Why Does it Seem?

[rockmedic109]

ORIGINAL: stuman

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Short answer: The game isn treating both sides equally.


Long answer: Your perception is a result of an egocentric cognitive bias which is common to all people and which, incorrectly, overemphasises one's own experience as a basis for generalisation.

That is a lot of big words.

And I think the game is biased against me. It is constantly blowing up my ships, shooting down my planes, sinking my subs and trashing my troops. All of the time, without letup.

The game is not biased against you. Nor is the programing giving any extras to the AI. Your computer is the problem. It doesn't like to loose, so it cheats in order to win. I have a similiar computer. I've threatened mine with becoming spare parts or a boat anchor and have had some success.....it now believes my name is "Dave" and keeps asking what I am doing.

My fleet boats do get a lot torp failures, but I do get enough successes to make it worthwhile. This also has the effect of increasing crew EXP for when the torps are better. Part of the problem is perception. The vast majority of attacks are against transports, thus you will have successes. With so few capital targets, your attacks on them will be few and far between and most will end in failure.

[Canoerebel]

ORIGINAL: Dixie

80% dud rate still means 20% are working correctly, if you're lauching 100 torps a week (should be easy enough in the early days with short patrol areas and lots of targets) then 20 hits can easily sink 20 AKs [;)]  It seems to be that my lot get lower dud rates from surface attacks as well for some reason.

This is where the "theoretical" doesn't intersect with the "actual." Allied subs don't launch anything like 100 torps a week. Most weeks might seek five to ten Allied sub attacks with perhaps 10 to 40 torpedoes launched.

[Ametysth]

Why does it seem? Well, because it is true.

It is more likely to get an explosion on xAK than CV. After all, you are making more attacks on transports. If one out of four attacks results an explosion, chances are high that the target is a transport and not that CV.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

ORIGINAL: Dixie

80% dud rate still means 20% are working correctly, if you're lauching 100 torps a week (should be easy enough in the early days with short patrol areas and lots of targets) then 20 hits can easily sink 20 AKs [;)]  It seems to be that my lot get lower dud rates from surface attacks as well for some reason.

This is where the "theoretical" doesn't intersect with the "actual." Allied subs don't launch anything like 100 torps a week. Most weeks might seek five to ten Allied sub attacks with perhaps 10 to 40 torpedoes launched.

I'd say the number has ramped up to probably 100/week by May 1943 in my game. Some of that is due to larger numbers of subs, and some to re-attacks by more experienced COs and crews.

FWIW, in my AI game, on May 4, 1943 I've sunk 137 Japanese ships by MK 14 torpedo. The vast majority have been AKs. Ten have been tankers, the holy grail of targets. There are many more sinkings by other submarine torpedo models, mostly the S-boats' MK 10s. I've lost a total of 11 submarines to enemy action. Of those, two were mine strikes, and five were destroyed in drydock--four in Java, and one in Brisbane by a CV raid. I'd say that ASW effectiveness is indeed too low, but the number of Allied sub attacks, and their lethality, is not too far off.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Ametysth

Why does it seem? Well, because it is true.

It is more likely to get an explosion on xAK than CV. After all, you are making more attacks on transports. If one out of four attacks results an explosion, chances are high that the target is a transport and not that CV.

But the code typically shoots more torpedoes at a CV than an AK. The dud rate is per fish, not per attack instance.

People who can see the code have stated there's no target type preferences. Why not let this one go? Randomness is randomness.

[bradfordkay]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

ORIGINAL: Dixie

80% dud rate still means 20% are working correctly, if you're lauching 100 torps a week (should be easy enough in the early days with short patrol areas and lots of targets) then 20 hits can easily sink 20 AKs [;)]  It seems to be that my lot get lower dud rates from surface attacks as well for some reason.

This is where the "theoretical" doesn't intersect with the "actual." Allied subs don't launch anything like 100 torps a week. Most weeks might seek five to ten Allied sub attacks with perhaps 10 to 40 torpedoes launched.

I get substantially more attacks each week than that with my allied subs, averaging at least 3 per day.

[Canoerebel]

You get alot more early in the game when the Japanese are in the PI and DEI while Soerabaja, Manila, and Singapore are in Allied hands, but once the Allies have to pull back it seems like Allied sub attacks fall of dramatically.

