Matrix Games Forums

Platoonist wrote: Fri Oct 04, 2024 12:04 pm Certainly, a Japanese player with the benefit of historical hindsight will make a greater effort to properly escort his convoys from day one. By 1943 when the Japanese start to augment their motley ASW fleet of sub chasers, WWI-era destroyers and converted merchantmen for something akin to Allied destroyer-escorts with more and better DCs there is bound to be an uptick in Allied subs losses as there were historically.

I've always wondered if maybe heavier US sub losses aren't also due to the fact that you really don't need to consider the requirements of crew turnover, downtime and leave in the game. A mandatory two-weeks in port for most US subs. So, by 1944 the vast bulk of the burgeoning Allied submarine fleet tends to out on patrol at any one time with only a tiny minority in port tending to battle damage or fueling up to go out again. More subs on patrol, more ASW encounters.

In my mod, the refit times are longer than stock, and I did try to consider what you say here - maybe it should even be a bit longer...

Cavalry Corp wrote: Sun Oct 20, 2024 7:46 pm In my mod, the refit times are longer than stock, and I did try to consider what you say here - maybe it should even be a bit longer...

Another thing that has always intrigued me is the number of US subs which took a long detour out of the war receiving upgrades, refits or overhauls at the Mare Island Navy Yard at Vallejo in California. I can't say I've ever felt a pressing need in the game to send US submarines back to the West Coast for anything more than their permanent withdrawal. Apparently, this shipyard really specialized in submarine construction and repair. Plus, it just allowed the crews some overdue home leave. Partial list below...

Platoonist wrote: Sun Oct 20, 2024 8:11 pm

Cavalry Corp wrote: Sun Oct 20, 2024 7:46 pm In my mod, the refit times are longer than stock, and I did try to consider what you say here - maybe it should even be a bit longer...

Another thing that has always intrigued me is the number of US subs which took a long detour out of the war receiving upgrades, refits or overhauls at the Mare Island Navy Yard at Vallejo in California. I can't say I've ever felt a pressing need in the game to send US submarines back to the West Coast for anything more than their permanent withdrawal. Maybe this shipyard was specialized in some way, or it just allowed the crews some overdue home leave. Partial list below...


Mare Island Overhauls.jpg

One thing that always gets me is where the Kiwis, the Aussies, and the rest get the plans plus the equipment for the American ships! I can understand making repairs but having the complete plans with all of the additional sensitive (intelligence wise) equipment? I know that the American shipyards did work on Allied ships but maybe there should have been changes so that only only certain shipyards could do certain refits.

Part of the problem with the ASW is how fast or slow the depth bombs or depth charges would descend. That can determine whether or not the launching ship can get away from the blast as well as the "fountain" of the gas and water which rises to the surface. I would not want to be in a vessel over such an event! Actually, the larger the explosive charges that were used later in the war did not give as much of an increase in damage or lethality as a person might think.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_charge

There is a picture in that link of a rocket launched depth charge going off. I would not want to be near that one at all!

Maybe if we'd have crew fatigue and forced shore leaves, sub operations would be less frantic...

On second thought, do I want these extra complications, hell no!

About ASW weapons, DCs were pretty low % hit weapons, things like Hedgehog/Mousetrap and aerial homing torpedo Fido were way more lethal.

Re sub refits. For between-patrol breaks of 2 weeks jut keep note of the RTB date of each sub.
For longer refits with major work, the shipyard requirements for upgrades and conversions can be adjusted in the editor - make them high enough to rule-out refits outside the big CONUS shipyards.Length of upgrades and conversions can be adjusted as well.
In my mod I have given certain US submarines which had been engined with the infamous HOR engines a lengthy refit available in 1943 for changing engines, this can be done only in large shipyards in CONUS.

Another option for the American submarines. Instead of the torpedoes automatically getting better, have the different hit percentages for different Mark 14 torpedoes that are available for refits at the appropriate times.

RangerJoe wrote: Mon Oct 21, 2024 11:56 am Another option for the American submarines. Instead of the torpedoes automatically getting better, have the different hit percentages for different Mark 14 torpedoes that are available for refits at the appropriate times.

I've always thought it would have been ideal if sub torpedoes could have been handled in the game the same way as sea mines. They would enter the device pool at various rates and with changing types over time and submarines would load them up in port like they do mines. Then you could simulate the torpedo shortage which plagued the USN at the start of the war and introduce rectified torpedoes into the pool at the same time that the buggy models are still being used by subs at sea. Instead of all torpedoes globally improving at once when a magic date is reached. No chance of it happening I know.

Platoonist wrote: Mon Oct 21, 2024 12:57 pm

RangerJoe wrote: Mon Oct 21, 2024 11:56 am Another option for the American submarines. Instead of the torpedoes automatically getting better, have the different hit percentages for different Mark 14 torpedoes that are available for refits at the appropriate times.

