Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Mogami

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

It's not just the Allied ASW which is whacked, it is all ASW.

What is aggressive use of subs? Placing them in shipping lanes? Placing them in base hexes? Hex is 60 miles as we all know[8|][;)], but how close is too close? 10 miles offshore under water? Surfaced at night? Surrounding Truk or some major base in the hopes of having a CV TF cross it's path while waiting in ambush? What?

This is what subs did historically. Prien sank a BB like this. Wahoo sank a DD at Wewak doing this. Battle of Lingayan gulf saw about 8 examples of this over a day or so. None of these subs was lost.

In WITP, just being in the same hex as an enemy TF is bad news for the sub, not the other way around. The hunter is the hunted.

That's been my experience in my first PBEM game. As Allied sub doctrine was toggled on my Allied boats, of course, don't see much of anything, much less actually attack anything. They are, however seen by Japanese surface assets (I assume these are ASW TFs) and attacked regularly. So far my losses have been just four boats (two Dutch jobs and a couple of S-class USN boats.)

My Japanese opponent, on the other hand, has had 19 of his submarines sunk through 5 June 1942. He does not use his boats recklessly but rather just places them in logical shipping lanes. When my convoys come along these Japanese boats then sometimes attack (what the percentage is of these attacks versus times when I run over them unnoticed I don't know). My convoys are what I consider to be normal in composition, about twenty transports with a typical escort of three destroyers. My kill percentage of Japanese submarines which attack my convoys is high--well over 50%, but again I don't have an exact figure to give you.

My Japanese opponent to date has sunk only one transport. His boats have also sunk one destroyer which was part of a fast-transport TF and have hit (only damaged) a light cruiser which was part of a bombardment TF which, for some unknown reason, failed to move that phase.

And that's it.

Granted, this sample is only from one game, but it does appear to me that the ASW routines are off by quite a bit based on this data. Add in any number of similar reports by players of other games and it's easier still to draw this conclusion.

Hi, Interesting. When I play I sink twce as many enemy boats. When you play you sink many times more enemy boats and yet we are not playing the same sides?

In my Allied games I have sunk 4 or 5 times as many Japanese subs as I've lost. (have not tabulated these games yet)

In the actual war the bulk of Japanese ships sunk by USN submarines occured after the IJN had lost a good part of it's ASW ships (Fleet DD) There was little action in South Pacific prior to Aug 1943. USN boats were used to protect areas where no Japanese ever moved. IJN boats in this period sank over 900k ton of shipping. (So they are being robbed more then USN)

If it needs to be pointed out over and over that attacking escorted ships in WITP is more dangerous then attacking unescorted ships in actual war. (I don't think Prien could have entered Pearl Harbor in 1942) I think Ron and others expect 1944 USN submarine results in 41/42 Like trying to fly unescorted bombers. You can do it but it works better if you eliminate the enemy fighters first. Before you conduct a massive USN submarine campaign sink a few IJN DD. (The PC/PG/MSW don't seem to sink many subs)

During 1942, I don't think many USN submarines got within 60 miles of Japanese Home Island port. Conducted a attack and remained in the area. (And in the entire year I would like to find 10 examples of a sub being that close)

When I am allied against AI I have no trouble with Japanese ASW around PI.

When good results can be had by a player runnign both sides it tells me there is more to it then the "system" As Japan I sink 2x USN subs. As USN I sink 4x IJN subs. In both cases my loss are not severe and my subs sink as many enemy ships as enemy subs sink of mine.

I just wonder why we single out submarine warfare. Players are losing 3 or 4 times as much other material as well. In the game with Ron he has lost around 500 aircraft per month. (And he posts he is doing well in air battles. An air freak would be howling)

You could hardly characterize Ron or me as players who single out submarine warfare, Mogami. Both of us are on record being critical of pretty much the entire game. I haven't kept up with every ebb and eddy of your AAR with Ron, but I'd dare say somewhere along the line he's mentioned that in his opinion the air system is entirely too bloody as well. In fact, he just made such a remark within the last day or so, as I recall, asking something to the effect, "Maybe we should have bombers grounded more often," this in an effort to slow the air model down.

I posted today on your AAR what my feelings are regarding Gary's game model as a whole. I believe it's fatally flawed for the reason not enough effort was made to build it with reasonably accurate data and effective schemes. This comes in the form of specific equipment ratings for airplanes, just for example, or in the case of the land-combat model dubious movement routines, no ZOC exercised in adjacent hexes, what appears to be a dysfunctional supply routine, either by design and/or function, etc. When false data values and incompetent game mechanisms begin to interact with one another during play it should not be unexpected that strange casuallties will result.

