ASW rating?

[spence]

So far nobody has posted an image/diagram of the IJN's 3" ASW mortar. This was apparently an ahead thrown weapon but as far as I can determine was essentially a single barrelled weapon. It is not too hard to image that this weapons system was not all that effective which appears to be reflected in the game.

Such research as I have done indicates that the Hedgehog ASW weapons system killed about 10 times as many submarines as were killed by depth charges. Either statistics support the 3" ASW mortar as having an effectiveness of 2.5 times that of a depth charge or not. If so since this weapon existed from day one of the war why did the IJN sink only about 40 Allied subs throughout the war whereas the USN sank 120 or so IJN subs?

[Alfred]

I attach a link to the best single thread commentary from JWE/Symon on how the engine treats naval ASW.
 
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2849954&mpage=1&key=asw&#2849954
 
In detailing what was done in DaBabes re the ASW devices themselves there is a post which to a limited extent lifts the lid on what the ASW combat algorithms take into account.  It is very clear that the ASW rating displayed on a ship has no impact.  Note how often crew experience is factored into the combat algorithms.
 
Alfred
 
 

[US87891]

ORIGINAL: spence

So far nobody has posted an image/diagram of the IJN's 3" ASW mortar. This was apparently an ahead thrown weapon but as far as I can determine was essentially a single barrelled weapon. It is not too hard to image that this weapons system was not all that effective which appears to be reflected in the game.

Such research as I have done indicates that the Hedgehog ASW weapons system killed about 10 times as many submarines as were killed by depth charges. Either statistics support the 3" ASW mortar as having an effectiveness of 2.5 times that of a depth charge or not. If so since this weapon existed from day one of the war why did the IJN sink only about 40 Allied subs throughout the war whereas the USN sank 120 or so IJN subs?

Spence, according to John, the 3" ASW mortar was simply an infantry mortar on a stabilized base. It fired standard anti-personnel fragmentation bombs. Its purpose was to engage (suppress/kill) the crew of a submarine's deck gun, when the sub was in a surface attack profile. This task is difficult for flat trajectory weapons, especially those using ap or sap penetrator rounds. The mortar kept the sub's guns from firing back while the prosecutor's guns were putting holes in the sub's hull. He didn't send a picture, but I'm sure that if he has one, he will send it along. Hope this helps.

Matt

[Korvar]

ORIGINAL: US87891

[...] the 3" ASW mortar was simply an infantry mortar on a stabilized base. It fired standard anti-personnel fragmentation bombs. Its purpose was to engage (suppress/kill) the crew of a submarine's deck gun, when the sub was in a surface attack profile. [...]

That perhaps explains why this device is so hard to find - it wasn't truly a naval weapon, so it's not listed in Japanese navy weapon catalogues - similar to how a lot of field modifications don't make it into the official histories.

I searched The Imperial Japanese Navy in the Pacific War and only found reference to the 3" mortar with the SH-type ("Sen-Ho") submarine. These were late-war boats modified to serve the AV role. By the time they entered service, they were useless for this intended role and instead became submarine oil tankers (by original design they could carry 365 tons of AVgas). A lack of availability of the intended 5.5" deck guns meant that either two or four (there are conflicting reports) of the 3" mortars were substituted.

Also see "Sen-Ho" aircraft support submarines (1945).

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: spence

Ahead throwing weapons are generally late war devices, except for a small 3 inch mortar, which is ineffective.

Does anybody have a picture of the Japanese 3" ASW mortar? How many barrels/projectiles in a single salvo?

This is an outstanding question. This is probably the very worst ASW weapon of all. It is a standard ARMY three inch
mortar. It is fired several times on the approach to a datum point (the estimated position of the enemy submarine)-
so the shells land before the attacking vessel can begin to drop depth charges. [End of the list of "advantages" of
this primitive weapon - at least the idea was good.] They don't bother to change the aim point - just fire and let
the forward motion of the ship force shells to land in different points in the water! So the "pattern" is a line
IF the ship is on a constant bearing (which it should be when approaching the datum point). The warhead was HE.
Although Japan developed numbers of ASW rounds for guns, I don't remember a special mortar round. I will check - but
unless I follow up - assume it is just a standard mortar round.

