Something has to be done about Allied ASW

[Fallschirmjager]

I was up most of the night running my test and its finally complete.
I ignored alot of areas of the game and simmed it out to June 1st.
I played a head to head game and left the Japanese subs on Computer control to sim what they would do under normal AI conditions.
As for myself I tried to play in a normal manner since I knew where the Japanese subs are. 95% of my kills were the AI subs attacking my convoys or warships. The only time I sent out ASW TF's was when my search planes detected them.
I did not get a single kill from ASW planes (that should probably be adjusted too).
As of June 1st 1941 I had sank a whooping 71% of the Japanese sub fleet [X(]

Perhaps the subs were used in an ahistorical way. If that is the case then the AI needs to be adjusted to avoid such circumstances.

[Drongo]

ORIGINAL: Fallschirmjager

I was up most of the night running my test and its finally complete.
I ignored alot of areas of the game and simmed it out to June 1st.
I played a head to head game and left the Japanese subs on Computer control to sim what they would do under normal AI conditions.
As for myself I tried to play in a normal manner since I knew where the Japanese subs are. 95% of my kills were the AI subs attacking my convoys or warships. The only time I sent out ASW TF's was when my search planes detected them.
I did not get a single kill from ASW planes (that should probably be adjusted too).
As of June 1st 1941 I had sank a whooping 71% of the Japanese sub fleet [X(]

Perhaps the subs were used in an ahistorical way. If that is the case then the AI needs to be adjusted to avoid such circumstances.

Quick question. Where did most of the ASW combat occur, shallow or deep water?

[Fallschirmjager]

ORIGINAL: Drongo

ORIGINAL: Fallschirmjager

I was up most of the night running my test and its finally complete.
I ignored alot of areas of the game and simmed it out to June 1st.
I played a head to head game and left the Japanese subs on Computer control to sim what they would do under normal AI conditions.
As for myself I tried to play in a normal manner since I knew where the Japanese subs are. 95% of my kills were the AI subs attacking my convoys or warships. The only time I sent out ASW TF's was when my search planes detected them.
I did not get a single kill from ASW planes (that should probably be adjusted too).
As of June 1st 1941 I had sank a whooping 71% of the Japanese sub fleet [X(]

Perhaps the subs were used in an ahistorical way. If that is the case then the AI needs to be adjusted to avoid such circumstances.

Quick question. Where did most of the ASW combat occur, shallow or deep water?

about 1/3 deep water and 2/3 deep water if I am reading the map correctly.

Most of the combat occured not right off the coast but one hex from the coast in deep water. Also alot of mid ocean sub combat took place.
IMO the ability to find subs is fine. If you are attacked you have a pretty good idea of where one lies. But depth charges are 21st century laser guided munitions in the game.
There accuracy needs to be toned down.
Maybe its just me...but I find them a little bit too powerful. I dont think the ship damage model can be applied. Am I right in saying that 99% of depth charge damage is down through concussive damage and not kinetic damage?

[Caltone]

Way it seems now, if any Japanese sub get subjected to ASW attack, its a goner. OTOH Japanese ASW feels about right if not a little too low.

[Fallschirmjager]

IJN depth charges seem too accurate as well. But they seem to find subs alot less.
I havnt played the IJN near as much so other will better be able to testify to the effectivness of the IJN side.

[The Gnome]

There's seems to be too much of a hit or miss affect with the depth charges. I'm not talking the contact detonated ones like hedgehog, but for the true depth charge the damage should be more variable. Near misses should do a lot less damage and very few should be "direct hits".

[Brady]

I agree with Fallschirmjager, it seams a bit to good to be true for the Allies, I had a PT Boat in a convoy of Just PT's and a Tender, depth charge a Japanese sub and sink it in deep water the other night, this from a convoy compleatly devoid of Sonar,also interesting is the PT's carrying depth charges and Torpedoes, somthing I thought they could not or rather did not do.

[ltfightr]

I think the real problem is that depth charges are too leathal IIRC many subs were damaged by depth charge concussions and suffered even severe damage and made it back to port. In UV and so far in WITP a hit by a ships depth charge is fatal.

