Japanese ASW

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: JWE
As to code changes, I'll resist them. As ya'll are aware many code changes have been made to address particular issues that freaked people out. As ya'll are also aware, while these changes may have helped the specific issue, because everything is inter-woven, the changes broke two or three other, unanticipated, things.

Amen, bro. Amen. Law of unintended consequences, writ large.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

The only problem is that some of us have considerable time invested in a game already such that we are reluctant to restart unless absolutely necessary. I guess that I'll just have to try to find a work-around... 

Yeah. Been there done that on a number of Japanese defangings since the early versions. It all works out in the long run.

[stuman]

ORIGINAL: JWE

A lot of good comments and suggestions here. Many of them, and a few more have already been done in DaBabes mod and have been ported into the Reluctant Admiral mod, so there's lots of playing it that have seen significantly more rational results.

As to code changes, I'll resist them. As ya'll are aware many code changes have been made to address particular issues that freaked people out. As ya'll are also aware, while these changes may have helped the specific issue, because everything is inter-woven, the changes broke two or three other, unanticipated, things.

The issue can be (and has been) addressed in data. If one really cares, one may check out what has been done in this area in daBabes mod. It includes explanations as to how the changes comport with the algorithm.

Not likely to be in a future data patch either. I wouldn't mind, but those are a serious PITA and since the data elements are not strictly, precisely, historical, one can imagine the hysterical hissy fit some people might have. Doubt the powers that be would want to put up with the hassle.

DaBabes is not a 'what if' mod. It's a 'development' mod. Over 500 people are playing it, including many folks who post on this board. So far, we haven't had this problem crop up since we put the data fix in place about six months ago.

+1

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: Shark7

Did this discussion not come up before, and was the general consensus that the 'Super E' of the late ware is due to the number of ASW mounts more than anything else? However, this ships did historically have quite a few DC throwers.

One could modify the results by adding in a modifier, however that would take a coding change.

However, is the problem not so much that the DDs and Es are attacking, but rather that the Allied subs are targeting the escorts rather than the merchant ships? Perhaps a tweak of the target acquisition logic would help...they should still attack warships, but perhaps increase the chance they will bypass the escort for the tanker/AK/AP?

Well, that and the fact that every attack or just sub sighting results in an ASW attack. In the real deal, Japanese escorts were so pitiful and without radar that many times American subs attacked on the surface at night-often times multiple attacks, and slipped away without ever being located by the escorts. That won't happen in this game.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: Shark7

Did this discussion not come up before, and was the general consensus that the 'Super E' of the late ware is due to the number of ASW mounts more than anything else? However, this ships did historically have quite a few DC throwers.

One could modify the results by adding in a modifier, however that would take a coding change.

However, is the problem not so much that the DDs and Es are attacking, but rather that the Allied subs are targeting the escorts rather than the merchant ships? Perhaps a tweak of the target acquisition logic would help...they should still attack warships, but perhaps increase the chance they will bypass the escort for the tanker/AK/AP?

even if the sub would target a freighter, in return it gets pummeled by the super E. Trading a xAK for a sub? I decided the only thing I could do was to get away from the super E with my subs which again reminded me about how important it is to sit in the SRA in early 44, otherwise the Japanese imports from the SRA will peak in 44 and early 45. History upside down I would say.[:D]

[Chris21wen]

Thanks for all the replies.

Having spent so much time playing this scenario (only one i've started) I'm loathed to start a new game however if this rate of allied sub attrition continues I might have to as I doubt I will have any left at sea shortly. So much for the 1944 allied sub campaign.[:(]

[EUBanana]

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

The only problem is that some of us have considerable time invested in a game already such that we are reluctant to restart unless absolutely necessary. I guess that I'll just have to try to find a work-around... 

Maybe banning use of the ASW TF would do something to mitigate ASW effectiveness.

[decaro]

Perhaps it's a player production issue?

Historically, as late as '42, some IJN escorts lacked any underwater sensors: Japan built 8 escort ships that year while the Brits built 600 escorts during the war.

[spence]

As the war progressed the Allies organized their ASW efforts from top to bottom putting many of their best minds to work studying ASW actions/weapons/tactics. The whole science of Operational Research was born and developed because of these efforts and new equipment and methodologies/tactics were developed from these studies.