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

I attach a link to the best single thread commentary from JWE/Symon on how the engine treats naval ASW.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2849954&mpage=1&key=asw&#2849954

In detailing what was done in DaBabes re the ASW devices themselves there is a post which to a limited extent lifts the lid on what the ASW combat algorithms take into account.  It is very clear that the ASW rating displayed on a ship has no impact.  Note how often crew experience is factored into the combat algorithms.

Alfred

Thank you for this thread, Alfred...

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Any idea why AE (stock AE) uses asw ratings as high as "8"?

Considering the many advances made during the war, I can understand the multiple ratings.
Being a fan of Clay Blair, I also appreciate the research he made in studying the asw capabilities of both sides during the war.

I notice RHS has the correct depth settings for the early Japanese weapons in particular.

Another fine question. AE uses a theory "weapons = raw power" so they report the total number of ASW weapons
on a ship. They actually assume that each separate thrower (indeed, each ARM of a Y gun!) is like a gun, and
engages an enemy on its bearing! This is not how ASW works. RHS is unique in summing all DC racks and throwers
so you get a pattern (even if it is more than one kind of DC), and each shot is an entire pattern. Most vessels
are reported by AE as ASW = 1. That means they have DC. If AE reports ASW = 2, it means the ship ALSO has a
second weapon - an ahead thrower. In both cases, the values of the attacks can be as small as 1 (nominally 1% pk),
or much higher, depending on several factors. Stock is similar - the value of each weapon varies - but it is
more or less irrational, particularly for DC. You are in effect firing every ASW weapon on any target that
bears - like guns or torpedoes - and not using those on the wrong "side" of the ship at all -
which is not how ASW weapons function.

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Any idea why AE (stock AE) uses asw ratings as high as "8"?

Considering the many advances made during the war, I can understand the multiple ratings.
Being a fan of Clay Blair, I also appreciate the research he made in studying the asw capabilities of both sides during the war.

I notice RHS has the correct depth settings for the early Japanese weapons in particular.

Another fine question. AE uses a theory "weapons = raw power" so they report the total number of ASW weapons
on a ship. They actually assume that each separate thrower (indeed, each ARM of a Y gun!) is like a gun, and
engages an enemy on its bearing! This is not how ASW works. RHS is unique in summing all DC racks and throwers
so you get a pattern (even if it is more than one kind of DC), and each shot is an entire pattern. Most vessels
are reported by AE as ASW = 1. That means they have DC. If AE reports ASW = 2, it means the ship ALSO has a
second weapon - an ahead thrower. In both cases, the values of the attacks can be as small as 1 (nominally 1% pk),
or much higher, depending on several factors. Stock is similar - the value of each weapon varies - but it is
more or less irrational, particularly for DC. You are in effect firing every ASW weapon on any target that
bears - like guns or torpedoes - and not using those on the wrong "side" of the ship at all -
which is not how ASW weapons function.

We might then assume the very abstract equation is due to the scale of the game, and I had been treating each engagement more tactically than strategically...

I certainly have gained some insight with all these responses.

[el cid again]

While it is perfectly true that the AE ASW rating is how many weapons a ship has,
the other queries and comments are perfectly valid to make. People have a right to know
how ASW works in AE.

Basically AE has a universal weapon model. Weapons times effect times rate of fire on bearing
(to oversimplify slightly) is used for everything. But a depth charge rack does not have a "bearing"
and in fact never drops one charge. It may combine with throwers to the sides as well. These make
a combined pattern - from 2 to 14 in most cases - with extreme cases of patterns of 28 - all as
a single "shot" - so the ASW weapon - if you want to be a purist and use the stock system - should
be called "Depth Charge Pattern" - and rated for the effect of all the DC dropped - even if they
are of difference sizes (common in USN). Ahead throwers are a somewhat analogous concept - they
too involve patterns - but the "rate of fire" is generally one per pass (which may be from one
thrower or from two half throwers, or from one to three mortars in weird cases). These are fired
during the run in to the datum point (where DC can be dropped) - so there can actually be two
different kinds of patterns from one ship IF it has both ahead throwers and DC. To ignore the
way things work is cheap coding - but poor simulation. To think of AS weapons as having a "bearing" is
a misunderstanding of how they work. But a "real" AS rating would need code that is different from
the basic "weapons on axis times rate of fire times effect" concept.