[John B]

On turn 2 and 3 of the Campaign Game I nailed three Jap SS in shallow water around Pearl. Haven't as yet encountered any others. Jap ASW seems OK. I'm not sure whether Allied SS are sinking slightly more Jap ships than they should be at that stage of the war (early Jan '41). Though this may be because Dutch SS seem lethal.

[Drongo]

ORIGINAL: Fallschirmjager
about 1/3 deep water and 2/3 deep water if I am reading the map correctly.

Most of the combat occured not right off the coast but one hex from the coast in deep water. Also alot of mid ocean sub combat took place.
IMO the ability to find subs is fine. If you are attacked you have a pretty good idea of where one lies. But depth charges are 21st century laser guided munitions in the game.
There accuracy needs to be toned down.
Maybe its just me...but I find them a little bit too powerful. I dont think the ship damage model can be applied. Am I right in saying that 99% of depth charge damage is down through concussive damage and not kinetic damage?

OK. A lot of factors influence ASW results.

I can't say specifically why you got those results but if you feel the ASW model should change, you're entitled to ask for it (though I'm not sure what 2x3 are planning to cover in the next patch).

Cheers

[Fallschirmjager]

Running that test was a marthon [:(]

I will need help from others if we are to get accurate tests. Set up your own tests and run the game out several months. Play Head to head and use the method I outlined in my first post.
I would hate to get the game changed just by one test I made. I hope several others run it as well.

[doktor1957]

I may have missed this in the earlier posts, but was Fog of War on? I'm sure that kill claims are vastly inflated, as in real life.


Dave
San Diego

[Hard Sarge]

ORIGINAL: Brady

I agree with Fallschirmjager, it seams a bit to good to be true for the Allies, I had a PT Boat in a convoy of Just PT's and a Tender, depth charge a Japanese sub and sink it in deep water the other night, this from a convoy compleatly devoid of Sonar,also interesting is the PT's carrying depth charges and Torpedoes, somthing I thought they could not or rather did not do.

from what was just on TV on PT Boats, the back two Trop tubes could be taken off and used for DC's, so it looks like they could carry both, only with less Tubes for Trops

HARD_Sarge

[Fallschirmjager]

ORIGINAL: doktor1957

I may have missed this in the earlier posts, but was Fog of War on? I'm sure that kill claims are vastly inflated, as in real life.


Dave
San Diego

I was playing both sides.

[Xargun]

ORIGINAL: ltfightr

I think the real problem is that depth charges are too leathal IIRC many subs were damaged by depth charge concussions and suffered even severe damage and made it back to port. In UV and so far in WITP a hit by a ships depth charge is fatal.

I think the problem also lies in flooding damage. I have several subs in my PBEM that have like 20 sys damage and like 50 flooding. They are moving 1 hex per turn towards the nearest friendly port, and gaining 2-5 flooding per turn.. There is no way these subs will make it home... Shouldn't flooding be less if you are moving less ? A single Depth charge hit these subs and they will sink due to flooding damage.. Kinda odd, especially if the holes in the hull are on the top and she is on the surface moving slow...

There should be some way to lessen the flooding damage on subs. I understand water is destructive, but a sub is supposed to be air tight - seal the bulkhead doors and no more flooding.... There is only so much space for the water to go once the bulkheads are sealed... and if they are leaking (probably) it shouldn't be beyond what they can pump (or even bucket brigade) out of the sub - especially if they stay near the surface (on the surface or just the bulk of the sub below, conning tower above).

And since we're talking about subs, Japanese sub-fired torps have to high a dud rate if you ask me.. My subs have fired roughly 20 times and 3 have been duds... thats 15% (most have been misses).. Is this historical ? And why when they fire 4 torps if ones a dud, they all are ?

Xargun

[Pier5]

I can't comment on the actual results with very few actual contacts with Japanese subs. But the I boats were huge submarines (required to get the range necessitated by Pacific operations, i imagine), therefore, easy to detect and not very maneuverable. Couple this with a diving depth limited to only 200 feet and it doesn't make much difference how deep the water is, that sub isn't going very deep regardless (until it's sunk, that is [:D]). I can certainly see why they are very sinkable.

Pier5

[Xargun]

ORIGINAL: Pier5

I can't comment on the actual results with very few actual contacts with Japanese subs. But the I boats were huge submarines (required to get the range necessitated by Pacific operations, i imagine), therefore, easy to detect and not very maneuverable. Couple this with a diving depth limited to only 200 feet and it doesn't make much difference how deep the water is, that sub isn't going very deep regardless (until it's sunk, that is [:D]). I can certainly see why they are very sinkable.

