1.3 ASW reworked? HMMM...

[Moquia]

The 7 out of 8 is not the hitrate. I think many more dc-charges are thrown without the players knowlegde (no animation). The 8 you see are the ones close enough. Someone in the know correct me.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Moquia

The 7 out of 8 is not the hitrate. I think many more dc-charges are thrown without the players knowlegde (no animation). The 8 you see are the ones close enough. Someone in the know correct me.

YES IT IS THE HIT RATE[8D] Look at the ammo expenditure on the ships in a TF which engages a sub. Only ships which you actually SEE drop charges in the combat animation have expended ammo. And considering the game was originally designed to drop individual charges (not patterns, abstracted now as patterns due toreduced ASW ammo), these then are very accurate DCs. Sorry, but whichever way you want to look at it, Allied ASW is way off, regardless of how players use them.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

If you put your subs in a dangerous area, they likely will get sunk. Pearl is not a good spot to hang out for the Japanese, LOTS of search Aircraft and LOTS of destroyers and MSW to hunt down any spotted subs.

There is no place to hide as a Jap sub except in friendly territory. Any hex with allied ships with ASW capability is a high percentage kill zone.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: madflava13

ORIGINAL: pad152

I'm play Japan against the allied AI, I like the way AI moves it's sub around, in 1.2X enemy subs would just sit in the same hex. I still think it's bogus to have every ship in a TF fire on subs.

I disagree - Tactics at the time usually involved one or two of the ASW vessels keeping contact with the sub while the rest made DC runs over top... Then they'd repeat as needed. I think that's pretty much what we see with the system now - most ships make firing runs, but not all.

We have two types of anti sub situations here generally. We have those where the job of asw ships is escorting other vessels, ensuring their safety (not necesarily the destruction of sub) and we have dedicated asw TFs where the job of the asw vessels is to hunt subs and kill them.

We have one model for all. Compromise, then. ASW TFs, all asw vessels get a crack. Non ASW TFs, only a portion of asw escorts get to attack while the remainder maintain station and escort their charges out of harms way. Too easy.

[Moquia]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

YES IT IS THE HIT RATE[8D] Look at the ammo expenditure on the ships in a TF which engages a sub. Only ships which you actually SEE drop charges in the combat animation have expended ammo. And considering the game was originally designed to drop individual charges (not patterns, abstracted now as patterns due toreduced ASW ammo), these then are very accurate DCs. Sorry, but whichever way you want to look at it, Allied ASW is way off, regardless of how players use them.

Fair enough. In my limited 1.3 experience i still don't see the problem though. Then again I don't use dedicated hunter/killer groups with large numbers of DDs.

[Twotribes]

I still have never seen this problem.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

I still have never seen this problem.

That's really weird, Twotribes![X(] You seem to be the only one.[:)] Did you ever run my test? Any scenario, any time frame, play head to head and stick various types of Allied TFs into hexes with Jap subs and see what happens. Guaranteed you will see what we are all yapping about.

[Twotribes]

First off, I dont put more than 4 DD and 4 MSW into an american ASW task force, so I will never see the huge ASW problem with 15 to 25 ships. I simply dont waste my assets like that.

Second, nearly every encounter my ASW force has with a Japanese sub results in the Japanese firing first and usually results in a sunk or severly damaged DD or a sunk MSW. I have NEVER had my ASW fire first, not once.

I stick pretty much to historical stuff ( I dont have the campaigns memmorized ) meaning I dont rush out and invade some island with the 2nd Marine Division cause I have it available.

I still suggest that if an allied player wants to waste his assets by making 15 to 25 ship ASW task forces, that is his business, just like it is the business of the Japanese player to IGNORE the Navy/Army conflict that was historical and do as they please with ships and ground units.

I would suggest that if the US player is making large ASW TF then the Japanese player should smack them with a carrier attack or hurt them else where with surface or bombardment forces. Since my experience is that allied CD is no where as efficient as Japanese.

The reality is that historicly the Japanese submarine force was ineffective against allied shipping as it mainly concentrated on surface fleet assets. I suggest that if the Japanese had gone to merchant hunting, the allies would have been more aggressive on sub hunting and would have been forced to speed up asw asset aquisition for escort duty.

It is a trade off.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

First off, I dont put more than 4 DD and 4 MSW into an american ASW task force, so I will never see the huge ASW problem with 15 to 25 ships. I simply dont waste my assets like that.

