ASW Changelog

[JWE]

ASW database changelog. This is for a request from the main thread.

This is for mods, so preteens and professional whiners, don't even start; I'll cut you off in a heartbeat.

Legit players, and I know who you are, can get further answers and assistance.

Ciao. John

[Bullwinkle58]

Downloaded to attempt digestion.

Thanks.

[Bullwinkle58]

Took a glance; the changes look very doable even for an editor newbie.

Interesting what you did to the non-DC weapons (Hedge/Mouse.)

Headslapping moment for me--INCREASE the dang subs' durability ratings! I've been so locked in on what they can do to ME, I never thought to make the good guys stronger. Historically, the post-Gato late-war models, especially Balao, had much stronger pressure hulls and a lot of lessons learned in fittings, shock mounts, etc. gained from the Gatos and earlier. A Balao, if it survives to get to the layer and/or about 250 feet, ought to live almost all of the time.

Gonna be hard to wait to play with these changes. Must finish current game.

Thanks again. The variable change values I would not have been able to calculate.

[Schanilec]

I was following along on the main thread, thank you very much JWE. I'm only in the my second restart (the latest patch) 13 Feb 1942, so it will awhile, but it will give me a chance when I get to `44 to see what all the fuss is about. From playing Silent Hunter IV in the past things get plenty hair raising from the Japanese ASW. I will probably figure it is my tactics that are the fails.
 
Thanks again. You to Moose.

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

Took a glance; the changes look very doable even for an editor newbie.

Interesting what you did to the non-DC weapons (Hedge/Mouse.)

Headslapping moment for me--INCREASE the dang subs' durability ratings! I've been so locked in on what they can do to ME, I never thought to make the good guys stronger. Historically, the post-Gato late-war models, especially Balao, had much stronger pressure hulls and a lot of lessons learned in fittings, shock mounts, etc. gained from the Gatos and earlier. A Balao, if it survives to get to the layer and/or about 250 feet, ought to live almost all of the time.

Gonna be hard to wait to play with these changes. Must finish current game.

Thanks again. The variable change values I would not have been able to calculate.

Also need to take into consideration the depth settings for the DCs (the Japanese were notoriously too shallow at first, not sure they ever really fixed that part) and the dive depth of the subs. Subs that can dive deeper than the IJN DCs can 'fall' (for lack of a better term) would naturally be more resistant or immune (in deep water) once the crash dive was carried out.

This makes me wonder if an increase in the durability ratings for those subs is not unreasonable.

[Schanilec]

Certainly not unreasonable. Include the thermal layer, which I don't think the Japanese ever understood.

[Nikademus]

changing DUR has always been one way to modify sub survivability however it can impact other aspects (construction and repair)

The variable that impacts results the most is 'effect'. (DC device)

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus
changing DUR has always been one way to modify sub survivability however it can impact other aspects (construction and repair)

The variable that impacts results the most is 'effect'. (DC device)

Correctamundo, pal. The Dur mods are relatively minimal in scope and don't have a significant impact on "other aspects". Unanticipated implications has always been a big hot button with me. This one seems to work out ok over several months of play testing.

"Effect" is a measure of probability to "kill", given a "hit". So if the "hit" things are lumped close together, the "kill" probability becomes dominant. That is the way it is in stock.

What we are doing is adjusting the probability to "hit". In stock, and only for purposes of discussion, the 'hit' probability might range from 15% to 20% and the 'kill' probably from 80% to 90%. So anywhere from 12% to 18% of launches will 'kill'. Keeping the "Effect" driven 'kill' probability, but spreading out the 'hit' probability so it ranges from 5% to 20%, gets you to a range of 4% to 18% of launches that 'kill'.

Now, this is just a math example, the actual algorithm spreads things out more, top and bottom, weighted more towards bottom, but it should be good enough to convey the idea. Apropos of which, if the 'hit' probability is spread, it makes tweaks to the "Effect" parameters smaller and more defensible; it also makes them more grainy.

Also apropos is that the tweaks for 'hit' involve an adaptive combination of DC 'depth' (Range) and sub 'depth' (Dur). They have to play together. Can't do one without the other. But if you do that, then tweaks to 'Effect' become more , lets say, legible.

Ciao. John

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: JWE

ORIGINAL: Nikademus
changing DUR has always been one way to modify sub survivability however it can impact other aspects (construction and repair)

The variable that impacts results the most is 'effect'. (DC device)

Correctamundo, pal. The Dur mods are relatively minimal in scope and don't have a significant impact on "other aspects". Unanticipated implications has always been a big hot button with me. This one seems to work out ok over several months of play testing.

