Nuclear Subs

[RevRick]

I seem to be having a rather strenuous struggle against the IJN boats as well. I don't really follow the idea of having IJN sub doctrine permanently removed, it does not make any sense at all to me - unless the rumors of rampant JFB infiltration into the design team prove to be somewhat more than groundless! I think what I will do, since I play only the AI (time constraints), is to go back into the editor, convert all of the Auks into ASW patrol boats, add 15 new CVEs and DE's to appear in 1942, accelerate the Tacoma class, add ten squadrons of ASW air assets to the West Coast, and time travel to the future and haul Rickover into the 1930s to develop the Nautilus and the homing torpedo in 1943. That way, I might be able to get a convoy off the west coast past the 200 mile mark with out being ravaged by these bloody things. EGAD!

[Canoerebel]

I guess my entire game is just pure random chance or the far end of a bell-shaped curve?  If so, that's fine, but it sure is painful.  I've lost at least 50 ships docked at major ports - LA, SD, SF, Pago Pago, Tahiti, Noumea, Auckland, Sydney, Melbourne, Perth, Colombo, Trincomalee, Madras, Bombay, and Karachi.  I have subs sitting in big ports that are mined with ASW air and sea patrols doing nothing and the subs sinking every ship that enters the hex.
 
I need to total up just the number of AOs and TKs I've lost in the game - a remarkably high number, and many of them while docked.
 

[RevRick]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

I guess my entire game is just pure random chance or the far end of a bell-shaped curve?  If so, that's fine, but it sure is painful.  I've lost at least 50 ships docked at major ports - LA, SD, SF, Pago Pago, Tahiti, Noumea, Auckland, Sydney, Melbourne, Perth, Colombo, Trincomalee, Madras, Bombay, and Karachi.  I have subs sitting in big ports that are mined with ASW air and sea patrols doing nothing and the subs sinking every ship that enters the hex.

I need to total up just the number of AOs and TKs I've lost in the game - a remarkably high number, and many of them while docked.

Almost enough to make me start sippin' Turkey again!

[Chickenboy]

Rev,

Why would you need an excuse for that?

[Canoerebel]

I went back and counted my tanker and oiler losses through January 23, 1943:

AO:  10
TK:  33

A fair number of these ships have been lost at sea and were in unsescorted convoys or by themselves; but a fair number have been docked at major ports (including two tankers at Karachi on the 23rd).

You guys know how precious tankers and oilers are, so you know how hard this hits. 

[88l71]

Has anyone tried a N. Atlantic-style "Big Convoy" approach to the problem? What I mean is a very large number of AK/TK's escorted by a large (8 or more?) force of DD's, perhaps using the waypoint system to drop off ship(s) at smaller bases along the way to dock and unload then "picking up" those ships on the return trip? Granted this wouldn't be practical for smaller bases but for runs to major bases in S. Pacific or Australia it might work?

Just thought, don't know if it is a good/bad idea...

[Nomad]

ORIGINAL: RevRick

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

I guess my entire game is just pure random chance or the far end of a bell-shaped curve?  If so, that's fine, but it sure is painful.  I've lost at least 50 ships docked at major ports - LA, SD, SF, Pago Pago, Tahiti, Noumea, Auckland, Sydney, Melbourne, Perth, Colombo, Trincomalee, Madras, Bombay, and Karachi.  I have subs sitting in big ports that are mined with ASW air and sea patrols doing nothing and the subs sinking every ship that enters the hex.

I need to total up just the number of AOs and TKs I've lost in the game - a remarkably high number, and many of them while docked.

Almost enough to make me start sippin' Turkey again!

Rare Breed can be so comforting. [:D]

[RevRick]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Rev,

Why would you need an excuse for that?

I'd better have a real good one if the Bishop were to find out!

[bradfordkay]

ORIGINAL: RevRick

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Rev,

Why would you need an excuse for that?

I'd better have a real good one if the Bishop were to find out!

You should have joined the Whiskeypalian church... [;)]

[Canoerebel]

Yes, I've tried something like that with mixed results.  I'd say the presence of escorts reduces the number of successful sub attacks somewhat.

In the "actual war" the Allies didn't employ North Atlantic-type convoys.  Ships went in small groups or solo.  Of course, the Japanese sub doctrine aided the Allies in utilizing that tactic since Japanese subs weren't really hunting transports as much. (Admiral King, I think, insisted on the "solo" convoy tactic and received some criticism in that regard).

So, the game departs from the real war by foregoing Japanese sub doctrine, which results in higher Allied transport losses, which means that the Allies have to employ a different tactic than was used in the real war.  Which means in desigining a game that we all enjoy - and I think the vast majority of us prefer foregoing Japanese sub doctrine - the game unavoidably shifts away from the real war.

[Sardaukar]

I have not have major problems with IJN subs in my games vs. IJ AI. While I do not sink many, threat has been quite "containable". 

