IJN ASW Capability

[CapAndGown]

Originally posted by Mogami
Hi, The S-Boats do see a lot more action in UV then in RL. However what ship doesn't? (aside from Long Island)

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.

Have to save this one for the scrap book to pull out whenever someone complains about their sub attacking on the surface.

[mogami]

Hi, UV and History. First everyone should know by now that I am a big supporter of UV. I'm a tester for both UV and WITP. This is not a criticism of the game but an attempt to reconcile History with what occurs (and will occur in any war-game) in UV.

Foresight: To begin with. Both sides in a war-game are aware of what the enemy intends and where he intends to commit forces. We can study the game map and see base values. We know the history and we are much more likely to risk our forces then any but the most fool hardy historical leader. (How many of us will turn an invasion force around because they were spotted by enemy aircraft/submarine?)

Victory Conditions: They are defined and subjective. We go for certain bases because they are worth more points. (While I understand the reasoning for assigning those points I sometimes think that points should be given based on how much value the enemy places on an objective rather then making them place forces on a base because it is worth more. Certainly the bases given higher value in UV are the ones that will produce the greater strategic benefit if the enemy conforms to the historic pattern, but suppose they don't? With in the confines of UV there is less room to deviate from history then will be possible in WITP. (How much value should the South Pacific bases have if the Japanese refuse to commit their forces here?) What if Kaveing is the forward most Japanese base? OK like always I'm wandering off topic.
The point is since both players have well defined and known beforehand victory conditions the fight for possession of these is more intense then in the actual event.

Where the USN with 6 submarines in May 1942 would have them dispersed and hope to encounter the enemy with 1 or 2 in UV the player knows to keep them ready for use at PM when the invasion appears rounding Gili. (Had the USN possessed such certain knowledge they WOULD HAVE DONE THE SAME!) It irks me sometimes when players suggest the that one side or the other would not have sent every available sub to a location where 60-70 enemy transports were known to be presently unloading. The problem they had was not knowing to save them until July, in bases close enough to move to PM when the time came.

Reenactment or Alternate outcome?: Strictly speaking if you begin by using historical conditions and forces you should arrive at historical outcomes. But since both parties know the strengths and weaknesses of both the enemy and their own positions. And are aware of the historical errors History is eliminated as a likely result. (Which makes players happy as they are not saddled with impossible goals if they choose to be the Historical loser) The only way to achieve true play balance in a game would be to design a game where both sides had the exact same material in the exact same amounts. (But then it would not be a "Historical" game.)

No matter which side you are controlling in UV (or WITP) you will never be faced with the historical condition past the first few turns. The enemy will avoid making the same mistakes as the actual contestants. However players will invent new ones enough for the person able to recognize them as errors to exploit. This is the best any game can offer. Don't worry about you opponent not employing his forces the way they actually were. You are under no constraint to do so your self. It really can not be done any other way.

It's just a game

[osullmi]

I think the real problem is the aggressiveness of subs (and this cuts both ways). Subs currently will take on a TF solely made up of PCs, PGs and/or DDs. In RL that didn't happen. Not only were they afraid of being sunk, but why waste a torpedo on a PC/PG when better targets would likely show up. Moreover, the chances of hitting a skinny, swift DD as opposed to a big fat AO/TK/AP or AK are not favorable. As it stands now, to defeat subs, you should first send one big TF made up of low value ships through the dangerous waters, because the subs will expend their preciuous ammo on them, and the send the rest through en masse, because as far as I can tell, each sub will only attack one ship.

[Point Luck]

Yes Yes

Very well said

Thank You

The only thing I would add would be

"That's why there's an Editor" For those that want player balance not historical reenactments

[denisonh]

Originally posted by Mogami
Hi, UV and History. First everyone should know by now that I am a big supporter of UV. I'm a tester for both UV and WITP. This is not a criticism of the game but an attempt to reconcile History with what occurs (and will occur in any war-game) in UV.

Foresight: To begin with. Both sides in a war-game are aware of what the enemy intends and where he intends to commit forces. We can study the game map and see base values. We know the history and we are much more likely to risk our forces then any but the most fool hardy historical leader. (How many of us will turn an invasion force around because they were spotted by enemy aircraft/submarine?)

