ASW Air is FUBAR

[inqistor]

As I understand, every plane spotting report, was actually attack attempt in WITP. But pure "spotting" meant, that plane did not hit. In WITPAE this is probably the same.
But now, pilots have several skills, so to actually hit the ship, it must be first spotted (by ASW skill), and then successfully attacked (by one of Naval skills). So those pilots should have training in at least two areas, not only ASW.

I actually recently began testing a new tactics, with dropping minefields directly onto discovered subs hex. Mines vanish after few days, but subs tends to sink after one hit, in most cases. I can not say yet, how effective this will be, but number of subs discovered have dropped to 1/3rd.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: inqistor


But now, pilots have several skills, so to actually hit the ship, it must be first spotted (by ASW skill), and then successfully attacked (by one of Naval skills). So those pilots should have training in at least two areas, not only ASW.

I doubt this is true. Perhaps a developer will comment?

[Icedawg]

ORIGINAL: 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.

So, I've wasted a good deal of time tediously attending to the details of my search zones? Drat! That was one of the coolest additions to the game with the release of AE.

How long till the next patch?

[m10bob]

I feel the ASW routines are one of the most improved of any of the enhancements..Gosh, remember when just "sighting" a sub would sink it?..Some of we modders added armor to the subs just to counter that!

[crsutton]

My experience-and I might add that I think I know how to use my Allied subs. I am getting regularly hit by Japanese ASW air attacks. Sinking are rare but now that my opponent is using Judy's with 500 kg bombs I expect that to go up. I regularly have about 20 subs in the yard or transiting home to repair damage and about 60% comes from air attack. Yes, I would have to say Japanese ASW-especially air is way too effective if you are looking for a historical representation of the war.

Two issues that I see.

We all pretty much play with Japanese production on giving the Japanese player many more planes and thus a lot of spare sqadrons to train up ASW skills. And train them up is what any smart Japanese player will do.

And, the low impact in game terms of air search radar that the Allied subs are equipped with.

So, If I were looking for a quick fix, I might suggest a cap on ASW skills for Japanese crews. Perhaps 40 or thereabouts. (I can just hear the JFBs gnashing their teeth over that one. [:D]). Or just make Allied air search radar more effective in lowering detection levels. This would not only reflect the ability of Allied subs to detect aircraft and dive before being spotted but also reflect the more realistic doctrine where Allied subs would lie underwater during the day when in a hot zone and hunt and search at night when Japanese ships and aircraft were effectively blind.

I love the sub game but have said it before that the way it is now, there is absolutely no way for the Allied player to duplicate the feats of the US sub arm and really threaten Japanese lifelines. Too bad, IMHO it really whacks the whole flavor of the game. I am playing scen #2 and don't mind giving my opponents all the goodies that go with it. However, I sure would be a lot happier if I knew they were lying awake at night worrying about my submarines....[;)]

[witpqs]

I have no problem with the US player being unable to get historical results when the IJ player does things more effectively than the historical IJ did. I'm only addressing the technical issue that seems to be off, and I suspect it is off not because of a direct error in the game engine, but because of the weighting of highly skilled pilots, which also affects certain other things on both sides.

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

I have no problem with the US player being unable to get historical results when the IJ player does things more effectively than the historical IJ did. I'm only addressing the technical issue that seems to be off, and I suspect it is off not because of a direct error in the game engine, but because of the weighting of highly skilled pilots, which also affects certain other things on both sides.

I should add that I have no problem with Allied ASW. I am sinking plenty of Japanese subs. The 43 upgrades, (mousetrap, hedgehogs, DCs) all are very effective.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: crsutton

ORIGINAL: witpqs

I have no problem with the US player being unable to get historical results when the IJ player does things more effectively than the historical IJ did. I'm only addressing the technical issue that seems to be off, and I suspect it is off not because of a direct error in the game engine, but because of the weighting of highly skilled pilots, which also affects certain other things on both sides.

I should add that I have not problem with Allied ASW. I am sinking plenty of Japanese subs. The 43 upgrades, (mousetrap, hedgehogs, DCs) all are very effective.

Nor am I commenting on any ASW other than air (on either side), and the same issues reported with other things have caused me to suspect that the high end of air skill should receive less weight for those attack missions list previously.

[bradfordkay]

My guess is that the difference people are seeing is because the Japanese pilots start the war with higher experience levels and so they get up to the damage causing level much earlier than the allied pilots.

[DeriKuk]

Thank you to those of you who brought this thread back on topic: Inconsistencies in ASW AIR effectiveness.

LoBaron:
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.

For the record: It is May 1943. Thus far I have lost a grand total of three Allied submarines: One in port, one to subchasers, and one sunk by another submarine near Soerabaja. Could it be that the logic of my submarine strategy is not entirely defective?

I repeat: the issue is the differential effectiveness of ASW AIR. My subs regularly get hit while transiting (that means "moving through") that teensy, weensy, little "narrow" gap between Iwo Jima and Pagan. Go check it out. That's where the IJA land bombers regularly find and hit (and damage) my subs. This, while a similarly crewed, trained, experienced Allied bomber crew flying at 1000' with radar, and surrounded by PBYs, Recons and other bombers in Darwin can see a carpet - like chicken pox - of Japanese subs between Darwin and Babar . . . but just sits and gawks.