[CarnageINC]

ORIGINAL: Skyros

Did you have air assets on asw to detect the subs and prevent surprise attacks?

I totally feel your pain and frustration Canoerebel. My game with Treznor is very similar to yours. To answer Skyros question, yes, NY59Gaints gave me a good idea on laying my defense.

I've trained my air crews to 40's so far for ASW, i have dedicated ASW fleets 2-3 ships in size, 2-3 per major port, and I'm escorting with 1-2 DD's for most convoys. I have maybe sunk ONE sub...ONE in 1.5 months of war......ONE! I have lost umteen hundred AK's and TK's not to mention at least 8 warships......FOR ONE SUB! Yes I've changed poor ship commanders. And yes taking all these counter measures has diminished attacks a bit, but come on.....ONE SUB?!?

I think that if hits against subs hurt more it would equal out some. Trez and I have talked about this. He...and me have parked our subs outside major ports and have had them attacked by ASW forces for days..weeks..without major damage!?!?!?!

I have no problem with aggressive Jap subs...none...my problem as things stand is the damage taken against subs.

I'm with Canoerebel.....I'm also calling NUC SUBS on this issue.

[CarnageINC]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Yes, I've tried something like that with mixed results.  I'd say the presence of escorts reduces the number of successful sub attacks somewhat.

In the "actual war" the Allies didn't employ North Atlantic-type convoys.  Ships went in small groups or solo.  Of course, the Japanese sub doctrine aided the Allies in utilizing that tactic since Japanese subs weren't really hunting transports as much. (Admiral King, I think, insisted on the "solo" convoy tactic and received some criticism in that regard).

So, the game departs from the real war by foregoing Japanese sub doctrine, which results in higher Allied transport losses, which means that the Allies have to employ a different tactic than was used in the real war.  Which means in desigining a game that we all enjoy - and I think the vast majority of us prefer foregoing Japanese sub doctrine - the game unavoidably shifts away from the real war.

Yes quite aways away from any form of real war. I wonder if the Japs and Jerry's made a sub commander exchange with each other to crew their nuc subs?!?

[LargeSlowTarget]

ORIGINAL: JWE

That tactic may not work as well as you think. The game engine does special things with those little ants that few people care about; YPs, AMCs, yadda, yadda. They are there for a reason, and the engine uses them to populate "local" ASW TFs to preclude precisely that behavior. If you know how to use your ants, and you have sufficient ants in port, those ports will be substantially immune.

Does that mean I can leave the Yippies and AMc in port (instead of forming dozens of ASW and local minesweeping TFs) and they will do their job nonetheless? D'oh, so much time lost for micromanaging! [X(]

[Treznor]

ORIGINAL: CarnageINC

ORIGINAL: Skyros

Did you have air assets on asw to detect the subs and prevent surprise attacks?

I totally feel your pain and frustration Canoerebel. My game with Treznor is very similar to yours. To answer Skyros question, yes, NY59Gaints gave me a good idea on laying my defense.

I've trained my air crews to 40's so far for ASW, i have dedicated ASW fleets 2-3 ships in size, 2-3 per major port, and I'm escorting with 1-2 DD's for most convoys. I have maybe sunk ONE sub...ONE in 1.5 months of war......ONE! I have lost umteen hundred AK's and TK's not to mention at least 8 warships......FOR ONE SUB! Yes I've changed poor ship commanders. And yes taking all these counter measures has diminished attacks a bit, but come on.....ONE SUB?!?

I think that if hits against subs hurt more it would equal out some. Trez and I have talked about this. He...and me have parked our subs outside major ports and have had them attacked by ASW forces for days..weeks..without major damage!?!?!?!

I have no problem with aggressive Jap subs...none...my problem as things stand is the damage taken against subs.

I'm with Canoerebel.....I'm also calling NUC SUBS on this issue.

Actually I've lost 3 subs. All to mines, none to ships [:'(]

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: JWE

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
No, they aren't substantially immune  I've had ants and bulldogs and crows and hawks patroling as many harbors as possible during the game and they've been essentially invisible and ineffective.  Japanese subs have been sinking ships at anchor in my biggest harbors despite (1) mines (2) ASW TFs and (3) ASW air patrols.

As noted previously, I may be unlucky, my opponent lucky, or our game a complete anomaly, but I don't think so. I think subs are on steroids in the game and need to be toned done markedly. Perhaps 1097 has done that, but it's too early to tell.

You are probably the victim of good old Mr. Random. We have pushed gobs of sub TFs into SF and LA and SD, each with an appropriate number of ants in port, and the engine has always, that's spelled a-l-w-a-y-s, kept them at bay and even sunk a couple. Maybe 20 some odd tests, maybe 30 some odd runs per test. Yes, that's about 600 entries. Things are working fine from where we see.

