Jap ASW forces

[FatR]

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1
No argument that any intelligent Japanese player will pay more attention to ASW and escorting than his historical counter-parts did. At least he should. I've never complained about this. But Japanese ASW forces were poorly trained and poorly equipped on the day the war began (the day the player assumes command), and this should NOT change.

Yet the game makes it them considerably less capable than they were historically, as evidenced by Allied subs getting hits on escorted major warships left and right. Even if they aren't going to sink around 139.5 merchant ships they sank in 1941-42 according to Rosco (at the cost of 6 subs), that should take into account the fact that large parts of the Japanese merchant fleet aren't even modeled into AE - however they try, Allies cannot sink more than 2.6k of Japanese merchant ships and transports throughout the war, because the total number of them in AE is less than 2k - assuming that Japan lasts well into 1946 with shipyards still functioning. This alone automatically makes effectiveness comparisons based on the number of merchants sunk pointless.
In short, stop complaining that the game is not set on Easy Automatic for you.

[Puhis]

Here is something I did. Submarine losses in Pacific theatre, by all causes and confirmed hostile losses. Of cource some of the unknown lossed are probably hostile as well. As we see, in 1941-42 there is no significant difference: at the end of 1942 allied have lost 16 submarines (10 hostile) and Japan 20 (16 hostile). It was late 1943 when Japan start to lose submarines rapidly.

Of course if we talk about ASW effectiveness, it's not just number of submarines sunk. Effectiveness have something to do with number of ASW vessels and planes, and number of potential targets. Allied ASW success have much to do with the fact that late in the war allied ruled the sky and had hundreds of good ASW ships...

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

"Well hang on a sec. I'm not sure I'm seeing the same Japanese Navy as you. The order of battle and device database in AE are entirely transparent, yet in this 11 page thread on Japanese ASW I don't recall a single post pointing out where the Japanese are given ships or devices that they shouldn't have had, or critiquing the way they are rated. And as previously discussed, we know that all Japanese experience levels are heavily discounted when resolving ASW combat. So where exactly is this "well trained, well-equipped, capable force" you're talking about?"

To my knowledge, SONAR is not modeled in the game and so the allies' clear advantage in the ASW war due to better equipment and training in this aspect of the war is completely left out of the game - except for that little discount of Japanese experience levels when resolving ASW combat.

the only advantage for Allied ASW I notice is the fact that they´ve got a higher ASW value due to having more DC racks and their DCs have a better accuracy and a higher effect. That´s it.

[FatR]

ORIGINAL: Puhis

Here is something I did.

Thanks for your work. Quite demonstrative.

[FatR]

ORIGINAL: castor troy
the only advantage for Allied ASW I notice is the fact that they´ve got a higher ASW value due to having more DC racks and their DCs have a better accuracy and a higher effect. That´s it.

Actually, that's pretty massive. Having ASW ratings of 6-8 on ships with crews and captains that have at least decent stats, as well as with passable range and speed, is something not easily available to Japan in 1942. IIRC, all early-game Japanese ships that have cruise speed and endurance to keep up with fast convoys, never mind combat TFs, have ASW 2. Or less.

[PresterJohn001]

WITP AE is a tactical game (of enormous scope) with some Operational aspects (fuel and supplies). Niether side has to deal with the Operational and Strategic problems that each side had. One manifestation of this is "ahistoric" use of forces by both sides. WITP AE is simply not an Operational or Strategic level game. Whilst players need to have operational and strategic plans in order to win thats not the same.


And playing as the Japanese side in two games my ASW is only really effective if the allies "ahistorically" send their subs into my bases.
Also if i didn't escort convoys etc then i would lose "ahistorically" high numbers of ships, because the allies are "ahistorically" using their
subs more aggressively.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: FatR

ORIGINAL: castor troy
the only advantage for Allied ASW I notice is the fact that they´ve got a higher ASW value due to having more DC racks and their DCs have a better accuracy and a higher effect. That´s it.

Actually, that's pretty massive. Having ASW ratings of 6-8 on ships with crews and captains that have at least decent stats, as well as with passable range and speed, is something not easily available to Japan in 1942. IIRC, all early-game Japanese ships that have cruise speed and endurance to keep up with fast convoys, never mind combat TFs, have ASW 2. Or less.

