Why Does it Seem?

[Brigs]

Exactly HOW high?

For the first eighteen months of the war, the dud rate for US torpedos was just over 70 %.

[castor troy]

what you shouldn´t forget is that while the dud rate of the torps is 90% this doesn´t mean you need 10 attacks to score one exploding torp. In fact you need far fewer. My guess would be 4 and the next one makes boom. Why? Because the subs don´t only fire one torp but 2, 4 or many times 6 in a salvo.

[noguaranteeofsanity]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

ORIGINAL: cantona2

ORIGINAL: khyberbill

Until 1/43 the US sub torpedo dud rate is very high. Reduces in 1/43 and again in 9/43.

everytime I have had a CV in my sights there has always been a dud hit.

Exactly HOW high? My personal experience, which I am certain I will be reminded by the hair splitters represents an insufficient number of iterations to be an accurate representation, but nonetheless STILL represents my experience, has seen 90%+ dud rates for the Allies while the Japanese sub commanders, unrestricted by historical Japanese Sub Doctrine (conveniently omitted from AE by those same devs who constantly claim there is no Japanese bias) slaughter the Allied transports.

Until I see the devs replace the toggle for Japanese Sub Doctrine in patch 3 , I will not believe their claims that there is no bias nor will I use the setting for Allied dud torpodoes, which my personal experience shows to be excessive.

This is what you get when you turn off the dud rate:



p.s. Turning off the dud rate does not mean no duds at all. It drops the rate to arround 5%. I still get duds with both submarine and air launched torpodoes.

I would agree the dud rate is probably around 90 percent, just from guesstimates and observation, at the very least it would have to be 75 percent. Which is fairly accurate from what i have read about their historical dud rate.

Anyway, with those odds, it means you have approximately a 1 in 10 chance of the torpedo working IF it hits the target, with the chance of two torpedos working, then being 1 in 100 and so on. So, it is almost impossible to have one torpedo work, let alone have it occur repeatedly and you are almost certain to have many misses with only a rare success. Basically it means a lot of unlucky streaks and 'bad luck' for the US fleet subs.

Anyway my point is, it isnt bias, its just the luck of the draw. Its the same old complaint people have had forever with games of chance and why casinos make so much money.

My dutch subs got Kaga in the Java sea when the KB turned up in early 42, despite missing everything else. It just shows one off results, dont really indicate anything and its basically random luck.

[cantona2]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

ORIGINAL: cantona2

ORIGINAL: khyberbill

Until 1/43 the US sub torpedo dud rate is very high. Reduces in 1/43 and again in 9/43.

everytime I have had a CV in my sights there has always been a dud hit.

This is what you get when you turn off the dud rate:






p.s. Turning off the dud rate does not mean no duds at all. It drops the rate to arround 5%. I still get duds with both submarine and air launched torpodoes.

I still think that the dud rate should be in as it was in RL. Its just very frustating to score hit after hit on PB and AM classes but very little orange hits on more meaningful targets.

[castor troy]

even with the dud rates on, IMO the submarine force (especially the Allied with those huge numbers) will be able to wreck more havoc in AE than in real life.

[Sardaukar]

ORIGINAL: noguaranteeofsanity

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

ORIGINAL: cantona2




everytime I have had a CV in my sights there has always been a dud hit.

Exactly HOW high? My personal experience, which I am certain I will be reminded by the hair splitters represents an insufficient number of iterations to be an accurate representation, but nonetheless STILL represents my experience, has seen 90%+ dud rates for the Allies while the Japanese sub commanders, unrestricted by historical Japanese Sub Doctrine (conveniently omitted from AE by those same devs who constantly claim there is no Japanese bias) slaughter the Allied transports.

Until I see the devs replace the toggle for Japanese Sub Doctrine in patch 3 , I will not believe their claims that there is no bias nor will I use the setting for Allied dud torpodoes, which my personal experience shows to be excessive.

This is what you get when you turn off the dud rate:



p.s. Turning off the dud rate does not mean no duds at all. It drops the rate to arround 5%. I still get duds with both submarine and air launched torpodoes.