John, Would you clarify a bit? Which of the 'little fellers' need to be in TF's and which should be left disbanded in the port? And for TF's do they have to be undocked & remain-on-station?

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: witpqs
John, Would you clarify a bit? Which of the 'little fellers' need to be in TF's and which should be left disbanded in the port? And for TF's do they have to be undocked & remain-on-station?

YPs, and AMcs, don't have the list in hand. Maybe Don could get more specific. But ants. And they aren't in TFs, they just sit disbanded in port and the engine grabs tham and makes TFs and confronts subs, and puts them back after the excitement is over. Basically, the teensy weensy guys we are pinging on in Da Babes mod.

[John Lansford]

JWE,

Is this something the AI does against the human player or is it something that happens automatically on the human's side as well?  I've not had any subs try and get inside my major ports (probably because my air ASW is so heavy) so I've not seen this tried in my game.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

This thread had dropped into the nether regions of something like page ten, but it's time to bring it back the forum's attention.

The thrust of this thread is that submarines are too powerful in the game - a problem that cuts both ways; IE, it affects both sides roughly equally over the long haul.  Early in the war it doesn't affect the Japanese as much since a high percentage of Allied torpedoes are duds.

In my PBEM game with Miller, we're now in January 1943, so the dud rate has fallen...and, as expected, the sub war has become even more bloody.

On January 22, 1943, I-34 sank an AKL near Saumlaki, Seal got an xAK off Shortlands, Salmon got an xAK in Kendari, I-8 got two docked tankers at Karachi (yes, two...docked...tankers...in a major port patrolled by ASW), and Gugeon got an AK off Munda.

Six ships went under in a single day...and this is not an isolated occurrence.  Sub-warfare in AE is far, far too effective.

The attacking of docked ships is particularly ridiculous, especially in big ports (Karachi, for heaven's sake!) patrolled by ASW TFs and ASW air.  This is not an isolated occurrence as I've lost scores of docked ships at my biggest ports during the game.

Since Nuclear Subs appears to cut both ways it doesn't necessarily need fixing to address game balance; but it sure detracts from the historical feel of the game.  In the real war, sub warfare was a cat-and-mouse game.  In my AE PBEM game, sub warfare is just a big, bad gorilla blundering from major port to major port tearing apart everything encountered.

Am I the only one who is finding sub warfare so ridiculously bloody?  It's possible, I suppose.

The figures you describe are not ahistoric from the USN side at all. JANAC figures (generally considered pretty conservative versus war patrol claims) show USN subs sinking 1314 vessels, merchant and naval, during the war. Divide by number of days, reduce a lot for 1942 duds, and 1945's lack of targets, and you SHOULD be seeing several sinkings per day on average in 1943-1944.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Army ... _Committee

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87/hi ... paign.html

The real issue, I think, is the IJN results. In both our games their totals are far higher than hisotrical. I think that's an artifact of shared code more than any desire to hose the Allied player. There has been a lot of discussion about removal of the "Japanese Sub Doctrine" toggle from WITP, and good arguments can be made on both sides of the issue. Yes, they had somewhat of a doctrine to favor attacks on warships and to husband torpedoes. No, they didn't aggressively operate off the West Coast deep into the war years. But I also think that the Japanese player can continue to make deployment decisions to somewhat reproduce historical operations simply by choosing where he sends his boats. OTOH, if he sends them up to the CONUS coast he's going to take losses, or at least heavy damage, if the Allied player does his job, particularly in the area of upgrades. As you move forward in mid-Pac you'll also relieve him of advance bases and force his fuel budget back at least to Truk. The West Coast is relatively quiet once you do that.

I don't think the code allows for parallel submarine algorithms at this point without major surgery. I would strenuously argue against "dumbing down" Allied sub results, however. As the links above show, the submarine effort was preeminent in defeating Japan. WITP, GG's love-fest for the flyers, never allowed this. The AE devs have come a long way toward righting that wrong, and I think perhaps some of the objections to game results stem from some players' lack of knowledge of the submarine war's outcomes. Read the paper at the second link above. It's official USN history, and chock full of stats. As Nimitz himself said, the subs won the war.

As the Allied player, you can stand the losses you're getting. He can't. Keep plugging away in 1943, both offensively and ASW-wise. You can't win AE with air power alone. Cut off his oil, and sooner or later even his subs will be staying home.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

I thought Mk 14 had dud rate of 80% (haven't checked with editor, but that's what it was in WitP) and in Jan 43 it drops to 60%. That'd mean you exploding torpedo hits would effectively double from 1942.

They did for me. MASSIVE improvement in Jan 1943. Remember that spreads are 4-6 usually (bow tubes). Independent trials, but still, four tries at 40% is a decent number of hits. And sometimes, with an aggressive CO, you get a re-attack on the same target.