In my example of submarine warfare in the PBEM I have going with Chez, the results have to be only half of the picture, as with Allied sub doctrine toggled on only he can play that game from the point of view of boat skipper. What might transpire in this regard from the USN perspective once late summer or early fall of 1943 rolls around and the shackles are finally taken off my submarine skippers' hands is anyone's guess. I'll report back then.

In the meantime, I urge you to closely consider the Allied Submarine Doctrine rule as a good working example of what I've written above regarding incompetent game mechcanisms serving only to frustrate reasonable play. I don't know who dreamed this rule up or what the rationale for it was. I do know whatever that rationale was it's still baloney, and that its effect in the game is nothing short of ridiculous. Garbage in, garbage out.

More important to me that the number of subs lost in a game compared to historical losses in a given number fo months is the fact that IJN subs have almost no chance to survive an encounter with an escorted Allied TF. That is in 1942.

This is a list of the encounter between USN main TFs and Jap submarines in 1942:

11 Jan 42 :
Saratoga damaged by I-6, that escaped

6 Jun 1942
Yorktown and Hammann sunk by I-168, damaged by DCs but survived

31 Aug 1942
Saratoga damaged by I-26, that escaped

15 Sep 1942
Wasp sunk, DD o'Brien so damaged she was lost after and North Carolina damaged by I-19, that escaped

20 Oct 1942
CA Chester damaged by I-176, that escaped

As far as I know, all Japanese submarines sunk during this year were destroyed by ships or ASW groups sent to the spot they were sighted before. When Jap subs surprise their target, they escape always (as did almost all subs of all navies in these years).
Allied submarines and accidents were two of the main causes of loss of Japanese submarines in the first year of the Pacific War.

ORIGINAL: Brady

Highly argessive from my perspective is used to define deployment in areas whear large numbers of ASW assests are suspected to be encountered.

Pretty much how I define it too. Thats how i've sank (I believe) four of Ron's subs thus far in Dec'41. 2 were in shallow water and two were in deep water but were positioned along a critical, and very heavily protected shipping lane between Formosa and the PI. Despite the heavy protection i've still lost shipping but fortunately few troops and equipment (so far)

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: Brady

Highly argessive from my perspective is used to define deployment in areas whear large numbers of ASW assests are suspected to be encountered.

Pretty much how I define it too. Thats how i've sank (I believe) four of Ron's subs thus far in Dec'41. 2 were in shallow water and two were in deep water but were positioned along a critical, and very heavily protected shipping lane between Formosa and the PI. Despite the heavy protection i've still lost shipping but fortunately few troops and equipment (so far)

I have some problemns with the concept of shallow and deep water. Subs could only dive to a max depth, depending on class. Yet I see subs "going deep" all the time regardless of class in deep water. Is shallow water assumed to be a wading pool less than 200' in every case? Is going deep in relation to subs max depth? Again, this seems to have been written into the code by way of "durability" as Nik has apparently discovered and is possibly conflicting with other elements of the ASW model.

Pad152 said "ASW - things I think should happen:

1. An ASW attack should make the sub run away, it seems way to often the sub just stays in the same place only to be attacked again on the next turn.

AN ASW attack can do this, if you move the sub. If you don't shame on you.

2. When a sub is spotted the sub should duck and run, dive and sail away several hexes before is returns.

Same as above, if you want your subs to move, move them.

3. Only one or two ships of an ASW TF should be able to attack a sub. I've seen where every ship in a ASW TF attacked a sub.

Given 1 day turns I am not sure this would improve accuracy of the game. It could be a problem if your running 12 DD ASW TFs, but its not a problem if your running 4-5 ship groupings.

4. Subs should be damaged by near misses and try to escape more offen then sunk by direct hits.

I am not really sure this is a problem but it certainly could be. I just don't have enough comparative data.

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

I have some problemns with the concept of shallow and deep water. Subs could only dive to a max depth, depending on class. Yet I see subs "going deep" all the time regardless of class in deep water. Is shallow water assumed to be a wading pool less than 200' in every case? Is going deep in relation to subs max depth? Again, this seems to have been written into the code by way of "durability" as Nik has apparently discovered and is possibly conflicting with other elements of the ASW model.

Subs messages of "going deep" are strictly governed by whether or not the sub is in a shallow water hex or deep water hex.

Shallow water = "Bottoming out"
Deep water = "Going deep"

I've yet to see, in hundreds of observations, a sub in shallow water being listed as "going deep" by the game animation nor "bottoming out" when in a deep water hex.

Here is a little data in context from my game with Blackwatch we are up to end of August 1942.

In the early part of the war Blackwatch tried a sub offensive near Pearl Harbor. He lost 6 submarines to MrkVII depth charges most of which were coming from ASW groups of 4-6 DDs or DMSs. He sank 4 DDs, 2 DMSs an AK and an AO. To me this looks fine, the Japanese tried something very dangerous, sunk some ships and lost some subs. Or alternatively it looks bad because losses on both sides were very high considering that it took place in Dec - Jan 41/42. If the losses are too high then we need to limit what players can do, Blackwatch knew he was hunting in a dangerous area and he effectively caused a major naval battle. As a result a lot of stuff sank.

