IJN ASW Capability
Moderators: Joel Billings, Tankerace, siRkid
-
CapAndGown
- Posts: 3078
- Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2001 10:00 am
- Location: Virginia, USA
IJN ASW Capability
Have fun.
Foxy,
Your poll explanation, question definition and clarification comment comes down to "have fun"? My, you are lacking in energy.
As someone who wanted the IJN ASW reduced, I would prefer not to have it put back. Rather, I would advocate that the USN "S" class submarines are now the real culprits. Reduce them down to something bordering historical capability and things may go a bit more realistically.
As always,
Scully.
Your poll explanation, question definition and clarification comment comes down to "have fun"? My, you are lacking in energy.
As someone who wanted the IJN ASW reduced, I would prefer not to have it put back. Rather, I would advocate that the USN "S" class submarines are now the real culprits. Reduce them down to something bordering historical capability and things may go a bit more realistically.
As always,
Scully.
Have no fear,
drink more beer.
drink more beer.
I tend to think that the "S" boats are fine.........and you only see a real improvement in them after '43.....this is more a seat of the pants feeling rather than cold fact. But I have learnt to use my subs in a wise way........that is keeping them out of the shallows. I sure don't lose as many as I used too this way, and as such the surivability goes up and thus the exp, which equals more successful attacks. I am still running a torp strike rate of between 1:4 to 1:6 in '42. After '42 this tends to rise to 1:2 to 1:3.
Never argue with an idiot, he will only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.
See my test results in the other post. When DD's with absolutely maxed skills can not live in a 2-1 ratio against US subs in '42, things are a little out of whack.
The only reason that barges seem to do well is that the combat routines force a surface encounter where guns instead of ASW become the deciding factor.
It is not that barges are any better at ASW, it's just that the combat routines for barges make subs fight on the surface where they do not fare well. This gives the illusion that it is not as bad as it really is...
The only reason that barges seem to do well is that the combat routines force a surface encounter where guns instead of ASW become the deciding factor.
It is not that barges are any better at ASW, it's just that the combat routines for barges make subs fight on the surface where they do not fare well. This gives the illusion that it is not as bad as it really is...
-
Point Luck
- Posts: 261
- Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2002 6:24 pm
- Location: East Coast-US
I think the IJN ASW capability should be adjusted. At least in IJN homeports of a size 3 or more. These ports would receive an increased ASW value for any ASW ships/aircraft operating in these ports.
Another option could be similar to the AA accumulative factor. The ASW capability could increase based on the number of ASW ships and their respective ratings. At least the IJN would have some chance of combating US subs, even if they have to pay a penalty by using more ASW capable ships to affect the desired results.
As it stands now IJN ASW is useless and is probably has the biggest impact to game playability.
Another option could be similar to the AA accumulative factor. The ASW capability could increase based on the number of ASW ships and their respective ratings. At least the IJN would have some chance of combating US subs, even if they have to pay a penalty by using more ASW capable ships to affect the desired results.
As it stands now IJN ASW is useless and is probably has the biggest impact to game playability.
-
Admiral DadMan
- Posts: 3426
- Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2002 10:00 am
- Location: A Lion uses all its might to catch a Rabbit
I'd recommend both adjustments:
IJN ASW should be 1/2 way between now and what it was before.
Regardless of the the IJN's ASW capabilities, USN "S" boats are just plain too effective. Everything I've read on SubPac tells of how these boats were absolute horrors, and lucky to survive a war patrol, much less make an attack.
Then again when I play as Allied, I'm quite happy about these factors. Funny how that is...
IJN ASW should be 1/2 way between now and what it was before.
Regardless of the the IJN's ASW capabilities, USN "S" boats are just plain too effective. Everything I've read on SubPac tells of how these boats were absolute horrors, and lucky to survive a war patrol, much less make an attack.
Then again when I play as Allied, I'm quite happy about these factors. Funny how that is...