DCs alone helps you nothing if you can´t locate a sub and that´s what sonar was for. Sonar isn´t modelled in the game so the Allied surely lack this advantage they had in real life. Is it needed in the game? I guess not because Allied ASW will take care of IJN subs over the course of the war anyway. But still, this Allied advantage isn´t in the game and with the upgrades of IJN vessels and new models this gap becomes even smaller.

[Mark Weston]

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

"Well hang on a sec. I'm not sure I'm seeing the same Japanese Navy as you. The order of battle and device database in AE are entirely transparent, yet in this 11 page thread on Japanese ASW I don't recall a single post pointing out where the Japanese are given ships or devices that they shouldn't have had, or critiquing the way they are rated. And as previously discussed, we know that all Japanese experience levels are heavily discounted when resolving ASW combat. So where exactly is this "well trained, well-equipped, capable force" you're talking about?"

To my knowledge, SONAR is not modeled in the game and so the allies' clear advantage in the ASW war due to better equipment and training in this aspect of the war is completely left out of the game - except for that little discount of Japanese experience levels when resolving ASW combat.

Well look, I asked a question about the capabilities of Japanese ASW (the subject of this discussion) and you answered with a complaint about allied ASW. [:-]

The crew experience modifiers for ASW have the Japanese at 67% and the Allies at an average of 132% (114% during the day, 150% at night). In other words the allies are twice as good at ASW. As modifiers go, that's not so little.

[Mark Weston]

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

In 1941 and 1942, the US subs made approximately 300 war patrols. In those 300 patrols, they sank about 180 Japanese ships. Japanese escorts sank 1 US sub confirmed, and probably 2 others. So, that's about 1 US submarine lost for every 60-90 Japanese ships sunk, historically. I think the AAR's are showing more along the lines of 1 US sub sunk (by Japanese ASW vessels) for less than 10 Japanese ships sunk (probably around 5 or so.)

Regardless of how each player uses their assets, the Japanese in WITP AE might have a factor of 10 better ASW than historic.

In that same time, US ASW ships sank around 17 Japanese subs (US subs sank 6 Japanese subs as well.) I don't have the US ship losses available, though.

I think some of the AAR's are showing a trend that might be about double that number. But, double is a lot more in the ball park than 10 times. Especially when players use their assets in a non historic manner.

Numbers are from "Silent Victory" by Blair.

Um, those numbers you're quoting for ASW effectiveness in game? Are they based on actual counts, or just pulled out of somewhere-or-other based on a vague impression of how the AARs read?

[BShaftoe]

ORIGINAL: castor troy

the only advantage for Allied ASW I notice is the fact that they´ve got a higher ASW value due to having more DC racks and their DCs have a better accuracy and a higher effect. That´s it.

Nope. Mark Weston has said it, but anyway, check page 132 of the manual. Allied crews prior to '44, perform at 114% of their crew rating, and at night, at 150% (what I don't know is how the modifiers are from '44 onwards). Prior to 1943, Japanese crews perform at 67%, and in 1943 they obtain a huge 80%. So the minimum % of difference is a 34%. This is, no matter the timeframe, a Japanese crew will perform always a 34% worse than their allied counterpart, or worse. It seems a reasonable drawback.

Maybe if it's true (I don't know: my knowledge of this theater isn't as good) what is said about japanese officers sharing the general lack of aptitude to ASW, maybe the leader ratings should have the same modifiers as the ones the crews are being applied. This way, a Japanese player still has the freedom to do masses of ASW ships and the freedom to implement a convoys system, but he/she cannot offset the lack of crews efficiency selecting a very good leader.

[Adnan Meshuggi]

well,
you know there is the green button [;)]

the question about laser beam... do they the trecky-Style or the (imperial march tune playing) star-wars-style?

i prefer the second. And the sith are always cooler as the jedi... [&o]

[Adnan Meshuggi]

until late in the war the japanese did not use the convoy system

so the us-subs had more contact to single sailing ships (without adequat air asw-defence). So yes, american submarines, if fighting merchant ships had single targets as enemy.

