Something has to be done about Allied ASW

[Bombur]

Bombur the only ships that regulary traveled fast enough to be impossible to torpedo were the 2 Queens Mary and Elizabeth. But they were built for high speed running the way a battleship was built for gun combat and they should not be used for comparison with other ships.

-Let me correct myself, I don´t think it´s impossible for subs to hit fast warships, but the historical records seem to prove it happened in relatively few instances (except for USA subs from 1944 onwards). What worries me is that, with the changes I introduced, it became too frequent. Don´t you think that 1 CA and 2 DD sunk in 20 days is too much? Compare it with the records of IJN subs for 1942 as a whole.

[freeboy]

Since I am actually playing a pbem game in 44, anyone else? I didn't think so, let me tell you jap subs are darn hard to sink in late war in open water, even with dedicated HK groups

[Mr.Frag]

ORIGINAL: freeboy

Since I am actually playing a pbem game in 44, anyone else? I didn't think so, let me tell you jap subs are darn hard to sink in late war in open water, even with dedicated HK groups

Oh my ... Let me make they easier to sink for you! (hearing Ron punch a wall in Toronto) [:D]

[Bombur]

ORIGINAL: freeboy

Since I am actually playing a pbem game in 44, anyone else? I didn't think so, let me tell you jap subs are darn hard to sink in late war in open water, even with dedicated HK groups

-Strange, they are so easy to be sunk in earlier scenario, what about those depth charges with 30 accuracy? On the other hand, how many IJN subs did you sink up to now?

[freeboy]

a good amount, I think it dependson if they are shallow and moving, if movinghtey are VERY hard in deep water

[Bombur]

-In that case, the troubles in sinking submarines in late game aren´t related to the lack of remaining subs[;)]?

[Culiacan Mexico]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: Culiacan Mexico


Nikademus

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

Would that then mean (Naval Ability):

A group of escorts with commanders in the 50’s searching for a submarine with a commander in the 50’s has an ‘X’ chance of finding and attacking, while the same escort seeking out a submarine with a commander in the 70’s change the equation significantly (x/2 or x/4)? Are they effects of this difference in leadership value actually greater than that? Is it possible that the differences in leaderships first affect the chance of detection then the ability of the submarine to evade/survive the attack. That would mean that any variation in abilities between the commanders would be squared: instead of x/2 or x/4 it would be x/4 or x/16.

A associate of mine insisted that his ASW was much more effective after replacing TF leaders with a better or high quality one. I ran some tests of my own but the results were inconclusive. Given what i've found in regards to the LCU model, I dont doubt that leaders 'can' have a big effect on ASW TF and sub TF effectiveness. Overall, leader ratings are the big "under the hood" modifyer because while their impact can be substantial, often their influence can be buried by all the other checks in the game or simply because the skill rating differences between the opposing sides are such that the impact isn't all that noticible.

My 'problem' with leader replacement helping Submarines is that I did at the same time as I upgraded to 1.4 and I started to pay more attention to ship experience. I made all these changes at the same time and found that my sub where not just road kill waiting for an American ship to run them down.

Some of the starting Japanese Submarines are not well trained and have fairly poor commanders (viewed in editor… low naval ability high aggression), which sounds like a very bad combination.

Ship leaders for APD, PG, PC, and MSW for the Japanese are generally Captain or below with ratings in the low fifties or below for Naval skill; and ship abilities are at or below 50. Having only played the Japanese side, I would guess that the American leaders and ships were not much better. So it would make sense that a well experience submarine crew (70’s) with a talented leader (Naval 70’s) should have a major advantage over an escort with limited experience (50) and a inexperienced Captain (50). I don’t know that it works that way, but it would make sense if it did.



Mogami – “Hi, Well in a system where everything is comparing one rating against another I think the ship ratings matter a lot. We know a ship (combat ship) is trained when it reaches 55. That means any ship with a rating below 55 is not yet fully trained. Expecting units to achive results when they are not fully trained that you would expect from fully trained is unfair to the unit and to the system that advised you at the start what fully trained was.”

[freeboy]

In that case, the troubles in sinking submarines in late game aren´t related to the lack of remaining subs

I see them laying mines and being a nuisance, then I run over them, see them in the cr with never a hit

[Culiacan Mexico]

ORIGINAL: Oznoyng

ORIGINAL: Culiacan Mexico
I send most of my Japanese submarines to base on turn one just to replace the ship commander with one that you describe: high naval ability, but low aggression.