-
pasternakski
- Posts: 5567
- Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2002 7:42 pm
Originally posted by Drongo
As someone who wanted the IJN ASW reduced, I would prefer not to have it put back. Rather, I would advocate that the USN "S" class submarines are now the real culprits. Reduce them down to something bordering historical capability and things may go a bit more realistically.
This sums it up for me.
Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.
-
Weathersfield
- Posts: 56
- Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2003 4:30 am
It is interesting how your perceptions change when you switch sides. 
I too feel that the Japanesse ASW is somewhat low and that the S-Boats are too reliable. They need a critical systems failure check every turn. Just something random breaks, SYS damage increases by 25 or so and they need to go home. That is pretty much what happened to them in real life.
I too feel that the Japanesse ASW is somewhat low and that the S-Boats are too reliable. They need a critical systems failure check every turn. Just something random breaks, SYS damage increases by 25 or so and they need to go home. That is pretty much what happened to them in real life.
-
Point Luck
- Posts: 261
- Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2002 6:24 pm
- Location: East Coast-US
"IJN ASW has been tweaked and now its time to tweak the S-boats to more realistic levels".
Adjusting the effectiveness of the S class boats really only adjusts one aspect of the issue. This would still leave IJN ASW capabilities completely useless. By changing the S boat issue, only means that a US player will just have to park his Gato and Tambor class boats in an IJN port instead. Now that really would level the playing field wouldn’t it? Why not just change the name of the game from UV to US Subs vs. the Japanese Imperial Navy.
In my opinion the sole purpose of an effective ASW capability is to prevent the common practice of parking one’s subs in enemy ports and just waiting for the targets to arrive.
Unless Matrix intends to modify the Sub attack coding (attack only when both units end phase/turn in same hex) this game will become more and more one sided.
Everybody had issues with mines so Matrix changed giving the US an edge by reducing an effective tactic for IJN, Everybody had issues with B-17’s shooting down IJN planes while not suffering equal damage, again Matrix changed giving US less effectiveness in shooting down Zeros, but still leaving LBA’s not suffering any real impact to the bombing runs. Rendering IJN incapability of stopping massive B-17 raids non-effective.
Everybody wants UV to be as close to a historical simulation as possible, as long as all the historical references favor the US only. Look at the player threads there are more players wanting to play US than wanting to be burdened with IJN. Why do you think that is?
This is why I find playing the scenarios offered as part of the game very one sided, editing the scenario to give IJN a reasonable chance to win or at least starve off total defeat, is the only way to give the IJN player interesting game. Otherwise the game responsibilities for the IJN player is to move around to map and let the US player shoot at him.
There has to be two sides to play a strategic or tactical game. If the inventible results are already coded into the game, then this game becomes just another video arcade game instead of a game that requires a player to truly use his abilities and wits.
Adjusting the effectiveness of the S class boats really only adjusts one aspect of the issue. This would still leave IJN ASW capabilities completely useless. By changing the S boat issue, only means that a US player will just have to park his Gato and Tambor class boats in an IJN port instead. Now that really would level the playing field wouldn’t it? Why not just change the name of the game from UV to US Subs vs. the Japanese Imperial Navy.
In my opinion the sole purpose of an effective ASW capability is to prevent the common practice of parking one’s subs in enemy ports and just waiting for the targets to arrive.
Unless Matrix intends to modify the Sub attack coding (attack only when both units end phase/turn in same hex) this game will become more and more one sided.
Everybody had issues with mines so Matrix changed giving the US an edge by reducing an effective tactic for IJN, Everybody had issues with B-17’s shooting down IJN planes while not suffering equal damage, again Matrix changed giving US less effectiveness in shooting down Zeros, but still leaving LBA’s not suffering any real impact to the bombing runs. Rendering IJN incapability of stopping massive B-17 raids non-effective.