ORIGINAL: Alfred

This thread is just going around in circles, inventing unnecessary and largely irrelevant considerations.  The answer is very simple and was provided in post #2 by HansBolter.

AE does not have a true ASW rating.  All that the misnamed ASW rating discloses is the number of ASW weapons carried by that ship.  Period.  It is not a rating of effectiveness.  It does not abstract sonar or any other detection assets.  It is not at all comparable to a ship crews experience level or a pilot's skill ratings.  It does not take into account whether any ASW ammo is on board; a ship without any ASW ammo still retains the same ASW rating it had when it was fully ammoed.

• A ship with no ASW devices has an ASW rating of 0.
• A ship with 2 ASW devices has an ASW rating of 2.
• A ship with 8 ASW devices has an ASW rating of 8.
• A ship given 413 ASW devices in a player modified scenario has an ASW rating of 413.

No differentiation is made between a depth charge that only operates to 300 feet compared to one that operates to 600 feet.  The amount of potential damage which may be meted out by the different ASW devices is not reflected in the ASW rating; a hedgehog is just as good as any other type of ASW device.  Two different ship classes may have exactly the same ASW rating even though one class may be incapable of hitting enemy subs.

Alfred  

[el cid again]

Like M10Bob, I am not going to argue the merits of a Zero vs an F4F. Each person is entitled to his own
opinion. People very familiar with AE should be respected in their opinions.

Further, I agree with Alfred about what the ASW rating really means. It is not a good rating concept in that
it does not correspond to the effectiveness of an escort vessel in ASW operations. There are more considerations
involved than that simple number. He is also almost correct about electronics - it is barely in the game at all -
and in the case of sonar, more or less completely abstracted. It is also true that electronics "effectiveness"
increases over time, and also differs by nation (or can differ, depending on what we are talking about, and on
what code actually says - which can be difficult to grasp even if one looks at it - given it is not documented
and may even be bypassed by some unknown branch somewhere else). But the gist of Alfred's remarks are spot on in
a strict technical sense.

That Mifune and I were unhappy with the entire ASW system in AE, and systematically set out to make it more
complicated (and not just in re ships attacking submarines), does not mean we got very far. We DID manage
to make ASW weapons more effective (assuming you actually have an effective weapon on your platform - many times
you don't - particularly as Japan or some minor navy). At the same time, we addressed the problem of submarine
survivability in AE - the loss rates of stock are vastly too high in the early war period. But these efforts
do not extend to changing code - which we are forbidden to do under terms of our license agreements - and only
change data. In re ships, our main "reform" was to get rid of each DC mounting being like a torpedo mount, and
to combine them all into a single "DC pattern firing system" - which then permits a realistic PK to be assigned -
and also reduces the number of "attacks" code must calculate in a battle. All the DC weapons now are just one.
But neither in stock nor in RHS does the AS rating reported say more than "there are x ASW weapons on the ship" -
it is not a good indicator of effectiveness. There is nothing wrong with abstract concepts in game models. And
there is nothing wrong with "oversimplifying" either - if the product was ever to be released - many things
had to be simplified.

ORIGINAL: Alfred

m10bob,

There are two elements to this thread, (a) what exactly does the ASW rating represent, (b) the "effectiveness" of the rating.  The former is really quite simple and was answered in post #2 but subsequent posts muddied the waters and the subsequent posts on the latter sent off the thread onto fantasy land as far as the game engine is concerned.  For the simple fact is that the displayed ASW rating is not factored into the combat algorithms.

