Matrix Games Forums

MadDawg:

Charles, not too sure what you mean? Subs cant actually follow a task force using the follow command (it doesnt work like that) and Im 99% sure that their speed doesnt make any difference to their success during an attack (its assumed they have manuevered into position), if that is what you are asking.

I didn't realize that subs couldn't follow, but I probably wouldn't use them for that anyway. No, I had ventured into the general territory of trying to figure out why there didn't seem to be any difference in speed for any TF, including the subs, when I switched their speed to mission or full speed.

ORIGINAL: MadDawg

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

ORIGINAL: pad152

One thing I think is still realistic is the fact that every ship in a TF gets to attack a sub, this should be limited to 1 or 2.

But what about when you consider the attack is representing 12 hours (or so I take it)?

Actually most of my sunk subs have been from escorts so technically they shouldnt hang around long as they need to keep to their task force Id think. I would expect that they might break off what, 2-4 destroyers to attack at most, but they couldnt hang around long as it could open up the task force to further attack.

Dawg

There you go.

Hehe, I added the answer to my reponse above. Basically a task force on mission speed might use both crusie and full speed to complete their mission, whereas when set manually to those speeds they will stick to them. Note that full speed causes more damge to ships and uses a lot more fuel (5 times as much IIRC)!

Subs or any other ship cant use the follow command to follow an enemy task force, but you can switch subs onto AI control which is supposed to let them do this.

Dawg

Yes, the IJN has become cruisers to the nth degree under my command.

ORIGINAL: MadDawg

Yeah from what Ive seen allied ASW is crazy at the moment. As the Japanese player I am now leaving my subs in port in my current campaign as they only serve to give the allied player points. I cringe every time I see one attack as I know that chances are its now sunk.

Im 4 weeks into the Guadacanal campaign (mid '42) and Ive lost 14 Japanese subs, some of which have taken over 10 hits in a single attack, which is just silly. If the Japanese lost subs at that rate they would have had none left by '43. This has all been in deep water too as I dont dare venture into shallow hexes.

Allied players dont seem to mind though, as you can see, hehe. Honestly, if your playing a '42 campaign as the allies and have problems sinking Japanese subs then your doing something wrong. [;)] It may be fine in late '41 - mid '42 though, I havnt played that time frame yet.

Dawg

PS : By the way its my understanding that no changes were made to ASW in 1.20-1.21.

I don`t buy for a minute that " No Changes were made to ASW in 1.20 - 1.21 ." Perhaps these were unintended changes when they tinkered with something else like the US Sub Doctrine.

This is just too radical a shift from my 7 other full Campaign starts through 4/42 with 1.10.

Well its already been confirmed by a beta tester...this patch was only for bug fixes, not combat tweaks and someone was specifically asking about sub combat. I guess its possible that something was changed accidently but in later war scenarios I havnt seen any differences from previous games to be honest.

Dawg

ORIGINAL: riverbravo
Does anyone notice that allied TF's (most in particular destroyers) never seem to miss a Japanese sub?But the Japanese struggle to find a allied sub and hit it?

Did the allies (americans) have some kind of advantage in ASW that Im unaware of or do Japanese subs and subcrews just stink?

I think the Japanese ASW is about right. Even when an Allied sub is spotted in coastal waters and an ASW fleet is right on top of it the ships usually can't find it or miss. That seem historical.

ORIGINAL: Black Cat
At 2/8/42 Historical Japanese Sub Doctrine On. Grand Campaign US

With Ver 1.21 I have had 5 Destroyers and 5 DMS and DM`s sunk off the Coast of Brisbane to Carnes by I Boats in one month with several ( 3 ) more damaged. I have 5 dedicated ASW Air Groups on ASW .

I have had 4 - 5 Ship ASW forces crusing this area and they have **initated** about 3 attacks while being attacked at 5 times that rate; the few sinkings I have has been from another of the ASW TF`s ships responding to their partners being hit...

With Sub Doctrine On, aren’t Japanese subs going to go after your combat shipping?.

ORIGINAL: Black Cat
You will get kills like that at a Base like Pearl with the I Boats on top of each other and big ASW TF`s there, especially if it`s Dec `41.

Absolutely. As the Japanese player you get your subs into deep water immediately.

