Matrix Games Forums

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

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-

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.

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

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

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

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