The fact is that naval electronics are not directly represented in the game.  There is no fire control in the game, no sonars, naval radar is trumped by the human eyeball mark I for the opening salvo etc.  In as much as it gets abstracted individual devices have their stats "tweaked" and there are some hard coded time thresholds "improvements".

One thing to bear in mind is that the abstractions allow some fudging.  A submarine whose maximum diving depth is greater than the enemy's ASW device's maximum depth, is not guaranteed to be 100% immune to the ASW attack.  The ASW combat algorithms are not as simplistic as some may think, after all you wouldn't expect JWE/Symon to not try to insert as much realism as possible.  It is just that the displayed ASW rating is not where the complexity is found.

Alfred

[el cid again]

Do not confuse this mortar with late war Japanese ahead throwing weapons - the 15 cm projector
in particular.

The 3 inch mortar is thought to have been combat ineffective. In theory, IF it hit the pressure hull of
a submarine, it might work. Submarine pressure hulls do not like being hit by explosives, and many points
near such a hit might suffer damage. The problem is - the chance of a hit is almost nil - and the size
of the explosive is not enough. The late war SQUID of RN is different: it fires three GIGANTIC mortar
rounds in a triangle pattern - centered on the datum point. These weapons generate a pressure wave that
is effective for several meters. The Japanese were on the right track - attack sooner before the sub
moves much - use a weapon that sinks and ONLY detonates IF it hits (a DC usually is dumb and detonates at
a set depth - which probably isn't the same as the sub depth).

The late war 15 cm projector at least had a bigger warhead. But it was not firing a proper pattern - its
"pattern" would be a line - not much area to that. If the sub is not on the calculated bearing, it will miss.

ORIGINAL: spence

So far nobody has posted an image/diagram of the IJN's 3" ASW mortar. This was apparently an ahead thrown weapon but as far as I can determine was essentially a single barrelled weapon. It is not too hard to image that this weapons system was not all that effective which appears to be reflected in the game.

Such research as I have done indicates that the Hedgehog ASW weapons system killed about 10 times as many submarines as were killed by depth charges. Either statistics support the 3" ASW mortar as having an effectiveness of 2.5 times that of a depth charge or not. If so since this weapon existed from day one of the war why did the IJN sink only about 40 Allied subs throughout the war whereas the USN sank 120 or so IJN subs?

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: el cid again


While it is perfectly true that the AE ASW rating is how many weapons a ship has,
the other queries and comments are perfectly valid to make. People have a right to know
how ASW works in AE.

Basically AE has a universal weapon model. Weapons times effect times rate of fire on bearing
(to oversimplify slightly) is used for everything. But a depth charge rack does not have a "bearing"
and in fact never drops one charge. It may combine with throwers to the sides as well. These make
a combined pattern - from 2 to 14 in most cases - with extreme cases of patterns of 28 - all as
a single "shot" - so the ASW weapon - if you want to be a purist and use the stock system - should
be called "Depth Charge Pattern" - and rated for the effect of all the DC dropped - even if they
are of difference sizes (common in USN). Ahead throwers are a somewhat analogous concept - they
too involve patterns - but the "rate of fire" is generally one per pass (which may be from one
thrower or from two half throwers, or from one to three mortars in weird cases). These are fired
during the run in to the datum point (where DC can be dropped) - so there can actually be two
different kinds of patterns from one ship IF it has both ahead throwers and DC. To ignore the
way things work is cheap coding - but poor simulation. To think of AS weapons as having a "bearing" is
a misunderstanding of how they work. But a "real" AS rating would need code that is different from
the basic "weapons on axis times rate of fire times effect" concept.

ORIGINAL: Alfred

This thread is just going around in circles, inventing unnecessary and largely irrelevant considerations.  The answer is very simple and was provided in post #2 by HansBolter.

AE does not have a true ASW rating.  All that the misnamed ASW rating discloses is the number of ASW weapons carried by that ship.  Period.  It is not a rating of effectiveness.  It does not abstract sonar or any other detection assets.  It is not at all comparable to a ship crews experience level or a pilot's skill ratings.  It does not take into account whether any ASW ammo is on board; a ship without any ASW ammo still retains the same ASW rating it had when it was fully ammoed.

