ASW Air is FUBAR

[DeriKuk]

It seems to me you're wanting the game to conform to the bad tactics you're employing. If they get sunk in choke points, send fewer to choke points. In 1942 and much of 1943, historically, you should have minimal numbers of subs off the HI, and few in the PI yet, or DEI. Focus on island bases and get the re-supply convoys, Send some to Colombo through CT, and use them to patrol Sumatra and Java. Use Perth as well.

FYI, the deployment you describe here is very close to what I have. The issue is not the performance of my subs. It's their vulnerability to radarless IJA level bombers when operating in enemy territory, while my ASW Air units are practically feckless.

I don't think you read my previous posting correctly. I do not park my subs in choke points. They have to pass through choke points to get to their hunting areas. Now I realize that I can never attain your tactical genius, but to quote my opponent:

"I don’t think it has mattered whether you are moving your subs or not. The planes either spotted them or not. Maybe the detection level lingers from the previous turn if you do not move them, but from what I can see, you are very diligent about keeping them moving."

I'm not complaining about the attacks or damage taken either way. My gripe is with the clear discrepancy between the ineffectiveness of radar-equipped Allied ASW groups with hand-picked crews, and the real effectiveness of radarless IJA bombers - that likely also have excellent crews. My observations do not come from one or two instances, but from many game-months of playing. I held off raising the issue before; tried all sorts of tactical variations, trained and hand-picked aircrews. Much - if not all - the advice proffered here has been examined.

My suspicion falls on a kludge that some "genius" (Could it be the same one who mucked up the search arcs?) stuck in the code to "balance" the game to some friend's liking, making tactics - good or bad - illogical and meaningless.

The underlying game design is too valuable to "fix for balance".

Now that I've raised the issue, I bet you a Murphy, my AWS air crews are going to discover that they can actually shoot at subs. We can hope.

[CV2]

Well its hard to know from a list of sunk ships what your tactics are. If you leave a damaged sub on station, it is easier to spot, easier to hit, and the hit will cause more damage. I see a list like that and I can tell just from experience on how I use my subs and ASW forces that you have to be leaving your subs in more or less 1 spot until they die.

[michaelm75au]

My suspicion falls on a kludge that some "genius" (Could it be the same one who mucked up the search arcs?) stuck in the code to "balance" the game to some friend's liking, making tactics - good or bad - illogical and meaningless.

I actually resent that, but I am not going to get into a discussion/argument about it.

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: michaelm

My suspicion falls on a kludge that some "genius" (Could it be the same one who mucked up the search arcs?) stuck in the code to "balance" the game to some friend's liking, making tactics - good or bad - illogical and meaningless.

I actually resent that, but I am not going to get into a discussion/argument about it.

So do I....

[Nomad]

ORIGINAL: TheElf

ORIGINAL: michaelm

My suspicion falls on a kludge that some "genius" (Could it be the same one who mucked up the search arcs?) stuck in the code to "balance" the game to some friend's liking, making tactics - good or bad - illogical and meaningless.

I actually resent that, but I am not going to get into a discussion/argument about it.

So do I....

I do too.

[minnowguy]

First, insulting the devs isn't going to help.  Nobody is making code changes on a whim.  Clearly there are aspects of the game engine that are less than perfect but overall it is a wonderful game and I, at least, have spent hundreds of enjoyable hours playing it. 

Second, given how many subs the allies have, it is difficult for me to get too worked up about Japanese airborne ASW being too effective.  Yeah, historically ASW (in all its forms) was not a Japanese strong point, but the current model, while not "historical", is at least plausible and it is a long way from a game-ruining problem.  The same logic applies to the relatively high effectiveness of the Japanese subs: not historical, but not implausible given some minor doctrine changes and not nearly significant enough to ruing the game for me.

I haven't seen the game engine code, but after years of playing the game and reading this forum I think I have a pretty good idea what it looks like.  [Note: I've been writing/fixing/swearing-at software for 30 years now.]  Working with less-than-ideally structured legacy code can be insanely frustrating.  If they had to do it all over again, I suspect (and hope) that the devs would implement the engine along with a solid suite of integration tests that would prevent annoying little systemic bugs like the ones that crop up occasionally (radar, search arcs, attack bombers, etc).  Unfortunately, adding comprehensive test coverage to a complex existing application is just insanely difficult and expensive.