Victory Conditions: They are defined and subjective. We go for certain bases because they are worth more points. (While I understand the reasoning for assigning those points I sometimes think that points should be given based on how much value the enemy places on an objective rather then making them place forces on a base because it is worth more. Certainly the bases given higher value in UV are the ones that will produce the greater strategic benefit if the enemy conforms to the historic pattern, but suppose they don't? With in the confines of UV there is less room to deviate from history then will be possible in WITP. (How much value should the South Pacific bases have if the Japanese refuse to commit their forces here?) What if Kaveing is the forward most Japanese base? OK like always I'm wandering off topic.
The point is since both players have well defined and known beforehand victory conditions the fight for possession of these is more intense then in the actual event.

Where the USN with 6 submarines in May 1942 would have them dispersed and hope to encounter the enemy with 1 or 2 in UV the player knows to keep them ready for use at PM when the invasion appears rounding Gili. (Had the USN possessed such certain knowledge they WOULD HAVE DONE THE SAME!) It irks me sometimes when players suggest the that one side or the other would not have sent every available sub to a location where 60-70 enemy transports were known to be presently unloading. The problem they had was not knowing to save them until July, in bases close enough to move to PM when the time came.

Reenactment or Alternate outcome?: Strictly speaking if you begin by using historical conditions and forces you should arrive at historical outcomes. But since both parties know the strengths and weaknesses of both the enemy and their own positions. And are aware of the historical errors History is eliminated as a likely result. (Which makes players happy as they are not saddled with impossible goals if they choose to be the Historical loser) The only way to achieve true play balance in a game would be to design a game where both sides had the exact same material in the exact same amounts. (But then it would not be a "Historical" game.)

No matter which side you are controlling in UV (or WITP) you will never be faced with the historical condition past the first few turns. The enemy will avoid making the same mistakes as the actual contestants. However players will invent new ones enough for the person able to recognize them as errors to exploit. This is the best any game can offer. Don't worry about you opponent not employing his forces the way they actually were. You are under no constraint to do so your self. It really can not be done any other way.

It's just a game

Well said.

Nonetheless, I still believe there should be a "wolfpack penalty", as those kind of operations required a great deal of practice, experience and coordination, something neither side had in this particular time in the war.

And as I generally use my submarines historically (never place more than 2 in the same hex), I do not experience excessive kills nor do I experience excessive losses either.

[Drongo]

Posted by the elder statesman

It's just a game

Sacreligious bastard!!!!!!!!!!

No matter which side you are controlling in UV (or WITP) you will never be faced with the historical condition past the first few turns. The enemy will avoid making the same mistakes as the actual contestants. However players will invent new ones enough for the person able to recognize them as errors to exploit. This is the best any game can offer. Don't worry about you opponent not employing his forces the way they actually were. You are under no constraint to do so your self. It really can not be done any other way.

There is no doubt a player in UV will benefit from a lot of info that the original combatants were never privy to, especially in the early stages of a scenario where each player knows the others starting forces. I assume most players, knowing this, don't expect that UV's gameplay would still follow an historical path (obviously, someone forgot to tell the poor old AI). The allies know what's coming, the Japs know what they'll encounter and both sides plan accordingly.

If that foresight means that the allied player "unhistorically" swamps Rabaul or PM with a wolf pack of ravenous subs to chew up the expected invasion TFs, so be it. The problem as I see it is not the use of the "wolf pack" tactic as much as it's effectiveness under the current version of UV.

The question is simply this : If the allies historically knew what was coming in May '42 and then pre-ordered all their available subs to converge on the location of the expected enemy invasion force (whatever), what would have been the result? Would they have got results anything like you currently get in UV?

By it's very nature of being an historical based wargame, UV's combat/platform/weapon routines should still be capable of returning "realistic" results for any given tactics that the players can come up with (ie what would have happened if they'd actually tried it in reality).

I don't think that the current ASW situation being discussed is simply a result of players being free to try approaches and tactics that differed from those being done at the time (historically). If that really was the case then why hasn't "wolf packing" had such an impact on play previously. Players have always been able to do it. As far as I can tell, it's all come from a change done in the 2.2 patch (as mentioned by cappy) which has possibly given the allied player a submarine effectiveness that, regardless of how they were employed, was never possible historically (in '42 at least).