I would agree the dud rate is probably around 90 percent, just from guesstimates and observation, at the very least it would have to be 75 percent. Which is fairly accurate from what i have read about their historical dud rate.

Anyway, with those odds, it means you have approximately a 1 in 10 chance of the torpedo working IF it hits the target, with the chance of two torpedos working, then being 1 in 100 and so on. So, it is almost impossible to have one torpedo work, let alone have it occur repeatedly and you are almost certain to have many misses with only a rare success. Basically it means a lot of unlucky streaks and 'bad luck' for the US fleet subs.

Anyway my point is, it isnt bias, its just the luck of the draw. Its the same old complaint people have had forever with games of chance and why casinos make so much money.

My dutch subs got Kaga in the Java sea when the KB turned up in early 42, despite missing everything else. It just shows one off results, dont really indicate anything and its basically random luck.

You don't have to guess the dud rate, it can all be seen in editor (with adjustments seen in manual). IIRC, for Mk 14 it is 80% before 1/1/43, 60% after that and it drops to normal 10% in September 1943.

[Nomad]

There is one solution to this, open the editor and change things the way you want and play away.

[xj900uk]

I appear to have had at least one fish exploded when it hit the bow-wave of it's intended target - anyone else encounter this result (quite possibly in RL, I agree)
Also in the south PI had one of my S-class subs shoot at a DD and somehow manage to hit a BB.  Fortunately at least one fish exploded sending up a very impressive-looking water-spout...

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Offworlder

Use the large US subs to carry supplies to isolated garrisons and send out the S class boats who do not suffer the same penalties. Their dud rate is much lower...

In my opinion this is a poor strategy and reflects some AE players' aversion to banging up their shiny new toys. Even with the dud rate, fleet boats sink MANY merchants in 1942 if used aggressively. I probably sank roughly 70-100 at the cost of about seven losses. Those Japanese AKs represent hundreds of thousands of HI points that won't be produced in 1943-1946, Japanese garrisons that won't be resupplied, resources that will rot in the DEI. Ignoring VPs, I'd almost trade a sub for a large AK in 1942, and I certainly would for two AKs. Strangle the Japanese merchant marine and you win the war. It's that simple. It's what the USN actually did in RL. Stop babying your subs. Set reaction ranges on 6, give them aggressive COs, large patrol zones, and let them hunt. You'll lose some, but war is hell.

Steel Boats, Iron Men![:)]

[Sardaukar]

What Bullwinkle58 said. Even with dud rate of 80%, it is not that rare for USN fleet boats to sink several ships in week, sometimes with rate 1/day if all subs are utilized.

[xj900uk]

I agree it's what the US subs did in real life - unresticted warfare (a practice which the US was so adverse to it actually entered WWI 3 years late in protest) particularly against the Japanese Tanker fleet.
Always wonder how quicker the Pacific War would have ended if the US subs had been equipped with a decent reliable torpedo...

[RevRick]

I'm going to try that in the mod I'm working up... I'm beefing up both navies (WNT abrogated in 1930 vice 1936) and USN develops an effective torpedo. Yoiks and away!! Gonna be some Heavy Metal "Thunder in the Pacific."

[xj900uk]

If the US get a reliable working torpedo earlier than late '43 it would seriously unbalance the game...

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

What Bullwinkle58 said. Even with dud rate of 80%, it is not that rare for USN fleet boats to sink several ships in week, sometimes with rate 1/day if all subs are utilized.

Go pigboats!!!

I would encourage all Allied players frustrated with their sub production to really spend the time needed to set up good patrol zones. Apart from targeting choke points rather than open ocean, use the Linger variable to hold the boat at the prime part of the choke (balancing with detection level), and think about the fuel trade offs on long-range zones (HI, PI from Pearl) of using Cruise settings in the zone for linger time versus not having the speed to intercept warship TFs. Let the warships go. They make you feel good and liven up the patrol report, but the true job of the subs is to deny the HI its groceries. A big AK, or, especially, a lucious tanker, sent to to the bottom is worth far more to the war effort than a bagged cruiser.

