Allied ASW

[riverbravo]

Does anyone notice that allied TF's (most in particular destroyers) never seem to miss a Japanese sub?But the Japanese struggle to find a allied sub and hit it?

Did the allies (americans) have some kind of advantage in ASW that Im unaware of or do Japanese subs and subcrews just stink?

[Black Cat]

Are we playing the same Game Version ? Or are you Kidding ?


At 2/8/42 Historical Japanese Sub Doctrine On. Grand Campaign US

With Ver 1.21 I have had 5 Destroyers and 5 DMS and DM`s sunk off the Coast of Brisbane to Carnes by I Boats in one month with several ( 3 ) more damaged. I have 5 dedicated ASW Air Groups on ASW .

I have had 4 - 5 Ship ASW forces crusing this area and they have **initated** about 3 attacks while being attacked at 5 times that rate; the few sinkings I have has been from another of the ASW TF`s ships responding to their partners being hit.

In short , UNLIKE Ver 1.10 . the ASW forces **ALMOST NEVER** initiate attacks anymore, when they do the hit rate is less then 30% and are losing DD`s and DMSs - DM`s at the rate of 3 - 1 to the I Boats[X(] 3: 1 Guys..[8|]

A lot of us in posting on up to 3 months playing said there way NO Problem with the ASW vs Sub routines in Ver 1.10 and begged for it to be left alone but it just "had to be fixed " and now it `s broken and ahistorical. The Subs are wiping out the DD ASW TF`s......the loss rate is inverted.

I wasn`t going to bring this up but since Riverbravo did I`ll just say this is now sooooo screwed up but Hey, somewhere , someone, is happy in Matrix Land planing away to " Fix" the US LBA again[8|]

[Jaws_slith]

Well I've got 5 ASW patrols around Pearl Habour. The last 3 turns every time they sunk a Jap sub. maybe lucky but it is not bad at all.

[Black Cat]

You will get kills like that at a Base like Pearl with the I Boats on top of each other and big ASW TF`s there, especially if it`s Dec `41.

[Andy Mac]

Also good if you put an AK in the task force and lots of good ASW destroyers (no point in using low ASW ones) to try and tempt an I boat to attack

Andy

[m10bob]

I'm using the current version(1.21?),and my Allied DD's can't even hit WATER!!!!!
According to Silent Victory,historically the Japanese had a SOP depth charge setting of only 40 feet,so many Allied subs(until approx 1943) had a good chance of survival after they figured this out!!.I don't think this fact is in the game,and I'm not sure I would want it to be,but like the prior folks have said on this thread,these tin cans are just not doing the job!!(IMHO)

[Fallschirmjager]

In one of my PBEM games I have a Dutch sub that has sank an AP, 6 AK's and a DD.
Those Dutch dont play around. They surface and use the 88mm deck gun whenever they can.

[mjk428]

There seems to be a wide range of results. I haven't seen the overpowered Allied ASW in any of the 4 games I've started. Here's the sub activity from my last turn as an example:

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 01/25/42 (Scenario 15, vs IJN AI - HARD, Allied & IJN sub doctrine ON, Ver 1.21)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack at 47,103

Japanese Ships
SS I-26

Allied Ships
MSW Lithgow, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
MSW Cairns

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack at 47,103

Japanese Ships
SS I-26

Allied Ships
DD Pillsbury
DD Peary
DD Edsall
DD Alden

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASW attack at 47,103

Japanese Ships
SS I-26

Allied Ships
DD Pillsbury
DD Peary
DD Edsall
DD Alden

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASW attack at 47,103

Japanese Ships
SS I-26

Allied Ships
MSW Cairns


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The IJN sub attacked two ASW TFs, killed a MSW and then survived two additional attacks unscathed. That's four times in one turn that this sub did what some say they can't do once in their games. The experiences are so different I really hope Matrix doesn't make anymore changes without doing some better sampling. Please don't accept as fact that Allied ASW is overpowered. It's simply not true for everyone.

The biggest problem I see with ASW is that the IJN subs are not the least bit intimidated by ASW groups and seem to initiate the hostilities much more often than not. The other big problem is the AI seems to send all the subs to the same place - Townsville. If lots of IJN subs are getting killed, it's because they should (thanks to their idiotic tactics). If they all pack themselves into ASW kill zones that is the expected result. The unexpected result for me is that they take so many ships down with them.

I've found that anything with an ASW rating of less than "4" is nothing but target practice for the IJN subs. Ships under "4" seldom attack even when attacked and can't hit a sub to (literally) save their lives. Also, IJN subs are so good at putting torps into DDs that I only use MSWs (those with ASW "4") & Flush Deck DDs (ASW "4") in my ASW groups. Don't want to risk any of the better ASW "8" destroyers; I save them for escorting warships.

[MadDawg]

-

[MadDawg]

Yeah from what Ive seen allied ASW is crazy at the moment. As the Japanese player I am now leaving my subs in port in my current campaign as they only serve to give the allied player points. I cringe every time I see one attack as I know that chances are its now sunk.

Im 4 weeks into the Guadacanal campaign (mid '42) and Ive lost 14 Japanese subs, some of which have taken over 10 hits in a single attack, which is just silly. If the Japanese lost subs at that rate they would have had none left by '43. This has all been in deep water too as I dont dare venture into shallow hexes.

Allied players dont seem to mind though, as you can see, hehe. Honestly, if your playing a '42 campaign as the allies and have problems sinking Japanese subs then your doing something wrong. [;)] It may be fine in late '41 - mid '42 though, I havnt played that time frame yet.

Dawg

PS : By the way its my understanding that no changes were made to ASW in 1.20-1.21.