Meanwhile the Japanese put some extra depth charge throwers on their ships along with the occasional sonar set.

The Allies sank close to 1000 enemy submarines (all Axis). The Japanese sank 40 American and a handful of Dutch and British (about a dozen of the US losses were to non-Japanese causes: collisions, groundings etc).

Incredible how much better Mark 1 Mod 0 eyeballs work compared to all that silly stuff the Allies wasted their time with.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: spence

As the war progressed the Allies organized their ASW efforts from top to bottom putting many of their best minds to work studying ASW actions/weapons/tactics. The whole science of Operational Research was born and developed because of these efforts and new equipment and methodologies/tactics were developed from these studies.

This is quite an overstatement.

While OR was used in the anti-U-boat campaign it was developed far more to plan strategic bombing campaigns in both major theaters, and to optimize logistics chains and distribution networks, especially in the ETO. My B-school Quant prof did his dissertation under George Dantzig, and we were endlessly regaled with tales of manual linear programming rooms full of women rotating simplex tableaus in search of 8th AF targets. I believe my prof graduated to work on the SIOP using similar techniques before moving to academia to torture former liberal arts majors who really only wanted to study advertising theory.

[olperfessor]

In my current game as allies vs. Japan, the Japanese ASW efforts started getting noticeably more effective starting in March 1943. My assumption has been that the game designers wanted to reflect some real-life technological or doctrinal change, maybe better sonar. I was not interested enough to research this.

One of the modest benefits of not knowing the statistics of actual WWII operations is that we ignorant ones get to replicate the experience of real-life commanders, whose expectations were often proven wrong, and who then had to adjust to reality (You know, the conviction that medium bombers would devastate capital ships, that "anti-tank rifles" worked, strategic bombers wouldn't need escorts, etc.).

So as long as game mechanics are within what seem to me to be reasonable limits, as I think Japanese ASW efforts are, we less knowledgeable ones probably have more fun, not finding so many unhistorical matters to be game breakers. I have had to adjust my submarine tactics and expectations, but that seems to mirror real life very well. That said, I admire and learn from the forum posters who do know detailed facts, and the game designers who balance realism and playability.

[vettim89]

My experience is that the game seems to represent ASW pretty well until late 1943. It is that point that the code's view of ASW strength being related to the number of ASW weapons mounts on a ship makes things fall off the tracks. You have Japanese Super "E" with ASW strength of 14[X(] and USN DE with ASW strength of 9-11[X(] The net effect is that a lot of subs do not survive a single encounter against these monsters. While playing Andy Mac's Downfall scenario, a ASW Tf with just a single E class in it could kill USN fleet boats at will even in deep water.

This is a pet peeve of mine and I am doing ongoing research

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: vettim89

My experience is that the game seems to represent ASW pretty well until late 1943. It is that point that the code's view of ASW strength being related to the number of ASW weapons mounts on a ship makes things fall off the tracks. You have Japanese Super "E" with ASW strength of 14[X(] and USN DE with ASW strength of 9-11[X(] The net effect is that a lot of subs do not survive a single encounter against these monsters. While playing Andy Mac's Downfall scenario, a ASW Tf with just a single E class in it could kill USN fleet boats at will even in deep water.

This is a pet peeve of mine and I am doing ongoing research

Months ago now, but I tried to tweak the Type 2 DC in the editor before beginning my current game. I don't recall what I changed, but it might have been the Accuracy stat. I'm now in November 1943, and ASW is picking up intensity. Not a lot of sinkings, but lots of 30 float damage attacks that send the boat home. Rarely will I get any attack on anything that doens't result in at least 15 system damage, although I do get a few attacks where I get no ASW response at all. It's either zero or 15-30.

I know worse is coming. Just wanted to let you know that the accuracy setting didn't cripple ASW. The Type 2 is present throughout the war, so I think the up-tick is as you say from number of mounts. I havne't looked at class-by-class specs ni the editor, and I really don't want to know.

[bradfordkay]

Perhaps a downward adjustment of Japanese crew experience on Escorts in '44-45 would be a way to handle this? 

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

Perhaps a downward adjustment of Japanese crew experience on Escorts in '44-45 would be a way to handle this? 