Everybody wants UV to be as close to a historical simulation as possible, as long as all the historical references favor the US only. Look at the player threads there are more players wanting to play US than wanting to be burdened with IJN. Why do you think that is?
This is why I find playing the scenarios offered as part of the game very one sided, editing the scenario to give IJN a reasonable chance to win or at least starve off total defeat, is the only way to give the IJN player interesting game. Otherwise the game responsibilities for the IJN player is to move around to map and let the US player shoot at him.
There has to be two sides to play a strategic or tactical game. If the inventible results are already coded into the game, then this game becomes just another video arcade game instead of a game that requires a player to truly use his abilities and wits.
I agree with everything you say but I have no problem with subs in the port hex. Port hexes are 30 mile hexes which leaves plenty of sea outside the harbor and that is where the subs would be, not necessarily in the harbor(the game doesn't have midget subs). Even the AI sends subs into the port hex so the game is evidently modeled that way. I play as IJN quite often and suffer depredations more from S-boats than from the newer subs which is probably ahistorical that's why I prefer a sub tweak rather than a massive overhaul. I think the game overall is fair and if you are a good player you can win playing as either side. Lord knows I've been losing as either side:D
Col Saito: "Don't speak to me of rules! This is war! It is not a game of cricket!"
Lets face it: IJN ASW sucked historically. Please feel free to correct me if you wish, but that's the impression i got.
The problem may not be with the actual data, but in way in which players use (maximize) their subs.
The solution: House rules? I've found if i keep sub patrols on computer control and don't touch them, they more or less result in acceptable levels for both sides. I'm not sure how effective subs were in '42, but i doubt they had significant impact on the general course of the campaign.
Besides, it's a bit odd for a theatre commander to specifically tell each sub patrol (presumably hundreds of miles away and in hiding a good amount of the time) exactly where to go.
The problem may not be with the actual data, but in way in which players use (maximize) their subs.
The solution: House rules? I've found if i keep sub patrols on computer control and don't touch them, they more or less result in acceptable levels for both sides. I'm not sure how effective subs were in '42, but i doubt they had significant impact on the general course of the campaign.
Besides, it's a bit odd for a theatre commander to specifically tell each sub patrol (presumably hundreds of miles away and in hiding a good amount of the time) exactly where to go.
In time of war the first casualty is truth. - Boake Carter
Wolfpacks
When you stack 3 or more subs in a hex, you are essentially "wolfpacking".
I do not recall US subs ever working with more than 2 at a time in the same area during the campaign in the South Pacific.
I think that in addition to S-Boats being adjusted, that there be a penalty for more than 2 subs in a hex. Both for reducing attacks and increasing effectiveness of ASW.
There was a genuine concern for having too many subs working in the same area, mainly fratricide and collisions.
There should be a penalty for unrealistic deployment that was historically dangerous.
I do not recall US subs ever working with more than 2 at a time in the same area during the campaign in the South Pacific.
I think that in addition to S-Boats being adjusted, that there be a penalty for more than 2 subs in a hex. Both for reducing attacks and increasing effectiveness of ASW.
There was a genuine concern for having too many subs working in the same area, mainly fratricide and collisions.
There should be a penalty for unrealistic deployment that was historically dangerous.
"Life is tough, it's even tougher when you're stupid" -SGT John M. Stryker, USMC
-
CapAndGown
- Posts: 3078
- Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2001 10:00 am
- Location: Virginia, USA
Originally posted by Drongo
Foxy,
Your poll explanation, question definition and clarification comment comes down to "have fun"? My, you are lacking in energy.
Been a long week.
As someone who wanted the IJN ASW reduced, I would prefer not to have it put back. Rather, I would advocate that the USN "S" class submarines are now the real culprits. Reduce them down to something bordering historical capability and things may go a bit more realistically.
As always,
Scully.
I think something needs to be pointed out here: there have been two changes to the system that have made it harder to kill subs: One is the halving of IJN ASW. The other is the ability of subs to escape that was introduced in 2.2. These effects are cumulative, with the later change added before we had a chance to play very much with just the former change.