I have not been sending my commanders back to change them out. I view the first turn movement bonus as an opportunity for the Japanese player to reshuffle his forces/deployments to fit his plan. I also view the early part of the war as the best time for the Japanese to catch unescorted ships.

Given my experiences so far, I expect that I will be RTB'ing my subs and replacing the commanders, if not on 12/7/41, then soon after.

I upgrade to 1.4, I started replacing poor commanders with very good ones, and I paid attention to the Submarines experience ratings. I have less boats sunk and actually have many returning to port for more torpedoes.

Caveat - This is only against the AI. I am not saying the present ASW subroutine works correctly or doesn’t work correctly; I am just speculating that with the current program Leadership and Ship Experience may be critical with the Submarine fleet… both areas I long ignored.

[sfbaytf]

Are there any plans to fix this issue? I looked at the 1.5 list of fixes and don't see anything regarding ASW over effectiveness. I'm surprised this wasn't caught by devs or QA folks.

[freeboy]

OK, something like 10 asw attacks in a row without a hit in 44, so suck on lemons you bad boys out there talking about allied superiority!

[Tristanjohn]

The following link wil take you to an AAR report of yet another IJN submarine sunk in our PBEM game. The total of IJN boats sent to the bottom now stands at 21 through 15 June 1942.

This submarine had the temerity to try and attack a routine USN supply convoy. All those MSWs you see were being ferried from the west coast to the front, but they participated as well. And check out the hits on this poor boat: nine of them in all!

Anyway, here's the link for anyone with interest: IJN sub sunk

[Halsey]

I thought Ron was back when this thread reappeared.[:D]

Ron come back, we need you!
This forum doesn't seem right without your insight!

[mogami]

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

The following link wil take you to an AAR report of yet another IJN submarine sunk in our PBEM game. The total of IJN boats sent to the bottom now stands at 21 through 15 June 1942.

This submarine had the temerity to try and attack a routine USN supply convoy. All those MSWs you see were being ferried from the west coast to the front, but they participated as well. And check out the hits on this poor boat: nine of them in all!

Anyway, here's the link for anyone with interest: IJN sub sunk

Hi, I have a PBEM game that has reached 9 May 1942.
Total number of submarines sunk to date (FOW) 3 Allied 1 Japanese. (1 Allied and the Japanese boat were sunk by bombs while in port)
Japanese submarines have sunk at least 11 Allied ships and damaged others. Allied submarines have sunk at least 4 ships and damaged a number of others.
There have been many encounters with submarines and escorts that produced no result.
At least 4 IJN Boats have been hit by DC and survived. (current most damaged boat has 19 sys and has been in repair yard for some time now.)
Another 10 or so Japanese ships have been damaged or sunk by mines laid by Allied submarines.
It is not that I am not seeing Allied submarines. I spot them and send ASW TF but they have been eluding me or my ASW has been unable to hit them. Japanese submarines have been quite good at being gone the turn after they attack.
I think Lee has been very busy training his boats for the future.

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

The following link wil take you to an AAR report of yet another IJN submarine sunk in our PBEM game. The total of IJN boats sent to the bottom now stands at 21 through 15 June 1942.

This submarine had the temerity to try and attack a routine USN supply convoy. All those MSWs you see were being ferried from the west coast to the front, but they participated as well. And check out the hits on this poor boat: nine of them in all!

Anyway, here's the link for anyone with interest: IJN sub sunk

Hi, I have a PBEM game that has reached 9 May 1942.
Total number of submarines sunk to date (FOW) 3 Allied 1 Japanese. (1 Allied and the Japanese boat were sunk by bombs while in port)
Japanese submarines have sunk at least 11 Allied ships and damaged others. Allied submarines have sunk at least 4 ships and damaged a number of others.
There have been many encounters with submarines and escorts that produced no result.
At least 4 IJN Boats have been hit by DC and survived. (current most damaged boat has 19 sys and has been in repair yard for some time now.)

All that tells us is that, quite typically for Grigsby's games, the results his models give are all over the map! That is hardly a good thing, indeed, it is just one more benchmark of a bad model.

[mogami]

Hi, I think it shows that players are not restricted in how they play GG games and the results follow the play styles to a great extent.

