Armour on subs in CHS...no problem.

[Ron Saueracker]

Nikademus was concerned that armouring subs was causing some weird results in ASW, some DC types would penetrate and some would not (a concern because DCs were not designed as a penetrating weapon in the model). Well, I've been running the CHS and the subs (all armoured: 1mm/100' design depth rounded up...so eg, a Salmon class has a max depth of 250', it's armour rating is 3) and DCs are working fine, no weird results that I can see. DCs are sometimes penetrating the armour and sometimes not, about 50/50 it seems. Really adds to sub survivability without screwing with the durability, which throws the VP and production costs out of whack.

[Ron Saueracker]

I'm wondering, as mentioned in the Sub Radar thread here in the scen forums, if subs should be fitted with both surface and air radars. Anyone try and notice an impact?

[Sardaukar]

I did test it briefly..and there is impact. Surface to Air search radar seem to reduce hits on subs by planes (radars with penetration=500). But you need 2 sets since they don't detect ships. Sub armour works fine too...no weird results so far.

[Oleg Mastruko]

I guess it depends on what you call "weird results". [:D]

O.

[Sardaukar]

Well, I haven't seen anything non-plausible so far in CHS sub model. Subs sink just fine, be it bombs or DCs. I like that they are bit more tougher now.

[Big B]

Ron,
I just read your thread here and I'm interested, how do you model sub armor for CHS? Didn't quite get it.

I'm interested because I agree with you that subs do seem pretty easy to sink.

B

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Well, I haven't seen anything non-plausible so far in CHS sub model. Subs sink just fine, be it bombs or DCs. I like that they are bit more tougher now.

[X(][X(][X(]

Can they be any more tough than in the original game??? I regularly see subs withstanding hits by 250kg, 250lb or 500lb bombs, and various DCs, with ease, and living to tell the tale.

Now, if you said *targeting* is the problem in ASW (in that subs get hit too often) I might even agree with that.

But, once hit, subs should, if anything, be more sinkable than in the original game, not less!

Oleg

[Sardaukar]

You must be playing different game than I then. I have no problem sinking an been sunk with subs. And that subs sometimes survive hits is not that bad thing. Since there was regular damage to subs from bombs and DCs in reality..and many did still live to tell, I don't mind lil bit of armour. Anyhow, if I'm right, subs equipped with surface based air-search radars seem to avoid air attacks way better. Bad thing about it is that only Allied subs would have that advantage. I'm not sure if it would not screw the ASW model even more.

[Oleg Mastruko]

Sorry, but adding armor on subs is yet another case of curing the initial "wrong-ness" by introducing yet more wrong-ness, hoping against hope that it will, somehow, with gods help, equalize in the end, and by some magic produce good (pro-Allied in case of Ron [:D]) results.

That is *definitely* not a way to go in my "modding book", ESPECIALLY in a game as complex as WITP. But hey whatever rocks your boat...

O.

[Big B]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Well, I haven't seen anything non-plausible so far in CHS sub model. Subs sink just fine, be it bombs or DCs. I like that they are bit more tougher now.

[X(][X(][X(]

Can they be any more tough than in the original game??? I regularly see subs withstanding hits by 250kg, 250lb or 500lb bombs, and various DCs, with ease, and living to tell the tale.

Now, if you said *targeting* is the problem in ASW (in that subs get hit too often) I might even agree with that.

But, once hit, subs should, if anything, be more sinkable than in the original game, not less!

Oleg

Well, you may be right about that.

I'm doing a PBEM as the allies and I have come into contact with (I think) 15 jap subs...I have sunk 13 of them.
It seems that once I find them - and by that I mean once THEY attack ME (because that's the only way I ever come in contact with them) - the jap subs are almost always sunk (oh yah, and it's Jul'42).

I don't shed any tears for them - but we (our team) were beginning to think they may be too east to sink.

On the other hand we have lost 2 subs in almost 3 months we've played but we have about a dozen being repaired so our subs are pretty hardy.

One thing I have noticed - I find jap subs AFTER they attack me, the japs find and attack MY subs before they even spot the japs.

That's a little wacky - we may have bad torpedoes, but subs should almost ALWAYS be the aggressor especially early in the war.

B

[Sardaukar]

It's matter of taste and perception of things. Everyone has his own opinion. I just like how things are now. [:D]
I have to test further how my SD radar for Allied subs will screw Air ASW now..[:'(] I do play exclusively Allied vs. AI..and AI on Hard (I don't like artificial combat and supply modifiers on Very Hard) still does very good job against me in CHS1.02. And I'm continuously cursing how IJN/IJA AI is massacring me till summer 1942..[8D]

[Oleg Mastruko]

To put my argument in another words...

Hitting a sub should result in it being sunk MUCH more often than, say, surface ship. Cases of badly damaged subs (say 30+ SYS or 50+ SYS) surviving were, and should be extremely rare. Subs were very fragile vessels by the very definition and design. So, if it's HIT, sub should SINK, period. Adding armor to make it unsinkable is simply a bad joke in my opinion.

Now, subs may be too easily spotted and too easily targetted in WITP - that is something I may eventually agree with. But they are definitely not too fragile in the original game. I have damaged subs that survived all sorts of attacks all accross the map, and are limping home accross Pacific with holes from 500lb bombs in their fragile 50+ SYS damaged bodies. In reality, those subs should and would be sunk.