• A ship with no ASW devices has an ASW rating of 0.
• A ship with 2 ASW devices has an ASW rating of 2.
• A ship with 8 ASW devices has an ASW rating of 8.
• A ship given 413 ASW devices in a player modified scenario has an ASW rating of 413.

No differentiation is made between a depth charge that only operates to 300 feet compared to one that operates to 600 feet.  The amount of potential damage which may be meted out by the different ASW devices is not reflected in the ASW rating; a hedgehog is just as good as any other type of ASW device.  Two different ship classes may have exactly the same ASW rating even though one class may be incapable of hitting enemy subs.

Alfred  

You are grossly misstating Alfred's explanation and then criticizing your distorted version. What Alfred posted abut the ASW rating is correct. The thread he linked to in a related post spells that out in more detail. There is no "weapons = raw power" theory in AE; that is nonsense. Various of the player displays show numbers that are tallies of certain things. The tally of ASW weapons is one such thing. It is not "raw power" and, as the developers have stated clearly, it is not used at all in the code of the combat algorithms. The same is true of the numbers shown for guns and AA on ships, and flak at bases.

Calling the combat algorithm code "cheap code" is really outrageous. Code has to run on something and people do not have unlimited funds for limitless hardware. Code that works and which people can use requires intelligent compromises. AE is a masterful example, none better so far.

And when people want to know how ASW works in AE they are well served by reading the thread Alfred linked to.

[Korvar]

ORIGINAL: Alfred
All that the misnamed ASW rating discloses is the number of ASW weapons carried by that ship. Period. It is not a rating of effectiveness.

ORIGINAL: Alfred
There are two elements to this thread, (a) what exactly does the ASW rating represent, (b) the "effectiveness" of the rating. The former is really quite simple and was answered in post #2 but subsequent posts muddied the waters and the subsequent posts on the latter sent off the thread onto fantasy land as far as the game engine is concerned. For the simple fact is that the displayed ASW rating is not factored into the combat algorithms.

After going through the linked thread, these statements seem a bit hyperbolic. Just as ASW rating is not the end-all be-all of ASW effectiveness, its also misleading to say ASW rating is completely unrelated to ASW effectiveness.

The variable 'WeapNum' is what is directly factored into the algorithms (among other things, explained below); yet what is a measurement of WeapNum? ASW rating!

ORIGINAL: JWE
[The ASW rating] is nothing but a WeapNum summation shown on the ship screen that people can use to roughly judge who's better then who.
(emphasis added)

Notice JWE makes the statement that ASW rating can be used to "roughly judge" the relative effectiveness of an ASW ship.

It's because for all the moving parts in the 'black box' which is the actual collection of algorithms governing ASW combat, the three primary criteria that influence the output of the 'black box' are: (1) WeapNum (2) Leader values (3) Crew experience (with no rank implied in the numbering). Number 2 and 3 apply to literally every unit in the game - ships, LCUs, and squadrons; they're obvious - of course a more experienced crew with a better leader (judged by applicable skill(s)) will result in a more effective unit.

Like most things in WitPAE, all of these factors are heavily interrelated. They are the legs of a chair - a deficiency in any of them will make a wobbly chair at best and an unusable one at worst.


In his most detailed explanation of the mechanics of ASW combat, JWE explains the three main overlapping categories - (1) Acquisition (2) Prosecution (3) Destruction. The respective primary considerations of each are: Leadership (naval skill for better detection & leadership for faster crew exp gain) and crew experience (2) Crew experience (3) WeapNum. The categories also respectively equate to (1) % chance to detect/acquire (2) % chance to shoot and (3) % chance to hit.

So ASW rating is a rough measurement of the 'chance to hit' part, as explained by JWE:

ORIGINAL: JWE
There are 3 different things that happen; in sequence, but with some overlap.

[...]