I would suggest that, if IJN ASW ability is not restored, there could be other ideas implemented that currently make the IJN so helpless.
The most important change would be to make the presence of escorts make it much less likely that a sub could attack. Supposedly, the code does that already. Does it do it enough? I think not. Specifically, what I am worried about is that in WitP with the new "in transit" reaction system, the IJN is going to lose its entire navy in 1942. Warships were especially protected from sub attacks (read Fuchida's account of Midway where he details all the effort the IJN expended in searching for subs when the battle fleet sortied from the Inland Sea.) I am not saying it shouldn't happen. But it should be a rather rare event. This should probably go for the Japs as well, except that US ASW is effective enough that the sub is ussually hit, and often sunk, after attempting such attacks.
It is my understanding that the japs suffered a lot of lost shipping due to subs because they really did not put much effort into escorting their merchant ships. Does this equate to totally ineffective ASW capabilities? Think about the invasion of the PI. Some US subs tried to interfere with the landings, but Jap destroyers usually chased them off (even if they didn't kill them). My idea would be that escorts, while perhaps less able to hit the subs, could at least still chase the buggers away.
I also think the shallow water penalty need to be doubled. When 6 jap DDs can only score 1 hit on 4 US subs in shallow water (I will go by the AAR provided by Mr Frag, not an Area 51 analysis, but close) then there seems to be something underrated with the penalty for being in shallow water.
One final idea would be to increase jap ASW by 50% from the current level.
S boats also need looking at. But that appears to be another issue, though related.
Posted by cap-and_gown
Brilliant!!!! You are my hero (satisfied???).
OK.......
From everything I've seen discussed in the forum, I would put my votes for the following :
1)Escort deterrent value - If you can't sink 'em, at least try to keep them away. The more escorts in a TF, the more chance of an enemy sub failing to make an attack. Allied escorts should have a greater chance of "driving away" a sub than the IJN. This should reduce a subs chance of attacking targets in heavily escorted TFs.
2)Wolf pack penalty - If an enemy sub is detected (before or after an attack), all friendly TFs in the location should be considered "alert" for that turn. Any further sub attacks (against ships) made in that location on that turn should be penalised (more chance of being detected/attacked/driven off/whatever). This penalty should be applied to both sides except to the US later in the war (1944?), when they had the wolf-pack doctrine worked out.
3)Shallow water - limited manuever/diving room should increase a subs chance of being detected and attacked.
4)Ports - While a sub operating in a port location does not mean it's sitting in the harbour with the ships, these locations should carry an operational risk for enemy subs. Historically, harbour defences, large numbers of small patrol craft, regular patrols, friendly force knowledge of local conditions, etc should put the advantage squarely with the surface ships. All TFs entering the location should be considered "alert" (as in (2))
5) "S" Class reduction - of course :p
Any or all (or none:( ) of these could be considered. The objective is to try to keep sub effectiveness down to something close to the historical level without bringing back the "uber" IJN sub-killing escorts.
All this would obviously need to be tested and tweaked, before it's brought in as a patch, to make sure subs are not rendered ineffective.
Have fun.
It is my understanding that the japs suffered a lot of lost shipping due to subs because they really did not put much effort into escorting their merchant ships. Does this equate to totally ineffective ASW capabilities? Think about the invasion of the PI. Some US subs tried to interfere with the landings, but Jap destroyers usually chased them off (even if they didn't kill them). My idea would be that escorts, while perhaps less able to hit the subs, could at least still chase the buggers away.
Brilliant!!!! You are my hero (satisfied???).
OK.......
From everything I've seen discussed in the forum, I would put my votes for the following :
1)Escort deterrent value - If you can't sink 'em, at least try to keep them away. The more escorts in a TF, the more chance of an enemy sub failing to make an attack. Allied escorts should have a greater chance of "driving away" a sub than the IJN. This should reduce a subs chance of attacking targets in heavily escorted TFs.