We have had a longer fight in the South Pacific, Blackwatch has many subs in the area. I have ASW TFs operating when I see the subs. So far he has sunk 3 APs, 2 AKs, 4 DDs and a CL. He has lost 14 subs in the area, and the allied ASW TFs have a lot of sub fighting experience. Generally if I know the location of his subs they don't last unless they move around. He is not operating in shallow water, but he does operate in an area with lots of seach planes and numerous ASW groups.

On the other side of the ledger Allied subs have sunk 1 AP, 1 DD, 2 AKs and 2 TKs. In exchange I have lost 5 subs.

We are each suffering the same subs sinking to surface ship sinking ratio. I have subs at various places in the shipping lanes or near bases that I think Blackwatch is using heavily. I move my subs when I see ASW TFs in the area. Most Allied sub casualties have been near the bases that I think combined fleet is using a lot. This makes some sense to me, they are likely to be dangerous places and they are.

I am not really sure if this data shows a problem or not. Its a bit bloody for the Japanese but they have sunk a lot of stuff, I think somewhat more than they did historically. The allies are way below historical sinkings probably I need to work on my commanders.

I have ignored strays and subs sunk in port for this comparison.

In answer to Admiral Laurents question about subs surviving attacks on capital ships I have only had one hit on a capital ship, PoW on day 1 of the war and the British ASW sunk the sub. I don't think this proves much of anything since its only one action.

I do think that if I ran huge ASW groups the game might go haywire and start giving a bad set of results. So I don't do that.

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

I have some problemns with the concept of shallow and deep water. Subs could only dive to a max depth, depending on class. Yet I see subs "going deep" all the time regardless of class in deep water. Is shallow water assumed to be a wading pool less than 200' in every case? Is going deep in relation to subs max depth? Again, this seems to have been written into the code by way of "durability" as Nik has apparently discovered and is possibly conflicting with other elements of the ASW model.

Subs messages of "going deep" are strictly governed by whether or not the sub is in a shallow water hex or deep water hex.

Shallow water = "Bottoming out"
Deep water = "Going deep"

I've yet to see, in hundreds of observations, a sub in shallow water being listed as "going deep" by the game animation nor "bottoming out" when in a deep water hex.

I realize what applies to what but some subs have a dive depth of 200' and some in excess of 400'. Aside from the durability which is tied into depth for detection purposes, I was wondering if subs with 200' max depth are getting the same "going deep" bonus the 400'+ boats do. tied to this if in shallow water, boats with higher durability are getting the benefit of their depth even in shallow hexes because it is a hard fact written into the class specs.

There's a difference in the deep hexes, however in the shallow hexes, if there is one it's heavily penalized hence the "bottoming out" msg, to indicate that the sub cant safely dive to it's maximum capability to maximize it's protection....hence why shallow hexes are so dangerous [:)]


oh and i'm going to kill that camping K-boat of yours if it's the last thing i do. 4 attacks now....no dice but keep sitting it there thumbing your nose at me. Gonna get you....and your little dog too.

[:'(]

oh and i'm going to kill that camping K-boat of yours if it's the last thing i do. 4 attacks now....no dice but keep sitting it there thumbing your nose at me. Gonna get you....and your little dog too.

Oh my! 4 attacks and the sub still lives? Guess we need to make ASW more effective! [:D]

I need some KABLAMMO.

But TankerAce embargoed me. We're declaring war on Tuesday. [:D]

oh and i'm going to kill that camping K-boat of yours if it's the last thing i do. 4 attacks now....no dice but keep sitting it there thumbing your nose at me. Gonna get you....and your little dog too.

Which one is that? I don't "camp" as it is death for subs. Must have forgotten the little bugger. It's not in a base hex, that's for sure.[X(]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

oh and i'm going to kill that camping K-boat of yours if it's the last thing i do. 4 attacks now....no dice but keep sitting it there thumbing your nose at me. Gonna get you....and your little dog too.

Oh my! 4 attacks and the sub still lives? Guess we need to make ASW more effective! [:D]

[:D] The game is early. Very soon Japan will be spotting almost every sub before sub spots surface ships as in my match with the Mogster. Then DC accuracy issues take over. If Nik parked a sub he'd be dead now.

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Which one is that? I don't "camp" as it is death for subs. Must have forgotten the little bugger. It's not in a base hex, that's for sure.[X(]

No..you learned that lesson already [;)] No this little bugger is sitting in deep water which is why i'm having such a time getting it. But dont worry.....try and try again i always say. [;)]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

[:D] The game is early. Very soon Japan will be spotting almost every sub before sub spots surface ships as in my match with the Mogster. Then DC accuracy issues take over. If Nik parked a sub he'd be dead now.