"Effect" is a measure of probability to "kill", given a "hit". So if the "hit" things are lumped close together, the "kill" probability becomes dominant. That is the way it is in stock.

What we are doing is adjusting the probability to "hit". In stock, and only for purposes of discussion, the 'hit' probability might range from 15% to 20% and the 'kill' probably from 80% to 90%. So anywhere from 12% to 18% of launches will 'kill'. Keeping the "Effect" driven 'kill' probability, but spreading out the 'hit' probability so it ranges from 5% to 20%, gets you to a range of 4% to 18% of launches that 'kill'.

Now, this is just a math example, the actual algorithm spreads things out more, top and bottom, weighted more towards bottom, but it should be good enough to convey the idea. Apropos of which, if the 'hit' probability is spread, it makes tweaks to the "Effect" parameters smaller and more defensible; it also makes them more grainy.

Also apropos is that the tweaks for 'hit' involve an adaptive combination of DC 'depth' (Range) and sub 'depth' (Dur). They have to play together. Can't do one without the other. But if you do that, then tweaks to 'Effect' become more , lets say, legible.

Ciao. John

Interesting discussion. From your comments here, I suspect Gibbs sampling would be a very effective way of predicting the distribution of outcomes. It requires a completely different way of laying out the analysis from what comes naturally, but once you've done that, it's just turning a crank.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

changing DUR has always been one way to modify sub survivability however it can impact other aspects (construction and repair)

Not sure how DUR affects Allied construction (maybe it doesn't since they just 'show up'), but sub repair could stand to be a bit slower. Subs don't repair on a per ton basis as fast as skimmers. They're dense-packed with systems; there's no room to work. Even pretty minor gear has to rigged out and worked on ashore or on the tender. Getting to stuff requires moving other stuff (usually seems to be HP air or hydraulics which go back together slowly with a lot of QA.) I've been in DD engine rooms and I've been in a lot of subs' engine rooms, in different classes, and subs are way tighter and the margin for error is a lot less. (Superheated steam is hairy, but if it breaks the ship is already on the surface. It balances out a little.)

WWII fleet boat refits were 3-4 weeks, only partly for crew rest. SSBN refits today are about of the same duration. Subs are just hard to work on.

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

changing DUR has always been one way to modify sub survivability however it can impact other aspects (construction and repair)

Not sure how DUR affects Allied construction (maybe it doesn't since they just 'show up'), but sub repair could stand to be a bit slower. Subs don't repair on a per ton basis as fast as skimmers. They're dense-packed with systems; there's no room to work. Even pretty minor gear has to rigged out and worked on ashore or on the tender. Getting to stuff requires moving other stuff (usually seems to be HP air or hydraulics which go back together slowly with a lot of QA.) I've been in DD engine rooms and I've been in a lot of subs' engine rooms, in different classes, and subs are way tighter and the margin for error is a lot less. (Superheated steam is hairy, but if it breaks the ship is already on the surface. It balances out a little.)

WWII fleet boat refits were 3-4 weeks, only partly for crew rest. SSBN refits today are about of the same duration. Subs are just hard to work on.

From the 'down time' perspective, it does sound as if the added DUR isn't an issue. I also think you are right about the Allied building queue, it would have no effect, but it would definitely skew the Japanese build queue to increase the DUR on Japanese boats.

Problem 1: Increasing the DUR of Japanese subs increases the demand for Naval SYD points, slowing the arrival of other ships in the queue.

Problem 2: Trying to fix problem 1 with increased SY size again skews the build queue... so, not the best solution for Japanese subs

From the Allied perspective, only repair time is skewed...whether or not that is a problem is a matter of opinion. Some think they repair timely, some think they don't have enough down time.

Does that more or less sum up the problem with altering DUR ratings?

[vettim89]

ORIGINAL: Shark7

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

changing DUR has always been one way to modify sub survivability however it can impact other aspects (construction and repair)

Not sure how DUR affects Allied construction (maybe it doesn't since they just 'show up'), but sub repair could stand to be a bit slower. Subs don't repair on a per ton basis as fast as skimmers. They're dense-packed with systems; there's no room to work. Even pretty minor gear has to rigged out and worked on ashore or on the tender. Getting to stuff requires moving other stuff (usually seems to be HP air or hydraulics which go back together slowly with a lot of QA.) I've been in DD engine rooms and I've been in a lot of subs' engine rooms, in different classes, and subs are way tighter and the margin for error is a lot less. (Superheated steam is hairy, but if it breaks the ship is already on the surface. It balances out a little.)