[freeboy]

It is 08 44 in our pbem.. whenjap suvs are moving it is almost impossible to get contacts, and then hard to get hits... I think I sunk one out of 25+ contacts and maybe 12 attacks

I agree with Mogami on this one

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: Halsey

I thought Ron was back when this thread reappeared.[:D]

Ron come back, we need you!
This forum doesn't seem right without your insight!

I think Ron has beat his head against the wall on this one so many times its sore - that's kinda how my head feels - what's the point of introducing the same facts over and over again - when they're ignored -over and over again ?

I just wish we wouldn't blame the players when the model is so obviously broke - but we do - over and over.

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, I think it shows that players are not restricted in how they play GG games and the results follow the play styles to a great extent.

Play styles would affect the results, no doubt about that. But it's possible to eliminate this factor easily enough by simply running tests. I haven't bothered to because I already know from my play in the game so far, a game which is being conducted soberly and reasonably by two mature wargamers and is not some willy-nilly affair, that the ASW model needs work. And from what I've seen thus far plenty of it, too.

I forgot to ask Chez this turn what his mortality rate has been on submarine attacks, but as I noted in a previous post it must be running on the order of 70% if not higher still. And again, the majority of these kills by the USN have been when his I-boats (mostly) have attacked my supply convoys, which are, to repeat myself, escorted by just three or four destroyers as a rule. In all of these attacks on my supply convoys he has managed to sink just one AP.

In this example I just gave, only two of the destroyers had night experience ratings of 55 or greater (in fact both of those destroyers had ratings of exactly 55), the other had a rating of 52, the DMS a rating of 47, and the MSWs were rated anywhere from 34-41. And nine hits were recorded on his I-boat.

That's a sad story, Russ.

[mogami]

Hi, Sometimes things get lost in the translation. I'm not against changing formula I am against changing them just to get them to produce a set result no matter the cirumstance.
Just because 38 USN subs were lost in the Pacific does not mean the USN has to lose 38 in WITP. It certainly does not mean he has to lose 76 either.
Submarines are not supposed to engage enemy ASW. (sinking the DD before it spots you is fine but a submarine should not make an attack when it is clear that if it does it will under go DC attacks)
In WITP I find it is 33 perecnt in a ASW action. (roughly) 33 percent of the time my sub gets away unharmed. 33 percent it gets hit but survives (now it depends on how close the nearest size 3 port is) and 33 percent of the time my sub is lost. This is only when an actual ASW attack takes place. Quite often there is no attack but if I leave the sub in the hex the following turn the odds get worse.

If in my PBEM games there was a steady result that for each submarine lost a set number of enemy ships were sunk in return it would be easier to make an informed judgement however in some games enemy submarines are sunk for no return while in others fewer subs are lost but they are sinking escorted Japanese ships.

I have a game where 14 USN boats have been lost for 11 sinkings and another where 5 USN boats have been sunk but have accounted for 21 Japanese ships sunk. (there are of course damaged USn boats and damaged Japanese ships as well)

The point here is that 1 player got 2x the results with 1/3 the cost when compared to the other. (I seem to be pretty steady at 3 enemy ships sunk for each sub I lose) My farthest games are Brady and Ron. (Aug 42) Brady has lost about the same number of boats as Ron but has done 10x the damage. (Brady has sunk a large number of Japanese ships with his boats often by laying mines) Brady has also operated in "no mans land" while Ron stays inside Japanese ASW. Japanese results are almost exactly alike. (I've lost less then half their number while sinking about the same number of enemy ships in both games. But then it was the same starting file and Japanese submarine Ops were the same in both games)

There is no denying it that WITP kills submarines. So the questions that need answers are

1. Are there circumstance where a submarine will almost always be detected and attacked
2. Are there circumstance when a submarine will almost always evade detection.
3. By what degree are these circumstance different (how do you go from never being detected to almost certain detection)

Because if submarines are detected they will be attacked and if they are attacked they will be hit. If a submarine is attacked and hit often enough it will be sunk.

If there are more attacks in WITP compared to the actual war, WHY?
Never mind DC ratings the first step is detecting the submarine. Why are so many players having boats found in the first place?
What are players who lose fewer boats while sinking as many (or more) enemy ships doing differently? Why do these players get these results all the time?