[Titanwarrior89]

Well shoot me in the head. After months of real time in our pbem game, finally a US Sub hits a Ca and blows against its hull. Then later a US Sub shoots and hits a SC and its a dud(Aug 42). For months-replay after replay its been the other way around(as he wipes some egg of his face[:(]).

[Nomad]

I totally agree with Bullwinkle, 80% dud rate means you have a 20% success rate. If you put your subs where his AKs and TKs are, you will sink some of them. I try to start changing out my sub commanders on the ships second trip out so they are more aggressive and will take more shots.

[bradfordkay]

Dan, i know that in my CHS PBEM, I still averaged about 2 sub attacks a day after the initial Japanese expansion was over. When I get home tonight I'll post my totals for sunk ships - I earlier posted the warships but my totals against freighters, troopships, tankers and oilers were substantially higher.

[Canoerebel]

Are we talking AE or WitP?  Isn't CHS a WitP mod?
 
In AE, I'm not getting anything like that in November 1942, but perhaps I'm a poor sub commander.

[bradfordkay]

I am tsalking WITP, as I haven't spent enough time with AE as of yet. However, the sub torpedo model for AE is the same as for WITP, IIRC.

I hadn't spent much time with AE because I was so involved in an excellent CHS PBEM against ChezDaJez until fairly recently when a massive alien abduction of our pilots ended that game. Now we are preparing to start anew in AE.

Ome difference between my game and those of many others is that I kept at it with my USN fleet boats even though their torpedoes were crap. Chez can affirm that he was seriously hurting on tankers throughout our war...

[Canoerebel]

I've employed my subs the entire game; I get a fair number of sub attacks (nothing even CLOSE to 100 per week - maybe 10 per week) and the dud rate is just as advertised.  I have sunk perhaps one to two Japanese ships per week, the vast majority being PB and AK.  ASW on both sides is awful - I've only lost three subs in 12 months.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Nomad

I totally agree with Bullwinkle, 80% dud rate means you have a 20% success rate. If you put your subs where his AKs and TKs are, you will sink some of them. I try to start changing out my sub commanders on the ships second trip out so they are more aggressive and will take more shots.

After I posted today, I played two weeks of May 1943 in my game. IT WAS A SUB BONANZA!

I sank FIVE tankers, and three AOs. USS Barb (a RL "hot boat" to the max) accounted for a third of the total. I had her on 6 reaction range sitting in the lane near Okinawa, and she harried convoys to death. Sank one 100%, two tankers and a PB, over three days of pursuit. With various AKs and assorted smalll boys it was the most productive period of the submarine war. Japanese subs got three ASW vessels, including another DD (Canoerebel!), but I hardly cared. Hang in there; good times are acomin'.

[Boozecamp]

The lack of deductive reasoning abilities amongst many posters here is nothing short of amazing.  Torpedo accuracy is affected by the target's maximum speed, and the torpedo's speed.  Therefore, merchies are easy targets, DDs, not so much so.  It doesn't take a Neurosurgeon's mental abilities to figure this out.  In real life, an unguided torpedo's accuracy is going to be determined by those two factors, plus a target's physical size and the degree of the targets maneuvering.  

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Boozecamp

The lack of deductive reasoning abilities amongst many posters here is nothing short of amazing.  Torpedo accuracy is affected by the target's maximum speed, and the torpedo's speed.  Therefore, merchies are easy targets, DDs, not so much so.  It doesn't take a Neurosurgeon's mental abilities to figure this out.  In real life, an unguided torpedo's accuracy is going to be determined by those two factors, plus a target's physical size and the degree of the targets maneuvering.  

Well, Booze, it turns out your deductive reasoning is just, well, wrong. Torpedo accuracy to hit is determined by dozens of factors, not the least of which is ability of the Approach Officer to pass good bearings and work the stadimeter in the 4-5 seconds he has scope exposure. It isn't easy. Weapons can be badly maintained. There can be a current. There can be temperature inversions. There can be be poor target ID, leading to the wrong mast assumptions in the stadimeter. The TBT operator can screw up the inputs. The torpedo room can mis-set the depth spindles. The firing key officer can screw up the spread timing. The firing pin can deform at impact. Impact can be at an excessive angle. The air flask can explode on the way to the target. Another target can maneuver into the torpedo track. Should I go on?

The minimum needed to get a hit is target bearing, speed, course, and range. Sounds easy. It's not. After you can do that excellently, then you get to worry about all that other stuff.