[Nikademus]

Originally posted by Drongo
Posted by the elder statesman



The question is simply this : If the allies historically knew what was coming in May '42 and then pre-ordered all their available subs to converge on the location of the expected enemy invasion force (whatever), what would have been the result? Would they have got results anything like you currently get in UV?

By it's very nature of being an historical based wargame, UV's combat/platform/weapon routines should still be capable of returning "realistic" results for any given tactics that the players can come up with (ie what would have happened if they'd actually tried it in reality).

I don't think that the current ASW situation being discussed is simply a result of players being free to try approaches and tactics that differed from those being done at the time (historically). If that really was the case then why hasn't "wolf packing" had such an impact on play previously. Players have always been able to do it. As far as I can tell, it's all come from a change done in the 2.2 patch (as mentioned by cappy) which has possibly given the allied player a submarine effectiveness that, regardless of how they were employed, was never possible historically (in '42 at least).

You hit the nail on the head Drongo old boy. Simply put, there was a reason why the USN did not simply order all it's subs to close blockade harbors even with their advanced knowledge via crypto.

It was dangerous. Shallow water hexes limit a sub's maneuver room thus making escape a far more trickier proposition. Add base hexes to the mix and the danger zone inches further up into the red as a base hex will also substantially increase the likelihood that airplanes and patrol craft will be around thus further compromising not only a sub's ability to evade detection and destruction, but also to set up an attack as well.

IJN ASW was bad, but several key reasons why it was bad was because the japanese tended to set their depth charges for too shallow a depth (not an issue in a shallow water hex), doctorine (the Japanese tended to be more concerned with holding a sub down while valuable ships (especially warships) sped out of the area vs the later "hunt to exhaustion" as the Allies eventually did in the Atlantic), and most importantly, lack of follow-through when a sub was detected.

All 3 factors mentioned would be largely negated in a shallow water base hex......and the more subs stacked there the more the Japanese would simply not be able to ignore or treat lightly such a threat. Thus Japanese ASW would be bound to preform better under such circumstances, more so against old S boats which would not be able to withstand much in the way of punishment given their age and operational condition.

Same of course is true for the IJN Subs as well.....sitting in a shallow water hex, or worse, base shallow water hex is hazardous to any sub's health.

[garykempen]

Regarding the survey, it seems to me US "s"-subs are way out of balance:

- S-boats' torps seem way too effective from my perspective as a US player. I've read in books about how a spread of 3-4 torps would be fired, and the sonar operator would hear two THUDs but no explosions. The fuses on early subs were very bad, and some skippers found their odds of setting off the fuse went up dramatically if they hit their target at a 45deg. angle - up to almost a 50% chance of actually exploding!!! The fuse issue was resolved by '43 I believe. In the meantime, some subs had torps with detonation wires dangling behind them back to the sub, but I don't know how they worked.

- I also like the comment about having random major sys damage breakdowns (25-points?) with the S-boats. Seems much more historical of the early subs.

- While not an expert on ASW, I think I agree with the Jap ASW reduction at sea. However, I have a hard time believing that a sub could poke around a Jap port for several days, making successful attacks on loading transports each day, while a few destroyers and 30 planes from that base were on 100% ASW patrol with no results to speak of. I agree that a 30 mile wide hex may allow a sub to attack ships going in & out of port without being in the red zone, but an attack on a transport loading/unloading at port (not "docked") was probably, by my guess, easy retaliation even with the weak Jap ASW. After all, the harbor masters probably knew all the underwater hideouts & features at that port! How to fix? Maybe an extra distinction between at-sea, in-harbor, and docked/dry-docked or something of that order? Major software overhaul, but c'mon! My US S-subs are not hurting, but rather -ELIMINATING- the Jap merchant marine before the Marines even show in August!!! I could move my at-start forces most of the way to Rabaul!

[CapAndGown]

Originally posted by garykempen
Regarding the survey, it seems to me US "s"-subs are way out of balance:

- S-boats' torps seem way too effective from my perspective as a US player. I've read in books about how a spread of 3-4 torps would be fired, and the sonar operator would hear two THUDs but no explosions. The fuses on early subs were very bad, and some skippers found their odds of setting off the fuse went up dramatically if they hit their target at a 45deg. angle - up to almost a 50% chance of actually exploding!!! The fuse issue was resolved by '43 I believe. In the meantime, some subs had torps with detonation wires dangling behind them back to the sub, but I don't know how they worked.