Yet, the Allied players (AI Hard) puts 4-5 subs between Formosa and the Philippines in the first week of the war and they are very hard to kill or damage. Since escorts are plentiful at this point in time (no need to ship resources or oil), I usually commit ten APDs (each ASW 10), 40-50 PC/MSW (ASW 3), and up to 100 aircraft for ASW patrol in this non-deep water area.

I am able to spot many subs and get my ASW taskforces on top of them, attacks run about 50%, but most of the time leading to no depth charges used. Even when depth charges are used they only report hits about a third of the time.

Hunting down subs for the Japanese player should be hard and I think it feels about right. As for the Allied (AI), they commit no where near the effort I do in non-deep water to achieve effect; and perhaps that is the way it is suppose to be. I just wanted to illustrate that in non-deep water Allied ASW is significantly more effective, which it was historically. I just don’t know if the level is correct.

I've had it go both ways in the game i've been playing.The first couple months my ASW as Allies was poor to say the least.Not only were they not attacking them,even if i spotted the sub,they were just being used for target practise by the subs[:@].After this i went and disbanded all ASW task forces,figured it was a waste of assests,seeing how their only contribution was getting ships put into drydock.I just used destroyers as escorts in whatever TF function i had them assigned in.Suddenly my Sub kills went up[&:]Now not only do they hit them,but they often initiate contact now.[X(]

Strange.

ORIGINAL: Maliki
I've had it go both ways in the game i've been playing.The first couple months my ASW as Allies was poor to say the least.Not only were they not attacking them,even if i spotted the sub,they were just being used for target practise by the subs[:@].After this i went and disbanded all ASW task forces,figured it was a waste of assests,seeing how their only contribution was getting ships put into drydock.I just used destroyers as escorts in whatever TF function i had them assigned in.Suddenly my Sub kills went up[&:]Now not only do they hit them,but they often initiate contact now.[X(]

Strange.

[:D]

Did you have Japanese Sub doctrine on or off? Playing as the Japanese my large ASW taskforces are rarely attacked by subs… at least no torpedoes are ever shown being launched; and this makes sense as the sub commander would try to avoid contact with this type of taskforce. However, if Japanese sub doctrine is on… wouldn’t they actually seek out destroyers as primary targets? I wonder if Japanese sub doctrine was ‘off’ they might be less inclined to go after destroyers?

ORIGINAL: Culiacan Mexico

ORIGINAL: Maliki
I've had it go both ways in the game i've been playing.The first couple months my ASW as Allies was poor to say the least.Not only were they not attacking them,even if i spotted the sub,they were just being used for target practise by the subs[:@].After this i went and disbanded all ASW task forces,figured it was a waste of assests,seeing how their only contribution was getting ships put into drydock.I just used destroyers as escorts in whatever TF function i had them assigned in.Suddenly my Sub kills went up[&:]Now not only do they hit them,but they often initiate contact now.[X(]

Strange.

[:D]

Did you have Japanese Sub doctrine on or off? Playing as the Japanese my large ASW taskforces are rarely attacked by subs… at least no torpedoes are ever shown being launched; and this makes sense as the sub commander would try to avoid contact with this type of taskforce. However, if Japanese sub doctrine is on… wouldn’t they actually seek out destroyers as primary targets? I wonder if Japanese sub doctrine was ‘off’ they might be less inclined to go after destroyers?

On.Though you would think a group of destroyers hunting for you would be the last thing,any sane sub commander,would take a potshot at[8|]

It gets better though.While they were happy to put holes in the sides of my destroyers on ASW,they were pretty reluctant to do it otherwise.I've had troop transport and supply convoys(i escort with just DDs within the areas i control,but if going into hostile or contested waters they get maybe a CA or CL,or two.)attacked by subs on a number of ocassions.Do they go after the escorts?Nooo.They decide its more fun to mess with my head by limiting their attacks on these convoys to AP's,AK's,TK's[:@]I don't believe they've taken one shot at the escorts in these TF's.But since my surface combat,air combat,and bombarment TF's have taken matters into their own hands to clear the sealanes of any sub presence on their way to action..it's not really a problem anymore.I'm just glad some guys know how to take the intitative,and carry out two missions for the price of one.