I'm not editor savvy enought to know if you can do class-wide experience settings. I wouldn't want to try to do that ship-by-ship. Also, I have no idea how experience is weighted in the formulae. As others have said, and I believe JWE posted several months ago (he had a lot of interesting things to say about the ASW machine, but I can't find the darn post anymore) I think the number of launchers is a key variable.

[bradfordkay]

I know that the number of launchers is the key variable, but we can't change that as the ships historically had them. The kicker is the difference in ASW electronics and the crew's experience with them. The electronics are not extensively modeled in the game, but I think that there is some sort of positive modifier for allied ASW to simulate this (somebody can verify this?). Perhaps a similar negative modifier can be applied to the IJN and the allied modifier reduced somewhat? 

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

I know that the number of launchers is the key variable, but we can't change that as the ships historically had them. The kicker is the difference in ASW electronics and the crew's experience with them. The electronics are not extensively modeled in the game, but I think that there is some sort of positive modifier for allied ASW to simulate this (somebody can verify this?). Perhaps a similar negative modifier can be applied to the IJN and the allied modifier reduced somewhat? 

I hope an editor guru can answer this.

I'm also interested to hear from anyone, in a general way, who knows the workings of Da Babes mods, what JWE was speaking of when he said Japanese ASW had been dealt with/modified/toned down, etc. in those mods.

[vettim89]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

I know that the number of launchers is the key variable, but we can't change that as the ships historically had them. The kicker is the difference in ASW electronics and the crew's experience with them. The electronics are not extensively modeled in the game, but I think that there is some sort of positive modifier for allied ASW to simulate this (somebody can verify this?). Perhaps a similar negative modifier can be applied to the IJN and the allied modifier reduced somewhat? 

I hope an editor guru can answer this.

I'm also interested to hear from anyone, in a general way, who knows the workings of Da Babes mods, what JWE was speaking of when he said Japanese ASW had been dealt with/modified/toned down, etc. in those mods.

The whole problems with mount numbers and ASW is self compounding. Ships with high ASW strengths (which is saying nothing more than ships with a lot of ASW mounts) have an inheritantly higher rate of successfully detecting and engaging subs. Then when the do engage they have vastly higher chances of securing a hit based on number of evolutions through the ASW routine because each moutn fires separately. In RL ASW mounts fired as a group as patterns. Higher number of mounts allowed larger patterns. Larger patterns would more likely cause damage to the sub but still only one DC was likely to actually get a "hit". So higher percentage to hit but no greater effect. ElCid did some opening work on this in RHS and I am trying to resurrect it. Alas there are only so many hours in a day.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: vettim89

The whole problems with mount numbers and ASW is self compounding. Ships with high ASW strengths (which is saying nothing more than ships with a lot of ASW mounts) have an inheritantly higher rate of successfully detecting and engaging subs. Then when the do engage they have vastly higher chances of securing a hit based on number of evolutions through the ASW routine because each moutn fires separately. In RL ASW mounts fired as a group as patterns. Higher number of mounts allowed larger patterns. Larger patterns would more likely cause damage to the sub but still only one DC was likely to actually get a "hit". So higher percentage to hit but no greater effect. ElCid did some opening work on this in RHS and I am trying to resurrect it. Alas there are only so many hours in a day.

Are you certain about the part I marked in bold? Do you know for a fact that such is in the code?

[vettim89]

My initial testing suggests that yes that is true

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: vettim89

The whole problems with mount numbers and ASW is self compounding. Ships with high ASW strengths (which is saying nothing more than ships with a lot of ASW mounts) have an inheritantly higher rate of successfully detecting and engaging subs. Then when the do engage they have vastly higher chances of securing a hit based on number of evolutions through the ASW routine because each moutn fires separately. In RL ASW mounts fired as a group as patterns. Higher number of mounts allowed larger patterns. Larger patterns would more likely cause damage to the sub but still only one DC was likely to actually get a "hit". So higher percentage to hit but no greater effect. ElCid did some opening work on this in RHS and I am trying to resurrect it. Alas there are only so many hours in a day.

Are you certain about the part I marked in bold? Do you know for a fact that such is in the code?

My initial testing suggests that yes that is true