S-boats used a different type of torp than the big fleet boats. Their torp did no suffer the same dud ratio as the fleet boats.

This is reflected in UV. You will notice that fleet boats tend to "miss" quite a bit. This will change when the game moves into 43 as the problems with their torps are fixed.

[denisonh]

S-Boats main reasons for not being overly effective were maintenance problems, tenative skippers, and tactical employment/doctrinal issues, not their torpedoes.

[Admiral DadMan]

To sum it all up-

USN Subs:
S-Boats should have a smaller chance of making contact (depandant upon the C.O.'s Skill and Aggressiveness ratings), a smaller chance of making an attack, but when they pass all those checks and by some miracle manage to launch their Mk X torpeodes, the Mk X torpeodes should have a higher chance of exploding than the Fleet Boats' Mk XIV

Fleet Boats by contrast should have a greater chance of contact (depandant upon the C.O.'s Skill and Aggressiveness ratings), a higher chance of making an attack, but a smaller chance of scoring based on the Mk XIV's defects, (i.e. magnetic exploder, deep running, and contact exploder).

Escort/Sub Commanders:
How much are their ratings factoring into whether or not they're making contact and prosecuting attacks? Would you want an aggressive sub C.O. driving his aging s-boat into Rabaul Harbor where he's likely to get pummelled? Or on the other hand, have a cautious Fleet Boat C.O. hide out in the middle of the Coral Sea flying kites off his periscope?

IJN ASW:
When we think of ASW, we think in terms of kills, but what was IJN ASW doctrine? I've read that it was more sub suppression than kills, and if so, is that modelled in UV? Is terrain being effecively modelled (deep water vs. shallow/costal)?

[Admiral DadMan]

I hope that in WitP, we get to relieve Ship, Air Group, and Division/Rgt Commanders at our discretion. I'm really becoming frustrated with underperforming units that I can't change C.O.s without trying to get them killed. The AI really sucks picking C.O.s

A Theater Commander d@mn well had the pull to get someone relieved if he so felt.

[elcid]

The submarine model is too simple. Players are basically given zero tactical options. This makes submarines much more vulnerable and much less useful.

How, for example, can you use a sub for recon in UV??? If out of weapons, it goes home. If it has weapons, it attacks. You cannot use a sub to learn what is in enemy territory, yet that is a very valuable mission.

How, for example, can you force subs to ignore merchant ships (which the Japanese did in several of the five phases of their submarine campaign)? And how, for both sides, can you force a sub not to shoot at a mere boat, like a barge??? Neither side would do that, as it was not worth the risk of a hole in the hull, nor the cost of a torpedo. It would be better to ban such attacks than to allow them, but if the designers wish to allow them, they should not force us to do it all the time.

How, for example, can you stipulate surface patrol or submerged patrol on station? If surfaced, your chance of detecting an enemy ship in clear daylight weather is at least 25% for a small target and on the order of 99% for a big one. But if submerged, your chance of detecting is reduced by a factor of 4. On the other hand, if surfaced you are much more likely to be hit by an air attack and you can be engaged by enemy guns or even torpedoes. Indeed, submarine torpedoes are very deadly to enemy submarines!!! [One I boat sank two Russian subs in a single salvo near the US West Coast]. So the player must choose greater chance of detection or greater chance of survival???

The chance of a hit in a submarine attack is not purely a function of the number of torpedoes fired. The tactical speed of a sub matters. This means many Japanese submarines are basically harder to get into position, and less likely to do so.

The chance of an ASW attack detecting the sub, or the sub evading the attack, is related to the size of the target submarine. Thus big subs (Argunaut, I boats) are more easily hit than Ro boats and S boats.

Japanese ASW doctrine and weapons ARE terrible, especially early in the war. DCs have no deep setting. There is no proper doctrine to sit on the sub for two days to insure it dies. But eventually the Japanese get quite good at it. They went after Wahoo, one of our most aggressive (and dishonorable) submarines (doing things that, when the Japanese did them, we call "inhuman" - and getting a medal for doing it). The Japanese put an air sea team on the problem for days, and they got her. The game allows no such organization. There is no ASW HQ at all. But EFFECTIVE ASW requires air units, naval units, radio intercept assets and HQ units to work.