I'm consistently amazed that the relatively small AE dev team managed to add so many great features to the older WITP code base without making the game completely unstable and unplayable.  I think many people don't realize just how difficult this is.  Kudos to the development team -- keep up the good work.

Now, about those search arcs ....  

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: hjalmar99
This far into the game, I have yet to register a single attack by Allied aircraft on ASW missions against Japanese subs. I've sunk some subs with surface units and other subs, but no ASW-Air hits or attempted hits. My opponent has also noted this.

In the meanwhile the Allied subs are having the tar beaten out of them at every opportunity by JAPANESE ARMY LEVEL BOMBER - Sally and Helen! No, not IJN planes like Betty, Nell, Mavis or Emily . . . but by IJA level bomber without a sniff of radar. My opponent has also noted this.

Of course, I expect you to be in denial - especially a certain Danish gentleman. [8|]

In the meanwhile we'll just soldier on with a broken game.

Hm interesting. So you experience both situations, effective and ineffective ASW in your PBEM, and your conclusion is there is an issue with the coding for ASW?

To me it looks rather like one player was able to create an effective ASW and the other one wasn´t. [;)]

And, btw, you create a situation where "being in denial" is a kind of weird position.
Airborne ASW is not working! ASW is working! I deny!!

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: hjalmar99

I apologize for starting a new thread. This is really a continuation of tm.asp?m=2300995&mpage=1&key=ASW%2CAir? . . . but I'd get no respoinse there now.

I also realize that there have been good intentions to fix the problem of too-powerful ASW Air attacks, but I suspect that, instead of being generally nerfed for all parties, it is now badly warped. It is indeed FUBAR i.m.o.

The game is Grand Campaign, PBEM, as the Allies. It is an ongoing game, so I'm not going to post screen shots. The date is approaching May 1943. A sample of Allied air groups includes:

• Experience: 58; 72; 56; 58; 62
• Morale: 99; 93; 99; 97; 98
• ASW Skill: <50; 59; 61; 70; <50

All these groups have been set to 60% ASW and 40% rest. The planes involved are Wellington GRs, Hudson III (LR)s, and PV-1 Venturas. Two of these types have ASV-II radars. (ASD-1 radar only appears in September 1943).

I've flown at varying altitudes: 100, 1000 . . . 4000.

I'm aware that ASW operates at half range.

Many Japanese subs have been spotted within that range. My infantry can sometimes stand on the beach and throw rocks at them!

I have had PBYs on Naval Search missions take shots [and HIT!] subs.

This far into the game, I have yet to register a single attack by Allied aircraft on ASW missions against Japanese subs. I've sunk some subs with surface units and other subs, but no ASW-Air hits or attempted hits. My opponent has also noted this.

In the meanwhile the Allied subs are having the tar beaten out of them at every opportunity by JAPANESE ARMY LEVEL BOMBER - Sally and Helen! No, not IJN planes like Betty, Nell, Mavis or Emily . . . but by IJA level bomber without a sniff of radar. My opponent has also noted this.

Of course, I expect you to be in denial - especially a certain Danish gentleman. [8|]

In the meanwhile we'll just soldier on with a broken game.

I can see only one useful group and that´s the one that has got 70 skill. And to hit a sub you probably also need the bombing skill, in your case lownav. IMO air ASW works pretty well, one of the things I found not to be too good or too bad. While the IJ hasn´t hit a single sub of mine with air ASW in all of 42, they got better and better with the game now being in 1/44 and air ASW to reckon with.

[LoBaron]

I see it the same way.

Might add that the people who lose hundreds of subs usually do so because they send them into heavily patroled ASW zones
and expect them to be effective and safe. A logic I still don´t quite understand.

[Nemo121]

LoBaron,

Don't forget many people won't let logic get in the way of a good piece of blame-placing. Logically it may be their play at fault but preferentially they'll blame the game etc...

