. But why route your own boat through shallow waters? If you encounter an ASW TF, you've probably denied yourself the chance of going deep to avoid it. Also, you are more likely to be picked up by any air search the enemy sets up at Adak. My preference would be for a more circuitous approach route to Dutch Harbor.

Another thing about routes through the shallows: I think you now run the risk of hitting an uncharted hazard if you do so. Nice feature, but even more reason for avoiding shallows in a sub.

Everything you say is 100% true if it were applied to "real" submarines! However, I'm sending a midget sub, and those things run out of fuel after only two hexes, and as we've already seen, they can't be refueled by anything other than a port. So I'm sending her through the shallows because of my belief (supported by nothing more than anecdotal evidence) that "damage-caused-by-traveling-in-an-out-of-fuel-condition" mounts up at a slower rate when traversing shallow hexes than it does in ocean hexes.

But you know what? I have a few semi-useless Midget Subs hanging around in Kiska harbor, so let's test that theory out!

So there we have it. Local Yokel maintains that running Midget Subs through shallows is more dangerous than traveling through the ocean. My theory is that midget subs should suffer less damage in shallows than in the ocean. And now we have an answer (Hint: Most of my theories have turned out to be uh....misguided. You were warned. [;)])

We start with two midget subs in Kiska Harbor. Both have been fully refueled (Endurance is at 84) and each will travel at "Cruise" speed (although previous testing suggests that speed doesn't matter when running on empty, we want all the settings to be identical). Ha-29 is traveling the direct route - 15 ocean hexes to Dutch Harbor:

[Kull]

CAVEAT: The following is a test, not part of the ongoing AAR

Midget Sub Test - Damage in Shallow Hexes versus Ocean Hexes #2

Meanwhile Ha-31 will take the scenic route through the shallows. It must be safer right? I mean there's islands where they can stop and bail out the canoe and stretch their legs and maybe take a dip in the refreshingly cool waters of the Far, far, far North Pacific. Even shoot a few seabirds and roast 'em over a sterno can. How is this not a good idea? [:)]