Nearby warships would try to sink subs, but generally merchants were easy prey. Nothing compared to even 1940-british-convoys.

Warships were a different story, but the most merchants sunk by american subs were without escorts.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Puhis


Of course if we talk about ASW effectiveness, it's not just number of submarines sunk. Effectiveness have something to do with number of ASW vessels and planes, and number of potential targets. Allied ASW success have much to do with the fact that late in the war allied ruled the sky and had hundreds of good ASW ships...

indeed.....one also has to factor in how the subs were used. By late 42, IJN subs were being employed on highly dangerous transport runs of which the crews despised because they were highly dangerous and of dubious benefit. Heavy losses ensued as a result. Ultra also contributed and finally, the radio-chat happy and continual shifting orders by Sixth Fleet command throughout the war compromised the subs on more than one occasion. Players have some control over this obviously.....but ultimately, in-game, as the years progress Allied ASW increases in efficiency along with better weapons (and increasing experience)

[Adnan Meshuggi]

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

ORIGINAL: Mark Weston

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

No argument that any intelligent Japanese player will pay more attention to ASW and escorting than his historical counter-parts did. At least he should. I've never complained about this. But Japanese ASW forces were poorly trained and poorly equipped on the day the war began (the day the player assumes command), and this should NOT change. Many didn't even have hydrophones, most had nothing to compare with ASDIC. I object only to making them what they weren't..., a well trained, well-equipped, capable force. Making better use of them is one thing..., making them better is something else.

It's like making the Chinese Air Force an effective force (say exp. 80). A player will undoubtedly make better use of it than the Chinese..., but that doesn't justify the game making it better than it was.

Well hang on a sec. I'm not sure I'm seeing the same Japanese Navy as you. The order of battle and device database in AE are entirely transparent, yet in this 11 page thread on Japanese ASW I don't recall a single post pointing out where the Japanese are given ships or devices that they shouldn't have had, or critiquing the way they are rated. And as previously discussed, we know that all Japanese experience levels are heavily discounted when resolving ASW combat. So where exactly is this "well trained, well-equipped, capable force" you're talking about?

Your presumption is that the Japanese are given some unhistorical in-game ASW advantage, but I've seen very little actual evidence for that in this discussion. And the historical record indicates that it wasn't technical factors that won or lost the ASW war anyway, it was the tactical and organisational. The evidence from World War I was that convoy sharply reduced merchant sinkings even when convoys were unescorted. Earlier in this thread someone mentioned the Japanese flotilla that was based in the Mediterranean and earned a reputation for effectiveness against Central Powers submarines. The Japanese earned that reputation despite the fact that their ships didn't have a single ASW weapon system on board. They won it with tight, efficiently crewed ships, good lookouts and the very simple tactic of spotting submarines early, then charging down and attempting to ram every submarine that they saw.

You can guarantee that almost every Japanese player will sail his merchants in convoy, not singly. And that he will add ASW-capable escorts whenever possible. We also see that most allied players are much more aggressive with their subs than the was historical - especially early on - and will operate them at a much higher operational tempo. Combine those changes from historical behaviour and you're already certain to see many more allied subs sunk; that would probably be true even if the World War II IJN were still relying on ramming as their only ASW weapon. Massive variation from historical behaviour inevitably leads to massive variation in outcomes. There's no need to look for some built-in Japanese ASW advantage to explain that variation.

I'm not arguing that the ASW system in AE is perfect. I'm not an expert on the game, and a lot of the mechanics are hidden from us. But if the ASW game was so horribly biased towards the Japanese, it would be useful if we could be shown a bit more evidence of it. In the meantime, I think it's mostly a simple case of hindsight changing behaviour and behaviour changing results.

In 1941 and 1942, the US subs made approximately 300 war patrols. In those 300 patrols, they sank about 180 Japanese ships. Japanese escorts sank 1 US sub confirmed, and probably 2 others. So, that's about 1 US submarine lost for every 60-90 Japanese ships sunk, historically. I think the AAR's are showing more along the lines of 1 US sub sunk (by Japanese ASW vessels) for less than 10 Japanese ships sunk (probably around 5 or so.)