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: hjalmar99

I don't think you read my previous posting correctly. I do not park my subs in choke points. They have to pass through choke points to get to their hunting areas. Now I realize that I can never attain your tactical genius, but to quote my opponent:

I read it three times before I responded. Your results are odd, in my experience.

My point about 1942-43 stands. You do NOT have to transit choke points in that era to reach good patrol areas. PH to Truk--no chokes. PH to Saipan--no chokes. PH to Iwo Jima--no chokes. PH to Kwajalein--no chokes. Perth to northern Sumatra--no chokes. Colombo to Rangoon--no chokes. Brisbane to Pelileu--no chokes.

Leave the tankers, the DEI, Balikpapan, and Indo-China for 1944-45 when you've beaten his air back. You have plenty to occupy you farther east and west in the first two years.

And watch your d/l. That's the best advice I can give you.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: hjalmar99
My suspicion falls on a kludge that some "genius" (Could it be the same one who mucked up the search arcs?) stuck in the code to "balance" the game to some friend's liking, making tactics - good or bad - illogical and meaningless.

Your partially right. Don, Joe and Michael have to have genius qualities to interpret the code. The small portions i saw while helping work the ASW angle gave me a new appreciation. But thx for the kind words.

[witpqs]

First off, the bombastic and insulting statements by the OP early in this thread are wrong. You developers know that, but they sting and stink anyway. Do your best to ignore that kind of crap. [8D]

---

Regarding the technical issue itself, I do strongly suspect that air ASW is overpowered at high pilot skill levels. I suspect this is the case with:

• ASW
• Airfield Attack
• Ground Attack
• Naval Attack

To head off the obvious questions - I am not certain about Port Attack, it seems already to do much less damage than Airfield Attack. Regarding Air to Air, it is my understanding that, even at high skill levels, differences in skill IRL do actually make a significant difference. Ian is direct subject matter expert there, and from what I have seen I'm comfortable with the results the game produces in air to air with respect to skill levels.

Over the months I've seen various complaints of air attacks being too successful as well as experienced the same in my own games (on both sides of the coin). I have come to suspect that the most likely cause is that once the appropriate pilot skill reaches a certain level the benefits of that skill continue increasing at too great a rate.

There should diminishing returns, at a greater rate of diminishing than is presently in the code, on higher and higher skill levels for the attacks on the list above. I suspect this should start to take place around skill level 70.

Please consider it.

[Icedawg]

ORIGINAL: ADB123

In my pbems, both as Allied and as Japan, I've set plenty of LBA on ASW, and I get continuous reports of enemy subs being spotted, and enemy subs being hit. The more planes that I have on ASW, the more the reports.

The most effective ASW planes for me have been Dive Bombers, followed by Floatplanes (as the Allies), followed by 2Es. Flying boats tend to be good at spotting subs, but not as good at hitting them with bombs.

I was having problems until I found out about the error in the Search Arc routine, but once I got rid of the search arcs things picked up immediately.

So as far as I can tell, Airborne ASW is working well for me.

As far as my subs go, I NEVER leave them in once spot. They are always on the move. I've had very few damaged by enemy Airborne ASW.

What is this error? And was it fixed in the last patch?

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Icedawg

ORIGINAL: ADB123

In my pbems, both as Allied and as Japan, I've set plenty of LBA on ASW, and I get continuous reports of enemy subs being spotted, and enemy subs being hit. The more planes that I have on ASW, the more the reports.

The most effective ASW planes for me have been Dive Bombers, followed by Floatplanes (as the Allies), followed by 2Es. Flying boats tend to be good at spotting subs, but not as good at hitting them with bombs.

I was having problems until I found out about the error in the Search Arc routine, but once I got rid of the search arcs things picked up immediately.

So as far as I can tell, Airborne ASW is working well for me.

As far as my subs go, I NEVER leave them in once spot. They are always on the move. I've had very few damaged by enemy Airborne ASW.

What is this error? And was it fixed in the last patch?

No it wasn't, but the fix is slated to be released in the next patch AFAIK. Arcs don't work right, so you have to use (call it) no arcs. On the search group, press the "Reset Arcs" button under search, and look to make sure the arcs are set as Start=000 End=000. BTW, same with ASW arcs.