I've always thought it would have been ideal if sub torpedoes could have been handled in the game the same way as sea mines. They would enter the device pool at various rates and with changing types over time and submarines would load them up in port like they do mines. Then you could simulate the torpedo shortage which plagued the USN at the start of the war and introduce rectified torpedoes into the pool at the same time that the buggy models are still being used by subs at sea. Instead of all torpedoes globally improving at once when a magic date is reached. No chance of it happening I know.

Some of the "improvements" were things like deactivating the magnetic pistol since it was designed for the Atlantic Ocean areas and adjusting for the depth variance. The problem was insufficient testing prior to the war since they were too expensive. The new firing pins were an actual upgrade.

LargeSlowTarget wrote: Mon Oct 21, 2024 4:58 am Re sub refits. For between-patrol breaks of 2 weeks jut keep note of the RTB date of each sub.
For longer refits with major work, the shipyard requirements for upgrades and conversions can be adjusted in the editor - make them high enough to rule-out refits outside the big CONUS shipyards.Length of upgrades and conversions can be adjusted as well.
In my mod I have given certain US submarines which had been engined with the infamous HOR engines a lengthy refit available in 1943 for changing engines, this can be done only in large shipyards in CONUS.

I do like these ideas. The R&R break aspect would involve some self-adminsted house rules but would certainly be doable. The HOR engine replacement is a nice touch as well.

Platoonist wrote: Mon Oct 21, 2024 6:03 pm

LargeSlowTarget wrote: Mon Oct 21, 2024 4:58 am Re sub refits. For between-patrol breaks of 2 weeks jut keep note of the RTB date of each sub.
For longer refits with major work, the shipyard requirements for upgrades and conversions can be adjusted in the editor - make them high enough to rule-out refits outside the big CONUS shipyards.Length of upgrades and conversions can be adjusted as well.
In my mod I have given certain US submarines which had been engined with the infamous HOR engines a lengthy refit available in 1943 for changing engines, this can be done only in large shipyards in CONUS.

I do like these ideas. The R&R break aspect would involve some self-adminsted house rules but would certainly be doable. The HOR engine replacement is a nice touch as well.

It would have to be in the engine but having a build up of system damage would work since there are no fatigue levels for the ships. Being able to swap submarines automatically into and out of patrols would be useful as well.

ASW TF maximum number of ships is 4 anyways in game engine.

Some say that ideal size is 3, but I usually use 4. And it's beneficial to have ASW TF in major ports too, because of midget submarines IJN has.

Sardaukar wrote: Fri Oct 25, 2024 6:44 am ASW TF maximum number of ships is 4 anyways in game engine.

Some say that ideal size is 3, but I usually use 4. And it's beneficial to have ASW TF in major ports too, because of midget submarines IJN has.

I've been using 2 ships and it's working out well. I can spread them out and I get great coverage. Teamed up with land based air....GP

btd64 wrote: Fri Oct 25, 2024 12:59 pm

Sardaukar wrote: Fri Oct 25, 2024 6:44 am ASW TF maximum number of ships is 4 anyways in game engine.

Some say that ideal size is 3, but I usually use 4. And it's beneficial to have ASW TF in major ports too, because of midget submarines IJN has.

I've been using 2 ships and it's working out well. I can spread them out and I get great coverage. Teamed up with land based air....GP

After the mid-43 allied ASW upgrade, the IJN SS fleet is just VP's for the allies to collect. The IJ player has to send them only where the allies are not looking for them. The deepest any of the IJN can dive to is only 300 ft ... a lot of them are a lot less ....

IJN gets a malus in ASW combat - early war it is higher. So you will not kill many subs anyways (at least not submerged ones). This malus is getting a bit lower in late war (date?) but still is there. So you also need higher exp on asw groups. From 43 or so on Japan has better changes to kill subs, but still lower then Allies. I played a pbm as Jpn up to mid-end 43 and did not kill much at all But oth at least I also did not have many bad losses to Allied subs (seems my escort effort was ok to distract subs but not to kill em).

Also have a gamer on halt which is in 43 too vs. AI and there I also did not kill many subs at all. Even vs AI. However AI does not send many subs out to dangerzones it also keeps lots around own harbours (PH,SF). Would be nice to see a change of this behaviour in the (last?) patch btw

Seems only in 44 Jpn gets better

Speed, radar, range, exp and number/type of asw weapons is the most important.

Alpha77 wrote: Mon Oct 28, 2024 10:48 am Also have a game on halt which is in 43 too vs. AI and there I also did not kill many subs at all. Even vs AI. However AI does not send many subs out to dangerzones it also keeps lots around own harbours (PH,SF). Would be nice to see a change of this behaviour in the (last?) patch btw

Yes, in my games against the Allied AI I've always looked askance by game's end in early '43 at the number of Allied subs idle in port. I'm pretty sure it was the majority of the sub fleet. I counted 25 at Pearl, 19 at San Franscisco, 10 at Townsville, etc. A few were doing offensive patrols, but the majority at sea seemed to be congregated in Hawaiian waters or defending far afield areas like New Zealand or the US West Coast. The Japanese AI does much the same thing with a lot of subs patrolling Japanese or Chinese waters with a few sent off Australia or the US West Coast. Not as many subs in port though.