2)Wolf pack penalty - If an enemy sub is detected (before or after an attack), all friendly TFs in the location should be considered "alert" for that turn. Any further sub attacks (against ships) made in that location on that turn should be penalised (more chance of being detected/attacked/driven off/whatever). This penalty should be applied to both sides except to the US later in the war (1944?), when they had the wolf-pack doctrine worked out.
3)Shallow water - limited manuever/diving room should increase a subs chance of being detected and attacked.
4)Ports - While a sub operating in a port location does not mean it's sitting in the harbour with the ships, these locations should carry an operational risk for enemy subs. Historically, harbour defences, large numbers of small patrol craft, regular patrols, friendly force knowledge of local conditions, etc should put the advantage squarely with the surface ships. All TFs entering the location should be considered "alert" (as in (2))
5) "S" Class reduction - of course :p
Any or all (or none:( ) of these could be considered. The objective is to try to keep sub effectiveness down to something close to the historical level without bringing back the "uber" IJN sub-killing escorts.
All this would obviously need to be tested and tweaked, before it's brought in as a patch, to make sure subs are not rendered ineffective.
Have fun.
Have no fear,
drink more beer.
drink more beer.
S-boats
Hi, The S-Boats do see a lot more action in UV then in RL. However what ship doesn't? (aside from Long Island)
The S Class boat with the best wartime record was S-44 (SS 149). She made five war patrols and sank three ship's, including the Japanese heavy cruiser KAKO. S-44 also damaged a destroyer type vessel. She was sunk on 7 October 1943, in a gun battle with a Japanese destroyer. The Japanese destroyer picked up only two men. Both survived the war.
The following S-Boats while operating out of Brisbane between Apr-Nov 42 all had confirmed enemy ship sinkings
S-37 (SS-142), S-38 (SS-143), S-39 (SS-144), S-40 (SS-145), S-41 (SS-146), S-42 (SS-153), S-43 (SS-154), S-44 (SS-155), S-45 (SS-156), S-46 (SS-157), and S-47 (SS-158).
The enemy ship traffic in UV is much higher for much longer then in actual event. All the above subs are usally sunk (or returned to PH for repair) by 1 Jan 43 in long UV campaign games.
The S Class boat with the best wartime record was S-44 (SS 149). She made five war patrols and sank three ship's, including the Japanese heavy cruiser KAKO. S-44 also damaged a destroyer type vessel. She was sunk on 7 October 1943, in a gun battle with a Japanese destroyer. The Japanese destroyer picked up only two men. Both survived the war.
The following S-Boats while operating out of Brisbane between Apr-Nov 42 all had confirmed enemy ship sinkings
S-37 (SS-142), S-38 (SS-143), S-39 (SS-144), S-40 (SS-145), S-41 (SS-146), S-42 (SS-153), S-43 (SS-154), S-44 (SS-155), S-45 (SS-156), S-46 (SS-157), and S-47 (SS-158).
The enemy ship traffic in UV is much higher for much longer then in actual event. All the above subs are usally sunk (or returned to PH for repair) by 1 Jan 43 in long UV campaign games.
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
-
CapAndGown
- Posts: 3078
- Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2001 10:00 am
- Location: Virginia, USA
I would add one thing to Drongo's list:
When opposing surface forces are in the same hex (or will be during the surface combat phase) then subs should not be allowed to attack. Too often have I seen AARs (and had it done to me) where a sub attack occurs just before a surface battle is fought. This just doesn't seem right. The chance of hittiing your own ships would be too great.
When opposing surface forces are in the same hex (or will be during the surface combat phase) then subs should not be allowed to attack. Too often have I seen AARs (and had it done to me) where a sub attack occurs just before a surface battle is fought. This just doesn't seem right. The chance of hittiing your own ships would be too great.