Matrix Games Forums

Turn 10

IJN submarine-launched torpedo hits on Allied DDs: 2. Number of duds: 2.
Allied submarine-launched torpedo hits on IJN DDs: 2. Number of duds: 2.

[:)]

Now that you mention it I seem to recall having 3-5 hits on US DD's that also came up with dud responses. It has been much less prominent since Japanese sub attacks are much less frequent. I think the problem may be affecting both sides.

ORIGINAL: Nalamin

I think the problem may be affecting both sides.

Not sure there is a problem. In my PBEM game (at the moment 7/43) my IJN subs have sunk 9 allied destroyers for sure, and they have damaged couple more. Also allied subs have sunk japanese DDs, not that many but 5 or 6 ships.

Your own numbers are indicative of some kind of problem. The numbers in my game are also very unhistorical.

In my game dated 4/22/44 I have had 12 US DD's sunk by 24 inch IJN torpedoes. Historically only three US destroyers and two DE's were sunk by IJN submarines. I think it was probably because they were not considered valid targets by the IJN. I think this is just an indication that the IJN submarine service is much more aggressive in WIP than they were historically.

None the less the numbers indicate that sinkings of IJN DD's are way below historical(around 40) and the apparent extreme Dud rate has something to do with it.

Unfortunately this could be something very difficult to find in the code. Can it be replicated?

Nalamin, please bear with me, I´d like to demonstrate something. [:)]

ORIGINAL: Nalamin

Your own numbers are indicative of some kind of problem. The numbers in my game are also very unhistorical.

In my PBEM in March 44 there are all but 1 IJN carrier afloat. The numbers are very unhistorical.

In my game dated 4/22/44 I have had 12 US DD's sunk by 24 inch IJN torpedoes. Historically only three US destroyers and two DE's were sunk by IJN submarines.

Historically at this time the IJN had already lost Akagi, Kaga, Ryujo, Soryu, Hiryu, and Shoho.

I think it was probably because they were not considered valid targets by the IJN.
I think this is just an indication that the IJN submarine service is much more aggressive in WIP than they were historically.

I think on my example you would point out that engagements took place in a different way, and the Allied and Japanese side used their
assets differently from their historical use.

None the less the numbers indicate that sinkings of IJN DD's are way below historical(around 40) and the apparent extreme Dud rate has something to do with it.

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

There are a number of issues in this thread, and perhaps a little confusion about how some things work.

A sub torpedo attack involves:[ol]
[*] Can the sub fire a torpedo (or more than one)?

• Is the target worth a torpedo (with fog of war)?
• Can the sub get into firing position?
  • Relative speed of sub and target TF
  • Detection level of sub and TF
  • Number and skill of escorts
  • Skill and aggression of sub commander

[*] Does the torpedo hit the target?

• Accuracy of torpedo (from device table)
• Speed and maneuverablilty of target

[*] Does it explode?

• Dud rate of torpedo (from device table)
• Nothing else

[/ol]

If I recall, three years ago when the game came out there was a outcry because Allied DDs were getting killed by Japanese subs at an alarming rate. A fix was made and it became very difficult to hit and kill DDs. it is also difficult to hit and kill slower escorts but that is the way it has always been. Mostly my subs even with reliable torps in 44 shoot and miss or shoot and dud vs all types of escorts. This is not to say that I have not sunk plenty of escorts over the course of 1,000 turns but it is just behind the historical expectation. I have learned to live with it. I suspect you have just had a run of crappy luck. Play another 30 days and record the events and come back if it is still happening so lopsided.

Expecting subs to succesfully hunt DDs is sort of like wondering why wildebeest don't have a high kill rate when taking on lions. It probably happens from time to time, but it should be pretty clear who's the predator in this "relationship".

Interesting this thread is still kicking. I might highlight my post #19 again and say that the issue may not be hit rate, but actually message information. This goes back to the OP as well.

Obviously there is FOW, but for the Allies to consistently get the message 'dud' when you fire at DDs (in both players' reports), but for the IJN to get the message 'miss' in exactly the same situation, brings confusion. Newer players will continually bring up this disparity if it continues. It's not the kill rate itself, it's the discrepancy between information reports about attacks that is the issue. For this to be combined with the now 60% working torpedoes and 'normal' message frequency variation in other types of shipping attacks (some 'duds', some 'misses' some 'hits'), and it is unnecessarily confusing.