WWII fleet boat refits were 3-4 weeks, only partly for crew rest. SSBN refits today are about of the same duration. Subs are just hard to work on.

From the 'down time' perspective, it does sound as if the added DUR isn't an issue. I also think you are right about the Allied building queue, it would have no effect, but it would definitely skew the Japanese build queue to increase the DUR on Japanese boats.

Problem 1: Increasing the DUR of Japanese subs increases the demand for Naval SYD points, slowing the arrival of other ships in the queue.

Problem 2: Trying to fix problem 1 with increased SY size again skews the build queue... so, not the best solution for Japanese subs

From the Allied perspective, only repair time is skewed...whether or not that is a problem is a matter of opinion. Some think they repair timely, some think they don't have enough down time.

Does that more or less sum up the problem with altering DUR ratings?

I think some one came up with the idea of having the IJN subs build as is and then have an upgrade available as soon as they arrive that involves increase their DUR. Not my idea. Do not want to be accused of stealing somebody's thunder

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: vettim89

ORIGINAL: Shark7

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58




Not sure how DUR affects Allied construction (maybe it doesn't since they just 'show up'), but sub repair could stand to be a bit slower. Subs don't repair on a per ton basis as fast as skimmers. They're dense-packed with systems; there's no room to work. Even pretty minor gear has to rigged out and worked on ashore or on the tender. Getting to stuff requires moving other stuff (usually seems to be HP air or hydraulics which go back together slowly with a lot of QA.) I've been in DD engine rooms and I've been in a lot of subs' engine rooms, in different classes, and subs are way tighter and the margin for error is a lot less. (Superheated steam is hairy, but if it breaks the ship is already on the surface. It balances out a little.)

WWII fleet boat refits were 3-4 weeks, only partly for crew rest. SSBN refits today are about of the same duration. Subs are just hard to work on.

From the 'down time' perspective, it does sound as if the added DUR isn't an issue. I also think you are right about the Allied building queue, it would have no effect, but it would definitely skew the Japanese build queue to increase the DUR on Japanese boats.

Problem 1: Increasing the DUR of Japanese subs increases the demand for Naval SYD points, slowing the arrival of other ships in the queue.

Problem 2: Trying to fix problem 1 with increased SY size again skews the build queue... so, not the best solution for Japanese subs

From the Allied perspective, only repair time is skewed...whether or not that is a problem is a matter of opinion. Some think they repair timely, some think they don't have enough down time.

Does that more or less sum up the problem with altering DUR ratings?

I think some one came up with the idea of having the IJN subs build as is and then have an upgrade available as soon as they arrive that involves increase their DUR. Not my idea. Do not want to be accused of stealing somebody's thunder

El Cid used to do that in RHS.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Shark7

From the 'down time' perspective, it does sound as if the added DUR isn't an issue. I also think you are right about the Allied building queue, it would have no effect, but it would definitely skew the Japanese build queue to increase the DUR on Japanese boats.

Problem 1: Increasing the DUR of Japanese subs increases the demand for Naval SYD points, slowing the arrival of other ships in the queue.

Problem 2: Trying to fix problem 1 with increased SY size again skews the build queue... so, not the best solution for Japanese subs

From the Allied perspective, only repair time is skewed...whether or not that is a problem is a matter of opinion. Some think they repair timely, some think they don't have enough down time.

Does that more or less sum up the problem with altering DUR ratings?

Maybe I'm missing something, but since there's no problem with allied ASW results there's no need to change Japanese sub DUR ratings. Also, IJN sub design had a very different core design matrix. Big, lots of fuel, slow-diving, shallow test depths, lots of ancillary missions such as supply transport and search planes. The shallow test-depths alone ought to give them lower DUR.

I think your last point is valid. Double-digit system damage shuoldn't repair in two days IMO, and major float damage to subs is pretty hard to fix given the pressure hull's constraints and QA needs. I think the game's base code uses tonnage as the biggest variable in calculating repair time with DUR in the mix as well, and as I said before a "sub ton" isn't equivalent to a "DD ton." Slightly upping the DUR might counter this.