[Charles2222]

I've seen approximately 10 IJN subs battles, with me as the Japanese with the various versions (I control the subs and their sub doctrine is off). In only one of those attacks did the sub attack, hitting an oiler. Most of the time approx. 80%, any ASW ships attacked before the sub could even fire a shot. Approx. 3 subs have been sunk with no Allied ships sunk. Maybe only one of these actions was within 2 hexes of Pearl (as I get out of there fast).

[mjk428]

ORIGINAL: MadDawg
Allied players dont seem to mind though, as you can see, hehe. Honestly, if your playing a '42 campaign as the allies and have problems sinking Japanese subs then your doing something wrong. [;)] It may be fine in late '41 - mid '42 though, I havnt played that time frame yet.

Allied players don't mind because it's not happening in our games. If Allied ASW was overpowered in my game, I'd admit it - and be glad for any fixes.

It appears to me that Allied ASW may be overpowered when it's controlled by the AI. However, when playing as the Allies against the Japanese AI it's a completely different story. In my game most Allied ship casualties have come from IJN subs. In your game, your subs don't hit anything. Maybe you're doing something wrong. [;)]

[MadDawg]

Maybe you're doing something wrong.

Nope, Im sticking them in deep water along convery routes, what more can you do? [:)] They were fine in UV, but in WITP they are getting sunk at what seems to be an ahistorical rate - its easy enough to replicate.

As I mentioned, your in January 42, Im currently in August-September so to be fair the differences could be huge for all we know (I am not suggesting they are a problem earlier in the year). [;)] From my experience in 3 PBEM's (never played the AI, maybe this makes a different too) after mid '42 the results are kinda screwy in my opinion.

Dawg

[Charles2222]

ORIGINAL: MadDawg

Maybe you're doing something wrong.

Nope, Im sticking them in deep water along convery routes, what more can you do? [:)] They were fine in UV, but in WITP they are getting sunk at an ahistorical rate.

As I mentioned, your in January 42, Im currently in August-September so the differences could be huge for all we know (I am not suggesting they are a problem earlier in the year). [;)] From my experience in 3 PBEM's (neven played the AI, maybe this makes a different too) after mid '42 though the results are screwy.

Dawg

In WITP the ships can go cruise, mission, or full speed. Maybe the speeds we're setting them at makes a difference? Did they have 3 speeds in UV? So far I've set all of mine to cruise, but then they should be harder to spot that way, but maybe it hurts their ability to strike first too?

[MadDawg]

Charles, basically they just had mission speed in UV, you didnt have the other options and this is what Ive left them on in WITP. My guys do seem to attack, but then they sink more often than not [;)]

Dawg

[pad152]

One thing I think is still realistic is the fact that every ship in a TF gets to attack a sub, this should be limited to 1 or 2.

[Charles2222]

ORIGINAL: MadDawg

Charles, basically they just had mission speed in UV, you didnt have the other options and this is what Ive left them on in WITP. My guys do seem to attack, but then they sink more often than not [;)]

Dawg

That's debateable. I mean, is it that I'm seeing things, but aren't the ships going the same speed on both mission and full speed? Maybe the mission setting will only change to another speed when they're given the previous order to follow a slower TF. I haven't used any orders to follow a TF yet.

[MadDawg]

ORIGINAL: pad152

One thing I think is still realistic is the fact that every ship in a TF gets to attack a sub, this should be limited to 1 or 2.

Pad, you mean unrealistic? [:)] Yes, I think this could be part of the problem. Generally it seems odd that every single ship has a chance to attack and those that do seem to hit what, 80% of the time? Again, this is just what Im seeing in PBEMs after mid '42 and I have no real idea how things work before then.

Charles, not too sure what you mean? Subs cant actually follow a task force using the follow command (it doesnt work like that) and Im 99% sure that their speed doesnt make any difference to their success during an attack (its assumed they have manuevered into position), if that is what you are asking. Oh, and no, they dont travel at the same speed on both of thise options...thats one you will have to read the manual about to get an idea of how they perform (for instance bombardment groups use both cruise and full speed to complete their mission).

By the way I beleive one of the beta testers said some time ago that this has been debated and the consensus was that allied ASW ability currently is too strong and it will be looked at (for the next patch Id guess). It was about a month back but a search should find the thread.

Dawg

[Charles2222]

ORIGINAL: pad152

One thing I think is still realistic is the fact that every ship in a TF gets to attack a sub, this should be limited to 1 or 2.

But what about when you consider the attack is representing 12 hours (or so I take it)? I'm sure quite a lot of times a sub was 'relatively' attacked and nobody had a clue where it was and so it might have been entirely lost within a hour (which gamewise would maybe give one ship a try). It does appear as though every ship gets to attack it though, but maybe that's just because they're having so much success hitting it that it shines like a beacon after a while. In any case there's no sense that there were more ASW ships than attacked it directly such as some of their propellers going off in another direction. It would be nice for this type of situation if there was some notice that at least some rough estimate of the ASW force couldn't find the sub. Just the way it unfolds it looks as though they all know where it is and they just either hit or miss. I do find it equally interesting that I haven't found a single sub that survived, despite being in the same hex still, which was attacked in any 'sub'sequent turns, but then again night turns and the generaL Allied inability to operate well at night is probably coming into play.

[MadDawg]

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

ORIGINAL: pad152

One thing I think is still realistic is the fact that every ship in a TF gets to attack a sub, this should be limited to 1 or 2.

But what about when you consider the attack is representing 12 hours (or so I take it)?

Actually most of my sunk subs have been from escorts so technically they shouldnt hang around long as they need to keep to their task force Id think. I would expect that they might break off what, 2-4 destroyers to attack at most, but they couldnt hang around long as it could open up the task force to further attack.

Dawg