Few DD in our game for either side have been killed by subs. The number of dud messages on DDs was astonishing though, even after 43 and the better Mk 14s. The equivalent would be getting your TBs through en masse and untouched, approach a DD, get a 'dud' hit (never a 'miss'), and have this happen 3-5 times a week! Accompany this with the IJ player getting his TBs through and getting a 'miss' message every time, and you you start getting questions. It's also hard to hit DDs from the air, but this message disparity could lead the player to think something was amiss in the game engine.

I know this is not game-stopping material, but it is odd and annoying, because it confuses the issue further of what is actually working and what is not.

Does the speed of the sub cruise or mission make a difference to its chances??? That is of firing and making attacks?

ORIGINAL: Nalamin

Your own numbers are indicative of some kind of problem. The numbers in my game are also very unhistorical.

In my game dated 4/22/44 I have had 12 US DD's sunk by 24 inch IJN torpedoes. Historically only three US destroyers and two DE's were sunk by IJN submarines. I think it was probably because they were not considered valid targets by the IJN. I think this is just an indication that the IJN submarine service is much more aggressive in WIP than they were historically.

None the less the numbers indicate that sinkings of IJN DD's are way below historical(around 40) and the apparent extreme Dud rate has something to do with it.

Unfortunately this could be something very difficult to find in the code. Can it be replicated?

DDs are hard to hit, because they are relatively small, fast and nimble ships. Like crsutton said, one of the early patch made it more difficult to hit DDs and other escorts. Before that change, it was too easy to sink DDs with subs. This change apply to both sides.

Historical comparisons are not very helpful. Players are not using historical tactics and strategy. You cannot expect any kind of historical fixed kill ratio.

This game still have some minor issues and ahistorical capabilities, but IMO especially naval aspect of the game is very good.

ORIGINAL: cavalry

Does the speed of the sub cruise or mission make a difference to its chances??? That is of firing and making attacks?

Guess I need to quote Don a third time. [;)]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

There are a number of issues in this thread, and perhaps a little confusion about how some things work.

A sub torpedo attack involves:[ol]
[*] Can the sub fire a torpedo (or more than one)?

• Is the target worth a torpedo (with fog of war)?
• Can the sub get into firing position?
  • Relative speed of sub and target TF <-- means current speed of the TF vs. current speed of the sub TF...so if the go full speed you know what that means
  • Detection level of sub and TF
  • Number and skill of escorts
  • Skill and aggression of sub commander

[*] Does the torpedo hit the target?

• Accuracy of torpedo (from device table)
• Speed and maneuverablilty of target

<-- means MAX speed of the TF...in combat always max speed is used for calculations
[*] Does it explode?

• Dud rate of torpedo (from device table)
• Nothing else

[/ol]

To all of these, add a little luck. Or rather, random chance. For just about everything in AE, there is a random chance. A torpedo with an 80% dud rate would have an 80% chance of failure for each hit. No long term averaging or any such thing. Just a random 80%. That could mean 10 explosions in a row or 500 duds in a row. It's just random.

In general I think neither FOW is the reason, nor some strange error.

I think it simply is a combination of drawing conclusions from data over the whole game (which means counting duds since dec 7th), of the low hit probability
against DDs in general, of the ranfdom events, of the higher survivability of DDs compared to smaller escorts and maybe a relation to how messages are displayed
and # of torps are fired against a target (some messages might be hidden because there was a different message before).

If there was an obvious other error this would be extremely easy to identify as there is not much to analyze for a dev. If the only trigger for torp explosion
is the device dud rate, and theres no difference in calculations on attacks against Allied or Japanese ships, and there is no difference in calculations against
DDs as compared to other ships - which I logically assume to be the case for all points, there is not much left for an error to be hidden in, is it?

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

In general I think neither FOW is the reason, nor some strange error.

I think it simply is a combination of drawing conclusions from data over the whole game (which means counting duds since dec 7th), of the low hit probability
against DDs in general, of the ranfdom events, of the higher survivability of DDs compared to smaller escorts and maybe a relation to how messages are displayed
and # of torps are fired against a target (some messages might be hidden because there was a different message before).