Perhaps they should not have been targeted at the first place, but that's another problem.

O.

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

I do play exclusively Allied vs. AI..and AI on Hard (I don't like artificial combat and supply modifiers on Very Hard)

Quite frankly, what you said above does not make you very competent as tester (no offense, perhaps I put it too harshly).

O.

[Sardaukar]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

I do play exclusively Allied vs. AI..and AI on Hard (I don't like artificial combat and supply modifiers on Very Hard)

Quite frankly, what you said above does not make you very competent as tester (no offense, perhaps I put it too harshly).

O.

Game is a game and combat formulas are same for PBEM. Or do you disagree ?? That wasn't very thoughtful post from you, but then you seem to have personal grudge against CHS or anyone who disagrees with you.

[timtom]

Shouldn't you post these helpful suggestions over on the WitP Wish List where they belong, Oleg?

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

I do play exclusively Allied vs. AI..and AI on Hard (I don't like artificial combat and supply modifiers on Very Hard)

Quite frankly, what you said above does not make you very competent as tester (no offense, perhaps I put it too harshly).

O.

IMO this was uncalled for...I do agree with Olegs arguments though that subs should be harder to spot...

[Sardaukar]

Not to mention there is big difference between testing the game and playing it. My preferences of how I like to *play* has nothing to do with *testing*.

Anyhow, I like the armour in subs. If someone doesn't, he can edit all he wants. Heck, even I think I want remove that darn Fireball and add F-80 to CHS (sorry Ron!! [:D]). And surface search radar for late war Catalinas etc. They beauty of it is that I can edit and play just as I like..and I don't need to push my views and edits to others !! [:'(]

[Oleg Mastruko]

You're both right, I concur, and I didn't try to "push my view on others". I said couple posts above - whatever rocks your boat... I apologize if I was too confrontational for someone's taste [&o]

On the other hand, there is also difference between posting: "I haven't seen anything non-plausible so far in CHS sub model" as Sardaukar did, and saying simply "I enjoy to play that way". If you say you enjoy it - no problem with me. But if you claim model is fine, generally speaking, then I must say that I think otherwise.

O.

[Sardaukar]

Well, it's matter of opinion too. I don't see anything wrong...at least nothing that I can think that any mod would correct..[:D]. On the other hand, ASW combat kinda sucks basicly..but it's the code. We won't probably see change in that, since programmers have moved on to other projects.
So, Mods may use all kinds of "crude hacks" to reduce sub losses from original (which I see as "mayhem") but they can only address the issue so far.
So we both think that ASW modelling in game is far far from perfect..and not even good. But I give it "adequate to poor".
Maybe adding lot of maneuverability instead of armour might be better solution, but I like that subs could (with bit of luck) withstand hit or two without sinking.

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Well, it's matter of opinion too. I don't see anything wrong...at least nothing that I can think that any mod would correct..[:D]. On the other hand, ASW combat kinda sucks basicly..but it's the code. We won't probably see change in that, since programmers have moved on to other projects.
So, Mods may use all kinds of "crude hacks" to reduce sub losses from original (which I see as "mayhem") but they can only address the issue so far.
So we both think that ASW modelling in game is far far from perfect..and not even good.

No actually I think ASW modelling in the original game is *excellent*.

Now, completely different problem is that the players will find a way to abuse anything, but I don't think it is a designer's fault.

If a player puts 200+ IJ Army Sally bombers or B17s on naval patrol and ASW patrol, then gee, surprise, surprise - he will get lots of sightings and couple hits on enemy subs. If a player forms a swarm of specialised ASW TFs with 10+ high EXP DDs in each - then gee surprise, surprise, subs will die.

Of course, historically, using Army bombers for ASW work was nigh on impossible, for both sides, for various reasons. Using Klingon battlefleet of 200+ B17s or Sallys for ASW in 42 was pure SF. In fact even *having* that many Sallys or B17 in the whole Pac *theatre* was impossible. But, if playing in "free upgrade" candyland, players can, and WILL do it. Hey...

Using swarm of specialised ASW 10+ DD hunter killer forces in 42 in Pacific was also impossible but players will do it.

But such things are inherent to wargaming and can hardly be eradicated. Give player the ability to produce King Tigers and he will produce LOTS of King Tigers. He will always outproduce historical numbers on good weapons, and kill production of bad weapons. Can we blame them for doing that?

You can try to find an opponent who would be ready to adhere to some house rules (no free upgrades, no army bombers on ASW, no 100+ mega conwoys with Klingon escorts) and then you'll get VERY realistic results.

When using only naval patrol aircraft for naval patrol you will get VERY few sightings and almost NO hits at all.

Now, the issue here (as in many other co called "problems" with the game) is can you really blame the players for knowing history and using history lessons to somewhat improve their play? I think not, and I think curing (perceived) weirdness by introducing yet more weirdness is inherently a WRONG way to do things.

There is a reason why this game tries to model every single piece of equipment on every vehicle. If you tweak the "inventory" of any vessel in the game to get the results you think are right you open the Pandora's box, and every player will find an argument to do incredibly weird things (well armor on subs - can it get any weirder than *that*? [:D])

If you do that for your personal enjoyment (like you say you do Sardaukar) - hey more power to you... But if you claim it's "realistic" and "right thing to do" then I have every right to say it's IMO laughable.

O.