Sub patrol question

[IdahoNYer]

Been a while since I played AE, and my memory is fading.....

What is the advantage or disadvantage to loitering in a hex when setting a patrol area?

[Terminus]

More chance of detecting stuff on subsequent days, higher risk of being detected and attacked.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: IdahoNYer

Been a while since I played AE, and my memory is fading.....

What is the advantage or disadvantage to loitering in a hex when setting a patrol area?

Advantage: you stay in the hex with more chance of a target coming in range.

Disadvantages:

1. If DL increases it will stay increased most likely. Thus much more chance of an attack, and success by the enemy. Also, with a high DL the enemy can route around you.

2. You aren't covering the rest of the patrol zone.

[Lokasenna]

Advantage: if you've placed this node of your patrol zone out of search range from your target, and you loiter 1 day, it will help drop your sub's DL, meaning it will live longer.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

Advantage: if you've placed this node of your patrol zone out of search range from your target, and you loiter 1 day, it will help drop your sub's DL, meaning it will live longer.

True. I had only considered loitering where the getting is good.

[IdahoNYer]

Thanks guys, appreciate the feedback. I usually keep the subs moving in the patrol zones until they find something, then modify. I seldom have them loiter in a hex.

[jmalter]

i always set the patrol zone hexes to 'remain 1 day' - this greatly reduces the amount of normal damage they accrue, & greatly increases the amount of time they can spend at sea.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: jmalter

i always set the patrol zone hexes to 'remain 1 day' - this greatly reduces the amount of normal damage they accrue, & greatly increases the amount of time they can spend at sea.

Are you sure? I don't think the code assumes no fuel is used unless a hexside is crossed. If you're at Cruise speed and loitering you're still moving in the hex. Same with damage. I assume you mean system mostly. I believe it's a function of number of phases plus randoms, not movement. FWIW, true in the real world too. Subs break standing still at the pier sometimes. Amazing what sailors can do when they set their minds to it.

If my assumptions are wrong somebody chime in.

[moore4807]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: jmalter

i always set the patrol zone hexes to 'remain 1 day' - this greatly reduces the amount of normal damage they accrue, & greatly increases the amount of time they can spend at sea.

Are you sure? I don't think the code assumes no fuel is used unless a hexside is crossed. If you're at Cruise speed and loitering you're still moving in the hex. Same with damage. I assume you mean system mostly. I believe it's a function of number of phases plus randoms, not movement. FWIW, true in the real world too. Subs break standing still at the pier sometimes. Amazing what sailors can do when they set their minds to it.

If my assumptions are wrong somebody chime in.

[:D][:D][:D] And I thought it was the blank slack-jawed expression right before the chief of the boat turned into the purple people eater, that the sailors had perfected...[:D][:D][:D]

[the1henson]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
FWIW, true in the real world too. Subs break standing still at the pier sometimes. Amazing what sailors can do when they set their minds to it.

You're not kidding. Though, to be sure, a part of it is the Navy's ethos of preventive maintenance (aka "Fix it til it breaks" [:D])

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Henson

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
FWIW, true in the real world too. Subs break standing still at the pier sometimes. Amazing what sailors can do when they set their minds to it.

You're not kidding. Though, to be sure, a part of it is the Navy's ethos of preventive maintenance (aka "Fix it til it breaks" [:D])

Depends on the gear. Some things I was VERY happy they did PMs on.

[jmalter]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: jmalter

i always set the patrol zone hexes to 'remain 1 day' - this greatly reduces the amount of normal damage they accrue, & greatly increases the amount of time they can spend at sea.

Are you sure? I don't think the code assumes no fuel is used unless a hexside is crossed. If you're at Cruise speed and loitering you're still moving in the hex. Same with damage. I assume you mean system mostly. I believe it's a function of number of phases plus randoms, not movement. FWIW, true in the real world too. Subs break standing still at the pier sometimes. Amazing what sailors can do when they set their minds to it.

If my assumptions are wrong somebody chime in.

hi Moose,

say a sub's PZ is 3 hexes in a triangle, w/ each point 2 hexes distant from the others. If remain = 0 days, a typical USN fleet boat will travel at least 8 hexes each turn. If remain = 1 day, it'll travel only 2 hexes each turn.

So the 1-day boat is using only 25% of the fuel, & accruing ~25% of the random sys-damage, compared to the 0-day boat. They can patrol for 3-4 months before they auto-rtb for refueling, & they never run out of fresh eggs.

But I'd want to deploy 3 single-boat TFs to that 3-hex PZ, set to have 1 boat in each of the 3 hexes. I also think it's important that the subs move a bit, to increase their ability to look for targets. I didn't get good results setting subTFs to single-hex remain-on-station orders.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: jmalter

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: jmalter

i always set the patrol zone hexes to 'remain 1 day' - this greatly reduces the amount of normal damage they accrue, & greatly increases the amount of time they can spend at sea.