Second, nearly every encounter my ASW force has with a Japanese sub results in the Japanese firing first and usually results in a sunk or severly damaged DD or a sunk MSW. I have NEVER had my ASW fire first, not once.

I stick pretty much to historical stuff ( I dont have the campaigns memmorized ) meaning I dont rush out and invade some island with the 2nd Marine Division cause I have it available.

I still suggest that if an allied player wants to waste his assets by making 15 to 25 ship ASW task forces, that is his business, just like it is the business of the Japanese player to IGNORE the Navy/Army conflict that was historical and do as they please with ships and ground units.

I would suggest that if the US player is making large ASW TF then the Japanese player should smack them with a carrier attack or hurt them else where with surface or bombardment forces. Since my experience is that allied CD is no where as efficient as Japanese.

The reality is that historicly the Japanese submarine force was ineffective against allied shipping as it mainly concentrated on surface fleet assets. I suggest that if the Japanese had gone to merchant hunting, the allies would have been more aggressive on sub hunting and would have been forced to speed up asw asset aquisition for escort duty.

It is a trade off.

The IJN did go after merchants, for example they had a sort of "Operation Drumbeat" themselves off Australia from March to Aug 42. For the loss of one I-boat, they sank 19 merchant ships for approximately 80,000 tons. But overall they basically used the subs for fleet and emergency transport duties. You could not come close to achieving this result in the game, even if many merchants were unescorted and the player sticks to realistic escort levels...the asw is just too overstated.

[pompack]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

I still have never seen this problem.

That's really weird, Twotribes![X(] You seem to be the only one.[:)] Did you ever run my test? Any scenario, any time frame, play head to head and stick various types of Allied TFs into hexes with Jap subs and see what happens. Guaranteed you will see what we are all yapping about.

Actually my ASW is less than satisfactory (translation: it sucks). Allies vs AI, 1.3 start scn 15 (all doctrine ON). I use 4-5 ships per ASW TF. So far, I have sunk three subs and lost 5 DD, time is April 21. Due to the bad exchange rate, I only use ASW TF to run down spotted contacts in the near vacinity of critical convoys.

[von Murrin]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

I still have never seen this problem.

That's really weird, Twotribes![X(] You seem to be the only one.[:)] Did you ever run my test? Any scenario, any time frame, play head to head and stick various types of Allied TFs into hexes with Jap subs and see what happens. Guaranteed you will see what we are all yapping about.

I haven't seen it either, Ron. Believe me, at one point I got so sick of IJN subs that I tried 15 ship ASW TF's. I've never seen more than three DC hits in one attack.

I never saw the super PT's either. As a matter of fact, my current game has two 20mm hits on AP's vs. 12 sunk PT's thanks to v1.3. Not that I really care, mind you.[:)]

[Ron Saueracker]

Happily, strangely enough[:D], my PTs pretty much suck. Thank you. They are now working more realistically.

I've had a few DDs hit by subs, none sank, but IJN subs paid for it by being crushed by massive DCs by the one or two other escorts.

[pad152]

I had a Japanese TF of 2BB's, 2CA's, 4DD's VS. 5 Dutch PT's at night, results 2 DD's badly damaged, 3 PT's sunk.

[Xargun]

ORIGINAL: pad152

I had a Japanese TF of 2BB's, 2CA's, 4DD's VS. 5 Dutch PT's at night, results 2 DD's badly damaged, 3 PT's sunk.

Thats not too uncommon.. All that takes is for the PTs to get close enough (easier at night) and let loose with some torps. A single torp hit on a DD will pretty much screw it up..

Xargun

[Ron Saueracker]

Since the patch I've had three instances where Dutch PTs encountered enemy TFs at night, one had a few unescorted APs in it (wish I had a few DDs in the area) and one had a lone PG, the survivor of an AP TF which got emaciated by high exp Hudson hepcats. The first was a biut strange and I'll get to that last.

In both the first two, action opened at 2000 yrds, one PT fired torps and missed, with the enemy failing to fire. TFs break off. Sounds OK but one would think maybe all three PTs would fire. Oh well, without some sort of mechanism which recognizes that these ships are actually in a TF and not all on some random independent adventure, we have to live with it. I wish they would accept my idea about organizing ships in division sized units and instead of randomizing whether individual ships are detected/can fire, the division is used. Would add some consistancy to naval combat by simulating that ships in these divisions are actually in a formation.

