Something has to be done about Allied ASW

[Point Luck]

I was waiting for this to come along

Lets not the same mistake as in UV - They tweaked US ASW and when they were finished there was hardly any way to sink IJN subs

I've been running the some tests also

I did not get a single kill from ASW planes (that should probably be adjusted too)

.

I also haven't got any hits from ASW A/C I used varrying alt from 100 to 2000 feet.

As of June 1st 1941 I had sank a whooping 71% of the Japanese sub fleet

I also had great results , but here are some additional factors to consider.

When ASW TF was made up of less than 5 DD’s or DE’s not so many sub hits.
TF’s with greater than 8-10 ASW ships Kills went up considerably.
Large ASW TF’s hits in both shallow and deep water,
Small ASW TF’s not a lot of deep water hits mostly shallow contacts.

Also greater hits when more subs are in the same hex with either Large or Small ASW TF's

[Xargun]

ORIGINAL: Feinder

Be aware that subs don't have -that- many compartments. There are 8 on the fairly large Gato class. You fill one, and you're now carrying a LOT of water. You fill two, and you better be heading up. You fill 3, and you're probably not going up.

I'd expect that the early war S and T class subs might have had fewer compartments, altho I'd bet the IJN fleet subs probably had 8 compartments (because of their size). But like I said, 8 or 6, you're still talking about a LOT of water. And you've got seal off that bulkhead FAST, because force of the water coming in, will likely preclude you from closing the next hatch. But it's really only going to take 1 or 2 "on the mark" DCs to cripple or sink a sub.

Also understand that when you see the "Type 16 Depth Charge" with 4 ammo, that means 4 -salvos- (of probably 12 depth charges), not just rolling four depth charges off the back.

I know that there was considerable "tweaking" to the ASW combat in UV (the engine upon which WitP is based). Remember tho that, we players will compell a lot more actions, and a lot more intense than were historical. But the scope of UV was certainly smaller, and it may very well be that WitP could use some tweaking (for longevity purposes).

-F-

I understand this (not as detailed as you) but simply because the torpedo room is flooded doesn't mean the next compartment will automatically flood.. If so, then subs are useless... I just think subs should either sink in a day or so (from damage / flooding) or stabilize the flooding enough to make it to a nearby port for some help.. I see no reason why 30 flooding damage will sink a sub just cuz it has to sail 30 hexes to get home.. The flooding should kill it quick - not taking days.... I have no problem with my subs taking a couple hits and sinking - especially if they returned fire and got a warship or other target... My complaint is they give you a glimpse of hope but not sinking and it will take weeks to get to a port and by then its already sunk - just kind of a let down.. know what I mean ?

"Yeah we survived the attack and got away - lets go home... "
"Uhm guys.. We survived the attack but we will never make it home as we are leaking 1 gallon an hour and in 6 days we will sink."
"Kill him !!!"

Xargun

PS Just me whining.. Sink me or let me get the wreck back home...

[Nikademus]

unless the DC strikes very close or on the sub, a sub (depending on class and circumstances of course) could take a fair to great amount of punishment before becoming either disabled or sunk.

A large # of subs had to be battered to the surface before they could destroyed or scuttled by the crew.

[von Murrin]

I haven't seen this overkill everyone seems to be getting. The only IJN subs I've killed bottomed out in shallow water. That makes for a 15% chance of getting killed when attacking from shallow water, and 0% from deep water for me.

[Subchaser]

In one of my tests US destroyer sunk 4(!) I-boats during two turns… all in deep waters near PH. Is there any way to dismount those ASROCs? For pure historical purposes… of course

[Charles2222]

ORIGINAL: Fallschirmjager

Running that test was a marthon [:(]

I will need help from others if we are to get accurate tests. Set up your own tests and run the game out several months. Play Head to head and use the method I outlined in my first post.
I would hate to get the game changed just by one test I made. I hope several others run it as well.

And to think the ASW techniques get better as the war progresses.

[Charles2222]

ORIGINAL: Xargun

ORIGINAL: ltfightr

I think the real problem is that depth charges are too leathal IIRC many subs were damaged by depth charge concussions and suffered even severe damage and made it back to port. In UV and so far in WITP a hit by a ships depth charge is fatal.

I think the problem also lies in flooding damage. I have several subs in my PBEM that have like 20 sys damage and like 50 flooding. They are moving 1 hex per turn towards the nearest friendly port, and gaining 2-5 flooding per turn.. There is no way these subs will make it home... Shouldn't flooding be less if you are moving less ? A single Depth charge hit these subs and they will sink due to flooding damage.. Kinda odd, especially if the holes in the hull are on the top and she is on the surface moving slow...

There should be some way to lessen the flooding damage on subs. I understand water is destructive, but a sub is supposed to be air tight - seal the bulkhead doors and no more flooding.... There is only so much space for the water to go once the bulkheads are sealed... and if they are leaking (probably) it shouldn't be beyond what they can pump (or even bucket brigade) out of the sub - especially if they stay near the surface (on the surface or just the bulk of the sub below, conning tower above).