Hand manage a few, really aggressive subs, mix up the zone sizes and shapes, focus on going where the targets are going to have to be, once you "pay" for the transit let them have some time to be productive, and you'll see good results in 1942. In 1943, if you have good habits in place, you'll see stupendous results.

[RevRick]

ORIGINAL: Titanwarrior89

I am playing the allies(pbem). So why is it that every torpedo fired by my subs thats HITs anything "big"-such as a CA,large Ao, Ak or DD torpedo does not explode. But let it be a PB or something similiar - its a hit and it explodes. Please don't give me that FOG crap.

I hope some jap iron is going to the bottom besides these little Pbs and the such. But its Aug 42 and very little is changing. The allied subs are a joke, you might as well leave them in port instead of taking the losses.

I am sure my Japanese counter part has his own complaints with something being off. So what gives?

From my experience, it's FOW. Nope, not "Fog of War!" It's what every piece of gear you really need really is when your really need it most (in technical Naval Jargon!) - "F*%#+@& outta whack!"

[Canoerebel]

I'm nearing mid November 1942 in my PBEM and the Allies have experienced a rather stunning number of dud hits throughout the game, but that's as it should be given the high dud rate.   I'm sure my opponent is concerned about what's going to happen when the dud rate starts falling and those hits turn into explosions.

[Dixie]

80% dud rate still means 20% are working correctly, if you're lauching 100 torps a week (should be easy enough in the early days with short patrol areas and lots of targets) then 20 hits can easily sink 20 AKs [;)]  It seems to be that my lot get lower dud rates from surface attacks as well for some reason.

[Titanwarrior89]

I agree about the dutch. In fact they are now in the south pacific(In our pbem game) doing the work that the United States Naval submarine service can't do.[:-]

ORIGINAL: noguaranteeofsanity

I have runs of bad luck with the US subs, where every torpedo will fail and then just when you are wondering why you are even watching the combat animations and still paying attention, one will actually work and sink something important, like the Kaga, despite previously failing against every damn destroyer or whatever else they have come across. I think its basically just the luck of the dice and i dont think there is any bias.

Of course, if you want to avoid this, you dont have torpedo problems with the Dutch subs.

[Titanwarrior89]

Then why did I have at least 9 plus dud showing in a row in our game. I think the dud rate is to high in the game. It needs to be lowered to about 70%. My subs(US Navy) doing nothing more than scout if that. My allied subs are doing the core of the fighting. Now was that the case historical?

ORIGINAL: castor troy

what you shouldn´t forget is that while the dud rate of the torps is 90% this doesn´t mean you need 10 attacks to score one exploding torp. In fact you need far fewer. My guess would be 4 and the next one makes boom. Why? Because the subs don´t only fire one torp but 2, 4 or many times 6 in a salvo.

[Titanwarrior89]

Bullwinkle Ill give this a try. Some of your advice below I am using, some of it I am not. Ill try resetting my patrol zones. The problem isn't finding targets, my U.S. subs do that. The problem is when I do find that fat tanker-and it has happened-its a dud-always a dud. Thats my complaint. So the dutch-bless their little hearts are all over the south pacific and the Imperial Navy's shipping lane.[;)]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

What Bullwinkle58 said. Even with dud rate of 80%, it is not that rare for USN fleet boats to sink several ships in week, sometimes with rate 1/day if all subs are utilized.

Go pigboats!!!

I would encourage all Allied players frustrated with their sub production to really spend the time needed to set up good patrol zones. Apart from targeting choke points rather than open ocean, use the Linger variable to hold the boat at the prime part of the choke (balancing with detection level), and think about the fuel trade offs on long-range zones (HI, PI from Pearl) of using Cruise settings in the zone for linger time versus not having the speed to intercept warship TFs. Let the warships go. They make you feel good and liven up the patrol report, but the true job of the subs is to deny the HI its groceries. A big AK, or, especially, a lucious tanker, sent to to the bottom is worth far more to the war effort than a bagged cruiser.

Hand manage a few, really aggressive subs, mix up the zone sizes and shapes, focus on going where the targets are going to have to be, once you "pay" for the transit let them have some time to be productive, and you'll see good results in 1942. In 1943, if you have good habits in place, you'll see stupendous results.