3) Destruction - Done on an individual WeapSlot-by-slot basis. WeapNum is of primary importance.
...this is the only place in the wide, wide, world of sports, where WeapNum of a slot is important. This is the % chance to hit part. All the rest is just % chance to acquire and % chance to shoot.
(emphasis added)

The slot-by-slot bit is important - higher WeapNum concentration into fewer slots is better for hit chance. JWE alluded to the fact that an increase in the WeapNum of each slot is more like an exponential increase (in % chance to hit, assuming successful acquisition & shooting) than a linear one. It's why the ASW weapons were split up into multiple slots. Lumping all ASW devices into a single slot, even without changing the total number of devices, would lead to some crazy high % to hit/kill upon successful acquisition/shot (which happened in the case of the Japanese E type). Ships with higher ASW ratings tend to also have higher slot concentrations as well, so there's at least a mild positive correlation between them overall. For instance, an ASW 8 ship is more likely to have two 3x slots and one 2x slot rather than four 2x slots, whereas a ASW 6 ship might have three 2x slots; thus, the ASW 8 ship has more ASW potential than even the two extra devices might suggest. It's certainly something to double check when comparing ship classes (or possibly even a ship upgrade) - an outlier in this area could dramatically affect results.

There are also qualitative considerations (i.e. raw weapon capability), as has been alluded to with the depth range comparisons between weapons and subs, as well as, damage potential of the weapons. Yet what ships also tend to get the latest and greatest ASW weaponry first? A CLAA with a couple DC racks as an afterthought - Atlanta, I'm looking at you - (ASW rating 2) or a DE specialized in ASW warfare (ASW rating 8+)? So another factor within the 'black box' has a high positive correlation to WeapNum and by extension, ASW rating.

Temporal considerations are yet another factor. These are what they are though and can't be changed except through the passage of time. The US will have dud torpedoes and the Japanese will take a hit to crew effectiveness with ASW. If it applies across the board, it won't matter as far as ship selection is concerned. When it doesn't affect all units, perhaps as an example adaption you favor Dutch subs more than you otherwise would.

When the keys to the 'black box' are denied to you (for good reasons), the best you can do is to use heuristics to approximate an answer with an understanding that it's not a complete picture and there may be edge cases which surprise you. Take note when that happens and adjust accordingly. And that's all I want as a player - things such as how do I best tell with the information given to me which ships to put in my ASW task forces?

There will always be other considerations - what endurance is needed for the patrol route? Is the ship fast enough to reasonably catch subs? How vulnerable is these ships to expected air resistance - will they need air cover? What does my experience tell me about edge cases? A big one - what are the current capabilities of the enemy's subs? On and on. But it helps to know what might be considered a ship with good ASW potential in the first place. For that, ASW rating along with leader and crew experience evaluation (like you would with every other unit) seems to be a good place to start. If there's something better, I'm all ears.


All that said, I appreciate all the information both Alfred (a WitPAE expert) and El Cid (an ASW expert) have provided. It's been great food for thought!

[el cid again]

WITPQS:

I do not propose to get into an extended debate. This is, in fact, very old hat, and the concepts involved were
discussed many years ago, in the original WITP versions. There have always been people who did not like the
approach we (the RHS team) took. The best I can say is that submariners have said nice things about why it
was something of an improvement. My comments were made in the context of what was posted long ago, and by private
correspondence with programmers. One of the AE play-testers was long on the RHS team (and technically remains so
in an honorary sense, but is only rarely able to work).

The oversimplified theory I presented about how the AE handles naval weapons is not an impression - it is derived
from an explanation posted long ago by a programmer. It is pretty clear the description is correct - and ASW data
in particular nails down that this was the theory. You don't have ASW weapons which "aim" in the sense guns and
torpedoes do - even to the extent they may "throw" to the side or "drop" to the rear, or "project ahead." Its not
as if one can see the submarine and aim at it, nor that the weapons arrive so fast the submarine isn't going to
maneuver during the delivery process. For that reason, ASW weapons (with the single exception of the intelligent
torpedo - introduced late in WW2) tend to be used in patterns. It is a very statistical thing. Given the lack
of hooks in AE to provide much more, the best we can do is work out a system that models the chances of a hit per
pattern fired. This can be related to real data, at least. And it is very much related to the kind of weapons on
the vessel - and their number. But it isn't that you had "enough weapons on the port side to engage a submarine
off to port" - so the data should not be entered in that form.