[ChickenOfTheSea]

ORIGINAL: vettim89

ORIGINAL: Shark7

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58




Not sure how DUR affects Allied construction (maybe it doesn't since they just 'show up'), but sub repair could stand to be a bit slower. Subs don't repair on a per ton basis as fast as skimmers. They're dense-packed with systems; there's no room to work. Even pretty minor gear has to rigged out and worked on ashore or on the tender. Getting to stuff requires moving other stuff (usually seems to be HP air or hydraulics which go back together slowly with a lot of QA.) I've been in DD engine rooms and I've been in a lot of subs' engine rooms, in different classes, and subs are way tighter and the margin for error is a lot less. (Superheated steam is hairy, but if it breaks the ship is already on the surface. It balances out a little.)

WWII fleet boat refits were 3-4 weeks, only partly for crew rest. SSBN refits today are about of the same duration. Subs are just hard to work on.

From the 'down time' perspective, it does sound as if the added DUR isn't an issue. I also think you are right about the Allied building queue, it would have no effect, but it would definitely skew the Japanese build queue to increase the DUR on Japanese boats.

Problem 1: Increasing the DUR of Japanese subs increases the demand for Naval SYD points, slowing the arrival of other ships in the queue.

Problem 2: Trying to fix problem 1 with increased SY size again skews the build queue... so, not the best solution for Japanese subs

From the Allied perspective, only repair time is skewed...whether or not that is a problem is a matter of opinion. Some think they repair timely, some think they don't have enough down time.

Does that more or less sum up the problem with altering DUR ratings?

I think some one came up with the idea of having the IJN subs build as is and then have an upgrade available as soon as they arrive that involves increase their DUR. Not my idea. Do not want to be accused of stealing somebody's thunder

El Cid did that for subs in RHS but the idea originated with Historiker IIRC.

[John 3rd]

John--Are these the changes you made to RA? Certainly think so but want to check.

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
John--Are these the changes you made to RA? Certainly think so but want to check.

Yes.

Don't know why people are talking about Japanese Dur changes. I didn't do or even suggest any.

Only Dur changes are "Optional" ones for 3 US sub classes. They weren't included in RA because I think the other stuff is enough to hold off the problems, and I tend to prefer a minimum of changes that 'approach' a solution, rather than a bunch that may 'overshoot'. Besides, these are a good hip-pocket fixerupper if things are still a bit too ugly in your scen.

If you want to go whole-hog, here's the last few lines of the changelog:
Optional but Recommended
0641-0653 – Gato (various) Increase Durability to 33.
0654-0664 – Balao (various) Increase Durability to 41.
0665-0673 – Tench (various) Increase Durability to 41.

Ciao. J
That's about it.

[ChickenOfTheSea]

ORIGINAL: JWE

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
John--Are these the changes you made to RA? Certainly think so but want to check.

Yes.

Don't know why people are talking about Japanese Dur changes. I didn't do or even suggest any.

John,
I was just filling in a bit of the history of WITP mods and to avoid confusion I will add a little more history. El Cid's modifications were seat of the pants, trial-and-error based efforts to improve the realism of ASW and sub warfare In RHS (vs the old WITP) for which I was one playtester. These were done without knowledge of the underlying code and required a lot of tweaking.

The changes that JWE is discussing are done with extensive knowledge of how the underlying code works. I think one would be wise to pay close attention to JWE's comments and draw on his knowledge and experience rather than start editing things willy-nilly.

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: ChickenOfTheSea

ORIGINAL: JWE

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
John--Are these the changes you made to RA? Certainly think so but want to check.

Yes.

Don't know why people are talking about Japanese Dur changes. I didn't do or even suggest any.

John,
I was just filling in a bit of the history of WITP mods and to avoid confusion I will add a little more history. El Cid's modifications were seat of the pants, trial-and-error based efforts to improve the realism of ASW and sub warfare In RHS (vs the old WITP) for which I was one playtester. These were done without knowledge of the underlying code and required a lot of tweaking.

The changes that JWE is discussing are done with extensive knowledge of how the underlying code works. I think one would be wise to pay close attention to JWE's comments and draw on his knowledge and experience rather than start editing things willy-nilly.

This went off tangent the same way all things get off tangent, I probably started it asking about modifying the US subs based on dive depth...

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Shark7

This went off tangent the same way all things get off tangent, I probably started it asking about modifying the US subs based on dive depth...

I thought it was only IJ ASW that was off-kilter but when you guys all started talking about increasing IJN subs DUR I figured I missed something and decided to keep my trap shut.