Would you not consider that inconsistent and start suspecting the code?

If you want something nerfed, at least nerf it consistently across the board.

[DeriKuk]

Here's a recent image.

[PaxMondo]

In my games, getting ASW up to 70 has been key.  For either side.  below 70, I can't seem to hit anything.  Once the pilot skill attains 70, particularly in conjunction with surface assets, I can create real ASW kill zones.  For either side.
 
As regards high skills ... other than IJ starting pilots, I haven't gotten that many pilots with skills beyond 80 too often.  I guess I need to manage my pilots better.  [X(]  So, I cannot comment on witpqs findings.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

In my games, getting ASW up to 70 has been key.  For either side.  below 70, I can't seem to hit anything.  Once the pilot skill attains 70, particularly in conjunction with surface assets, I can create real ASW kill zones.  For either side.

As regards high skills ... other than IJ starting pilots, I haven't gotten that many pilots with skills beyond 80 too often.  I guess I need to manage my pilots better.  [X(]  So, I cannot comment on witpqs findings.

I believe the issues start around skill 70.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: hjalmar99

I repeat: the issue is the differential effectiveness of ASW AIR. My subs regularly get hit while transiting (that means "moving through") that teensy, weensy, little "narrow" gap between Iwo Jima and Pagan. Go check it out. That's where the IJA land bombers regularly find and hit (and damage) my subs. This, while a similarly crewed, trained, experienced Allied bomber crew flying at 1000' with radar, and surrounded by PBYs, Recons and other bombers in Darwin can see a carpet - like chicken pox - of Japanese subs between Darwin and Babar . . . but just sits and gawks.

Would you not consider that inconsistent and start suspecting the code?

If you want something nerfed, at least nerf it consistently across the board.

Well, it took awhile for me to find an Allied air ASW attack. Had to go back one whole day in my game. March 24, 1943:

AIR OPERATIONS PHASE : AM
TF 261 detects Japanese Recon at 103,127 near Gasmata
TF 71 snooped by G4M1 Betty at 101,133 near Milne Bay
TF 91 snooped by Japanese Medium Bomber at 114,138 near Lunga
TF 18 followed by Japanese Aircraft at 111,134 near Munda
TF 27 detected by Japanese Aircraft at 111,134 near Munda
TF 134 observes Japanese Aircraft at 105,137 near Rossel Island
TF 139 observes Japanese Aircraft at 114,138 near Lunga
TF 187 sights Japanese Aircraft at 114,138 near Lunga
TF 200 sighted by Japanese Float Plane at 114,138 near Lunga
TF 102 snooped by Japanese Aircraft at 113,137 near Tassafaronga
SS Trigger detected by Japanese Float Plane at 110,61 near Nagoya
SS Trigger under attack by a Japanese Float Fighter at 110,61
Stranraer II reports turbulence in water at 203, 48 near Coal Harbour
B-25D1 Mitchell attacking SS I-169 at 93,140
TF 187 detected by Japanese Level Bomber at 114,138 near Lunga
TF 270 sights Japanese Float Plane at 111,134 near Munda
Search H8K2 Emily destroyed by CAP
========================================

They attacked one sub, I attacked one sub. What's nerfed?

[Patbgaming]

Can you show the bomber crews in question ? Are their skills near 70 ? At 70 ? Over 70 ? My experience has been that my guys will just look at ( maybe occasionally point towards ) but not attack until that MAGIC number.

I ask this because 69 skill is similar to 70 skill but it is definately not the same, at least in my experience with ASW air.

[inqistor]

The question is:
how does attack on detected submarine is conducted?
Namely:
-does DB actually dive on it, so it have greater chance to hit? And if so, does it have to be at 10-14k feet?
-does patrolling at 100ft means, attacks are skip-bombing?
-does level bombers under 5k get the same negative modifiers, as during normal attacks?

What is actually tested during this attack? ASW skill, experience, naval skill, maybe completely random chance? Does submarine statistics (for example size-tonnage, or damage) increase the chance to get hit?

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: hjalmar99

Thank you to those of you who brought this thread back on topic: Inconsistencies in ASW AIR effectiveness.

LoBaron:
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.

For the record: It is May 1943. Thus far I have lost a grand total of three Allied submarines: One in port, one to subchasers, and one sunk by another submarine near Soerabaja. Could it be that the logic of my submarine strategy is not entirely defective?

I repeat: the issue is the differential effectiveness of ASW AIR. My subs regularly get hit while transiting (that means "moving through") that teensy, weensy, little "narrow" gap between Iwo Jima and Pagan. Go check it out. That's where the IJA land bombers regularly find and hit (and damage) my subs. This, while a similarly crewed, trained, experienced Allied bomber crew flying at 1000' with radar, and surrounded by PBYs, Recons and other bombers in Darwin can see a carpet - like chicken pox - of Japanese subs between Darwin and Babar . . . but just sits and gawks.