Are you sure? I don't think the code assumes no fuel is used unless a hexside is crossed. If you're at Cruise speed and loitering you're still moving in the hex. Same with damage. I assume you mean system mostly. I believe it's a function of number of phases plus randoms, not movement. FWIW, true in the real world too. Subs break standing still at the pier sometimes. Amazing what sailors can do when they set their minds to it.

If my assumptions are wrong somebody chime in.

hi Moose,

say a sub's PZ is 3 hexes in a triangle, w/ each point 2 hexes distant from the others. If remain = 0 days, a typical USN fleet boat will travel at least 8 hexes each turn. If remain = 1 day, it'll travel only 2 hexes each turn.

So the 1-day boat is using only 25% of the fuel, & accruing ~25% of the random sys-damage, compared to the 0-day boat. They can patrol for 3-4 months before they auto-rtb for refueling, & they never run out of fresh eggs.

But I'd want to deploy 3 single-boat TFs to that 3-hex PZ, set to have 1 boat in each of the 3 hexes. I also think it's important that the subs move a bit, to increase their ability to look for targets. I didn't get good results setting subTFs to single-hex remain-on-station orders.

The above isn't quite correct. I went and researched this in the manual; it was in sections I rarely have looked at.

Fuel: you are correct that more fuel is used when changing hexes on whatever loiter schedule is used. But staying put in a hex still uses fuel as per 6.2.13:

"Whenever a ship moves in a TF, it draws on its Endurance, which in turn subtracts from the
amount of fuel carried. Fuel is expended when:

--Each ship in a TF that is not docked also expends a small amount
of Endurance every turn equal to 40 times the ship’s cruising
speed in hexes (i.e. it is assumed they are constantly moving at
cruising speed even if they aren’t moving to other hexes)."

In that sense loitering isn't "free". It's cheaper most likely though. In exchange you give up the chance to add to the odds of meeting a target. IT has to come to you IOW.

As for damage, changing hexes isn't a factor. Among the other ways system damage can accrue, there is this:

"6.5.1 OPERATIONAL DAMAGE AND REPAIRS AT SEA
Whenever a ship is at sea (not docked), it has a chance of suffering system damage due to
wear and tear on the ship. This damage can occur as the TF enters each new hex or remains
on patrol in a hex, and will immediately affect the TF’s speed for the rest of the turn."

IOW, staying put still provides a chance for things to break, a completely real possibility I might add.

There are very complex studies, some classified, in the ASW world where people with highly developed operations research backgrounds have modeled whether it is better to hunt for a target or to sit and wait for one to happen by. It's probability and modeling far above my abilities. Consider a fixed size field with X nodes and two objects in it, each able to move Y distance per cycle. Y need not be the same number, and in ASW won't be. In each cycle both objects can move in 360 different directions, but in a non-random manner as prior and present sensor data influences the choice. Of course, the sub can move in three dimensions as well. Then you throw in the real world factors of weather, geography (there may be reefs or islands), crew training, equipment maintenance, sensor accuracy, human error, etc. These are very complex models. The game doesn't try to match them. But it's not an open and shut question IMO that loitering is always, or ever, the best move. It might be. It might not be. Bu I don't think that letting fuel economy or random system damage control the decision is always wise.

[krupp_88mm]

I just ran a quick test with three S-18 electroboats.

I set all three on a triangular patrol with only 2 spaces between way points(3 hex travel distance). Starting with 3992 fuel. And set each one with 0, 1 and 2 day loiter times at each way point respectively.

Setting all three to mission speed and running for 14 days.

Sub with 0 day loiter:
1909 fuel

Sub with 1 day loiter:
3182 fuel

Sub with 2 day loiter:
3413 fuel

Then I ran the same test with cruise speed instead of mission

Setting all three to cruise speed and running for 14 days.

Sub with 0 day loiter:
1909 fuel (the same as mission)

Sub with 1 day loiter:
3066 fuel

Sub with 2 day loiter:
3355 fuel

Then I left three subs parked on one hex without patrolling setting one to cruise and one to mission and one to full speed for 14 days


Sub cruise:
3992 fuel

Sub mission:
3992 fuel

Sub full:
2487 fuel

In all the tests none of the subs suffered any damage except for the loitering sub on mission speed on the non patrol test (the full speed sub suffered no damage in same test)


So what I have concluded?

Subs not moving on a setting other than full speed do not use fuel.

There appears marginal difference between cruise and mission speed (cruise speed burns more fuel than mission speed???)

In small patrol zones one day loiter provided a large boost in reducing fuel consumption. A one day loiter sub appears to burn less than 1/2 fuel as a non loiter sub and as such could remain on station twice as long. (This advantage will probably deteriorate the larger it's patrol zone is. Setting 2 day loiter also provided an advantage but not as large as the one day loiter from 0. (The advantage between 2 day loiter and one day loiter should widen as a more medium sized patrol zone is established and then decline again in an enormous patrol zone.