ORIGINAL: Maliki
On.Though you would think a group of destroyers hunting for you would be the last thing,any sane sub commander,would take a potshot at[8|]

It gets better though.While they were happy to put holes in the sides of my destroyers on ASW,they were pretty reluctant to do it otherwise.I've had troop transport and supply convoys(i escort with just DDs within the areas i control,but if going into hostile or contested waters they get maybe a CA or CL,or two.)attacked by subs on a number of ocassions.Do they go after the escorts?Nooo.They decide its more fun to mess with my head by limiting their attacks on these convoys to AP's,AK's,TK's[:@]I don't believe they've taken one shot at the escorts in these TF's.But since my surface combat,air combat,and bombarment TF's have taken matters into their own hands to clear the sealanes of any sub presence on their way to action..it's not really a problem anymore.I'm just glad some guys know how to take the intitative,and carry out two missions for the price of one.

I find the coding for ASW, Subs, and Convoy Escorts is interesting. I think it rewards a player for giving a strong ASW escort to his convoys, but I have no proof.

I've now almost finished the Rising Sun scenario and a think that Allied ASW is lethal. During this scenario I've lost 4 sub all to depth charge while the allies have lost 3, two to bombs in port and one unknown. See pic.

As well as the sunk subs I've got 1 heavily damage and I've had three others with minor damage. I've just checked the allies and they appear to have a further 5 sub in port heavily damaged. As the Japanese I've not sunk one Allied sub at sea and to my recollection I've only hit two or three. On the other hand just about every allied ASW attack results in a hit.

Is their something wrong here or am I unlucky. If unlucky thank G. I wasn't a submariner.

Forgot I've got both Aliied and Japanese Doctorine turn on.

ORIGINAL: Chris H
I've now almost finished the Rising Sun scenario and a think that Allied ASW is lethal. During this scenario I've lost 4 sub all to depth charge while the allies have lost 3, two to bombs in port and one unknown. See pic.

As well as the sunk subs I've got 1 heavily damage and I've had three others with minor damage. I've just checked the allies and they appear to have a further 5 sub in port heavily damaged. As the Japanese I've not sunk one Allied sub at sea and to my recollection I've only hit two or three. On the other hand just about every allied ASW attack results in a hit.

Is their something wrong here or am I unlucky. If unlucky thank G. I wasn't a submariner.

How long is the Rising Sun scenario?

Does four Japanese submarines lost and four damaged over that period of time sound close to historical?

3 months 7 Dec 41 to 16 Mar 42. I've know idea what the historical loses were for that priod, I like to know though.

Just for interest sake, attached is an image of Japanese and Allied sub losses after 4 weeks of the guadacanal campaign, a time when the Japanese actually did pretty well with them (edit : actually I just noticed I cut one Japanese sub loss off of the bottom).

As Ive mentioned Ive keep all of these in deep water but still have lost a bunch as opposed to the 2 allied subs, and thats not for a lack of opportunity. I actually had a 10 destroyer ASW group running over 2 subs for a week constantly without a hit (not that Im complaining about this, it would be pretty hard to find a sub out there) whereas mine sink every time an allied sailor spits over the side of a destroyer.

Ive pretty much given up on them for the attack role and keep them alll in port except for recon and mining (it does mean I have a lot of mines all over the damn place now as at least they get kills this way without being sunk [:)])

Dawg

ORIGINAL: MadDawg
Just for interest sake, attached is an image of Japanese and Allied sub losses after 4 weeks of the guadacanal campaign, a time when the Japanese actually did pretty well with them (edit : actually I just noticed I cut one Japanese sub loss off of the bottom). As Ive mentioned Ive keep all of these in deep water but still have lost a bunch as opposed to the 2 allied subs and thats not for a lack of opportunity.

Ive pretty much given up on them for the attack role and keep them alll in port except for recon and mining (it does mean I have a lot of mines all over the place now and at least they get kills this way without being sunk [:)])

Dawg

[X(] That is a lot of subs.

Was your opponent human or AI?

Human...by the way, Ive asked and he hasnt used one ASW group to do this beleive it or not, they have all been sunk via escorts in various task forces [:)]

Actually come to think of it Ive also been keeping most of them in port and out of the way for over a week now, so most of those were lost in the first 3 weeks or so Id guess.

Dawg