ASW is hard IRL. It is STILL hard. The last time there was a "real submarine battle" was probably in the Falklands
war. The NATO ASW specialist navy - RN - expended "virtually every piece of ASW ordnance in inventory" to conduct
approximately 200 attacks on a single submarine. It was only localized twice. It was not damaged either time, never
mind sunk, and never mind facing a range of weapons. It also managed to twice solve a fire control problem on a
British carrier, and fire torpedoes on it - which were detected. These failed because a guide wire broke. By the
time that was fixed, the war was over. Both the modern ASW specialists and the modern sub with a modern, German
designed guided torpedo failed to score. Such frustrations are more or less SOP in the world of ASW and submarine
warfare. We wanted to make submarines more realistic and did what we could to better model them - sans rewriting
code - which is not allowed under our license terms. But my second computer program was "The Enemy Below" - I have
a bit of interest in the subject. We wanted to show that early ASW suites were less effective, and that ASW overall
was vastly too effective (threatening to wipe out enemy sub fleets if used much). One thing code may have got right
is that experience matters - although code lets crews get it far to fast. USS England got to the point it needed
but a single pattern to SINK a submarine. Another ship in the same conditions - when given a shot - could not.
Today the problem we have is that there is no way to get much experience: we only got to play with a sub once in
2-3 years in my day - and today the average is about twice that - if a ship EVER gets to actually play with one.
Also, general purpose ships are probably not as effective as specialist ships: AAW ships are not likely to become
superb escorts because they spend too much time with their "day job" - which itself requires a lot of effort.

We never insisted anyone agree with our approach. It is offered as an alternative.

You are grossly misstating Alfred's explanation and then criticizing your distorted version. What Alfred posted abut the ASW rating is correct. The thread he linked to in a related post spells that out in more detail. There is no "weapons = raw power" theory in AE; that is nonsense. Various of the player displays show numbers that are tallies of certain things. The tally of ASW weapons is one such thing. It is not "raw power" and, as the developers have stated clearly, it is not used at all in the code of the combat algorithms. The same is true of the numbers shown for guns and AA on ships, and flak at bases. Calling the combat algorithm code "cheap code" is really outrageous. Code has to run on something and people do not have unlimited funds for limitless hardware. Code that works and which people can use requires intelligent compromises. AE is a masterful example, none better so far. And when people want to know how ASW works in AE they are well served by reading the thread Alfred linked to.

[el cid again]

Korvar said

quote

All that said, I appreciate all the information both Alfred (a WitPAE expert) and El Cid (an ASW expert) have provided. It's been great food for thought!

end quote

I say Korvar is a gentleman who knows the purpose of a discussion forum. I do not like the particular choices
made re ASW in the game design, but I do admit my system obscures the ASW potential of a weapons suite to the
point all you know is that it has - or does not have - an ASW capability. [It is slightly better than that -
if the rating is 2 you know it has an ahead throwing system and this is much more likely to score a hit than
a ship with a 1 rating - and only DC. Even so - large DC patterns are vastly more effective - which is why
the size of patterns grew throughout the war. Early ideas had patterns as small as two small DC, and the RN had
a standard pattern of only 5. Since ships did use standard patterns, it is also a useful way to account for
the number of DC - a ship with 10 patterns of 14 has 140 DC - but only 10 shots - and these do NOT have
a "bearing" - they are "all sides patterns" - actually laid over the hoped for sub location well before they
can go off - and deliberately spread out because the sub will probably move before the ship can even reach
the drop point - and certainly after the sub hears the splashes of the drop. This movement can be in three
dimensions - not just two. So it really does become a die role situation - however one models it. I find it
more intellectually satisfying to think of the ASW attack in terms of how they actually happen. And, yeah,
fools drop with no clue where the sub is, while experts (at least USS England) never miss - which seems amazing
even by todays standards.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

WITPQS:

I do not propose to get into an extended debate. This is, in fact, very old hat, and the concepts involved were
discussed many years ago, in the original WITP versions. There have always been people who did not like the
approach we (the RHS team) took. The best I can say is that submariners have said nice things about why it
was something of an improvement. My comments were made in the context of what was posted long ago, and by private
correspondence with programmers. One of the AE play-testers was long on the RHS team (and technically remains so
in an honorary sense, but is only rarely able to work).