Pier5

If this is modeled then it makes sense... IF its modeled... Can someone (beta, designer) answer this... It may clear up a lot of Allied ASW complaints.

Xargun

[JohnK]

ORIGINAL: Pier5

I can't comment on the actual results with very few actual contacts with Japanese subs. But the I boats were huge submarines (required to get the range necessitated by Pacific operations, i imagine), therefore, easy to detect and not very maneuverable. Couple this with a diving depth limited to only 200 feet and it doesn't make much difference how deep the water is, that sub isn't going very deep regardless (until it's sunk, that is [:D]). I can certainly see why they are very sinkable

The rational thing to do is look at actual Japanese sub losses.

I haven't gotten the WWII Conway's yet, so I looked at a couple of websites to get losses from the beginning of the war through the end of 1942.

I show the Japanese losing 20 submarines in the first year of the war. With sub doctrine on, WITP should at LEAST be in the ballpark; if the Allies are consistently killing 40+ subs through Dec. 31 1942 with sub doctrine on in multiple games (I'd say 10 would be a valid sample), then Houston, we have a problem.

The issue with doctrine off is an interesting one. I'd submit the Japanese would have lost more subs had they been conducting an aggressive anti-commerce campaign; as actually used, Japanese subs spent a lot of time doing nothing waiting for warships, or doing recon.

[Feinder]

Be aware that subs don't have -that- many compartments. There are 8 on the fairly large Gato class. You fill one, and you're now carrying a LOT of water. You fill two, and you better be heading up. You fill 3, and you're probably not going up.

I'd expect that the early war S and T class subs might have had fewer compartments, altho I'd bet the IJN fleet subs probably had 8 compartments (because of their size). But like I said, 8 or 6, you're still talking about a LOT of water. And you've got seal off that bulkhead FAST, because force of the water coming in, will likely preclude you from closing the next hatch. But it's really only going to take 1 or 2 "on the mark" DCs to cripple or sink a sub.

Also understand that when you see the "Type 16 Depth Charge" with 4 ammo, that means 4 -salvos- (of probably 12 depth charges), not just rolling four depth charges off the back.

I know that there was considerable "tweaking" to the ASW combat in UV (the engine upon which WitP is based). Remember tho that, we players will compell a lot more actions, and a lot more intense than were historical. But the scope of UV was certainly smaller, and it may very well be that WitP could use some tweaking (for longevity purposes).

-F-

[JohnK]

ORIGINAL: Feinder

Be aware that subs don't have -that- many compartments. There are 8 on the fairly large Gato class. You fill one, and you're now carrying a LOT of water. You fill two, and you better be heading up. You fill 3, and you're probably not going up.

I'd expect that the early war S and T class subs might have had fewer compartments, altho I'd bet the IJN fleet subs probably had 8 compartments (because of their size). But like I said, 8 or 6, you're still talking about a LOT of water. And you've got seal off that bulkhead FAST, because force of the water coming in, will likely preclude you from closing the next hatch. But it's really only going to take 1 or 2 "on the mark" DCs to cripple or sink a sub.

Also understand that when you see the "Type 16 Depth Charge" with 4 ammo, that means 4 -salvos- (of probably 12 depth charges), not just rolling four depth charges off the back.

I know that there was considerable "tweaking" to the ASW combat in UV (the engine upon which WitP is based). Remember tho that, we players will compell a lot more actions, and a lot more intense than were historical. But the scope of UV was certainly smaller, and it may very well be that WitP could use some tweaking (for longevity purposes).

A little worrying the first instinct people had was to discuss the microtactical modeling of the effect of depth charges on the compartments of Japanese subs than to look up what subs the Japanese actually lost in in the war

One important effect, I suspect, is that submarines in WITP are likely at Sea for a MUCH greater % of time than in reality.

I don't think the cumulative SYS damage from simply being at sea really forces enough time in port to be realistic, for submarines.

It gets repaired pretty fast. The reality is, wear and tear that might not really reduce a subs speed may well require a long overhaul once the sub is in port, to prevent a catastrophic failure.....don't think WITP captures this.