And since we're talking about subs, Japanese sub-fired torps have to high a dud rate if you ask me.. My subs have fired roughly 20 times and 3 have been duds... thats 15% (most have been misses).. Is this historical ? And why when they fire 4 torps if ones a dud, they all are ?

Xargun

If the Japanese are runnign with wartime sub doctrine, htere is a provision for some type of ship, that they will "never" fire more than one torp at it. I recall it also stated that they wouldn't fire more than 3 at a cruiser. They had a specific amount of torps they were allowed to fire at specific targets. I'm serious!

What you brought up certainly brings to mind that the damaged sub should have less flooding problems when they are away from surface vessels or planes, and more when they are in threatening waters. The majority of the ocean won't have TF's at least, hovering over their head, assuming, that is, that they got away in the first place. They should certainly be surfaced at night.

[Damien Thorn]

ORIGINAL: Point Luck

I was waiting for this to come along

Lets not the same mistake as in UV - They tweaked US ASW and when they were finished there was hardly any way to sink IJN subs

I've been running the some tests also

You must be thinking of the IJN ASW in UV because the US ASW works as well in UV as it does in WitP (which is to say WAY too well). The tweeking they did in UV was to add nationality and time modifiers to the formulas. This effectively cut the IJN ASW in half but didn't do anything to the US ASW. These values (nationality and month/year modifiers should be visible in the eitor and editable.

Anti-sub weapons do a lot of damage if you can find your opponent. The problem is that the US seems to find their opponents all the time while the Japanese never seem to.

Edited for spelling

[Nikademus]

If you commit enough ASW into one TF, You can be successful as Japan, but its no gurantee and shallow water does help alot. I've managed to hit 1 or 2 subs in deep water but only for damage.

[Brady]

" Is there any way to dismount those ASROCs? "

LOL, or at least take the Nuclear Warhead of them...[:)]

[Tenzan]

One thing I noticed from playing 006 alot..I'm hooked on it, for some reason

Calling the IJN 6th Fleet a Kamikaze unit would be a compliment! at least Kamikazes have the offensive end of dying down pat.

However...I looked at the sub crews and they're pretty much trash..50/55 average. I haven't really seen too many other scenarios, so can't comment there, but, is anyone checking the crew skill?

but...all skill aside, US ASW does appear to be on crack, or at least connected with BALCO...My IJ subs don't usually even get one torp off before the 7 hit and sink special.

[pad152]

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.

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

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.

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

[Ron Saueracker]

Allied ASW is too accurate at the moment and just about all the testers are in agreement. Something is going to be done about it as this is a priority issue I believe.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Xargun
And since we're talking about subs, Japanese sub-fired torps have to high a dud rate if you ask me.. My subs have fired roughly 20 times and 3 have been duds... thats 15% (most have been misses).. Is this historical ? And why when they fire 4 torps if ones a dud, they all are ?
Xargun

Anything close to this rate would be extrordinaraly high for the Japanese in 1941-42.
Their torpedoes (of all types) were some of the best in the world, and the most relaible.
2% would be a much more accurate figure. By 44-45 this changes, as "quality control"
deteriorated with the pressure to expand Japanese output. The US "dud rate" should
be about 50% in 1941-42 due to the faulty torpedoes, drop to about 25% in 43, and to
2% in 44-45---while the Japanese dud rate should climb towards about 20% in 1945

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: Xargun
And since we're talking about subs, Japanese sub-fired torps have to high a dud rate if you ask me.. My subs have fired roughly 20 times and 3 have been duds... thats 15% (most have been misses).. Is this historical ? And why when they fire 4 torps if ones a dud, they all are ?
Xargun

Looking into this too.[:)] No worries.

Anything close to this rate would be extrordinaraly high for the Japanese in 1941-42.
Their torpedoes (of all types) were some of the best in the world, and the most relaible.
2% would be a much more accurate figure. By 44-45 this changes, as "quality control"
deteriorated with the pressure to expand Japanese output. The US "dud rate" should
be about 50% in 1941-42 due to the faulty torpedoes, drop to about 25% in 43, and to
2% in 44-45---while the Japanese dud rate should climb towards about 20% in 1945

[freeboy]

is this perhaps a fow issue? Are those misses being counted as duds?
just a thought

[Nikademus]

no, not FOW. Same thing happening to me in my AAR. This one's been tricky to nail down though.

[freeboy]

I read in the database about all these different types of torps.. could you tell us which types you had problems with or where there several?

[Nikademus]

dont believe it was confined to one torpedo type.

[doktor1957]

Something I recall from my reading said that when a pressure hull is holed at depth, the atmosphere inside ignites. There is no chance to close wt doors (they should be closed at GQ anyway). The explosion can rip the vessel to shreds.


Dave
San Diego