Regardless of how each player uses their assets, the Japanese in WITP AE might have a factor of 10 better ASW than historic.

In that same time, US ASW ships sank around 17 Japanese subs (US subs sank 6 Japanese subs as well.) I don't have the US ship losses available, though.

I think some of the AAR's are showing a trend that might be about double that number. But, double is a lot more in the ball park than 10 times. Especially when players use their assets in a non historic manner.

Numbers are from "Silent Victory" by Blair.

You are right AND wrong.
Yes, the japanese asw sucked in reality.
But did they so bad because they were little yellow people? Or because they ignored the fact that the surviving merchant ship can sail another day?
Do we say, japanese impotence in asw is "hardcoded"?

No japanese player let his ships be without adequat asw-ships. So the difficulty for allied subs gets up. And 10 times sounds low. If you attack a defended convoy you bleed - if your submarine has no war experience, faulty torpedos and the sub itself is a huge slow pig if submerged.

Even the japanese asw can hit such subs - and can destroy them. The player will try to sink the sub. The japanese searched and left.
The player knows that american submarines are his death. So he will kill em. every chance is important, cause any killed sub is one big headache less.

So WW2 in the pacific has nothing to do with any game. Cause the players know the importance of asw.

What will you do? Reduce the asw-capability of japanese ships until the "well defended" convoys are as deadly as the single destroyer with a crew that thinks submarine hunting is against its warrior code?
Why do you want to play this game?
you don´t like results (because the gameplay allows your enemy something different to do instead of redoing history day for day)? don´t play the game

Same with the pearl harbour attack and the japanese fanboys
Sure - the game should allow heavy damages to american battleships.
But also should these ships be rebuilt faster as historical cause if the player decides he like the bbs he can give priority... so these damaged ships come online in december 42 instead of summer 1944.

it is a game, a great game.

The final question is:

is the history something one side achieved with maximum luck or something that an average player should be able to repeat?

if you belive that the japanese achived in history the best they could and in 99 out of 100 times the japanese expert player should be worse then you should NOT play this game.

[FatR]

ORIGINAL: Adnan Meshuggi

until late in the war the japanese did not use the convoy system

Depends on area and the nature of shipping. Transports used to supply Japanese war effort in the Pacific and elsewhere always moved in escorted convoys. Major shipping from DEI to Home Islands was moving in convoys, AFAIK, from early 1943. In early 1944 Japanese were forced to move nearly everything between nearly everywhere in convoys (the measure quite crippling for the fleet's ability to whatever things it hauls to wherever they are needed - that's one of the reasons why British were so reluctant to employ convoys in WW I).

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Adnan Meshuggi

until late in the war the japanese did not use the convoy system

so the us-subs had more contact to single sailing ships (without adequat air asw-defence). So yes, american submarines, if fighting merchant ships had single targets as enemy.

Nearby warships would try to sink subs, but generally merchants were easy prey. Nothing compared to even 1940-british-convoys.

Warships were a different story, but the most merchants sunk by american subs were without escorts.

Again, opinions are nice. Got any real data and sources?

Begin by defining what you mean by "the convoy system."

[Adnan Meshuggi]

Why should i? You ignore the facts even if you know that "convoy system" means.

You have an attitude and an opinion. But you do not want to accept facts you don´t like.

To say it direct: a single ship escorted by a single escort (bad equipped and ill trained) is NOT a convoy.

Player USE the convoy system. This explains it . But you dislike these facts. So you blame the game. It seems not useful to discuss things with people who want only to hear what they like.

IF the game produces to many kills (it dosen´t matter if the attacker are american or japanese), the system needs some changes.
But only in this case.

Not because the statistics from you say the japanese side has to loose so and so many ships.

[Adnan Meshuggi]

ORIGINAL: FatR

ORIGINAL: Adnan Meshuggi

until late in the war the japanese did not use the convoy system

Depends on area and the nature of shipping. Transports used to supply Japanese war effort in the Pacific and elsewhere always moved in escorted convoys. Major shipping from DEI to Home Islands was moving in convoys, AFAIK, from early 1943. In early 1944 Japanese were forced to move nearly everything between nearly everywhere in convoys (the measure quite crippling for the fleet's ability to whatever things it hauls to wherever they are needed - that's one of the reasons why British were so reluctant to employ convoys in WW I).