The first one was different. My PT TF reacted to an enemy cruiser TF bent on bombarding Koepang. Guess what? The PTs were surprised. If they are reacting, would surprise not be unlikely? Anyway, one PT was smacked and the TFs broke off. Not bad.

[von Murrin]

Well, that's a bit better than mine. I had two separate attempts at transport TF intercepts, both of which worked. Both resulted in several separate multi-round engagements in the night combat phase, during which the escorting IJN PG's and MSW's broke out the Hammer From Sears.

I'm thinking I really want to break up my PT's and build rafts for evac missions.[:'(]

[steveh11Matrix]

In my ai-vs-ai game it's now the back end of April 1942, and so far the much vaunted Allied ASW has ZERO IJN sub kills. (The Japanese have sunk about 5 Allied subs, btw.) This is only one data point, I know, but it would seem to me that the problems reported are more to do with early adoption of hunter-killer tactics and/or gamey play rather than an overall overestimation of ASW capabilities by the design team.

Steve.

[Moquia]

ASW test with 4 DDs vs 1 sub in scenario 4. Head to Head, FOW off, Japanese subdoctrine off, all airplanes grounded (the sub is undetected). 10 rounds of the same encounter.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#1
ASW night attack at 65,105

Japanese Ships
SS I-22

Allied Ships
DD Patterson (asw value 2) finds sub; 1 attack; no hits
DD Henley (asw value 2) finds sub; no attack
DD Russell (asw value 4) fail
DD Sims (asw value 4) fail

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#2

No attacks

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#3
ASW night attack at 65,105

Japanese Ships
SS I-22, hits 1, on fire (sub damage 30/34/0)

Allied Ships
DD Patterson fail
DD Henley finds sub; 1 attack; hit
DD Russell fail
DD Sims fail

ASW day attack at 65,105

Japanese Ships
SS I-22

Allied Ships
DD Patterson fail
DD Henley fail
DD Russell finds sub; 1 attack; no hit
DD Sims fail

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#4

No attacks


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#5

No attacks

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#6

ASW night attack at 65,105

Japanese Ships
SS I-22, hits 1, on fire (sub damage 30/34/0)

Allied Ships
DD Patterson fail
DD Henley finds sub; 1 attack; hit
DD Russell fail
DD Sims fail

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#7

No attacks

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#8

No attacks

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#9

ASW night attack at 65,105

Japanese Ships
SS I-22

Allied Ships
DD Patterson finds sub; no attack
DD Henley finds sub; no attack
DD Russell fail
DD Sims fail

ASW day attack at 65,105

Japanese Ships
SS I-22, hits 1 (sub damage 29/57/0)

Allied Ships
DD Henley, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage (damage 45/73/25)
DD Patterson finds sub; 1 attack; no hit
DD Russell finds sub; 2 attacks; hit
DD Sims fail

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#10
ASW day attack at 65,105

Japanese Ships
SS I-22

Allied Ships
DD Patterson finds sub; no attack
DD Henley fail
DD Russell fail
DD Sims fail


I really can’t see the über allied asw here.

[PJJ]

Funny: Some people have no problems with the Allied ASW, while others have - and a LOT. I belong to the latter group. Before 1.3 I'd never played WitP as the Japanese. Now I'm playing them in the Guadalcanal scenario, and Allied ASW is just slaughtering my submarine fleet. In two weeks (game time) I lost over 10 subs, and didn't achieve anything with them. (Well OK, one torpedo hit CA Chicago. A small victory compared to my sub losses!)

I don't lose any subs anymore, because I don't send them into hexes where they could meet Allied TF's. So maybe the ASW code for the Allies is as it should be, I don't know. But if American ASW was in reality THAT effective, then I'm surprised the Japanese didn't lose all their submarines in the first two months of the Pacific War.

I mainly used my subs on the open sea and didn't use more than one per hex. And with experienced crews and mostly able commanders, they should have had pretty good chances of survival. At least IMO. Well, I was wrong.

On the other hand, my own Japanese ASW TF's with multiple DD's, PG's and PC's have only managed to sink one American sub. (And it was a miserable S-class boat, so no real harm done to them!)

If 1.4 is the last patch for WitP with real changes, then I hope something is done to this ASW problem. Just my thoughts...

[steveh11Matrix]

Are you playing PBEM or against the ai? And are you sending your subs into areas where Allied ASW air patrols may find them?

Steve.