Leo's ASW TEST (and scenario) - problems spotted!

[DFalcon]

ORIGINAL: Apollo11


So... who volunteers to help to see what is really going with WitP Air and ASW search?


Leo "Apollo11"

I will run some tests and post results.

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

Relationship between selected HEX range (remember it is halved!) and enemy submarines sighted...


According to test is appears that lowering the range in order to increase "density" of search aircraft over some area is not working (i.e. idea that with less range the search will be better because there is less area covered with same number of aircraft used).

So... unless some other factors are in play (like enemy base in range with strong CAP that routinely kills your search aircraft) there is no need to lower the range from MAX...


Leo "Apollo11"

[jwilkerson]

Not to overly complexify the effort - but Naval Search is also extremely effective at killing subs ( at leasts in prior to 1.7 releases ) ... in fact many players hardly use ASW Search since Naval Search gets the job done so well. Try bombers like Martin or PBM at 1000 foot at normal range ... glug glug go the subs ...

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

Relationship between altitude and enemy submarines sighted...


According to test is appears that altitude isn't much affecting submarine spotting.

So... unless some other factors are in play (like enemy flak on submarines in area that can damage your search aircraft or wish to attack more accurately during search if opportunity arises) there is no need to lower the altitude...


Leo "Apollo11"





P.S. [Edit]
Typo (last 0 was "lost") - last two numbers in table should be "10000ft" and "20000ft"!

[DFalcon]

The first test is complete using Apollo test scenario.

For this test the search aircraft were set as follows.

Emily 6000ft Nav. Search 90%
Betty 6000ft Nav. Attack 20%
Jake 6000ft Nav. Search 90%
Alf stood down.

The US subs were placed around the base 6 at each range from 1 to 6. (See screen shot) and moved each turn maintaining distance from the base to eliminate DL. I ran 10 turns and recorded the results. A brief summary is below.

Average number of Subs spotted each turn 7.7, overall chance of discovery 21%.

Weather ? ? ? Overcast Rain Overcast Rain Rain Overcast Partial
Turn 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 %
Range
1 3 5 4 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 35.00%
2 3 2 0 0 4 1 1 2 1 2 26.67%
3 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 1 0 13.33%
4 4 2 1 2 0 2 1 0 2 1 25.00%
5 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 2 2 18.33%
6 1 1 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 10.00%
Total 14 11 9 4 6 9 4 7 7 6 21.39%
% 38.89% 30.56% 25.00% 11.11% 16.67% 25.00% 11.11% 19.44% 19.44% 16.67%
Overall % 21.39%
Average 7.7

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

Relationship between aircraft used and enemy submarines sighted...


According to test is appears that number of aircraft used scale rather good and linear with submarine spotting.

So... more aircraft used equals better spotting!


NOTE: there were 36 enemy submarines altogether.


Leo "Apollo11"

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

<snip>

According to test is appears that altitude isn't much affecting submarine spotting.

So... unless some other factors are in play (like enemy flak on submarines in area that can damage your search aircraft or wish to attack more accurately during search if opportunity arises) there is no need to lower the altitude...

<snip>

(A) Of course altitude SHOULD affect submarine spotting ( or any ship spotting ) ... while wakes can be seen far a great distance ... telling what kind of ship is making the wake one must get closer and lower. Per Chez ( who looked for subs for a living ) sub search altitude woul be 3,000 ft IRL. But we hear you - in the game - spotting the sub is apparently independent of altitude.

(B) Seeing the sub may be the only thing you're testing - but "killing" or at least "attacking" and "hitting" the sub does seem to happen much more often when the altitude is lower ( 1,000 feet ) in my experience - but maybe that is another set of tests.

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: DFalcon

The first test is complete using Apollo test scenario.

For this test the search aircraft were set as follows.

Emily 6000ft Nav. Search 90%
Betty 6000ft Nav. Attack 20%
Jake 6000ft Nav. Search 90%
Alf stood down.

The US subs were placed around the base 6 at each range from 1 to 6. (See screen shot) and moved each turn maintaining distance from the base to eliminate DL. I ran 10 turns and recorded the results. A brief summary is below.

Average number of Subs spotted each turn 7.7, overall chance of discovery 21%.

Weather ? ? ? Overcast Rain Overcast Rain Rain Overcast Partial
Turn 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 %
Range
1 3 5 4 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 35.00%
2 3 2 0 0 4 1 1 2 1 2 26.67%
3 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 1 0 13.33%
4 4 2 1 2 0 2 1 0 2 1 25.00%
5 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 2 2 18.33%
6 1 1 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 10.00%
Total 14 11 9 4 6 9 4 7 7 6 21.39%
% 38.89% 30.56% 25.00% 11.11% 16.67% 25.00% 11.11% 19.44% 19.44% 16.67%
Overall % 21.39%
Average 7.7

Thanks "DFalcon" (and nice modification)!


BTW, if you use "code" you can get tables to sort much better - here is what it would look like:

Code: Select all

 Average number of Subs spotted each turn 7.7, overall chance of discovery 21%.
 
