ASW question

[Ormbane]

If I ask the task force manager to create an ASW TF it chooses 4 ships. Is this any more effective than merely creating a TF of a single ship (assuming all ships have the same ASW rating)?

Now the off topic part: have been taking a hiatus from the game for some time but on a recent vacation I visited the Codetalkers museum in Tuba City and the Codetalkers memorial in Window Rock and much of my vacation time after that was spent recalling how much I enjoyed this game and how I wanted to start a new one (against the AI, noobie that I am).

[btd64]

1. I always select my own ships. Better control in keeping same speed and or endurance. These numbers are more important to me than the weapons number.
2. It is much easier to pin down a sub with more rather than 1....GP

[rustysi]

The rule of thumb in the game is three vessels for an ASW TF, and yes take the time to pick your own.

[Grfin Zeppelin]

Yes use three if you can. Two are adequate tho if you are stretched. Four is either overkill or as some say contra productive.

[rustysi]

Four is either overkill or as some say contra productive.

Yep, like the 'law of diminishing returns' in economics.[:D]

[geofflambert]

ORIGINAL: rustysi

Four is either overkill or as some say contra productive.

Yep, like the 'law of diminishing returns' in economics.[:D]

Iran-Contra comes to mind. A single ASW capable ship is way better than none, and two is better than one...

But, you know, if I'm trying to protect a CV TF I use 6 to 8 or even more. Let's get some comments about that as well.

[HansBolter]

One of the Devs, Symon IIRC, once stated that three is optimum and the fourth provides diminishing returns.

[IdahoNYer]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

One of the Devs, Symon IIRC, once stated that three is optimum and the fourth provides diminishing returns.

That is my understanding as well, but I seldom see more than one ship prosecute an ASW attack on an individual sub.

I've learned the hard way never to send a single ship ASW TF out - when it runs out of depth charges, its just a target! Two work pretty well - and I guess 3 provides just that much more redundancy? Or does the extra ships in the ASW TF enhance an attack on a sub?

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

One of the Devs, Symon IIRC, once stated that three is optimum and the fourth provides diminishing returns.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
There is a recent thread (in the last month or so) on ASW where Symon/JWE says the algorithm is optimal at three ASW ships in the TF, not four. I believe I'm remembering that correctly. Don't know why that would be, but he's seen the code. In RL I could see why, especially in low visibility. Three would allow a good "round-robin" with one dropping and two listening. But I don't know how that would be modeled in the game's odds. I have been experimenting myself though.

Without opening the overcoat, there’s a lot of info out there that suggests why this may be so. The code is rather primitive and doesn’t work in double precision. In broad, each algorithm follows a rather simple statistical profile. In fine, certain of the algorithms are related through passed variables.

It’s pretty fundamental that the more shots you get (the more selections you get from Shewharts bowl) the greater the probability you will pull the prize. That was the fundamental problem with the Japanese E types. They had enough aggregated “shots” to ensure a 92% hit rate.

Same thing is true for ASW ships in a TF. Put in lots and you get guaranteed kills. Not goodnik.

So michaelm did the same “diminishing returns” thing for ASW that he did for Arty oh, so long ago. It was in the term-decreasing DLs for the next subsequent ship. Don’t really care what the IRL model would be, it is what it is and seems to work.

So, given diminishing returns, one can figure out where the high points are and get a rough estimate of sigma. 3 ships work well within the mean. Doesn’t mean 4 are bad, they are ok, just not significantly better. 5 is at the end of the distribution but a really good die roll might let it play.

Do you understand what I’m saying?

Ciao. JWE

tm.asp?m=3447116&mpage=1&key=three+AND+ships&#3447116
_____________________________

[geofflambert]

Back to the CV TF. More flak anyway. I don't know if this is built in (probably not I suppose) but more DDs equal more depth charges.

[AW1Steve]

I've always wondered ....you have 10 highly rated DD's in a surface warfare group. Does that mean it won't hunt subs?

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

I've always wondered ....you have 10 highly rated DD's in a surface warfare group. Does that mean it won't hunt subs?

I have no proof but my experience has been that the SCTF DDs have a lower chance of detecting a sub than an equal number and type of ASW TF DDs. The code may give them a lower probability of detecting it because they are not pinging in normal ASW search patterns or travelling at the right speed for sonar effectiveness. So there is still a chance that they will detect and attack the sub.

[guytipton41]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

I've always wondered ....you have 10 highly rated DD's in a surface warfare group. Does that mean it won't hunt subs?

Hi Folks,

My experience is that 10 Fletchers in a SCTF under the command of ole "31-Knot" running over a sub usually results in one dead sub. I was amazed at how well it worked.

Cheers,
Guy

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: guytipton41

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

I've always wondered ....you have 10 highly rated DD's in a surface warfare group. Does that mean it won't hunt subs?

Hi Folks,

My experience is that 10 Fletchers in a SCTF under the command of ole "31-Knot" running over a sub usually results in one dead sub. I was amazed at how well it worked.

Cheers,
Guy

My experience has also been this....but the sub always shot 1st.