Another factor is sheer organization. Convoys work. But UV only partially represents why. A convoy is dreadfully more likely to be detectred than a single ship - does UV account for that? And the ratio of escorts to ships escorted matters a great deal - but UV has no penalty for ignoring this.

[Admiral DadMan]

elcid,

I was going to make a considerable reply to your post, when it dawned on me that you may be missing the point of subs in UV.

UV is not a tactical game. You are confusing it with a sub simulator. In WWII, a sub was given general patrol orders and then given free reign to operate as seen fit.

As to returning home after expending torps, that was a function added at player request, becuase subs were often staying on station w/out torps or at bingo fuel.

The chance of an ASW attack detecting the sub, or the sub evading the attack, is related to the size of the target submarine. Thus big subs (Argunaut, I boats) are more easily hit than Ro boats and S boats.

And how QUIET it is. S-boats had a higher d/l than fleet boats (on the order of Argonaut) due to this. You also need to account for the skill and experience of both the ASW units and the sub.

A convoy is dreadfully more likely to be detectred than a single ship - does UV account for that?

Yes. Try sending a large convoy to PM during a turn

[Attack Condor]

originally posted by Drex:

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

I have no probs with stacking subs in port hexes -

*reduces the distance my ASW neds to sail for its targets
*shallow water reduces the effectiveness of subs
*damaged targets don't have to "sail" to drydock...they're already there.

As far as playing either side, I enjoy finding out how well I can do with the IJN, if not winning, then seeing how close I can come while working with the limitations at hand.

[mogami]

Have to save this one for the scrap book to pull out whenever someone complains about their sub attacking on the surface. [/B][/QUOTE]

Hi. It was not even a destroyer
IJNS Ishigaki, a Shimushu class escort

[elcid]

I think I am misunderstood. I do know we are theater commanders, not tactical ones. But I want to be able to control the mission tactics in the most general sense. It is too dangerous to send a sub in some waters in some circumstances and have it patrol on the surface. It is also a waste of time to send it a long way to waste torpedoes on barges or even on sub chasers! That is not what I sent it there to do. Not to mention that shallow draft craft are much harder to hit with a torpedo than UV has happening. One designer said that subs should NOT attack boats, but several "fixes" still have not prevented it. Then there is the problem that I cannot use a sub to go take a look, when nothing else can get there. Why not??? That is a strategic mission HQ should be able to order, and it is something subs do very well, even today.

As for noise ratings and skill ratings being factors, by all means put them in your sub attack and anti sub models. Fine by me.

[Admiral DadMan]

Originally posted by elcid
I think I am misunderstood. I do know we are theater commanders, not tactical ones. But I want to be able to control the mission tactics in the most general sense.

You've just contradicted yourself.

It is too dangerous to send a sub in some waters in some circumstances and have it patrol on the surface. It is also a waste of time to send it a long way to waste torpedoes on barges or even on sub chasers!

I haven't seen a torpedo attack on a barge since they changed that in a patch some time back. As a matter of fact, I watched one battle where a sub battle-surfaced on a barge TF and got creamed by a DD that was guarding it (I'm so naughty)

That is not what I sent it there to do. Not to mention that shallow draft craft are much harder to hit with a torpedo than UV has happening.

S/C's are not fast like PT boats.

Then there is the problem that I cannot use a sub to go take a look, when nothing else can get there. Why not??? That is a strategic mission HQ should be able to order, and it is something subs do very well, even today.

What kind of intel should a sub be able to gather? What do you expect a sub to be able to see via periscope. The rythym of sub ops was down by day, up at night for fresh air, charge batteries, suntanning, etc.

[Attack Condor]

Admiral Dadman.. shhhhhhhhh - this too will pass

[Drex]

I have had barges fight it out with subs and win so keep your subs away from barges(they aren't worth points anyhow). As for recon, didn't the Japanese send out a sub screen at Midway? I think subs were used for recon and attack operations simultaneously. there must have been situations where attack would have been suicidal but the info on TF movement was even more important.