[krupp_88mm]

oops double post

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: krupp_88mm

I just ran a quick test with three S-18 electroboats.

I set all three on a triangular patrol with only 2 spaces between way points(3 hex travel distance). Starting with 3992 fuel. And set each one with 0, 1 and 2 day loiter times at each way point respectively.

Setting all three to mission speed and running for 14 days.

Sub with 0 day loiter:
1909 fuel

Sub with 1 day loiter:
3182 fuel

Sub with 2 day loiter:
3413 fuel

Then I ran the same test with cruise speed instead of mission

Setting all three to cruise speed and running for 14 days.

Sub with 0 day loiter:
1909 fuel (the same as mission)

Sub with 1 day loiter:
3066 fuel

Sub with 2 day loiter:
3355 fuel

Then I left three subs parked on one hex without patrolling setting one to cruise and one to mission and one to full speed for 14 days


Sub cruise:
3992 fuel

Sub mission:
3992 fuel

Sub full:
2487 fuel

In all the tests none of the subs suffered any damage except for the loitering sub on mission speed on the non patrol test (the full speed sub suffered no damage in same test)


So what I have concluded?

Subs not moving on a setting other than full speed do not use fuel.

This is not shown by your data. If it were all subs in the first test would have finished with 3992 fuel. In fact this data shows exactly what is described in the manual. Ships away from the pier all use fuel every turn. Those that cross hexsides use more than those that loiter. Those that run at Full use more than those that run at Mission or Cruise. Mission speed in the game overall IS Cruise speed, except a Mission setting allows increased speed in tactical situations such as attack or evasion.

Damage accrued is a function of time and random rolls. If you had run more than 14 days you would have seen some system damage on all boats most likely. A fleet boat on a max-range patrol, in my experience, accrues between 6 and 10 points of system damage while on station up to max fuel endurance. But it's possible to have 2, or even 0 I suppose. I've never seen 0.

The data do show that leaving a loitering sub on Full is a pretty dumb move. There is no advantage to it as combat is not initiated or executed on intra-hex distances.

There appears marginal difference between cruise and mission speed (cruise speed burns more fuel than mission speed???)

That one difference is, I suspect, a rounding error in the code.

In small patrol zones one day loiter provided a large boost in reducing fuel consumption. A one day loiter sub appears to burn less than 1/2 fuel as a non loiter sub and as such could remain on station twice as long. (This advantage will probably deteriorate the larger it's patrol zone is. Setting 2 day loiter also provided an advantage but not as large as the one day loiter from 0. (The advantage between 2 day loiter and one day loiter should widen as a more medium sized patrol zone is established and then decline again in an enormous patrol zone.

Your conclusion is true on its face, but like many things in the game it's not the whole story. Sub warfare is rarely discussed here as it's much more hidden and less sexy that air combat. But it has its own set of complexities. A loiter might be useful. It might also result in encountering far fewer targets. Is it better to tie up a non-producing asset longer by using loiter? Maybe not. What makes it non-producing? Many, many factors, only some in control of the sub-owner. By loitering you earn more time on station, but you also reduce the chances of running into a target. By moving you get additive probabilities of the two ships being in the same hex at the same time. This has to be weighted against the probability that you just left the hex the target itself is moving into though. And you don't have data on either one either prior or during the turn unless you have other search assets looking at the just-left hex.

For me the issue with loiter usually comes down to one big question--what is the transit time to the zone? That's the real investment. Time. If the zone is in the Sea of Japan and it's early, so my boats are based at Pearl, I'm more likely to use loiter to max time with weapons in zone. But a zone in the Marshalls probably doesn't get any loiter. I value the combined probabilities of encounter more than the transit time costs. (For the Allies the fuel itself is a non-factor 99.9% of the time. Fuel is plentiful in submarine quantities.)

As you say, a zone larger than three hexes complicates things a great deal. Add in choke point geography and they escalate again. You may want to loiter in the "cool off" hex but move between the two points of the "hunting zone." And other combinations.

When I see a checkerboard of unmoving subs in AAR screenshots I cringe. The sub war in AE isn't historic due mostly to DL mechanics, but it is complex if you really address it. PBEM players who say it's not worth the time to run are missing out.

[krupp_88mm]

Your conclusion is true on its face

whoa, ok, i don;t about all this, I'm not challenging your world view I'm just reporting what happens with the game mechanics.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: krupp_88mm

Your conclusion is true on its face

whoa, ok, i don;t about all this, I'm not challenging your world view I'm just reporting what happens with the game mechanics.

Sorry. That introductory phrase is not intended to be a challenge. Your data showed that the manual correctly describes fuel consumption behavior. But I contend that the decision to loiter or not is more complex than a simple fuel consumption question.