The oversimplified theory I presented about how the AE handles naval weapons is not an impression - it is derived
from an explanation posted long ago by a programmer. It is pretty clear the description is correct - and ASW data
in particular nails down that this was the theory. You don't have ASW weapons which "aim" in the sense guns and
torpedoes do - even to the extent they may "throw" to the side or "drop" to the rear, or "project ahead." Its not
as if one can see the submarine and aim at it, nor that the weapons arrive so fast the submarine isn't going to
maneuver during the delivery process. For that reason, ASW weapons (with the single exception of the intelligent
torpedo - introduced late in WW2) tend to be used in patterns. It is a very statistical thing. Given the lack
of hooks in AE to provide much more, the best we can do is work out a system that models the chances of a hit per
pattern fired. This can be related to real data, at least. And it is very much related to the kind of weapons on
the vessel - and their number. But it isn't that you had "enough weapons on the port side to engage a submarine
off to port" - so the data should not be entered in that form.

ASW is hard IRL. It is STILL hard. The last time there was a "real submarine battle" was probably in the Falklands
war. The NATO ASW specialist navy - RN - expended "virtually every piece of ASW ordnance in inventory" to conduct
approximately 200 attacks on a single submarine. It was only localized twice. It was not damaged either time, never
mind sunk, and never mind facing a range of weapons. It also managed to twice solve a fire control problem on a
British carrier, and fire torpedoes on it - which were detected. These failed because a guide wire broke. By the
time that was fixed, the war was over. Both the modern ASW specialists and the modern sub with a modern, German
designed guided torpedo failed to score. Such frustrations are more or less SOP in the world of ASW and submarine
warfare. We wanted to make submarines more realistic and did what we could to better model them - sans rewriting
code - which is not allowed under our license terms. But my second computer program was "The Enemy Below" - I have
a bit of interest in the subject. We wanted to show that early ASW suites were less effective, and that ASW overall
was vastly too effective (threatening to wipe out enemy sub fleets if used much). One thing code may have got right
is that experience matters - although code lets crews get it far to fast. USS England got to the point it needed
but a single pattern to SINK a submarine. Another ship in the same conditions - when given a shot - could not.
Today the problem we have is that there is no way to get much experience: we only got to play with a sub once in
2-3 years in my day - and today the average is about twice that - if a ship EVER gets to actually play with one.
Also, general purpose ships are probably not as effective as specialist ships: AAW ships are not likely to become
superb escorts because they spend too much time with their "day job" - which itself requires a lot of effort.

We never insisted anyone agree with our approach. It is offered as an alternative.

You are grossly misstating Alfred's explanation and then criticizing your distorted version. What Alfred posted abut the ASW rating is correct. The thread he linked to in a related post spells that out in more detail. There is no "weapons = raw power" theory in AE; that is nonsense. Various of the player displays show numbers that are tallies of certain things. The tally of ASW weapons is one such thing. It is not "raw power" and, as the developers have stated clearly, it is not used at all in the code of the combat algorithms. The same is true of the numbers shown for guns and AA on ships, and flak at bases. Calling the combat algorithm code "cheap code" is really outrageous. Code has to run on something and people do not have unlimited funds for limitless hardware. Code that works and which people can use requires intelligent compromises. AE is a masterful example, none better so far. And when people want to know how ASW works in AE they are well served by reading the thread Alfred linked to.

Nice obfuscation, but still just misdirection which does not address anything I wrote. I did not even mention your "approach" in RHS nor do I care about it.