Parking subs in general is a bad idea. Of course i move my subs around, its even more important when using 2 day turns!! [X(] Ron's just mad because I-18 sent his DMS group a taunting message in morse code commenting on how lovely their DC's sound when exploding in the distance. Then I-155 sank one of his onsey transports trying to steal my booty and is currently heading home with several broomsticks hanging from the conning tower. HA!

It all comes down to restrictions on doctrine. I can't, for instance, tell my skippers:

1. Engage any transports unescorted by DD's.
2. Engage escorted transports with extreme caution. Take advantage of favorable tatical conditions, but the safety of the boat is the primary concern.
3. Aggressively engage contacts with BB's or CV's.
4. If heavy escorts make prosecuting the contact impossible, disengage, report contact, and attempt to shadow.

Yes, I can change the leader, and I can change the patrol location. These are far too abstract. In real life, I could give the above instructions to a captain. In WitP, I am left with "Well, I have no idea what sea lane my opponent is using, and I have no idea what type of TF boat "I-6feetunder" will encounter, but I think I'll send it here ----> in hopes that it will encounter something juicy. I will use Captain x with a high naval and very low aggressiveness in the hopes that he will not be an idiot and engage an ASW TF with no juicy targets."

I hear the same advice, over and over:

1. Move your subs when spotted. Done.
2. Don't put your subs in enemy ports. Never have done.
3. Don't operate your subs near enemy ports. Done. Most of my subs stay at least2 and usually more than 4 hexes from enemy bases.
4. Don't operate your subs in shallow water. Avoid this heavily. Subs travel through shallow water mostly when transitting to another area.
5. Don't attack escorted TF's. Um...If I could see the TF ahead of time, and spotting were worth a shit so I got a decent report of what transpired, and then vector my subs based upon what I see, then I would. As it is, my control of attacks comes down to the naval rating of the sub commander, the aggressiveness rating of the sub commander, luck in encountering a suitable target, and the doctrine switch (that applies to the whole game.) Imo, it isn't enough. It is not enough especially when the aggressiveness rating is a hidden number that I can only see if I look in the editor.

From what I can see, to limit sub losses in WitP, you have to put highly skilled, but cowardly skippers in subs, send them to areas in the middle of the ocean far from any enemy base in the hopes of encountering an enemy target. If you happen to encounter a target, you need to hope that you can make contact, then hope that the commander makes the right decision on whether to attack.

I-6feetunder

[:D]

I think it should be pointed out that later in the war the Americans did form sub hunting groups that attacked areas where the Japanese were known to be maintaining sub patrol lines.

These attacks were often very effective sinking a number of subs in a short period of days. ASW may be unrealistic in certain respects, or maybe just really hard to model accurately, but there were times where it was really deadly.

The problem is that the escorts are now always able to attack a sub while sailing at whatever speed. There is no difference between an ASW TF chasing a sub in his destination hex or a bombardment TF sailing at full speed at night. It seems to me that they have the same chance of detecting and sinking the sub. Maybe the bombardment TF has even a greater chance as the admiral is probably better than those used for ASW work.

In most cases, what should happen when one submarine is detected by a passing TF is that only the ship that detected her should have a chance to attack her while the other just dodge the sub (that won't be able to attack) and continue towards their destination.

I have no problems with submarines sunk the day after they have been reported. My problem is that most of the times the submarine that nobody ever saw will be detected by the escort before attacking and then sunk by a perfectly coordinated counter-attack.

In reply to Tom Hunter, I have yet to see one Japanese submarine attack an Allied CV or BB TF and survive. All were sunk in all my games, and they rarely hit anything before. I'm not speaking of chasing crippled ships but of engaging an Allied TF before a battle.

In my current PBEM, it's 30 January 1942 and I have allready sunk 8 Allied submarines (and maybe fatally wounded more). We have recently agreed to put no more than 6 ASW-capable ships in any TF (even big troop convoys) but only one submarine was sunk by a huge invasion fleet (my former tactic was to empty the port when an invasion TF leaves, so every escort ship available sails with it). On the other hand Force Z had sunk 3 submarines in one week while sailing at full speed in DEI. One of them was a minelaying submarine returning to base. All were sunk in the movement phase and none fired at the ships.

ORIGINAL: Tom Hunter

I think it should be pointed out that later in the war the Americans did form sub hunting groups that attacked areas where the Japanese were known to be maintaining sub patrol lines.

These attacks were often very effective sinking a number of subs in a short period of days. ASW may be unrealistic in certain respects, or maybe just really hard to model accurately, but there were times where it was really deadly.

That's only from the Allied side. They developed the necessary technology and training and doctrine as the war went along.