If there was an obvious other error this would be extremely easy to identify as there is not much to analyze for a dev. If the only trigger for torp explosion
is the device dud rate, and theres no difference in calculations on attacks against Allied or Japanese ships, and there is no difference in calculations against
DDs as compared to other ships - which I logically assume to be the case for all points, there is not much left for an error to be hidden in, is it?

Firstly I'd like to thank you. Your arguments are both informative and sound. More than that the effort you put into helping players, especially new ones, (which I consider myself), to understand the massive undertaking that is learning this game, is amazing. I keep learning details through these conversations that are entirely new to me.

I wish I could get data on this, but it's simply impossible to back it up without having a screenshot of each occurrence, as it's not listed in combat reports, only replays. I wish it were. Maybe that is the needed item.

The 'dud' message for Allied subs attacking IJN DDs vs the 'miss' message for IJN subs attacking Allied DDs started to become apparent in our game just after Allied torps went to the 40% dud rate in 43. I was getting all kinds of shipping hit, with a few 'dud' and a few 'miss' messages. There were literally 4-5 attacks per week on IJN DDs by Allied subs but none of these would get the 'miss' message, only 'dud.' My more rare attacks on Allied DDs did get the 'miss' message.

None of this is odd, but the strange thing is that as this went on for months, we both realized the Allied attacks on IJN DDs never got the 'miss' message. I can't remember what month we were in when Jocke posted, but it was sometime in the summer of 43, so we had a good 6 months of seeing this happen. That's a pretty good sample if you consider it's about 100-120 attacks. We still are aware of it and looking for it, but there have been many fewer attacks recently.

We both asked each other about it, thinking exactly what you are saying, that we were crazy or that it was replay FOW or something to do with variation caused by normal circumstances. It just kept happening.

It's not an issue for us anymore as we realize we're not seeing something that should explode 'dudding,' but rather probably it's just a message that is being used instead of 'miss' at times. I'm only writing at all now in this thread to help in case newer players notice this and question it, as seems to be happening a bit.

ORIGINAL: cavalry

Does the speed of the sub cruise or mission make a difference to its chances??? That is of firing and making attacks?

I don't think so.

obvert, let me return the thanks for your thoughtful posts.
 
I am aware that I am considered to be very slow on agreeing that some oddity experienced in the game could be
an indication for a bug. This is partly because of my job, and partly because I have quite ok (but high level)
picture of how the game treats certain situations - which does in no way rule out that I am wrong at times as
Puhis proved recently on another topic.
 
The game is so complex that it is often very difficult for a 3rd party to interprete a specific situation in a correct
way.
 
This is enhanced by the fact that many situations can be caused by completely different player behaviour which
needs to be taken into account when trying to analyse what you are experiencing. Too often a specific occurance
leads to lot of people joining in - and confirming the occurance - who did not completely understand that the
root cause for their own situation was totally different.
 
Let me give you an example:
 
When there was the sweep vs. CAP discussion, the topic was losing focus extremely fast because there can be a lot
of reasons for sweep being superior to CAP.
It might have been that the OP of a specific thread considered all things in the book and still got a reasult
which did not match his expectations, and that justifies investigation.
The problem was though - and usually is on such topics-, that immediately numbers of players who also witnessed the
superiority of sweep vs. CAP got a "whoa I see the same, it must be a fault of the game engine" reaction - without
taking into account that on their specific experience the initial setup creating the superiority was totally different
to what the OP described.
(e.g. numbers delta, pilot experience delta, plane quality delta, not enough data for statistical analysis, you get
the picture)
 
When that happens such threads get detracked easily, and the effect in my opinion neither of benefit to the intentions of
the OP, nor benefits the understanding of how the game works and how such situations can be avoided or eliminated without
putting the blame on a bug.
 
The problem, if it exists at all, gets exaggerated by orders magnitude and can in some instances lead to a "fix" which
in best case does not improve the overall situation, in seldom cases even produce new problems. From my personal experience
with complex software due to my job, over a specific ammount of time this has the potential to lead to an overall deterioration
which is of no benefit to anybody involved.
 
I know I am sometimes too conservative on those topics, the above is my attempt to explain why.
 