 Weather	?	?	?	Overcast	Rain	Overcast	Rain	Rain	Overcast	Partial	
 Turn	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	%
 Range											
 1	3	5	4	1	1	2	1	2	1	1	35.00%
 2	3	2	0	0	4	1	1	2	1	2	26.67%
 3	1	0	2	0	1	1	0	2	1	0	13.33%
 4	4	2	1	2	0	2	1	0	2	1	25.00%
 5	2	1	0	1	0	2	1	0	2	2	18.33%
 6	1	1	2	0	0	1	0	1	0	0	10.00%
 Total	14	11	9	4	6	9	4	7	7	6	21.39%
 %	38.89%	30.56%	25.00%	11.11%	16.67%	25.00%	11.11%	19.44%	19.44%	16.67%	
 Overall %	21.39%										
 Average	7.7
 

Leo "Apollo11"

[Nomad]

Thanks Leo, that made his much easier to read. We learn something everyday.[:D]

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Nomad

Thanks Leo, that made his much easier to read. We learn something everyday.[:D]

No problem at all - glad to be of help!


BTW, why I didn't think of your way of arranging submarines... [;)]


Leo "Apollo11"

[madmickey]

ORIGINAL: Nomad

ORIGINAL: madmickey

Ron is Right

We know that, now convince Matrix Games and 2x3 of that. [:D]

Mission Impossible

[DFalcon]

Thanks for the tip on "/code". My second test just locked up on me but will get back at it.

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: DFalcon

My second test just locked up on me but will get back at it.

There is known bug In WitP that freezes the scenario after certain amount of turns if there is too few units used for both sides!

I hope that I used enough units for both sides (bulk of them is on Marcus Island for Japan and Midway for USA) for at least 20 turns...


Leo "Apollo11"

[Dereck]

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

Relationship between aircraft used and enemy submarines sighted...


According to test is appears that number of aircraft used scale rather good and linear with submarine spotting.

So... more aircraft used equals better spotting!


NOTE: there were 36 enemy submarines altogether.


Leo "Apollo11"

Okay now the question is whether it's a question of:

1) Things working as planned but people just overkilling on ASW search
2) People overkilling on ASW search and ASW search too easy
3) ASW search too easy under any circumstances

I would just hate to see a change made with the people using uber-ASW patrols in mind resulting in lowering the chances significantly for people NOT using uber-ASW patrols.

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: dereck
Okay now the question is whether it's a question of:

1) Things working as planned but people just overkilling on ASW search
2) People overkilling on ASW search and ASW search too easy
3) ASW search too easy under any circumstances

IMHO it is "2" and "3" for both sides...

BTW, the ASW from ships is now changed a lot in v1.70 BETA and I must say I like it a lot (I was advocating for something like this with lost of near misses - new messages are doing just that)!


Leo "Apollo11"

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

From "What's New" PDF:

6/20/2005 v1.60

8) Air search and air based ASW effectiveness were too effective. Fixed.

So recent work was already done regarding this... perhaps one more look into this issue is needed especially now with recent tests done here in this thread...


Leo "Apollo11"

[DFalcon]

The second test is complete using Apollo test scenario.

For this test the search aircraft were set as follows.

Emily 6000ft Nav. Search 90%
Betty 6000ft ASW 90%
Jake 6000ft Nav. Search 90%
Alf Nav. Search 90%

The US subs were placed around the base 6 at each range from 1 to 6 and moved each turn maintaining distance from the base to eliminate DL. I ran 10 turns and recorded the results. A brief summary is below.

Average number of Subs spotted each turn 27.4, overall chance of discovery 76%.

The first test there where no hits on US subs. In this second test 4 Subs were hit only 2 had damage worth mentioning, 15/0 and 25/23 after being left on patrol.

Code: Select all

 
 Weather	Partial	Partial	Partial	Overcast	Overcast	Overcast	Thunder	Thunder	Thunder	Rain	
 Turn	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	%
 Range											
 1	6	6	6	6	4	6	6	6	6	5	95.00%
 2	6	6	6	6	6	6	6	6	6	4	96.67%
 3	5	5	6	6	4	5	6	5	4	6	86.67%
 4	6	6	6	6	5	6	4	5	6	6	93.33%
 5	4	3	3	1	3	3	2	2	2	2	41.67%
 6	1	3	3	5	0	3	3	2	2	4	43.33%
 Total	28	29	30	30	22	29	27	26	26	27	76.11%
 %	77.78%	80.56%	83.33%	83.33%	61.11%	80.56%	75.00%	72.22%	72.22%	75.00%	
 Overall %	76.11%										
 Average	27.4										
 
 
 

[jwilkerson]

Try with Lily or Helen at 1000 feet at 100% naval search ..

Or better yet try with Martin or PBM at 1000 feet at 100% naval search !

These combo's are the "sub killers" in the games I've seen ...

[Dereck]

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

From "What's New" PDF:

6/20/2005 v1.60

8) Air search and air based ASW effectiveness were too effective. Fixed.

So recent work was already done regarding this... perhaps one more look into this issue is needed especially now with recent tests done here in this thread...


Leo "Apollo11"

Don't patch to 1.7 right now ... there is a bug in the patch which will make fragments disappear on the allied side.

[Dereck]

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: dereck
Okay now the question is whether it's a question of:

1) Things working as planned but people just overkilling on ASW search
2) People overkilling on ASW search and ASW search too easy
3) ASW search too easy under any circumstances

IMHO it is "2" and "3" for both sides...

BTW, the ASW from ships is now changed a lot in v1.70 BETA and I must say I like it a lot (I was advocating for something like this with lost of near misses - new messages are doing just that)!


Leo "Apollo11"

I'm playing devil's advocate right now ... assuming that 2 and 3 IS correct you also have to realize that if someone DOES put out 100 or 200 planes on ASW/Naval patrol and there is something out there that they're almost bound to find something. You can't realistically say that having 200 planes out searching you won't find something.

So that would maybe negate #2 and focus the attention on #3.