I've often wondered if maybe the Allied AI doesn't know quite what to do with all that mid to late-war production it gets.

Since AI is scripted, it could (possibly) be remedied by modifying scripts.

Not sure if AI submarine operations fall into that scripted category or if those are run by code, though.

Platoonist wrote: Mon Oct 28, 2024 12:09 pm Yes, in my games against the Allied AI I've always looked askance by game's end in early '43 at the number of Allied subs idle in port. I'm pretty sure it was the majority of the sub fleet. I counted 25 at Pearl, 19 at San Franscisco, 10 at Townsville, etc. A few were doing offensive patrols, but the majority at sea seemed to be congregated in Hawaiian waters or defending far afield areas like New Zealand or the US West Coast. The Japanese AI does much the same thing with a lot of subs patrolling Japanese or Chinese waters with a few sent off Australia or the US West Coast. Not as many subs in port though.

I've often wondered if maybe the Allied AI doesn't know quite what to do with all that mid to late-war production it gets.

The A....sorry NO the script (we are not allowed to use the word AI, as Ranger pointed out it is scripts. He knows his stuff, ya guys ) are kind of funny. On the one hand the SC (for script - as AI is not correct as RJ says) is very timid, does not use subs and bombers to the max.

But when it comes to make "risky raids" w/ their CVs and cruisers then the SC suddenly forgets this timid stance I loved the landing the IJ SC did at PH even w/ barges(!) etc that in no way had the range (ofc the SCs cheat in this regard). Or should we be glad the SCs actions are so funny at times? I mean the surprise seeing strangeness the SCs do , can be a nice part of the game

Platoonist wrote: Wed Oct 02, 2024 11:31 am It depends on what the waters are infested with. In past games I've noticed the E types tend to fall victim to Allied bombs and shells far more than submarine torpedoes.

Main prob w/ the E types is 2 of them are too slow and generally their AA is weak: I know IJ AA is generally not the best, but (most) E suffers also from having not AA capable main guns (eg the older 12cm type) and then only a bunch of 25mm... so more a kind of sitting duck Btw. I saw all these wepaons recently "in person", google "Koblenz wehrtechnische Studiensammlung" has 13 / 20 / 25 / 37 / 40 / 57 / 76 / 88 / 105 mm AA guns in their collection too, even 4x20mm or 2x 37 nave etc

Alpha77 wrote: Mon Oct 28, 2024 10:48 am IJN gets a malus in ASW combat - early war it is higher. So you will not kill many subs anyways (at least not submerged ones). This malus is getting a bit lower in late war (date?) but still is there. So you also need higher exp on asw groups. From 43 or so on Japan has better changes to kill subs, but still lower then Allies. I played a pbm as Jpn up to mid-end 43 and did not kill much at all But oth at least I also did not have many bad losses to Allied subs (seems my escort effort was ok to distract subs but not to kill em).

Also have a gamer on halt which is in 43 too vs. AI and there I also did not kill many subs at all. Even vs AI. However AI does not send many subs out to dangerzones it also keeps lots around own harbours (PH,SF). Would be nice to see a change of this behaviour in the (last?) patch btw

Seems only in 44 Jpn gets better

Speed, radar, range, exp and number/type of asw weapons is the most important.

Not aware that the IJN ASW detection changes during the game period. The allies ASW detection does improve, at least once and likely twice (Q3Y43 and late 44).

detection here is assumed to be sonar improvements, and this is all "under the hood" within the game engine and not within player or modder control.

If the devs have updated their comments about this or provided new information, please let me know .... thanks.

EDIT: To clarify, John and Don went through an exhaustive evaluation and update on ASW beginning in 2010 and continuing through 2011. There are literally 100's of pages. Their work originally was for Da Babes, and then John 3rd's Mods, and finally incorporated into all of the stock scenarios. There is a lot of information divulged about how the engine works and what/how the data needs to be inputted to allow it all to work. They even updated the witploadAE.exe to witploadAE_Alt.exe because of the new fields added. As John repeatedly states, if you read what they wrote and think about it, you understand exactly how ASW works in the game, and then it also becomes pretty clear why the data is organized the way it is. Finally, late war sub patrols are a tough thing to code for the AI because it is very hard to predict what needs to be patrolled. Sending ships into a chipper just feeds the player VP's.

Finally, if you really want to know more, John and Don start talking about ASW in 2007 ... so another 100 or so pages of reading material there if you want.


EDIT: Sheesh. I got a note suggesting that I clarify John and Don ... so sad.
John Eldridge and Don Bowen, members of Henderson who along with a long list of others were the devs behind AE ... see full credits in game.

Don still stops by occasionally. We haven't heard from John in a long time now, hopefully he is still doing well.