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: Icedawg

ORIGINAL: ADB123

In my pbems, both as Allied and as Japan, I've set plenty of LBA on ASW, and I get continuous reports of enemy subs being spotted, and enemy subs being hit. The more planes that I have on ASW, the more the reports.

The most effective ASW planes for me have been Dive Bombers, followed by Floatplanes (as the Allies), followed by 2Es. Flying boats tend to be good at spotting subs, but not as good at hitting them with bombs.

I was having problems until I found out about the error in the Search Arc routine, but once I got rid of the search arcs things picked up immediately.

So as far as I can tell, Airborne ASW is working well for me.

As far as my subs go, I NEVER leave them in once spot. They are always on the move. I've had very few damaged by enemy Airborne ASW.

What is this error? And was it fixed in the last patch?

If you set a search arc to cover between xx and yy degrees, in some instances search planes would operate in the set area and in other instances not. Workaround is to not set a search area and instead rely on 360 degree coverage.

Not fixed in latest patch.

Alfred

[SqzMyLemon]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Regarding the technical issue itself, I do strongly suspect that air ASW is overpowered at high pilot skill levels. I suspect this is the case with:

• ASW
• Airfield Attack
• Ground Attack
• Naval Attack

Over the months I've seen various complaints of air attacks being too successful as well as experienced the same in my own games (on both sides of the coin). I have come to suspect that the most likely cause is that once the appropriate pilot skill reaches a certain level the benefits of that skill continue increasing at too great a rate.

There should diminishing returns, at a greater rate of diminishing than is presently in the code, on higher and higher skill levels for the attacks on the list above. I suspect this should start to take place around skill level 70.

Please consider it.

+1

It seems once a pilot/unit reaches the 70's skill threshold they become extremely proficient and almost never miss. I expect to see DB's and TB's become adept and deadly when reaching these levels, but to see 4E's at 10k on naval strike routinely hitting surface and auxilliary ships on patrol (not stationary in port) seems a stretch.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

To head off the obvious questions - I am not certain about Port Attack, it seems already to do much less damage than Airfield Attack.

I may not be understanding your point, but this seems to me to be correct. Pound for pound the same attack on a port should do less damage than on an airfield, with the same weapons, planes, etc. Concrete and steel drydocks are hard to damage relative to runways, and shops near ports in my experience are more often heavy masonry buildings, versus sheet metal hangars. Port supplies are more often in permanent warehouses versus in dumps under tarps, or again in sheet-metal or Quonset-type airfiled structures.

Just an opinion.

On the 70+ thing, I bow to your greater level of data-collection and notice of trends. You have a history of being correct in these things. However, I would note how hard it is for the Allies at least to get multi-engine pilots to the 70+ area. And I would also note that the OP was indicting the code for favoring the Japanese ASW routines over the Allied, when so far as I know we have no evidence they use a diferent code base.

[CV2]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

To head off the obvious questions - I am not certain about Port Attack, it seems already to do much less damage than Airfield Attack.

Not to hijack this thread, but this is an interesting point. And likely more of a problem with the engine itself more than anything, but in many cases (Guadalcanal comes to mind and even Tinian) there are more than 1 airfield in a hex so the current system of knocking out 1 airfield in a single raid is over rated. Especially at higher level airfields.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: witpqs

To head off the obvious questions - I am not certain about Port Attack, it seems already to do much less damage than Airfield Attack.

I may not be understanding your point, but this seems to me to be correct. Pound for pound the same attack on a port should do less damage than on an airfield, with the same weapons, planes, etc. Concrete and steel drydocks are hard to damage relative to runways, and shops near ports in my experience are more often heavy masonry buildings, versus sheet metal hangars. Port supplies are more often in permanent warehouses versus in dumps under tarps, or again in sheet-metal or Quonset-type airfiled structures.

Just an opinion.

On the 70+ thing, I bow to your greater level of data-collection and notice of trends. You have a history of being correct in these things. However, I would note how hard it is for the Allies at least to get multi-engine pilots to the 70+ area. And I would also note that the OP was indicting the code for favoring the Japanese ASW routines over the Allied, when so far as I know we have no evidence they use a diferent code base.

Just to clarify, my remarks are not limited to 4E bombers but certainly include them.