 
 
That said, Jocmeister and you did the right thing to bring this topic up, and you are both in a position to bring up good
evidence for a specific game engine behaviour as you exchange, compare, and discuss your experiences on your game.
 
I was really trying from the last turns to remember whether I have witnessed a "missed" message on a sub attack against a DD, and
to be honest I simply don´t know. I think I have seen a "missed" message recently on attacking a IJN DD escorting a
Japanese SAG, but even IF I did I need to be aware of potential differences to your game. The most prominent difference would
probably be that we are still playing without the split torpedo tubes, and while I am not convinced this is of relevance, I also
cannot rule out that this leads different experiences on our game.
 
My time with the game due to work, my girl and kid, and life in general, is limited, so I seldom have the time to set up tests besides
the PBEM I am playing. All I can do is promise that I will keep looking for similarities in my game and report back to you.
 
Also, even if michael is not commenting on the discussion all the time I am sure that he already has taken
a look on it and either has an idea what the problem is, or already ruled out a problem.
 
 
Finally, sorry, for the long post, but I recently had thought of what might impact the types of messages visible in the combat
animations:
 
Could you try to play around with the combat animation message delay? It is just a vague idea, but I started wondering if
a too high or too low message delay could result in some messages being overwritten too fast or not displayed at all.

ORIGINAL: crsutton

ORIGINAL: cavalry

Does the speed of the sub cruise or mission make a difference to its chances??? That is of firing and making attacks?

I don't think so.

If I take Don Bowens post literally, it does make a difference. With cruise speed you limit the TF speed, and relative TF speed
impacts attack probability.

That said I got no empirical data to back this up...


EDIT:

Actually I think you are right on most instances crsutton. Since mission speed means cruise speed with the exception of specific circumstances, in many situatons
you would not notice a difference.
The question is: if you set two patrol zone hexes within full speed but out of cruise speed range, does the sub use full speed for transit between those
hexes? If e answer is 'yes', then the speed setting does make a difference. If on the other hand the sub remains at cruise speed for transit, then not.

Can't answer that one tbh.

ORIGINAL: obvert
There were literally 4-5 attacks per week on IJN DDs by Allied subs but none of these would get the 'miss' message, only 'dud.' My more rare attacks on Allied DDs did get the 'miss' message.

Hm. This is about the first attack I payed attention to after our discussion. Please note what I said about our games might differ, as I am not playing split tubes.

A few thoughts...

As of now I have played around 1600 turns in several PBEMs, starting in 2009 after games release. I remember that in the first few weeks of my game vs Arnhem DDs were getting hit and sunk at a very high rate.

This at some point was fixed, resulting in a lower amount of sunk DDs (and only undamaged DDs, as other, slower, escort vessels are still very vulnerable).

Looking at hit/miss/dud messages for 1600 turns on both sides (although my allied experience is rather limited, only one PBEM) I would say that I see a lot more dud messages on DDs then on any other vessel on both sides.

It is not a game changer but it just seems that DDs either have some kind of message bug OR that they get an additional save roll vs torpedoes... Looking at the history that makes sense (go back to 2009...)

I think that the message "Torpedoes fail to detonate" at the end of a ASW animation is misleading. A torpedo that hits checks to see if it goes 'bang!' as per dud rate.
The ".. fail to detonate" and "Torpedoes miss" comes up if NO torpedoes in the attack hit. In other words, both cases mean that they missed their target.
The '.. fail' message should be dropped/ignored and treated as a plain 'miss'.

ORIGINAL: michaelm

I think that the message "Torpedoes fail to detonate" at the end of a ASW animation is misleading. A torpedo that hits checks to see if it goes 'bang!' as per dud rate.
The ".. fail to detonate" and "Torpedoes miss" comes up if NO torpedoes in the attack hit. In other words, both cases mean that they missed their target.
The '.. fail' message should be dropped/ignored and treated as a plain 'miss'.

Thanks Michael. Good to know.

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

ORIGINAL: obvert
There were literally 4-5 attacks per week on IJN DDs by Allied subs but none of these would get the 'miss' message, only 'dud.' My more rare attacks on Allied DDs did get the 'miss' message.

Hm. This is about the first attack I payed attention to after our discussion. Please note what I said about our games might differ, as I am not playing split tubes.

[:D]

I bet my next turn I'll get the 'miss' too!