Well - the time bullwinle speaks about is 1942.
Also, the japanese never established a real convoy system - only in late 44, as it was too late.

Here we speak about 1942.
Historically the japanese had no convoys, some escorted value ships. That´s it.

You know the difference between attacking one lonly ship with one ore two escorts and attacking a convoy with 20 ships and 5-10 escorts? Sure.
So the factor 10 is even to low. Not for avoiding an attack - just the american subs will be attacked, damaged etc.
Esp. in the first 6 months this is a big problem for them. We can say that this means also, that less subs will have contact -> the torpedo-crisis could be more serious and functional torpedos could even be delayed

This does not mean that us-subs hit nothing. This could be just an explanaition for the functional asw of japanese forces.

At last - the brits established very late in ww1 the convoy system, the americans estalished it late in ww2 (after some german subs slaughtered a lot vessels - american arrogance instead of "learning from the (british experts)"

the best equipment is useless if you are to "stupid" to use it right. The brits knew about their weapons, the americans had to learn.

In the game british destroyers should be the experts... they fought against the german uboots and know a thing. So their experience in asw should be twice of the americans or japanese. At last they fought for 2 years a serious anti-sub-war and learned a lot.

[Bradley7735]

ORIGINAL: Mark Weston

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

In 1941 and 1942, the US subs made approximately 300 war patrols. In those 300 patrols, they sank about 180 Japanese ships. Japanese escorts sank 1 US sub confirmed, and probably 2 others. So, that's about 1 US submarine lost for every 60-90 Japanese ships sunk, historically. I think the AAR's are showing more along the lines of 1 US sub sunk (by Japanese ASW vessels) for less than 10 Japanese ships sunk (probably around 5 or so.)

Regardless of how each player uses their assets, the Japanese in WITP AE might have a factor of 10 better ASW than historic.

In that same time, US ASW ships sank around 17 Japanese subs (US subs sank 6 Japanese subs as well.) I don't have the US ship losses available, though.

I think some of the AAR's are showing a trend that might be about double that number. But, double is a lot more in the ball park than 10 times. Especially when players use their assets in a non historic manner.

Numbers are from "Silent Victory" by Blair.

Um, those numbers you're quoting for ASW effectiveness in game? Are they based on actual counts, or just pulled out of somewhere-or-other based on a vague impression of how the AARs read?

Please reread my post before you 'start pulling questions out of somewhere-or-other based on not paying attention to the post.'

[Bradley7735]

ORIGINAL: Mark Weston

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

"Well hang on a sec. I'm not sure I'm seeing the same Japanese Navy as you. The order of battle and device database in AE are entirely transparent, yet in this 11 page thread on Japanese ASW I don't recall a single post pointing out where the Japanese are given ships or devices that they shouldn't have had, or critiquing the way they are rated. And as previously discussed, we know that all Japanese experience levels are heavily discounted when resolving ASW combat. So where exactly is this "well trained, well-equipped, capable force" you're talking about?"

To my knowledge, SONAR is not modeled in the game and so the allies' clear advantage in the ASW war due to better equipment and training in this aspect of the war is completely left out of the game - except for that little discount of Japanese experience levels when resolving ASW combat.

Well look, I asked a question about the capabilities of Japanese ASW (the subject of this discussion) and you answered with a complaint about allied ASW. [:-]

The crew experience modifiers for ASW have the Japanese at 67% and the Allies at an average of 132% (114% during the day, 150% at night). In other words the allies are twice as good at ASW. As modifiers go, that's not so little.

67% of an inflated exp number is too much. 132% of a deflated exp number is too little. Sure, those numbers will matter when all ships are at 75/75 exp in 1943 (except any new allied additions. They need to wait a bit longer to become as highly experienced as new Japanese construction.)

Oh, and as the Allies gaing exp over time, the Japanese percentage (67%) will also increase over time, negating some of the perceived Allied bonus.