Would you not consider that inconsistent and start suspecting the code?

If you want something nerfed, at least nerf it consistently across the board.

ORIGINAL: hjalmar99

Here's a recent image.

hjalmar99, you responded to the one of my until now two posts in this thread that wasn´t directed at you.

I usually dislike discussions with mindsets who jump from problem analysis to conspiracy theory in short order. Most recon their inability to find satisfying explanations
sufficient to conlude that there is no explanation, except evil doing others...very easy way to lose focus btw..



There IS a difference between Allied and Japanese ASW: Armament, plane range, pilot experience, and a couple of others.
The calculations for ASW attacks are handled by the same part of the code.
There is only 1 minor exception: shipborne ASW is handled a bit differently in the first years to compensate for the lacking night exp of the Allied (mainly US) crews.

There is a huge difference how you can set up ASW, from a single squad drive-em-away type, to a multi layered combined arms defense
which includes mines, seaborne ASW and some dedicated ASW squads. Darwin looks sweet, I really doubt you have anything resembling the
latter stationed there.

The only thing you are proving with your screenshot is that you probably have issues with the range, as long as you are not using dedicated B17 ASW squads
you are working at the extreme range of your ASW forces and for sure dont have a huge ASW concentration there. Thats enough to hit exactly nothing.

If you try to find reasons for your airborne ASW forces being ineffective, then come up with THIS screenshot to prove it should be effective, and blame a suspected JFBoyism by one of the
designers for your percieve code-unfairness, there is not much I can do to help you. But good luck anyway. [;)]

[Puhis]

COMBAT EVENTS FOR 11/07/42

AIR OPERATIONS PHASE : AM
E13A1 Jake reports submarine at 106, 55 near Matsue
H8K1 Emily sighting report: 10 Allied ships at 138,133 near Beru, speed 14, Moving Southeast
E13A1 Jake sighting report: 2 Allied ships at 137,47 near Paramushiro-jima , Speed 15 , Moving West
Ki-30 Ann reports object near surface at 108, 48 near Seishin
TBF-1 Avenger attacking SS RO-62 at 115,161
TF 226 detects Allied Float Plane at 113,156 near Koumac
TF 332 detected by Allied Medium Bomber at 54,53 near Rangoon
APD Aoi detects Allied Aircraft at 52,54 near Rangoon
TF 332 shadowed by Allied Recon at 54,53 near Rangoon
Catalina I has spotted DMS W-15 at 54,53
AMc Toroshima Maru sighted by Allied Float Plane at 50,54 near Rangoon
TF 116 shadowed by Allied Level Bomber at 52,49 near Ramree Island
B-24D Liberator attacking SS RO-67 at 116,164
B-24D Liberator attacking SS I-159 at 116,161
SS I-1 sights Allied Aircraft at 112,156 near Koumac
B-24D Liberator attacking SS I-10 at 116,161
B-24D Liberator attacking a Type KD5 class SS at 112,156
AIRCRAFT LANDING
AIR OPERATIONS PHASE : PM
H8K1 Emily reports periscope at 148, 129 near Howland Island
Ki-48-Ib Lily reports possible submarine at 66, 97 near Balikpapan
TBF-1 Avenger attacking SS I-9 at 115,163
TBF-1 Avenger attacking SS RO-67 at 116,164
Hudson III (LR) has spotted DMS W-22 at 113,156
APD Aoi detects Allied Dive Bomber at 52,54 near Rangoon
B-24D Liberator attacking SS I-159 at 116,161
B-24D Liberator attacking SS RO-67 at 116,164
B-24D Liberator attacking SS I-7 at 116,160

So far I've lost 11 japanese subs. 5 of them are sunk by airplanes, many more are damaged. So I don't think there's anything wrong with allied air ASW.

[FatR]

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Quick question... If you want to actually hit subs ( and assuming that there's no bias vs or against IJA bombers or whatever ) are you better using naval search or ASW... Also, which altitude?

I'm starting to believe there is no effective difference between low and medium (6-10k) altitude flights for ASW. Of four air ASW kills I know of in my ongoing games, all likely were scored from medium altitude, but that might be simply because much more planes are using this altitude for patrols. I'm using low altitudes for ASW airgroups simply because they can double as anti-shipping attack force if they are also trained in LowN.

[FatR]

One more thing. ASW skill by itself is not enough. My opponent in my Allied PBEM employed quite a bit of level bombers trained on ASW alone. It was mostly ineffective, I lost maybe one sub to an ASW attack at the sea, despite continually camping approaches to Home Islands into October of 1942 (I checked on subs that were reported to take hits each turn and ordered them to withdraw in case of Sys damage >10, though).

On the other hand, Betties and carrier bombers apparently can sink subs (certainly they report hits quite often), despite ASW skill at 40-50 or maybe even lower, if the density of patrols is sufficient. The good attack skill for the chosen altitude is important. So is area saturation with ASW flights. Don't expect one small squadron to radically change the picture.