Air spotting of subs in v1.5 - too easy ??

[bradfordkay]

The problem with ASW is not air spotting per se, but rather still in the overwhelming numbers of ASW vessels allowed to attack. I keep a decent (i.e., pretty large) number of a/c up on either naval search or ASW patrol, (have done so since the early days of UV), and yet still I only see at most about eight enemy subs on the map at any one time. I limit my ASW TFs to no more than 5 ships, though I will use a couple of these if any one port has been made untenable by masses of enemy subs.

In UV, I kept a good many squadrons up on ASW patrol. This resulted in few attacks, but it also resulted in few submarine attacks on my shipping. I thought that the game handled the situation pretty well. In WITP, I am getting a few more attacks on those subs, but not enough to make me scream foul.

BTW, a major port supported by a major airbase should be a very dangerous area in which to operate a submarine. There's a reason that the hunter-killer groups included CVEs in WW2: it's because anti-sub operations were greatly improved by the inclusion of air assets. I can understand what ChezDaJez is saying about how difficult it is to spot subs from the air - but then again his own "cheat" in the USN wargames was based on WW2 methods. Think aobut how difficult it was to spot subs from the masthead lookout on a ship.

I believe that the change from v1.4 to v1.5 was in a routine that decreased the chance of ASW patrols sighting subs as compared to Naval Search patrols. This was fixed in v1.5.

[asdicus]

The naval search routines have definitely changed in v1.5. You only have to start a new historical scenario 15 game as the allies to suddenly see the rash of japanese submarines all now appearing in air searches around pearl. With less than 20 flyable pby I am spotting say 15 subs a turn with successful attacks on 2 or 3 each day. Under v1.4 only say 4 or 5 sub sightings max would appear in the same circumstances.

You point re cve's and air searches only applies later in the war with effective air surface radar. The avengers flying from escort carriers had good quality radar which is needed to find the subs - the mark 1 eyeball is just not up to the job over the vast amounts of ocean involved. In late 1941 pby catalina do not carry air search radar - 10cm(ie useful) aircraft based radar was not even in service then.

[Ron Saueracker]

"I told you so" comes to mind[;)] and may not be very helpful but myself and a large number of other players who wish this game to improve have been brow beaten incessantly over our constructive criticsm regarding the subject.(it has been getting a tad smarmy lately but that does happen under such trench warfare like conditions found on this forum).

What more can be said to get this adjusted into some semblance of reason? I'm at a loss.

All summarize my problems with ASW.

-Subs are too easy to spot by air and by surface ship.
-Subs are too easily engaged by same.
-Numbers of surface ships attacking should be limited to the historical norms, allowing all escorts an attack is ludicrous.
-Subs should be able to fire defensively on occasion.
-Subs should be able to evade more readily than at present
-ASW weapons are grossly over accurate.
-ASW weapons do too much damage
-ASW damage seems overly flotation oriented, especially when Allied Damage control is off
-linking durability to test depth was a major design error and is causing all sorts of issues. For example. Durability is linked with carrying capacity, VP and production cost. Durability is hardcoded and because it equates to test depth, subs with high durability in shallow water still get the depth bonus and vice versa.

[Mike Wood]

Hello...

The air search routines used are not a new feature. Gary found an overflow bug, which caused really bad group to find submarines better than good ones. When we discussed his fix, we agreed that the values might have to adjusted, now that the routine works. I recieved no definative comment from the quality assurance folk during our limited testing period. I assumed that if the end users had an opinion, one way or another, they would express it here and I could revisit the issue, when I worked on the next patch.

Hope this Helps...

Michael Wood

ORIGINAL: asdicus

...I am most disappointed that no matrix staff or testers have replied to our comments. The points have been made in a polite and constructive way. This is a newly introduced feature of the 1.5 patch so surely a staff member can explain why this change was made ?

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: Mike Wood

Hello...

The air search routines used are not a new feature. Gary found an overflow bug, which caused really bad group to find submarines better than good ones. When we discussed his fix, we agreed that the values might have to adjusted, now that the routine works. I recieved no definative comment from the quality assurance folk during our limited testing period. I assumed that if the end users had an opinion, one way or another, they would express it here and I could revisit the issue, when I worked on the next patch.

Hope this Helps...

Michael Wood

ORIGINAL: asdicus

...I am most disappointed that no matrix staff or testers have replied to our comments. The points have been made in a polite and constructive way. This is a newly introduced feature of the 1.5 patch so surely a staff member can explain why this change was made ?

Well this is actually good news ! Fixing a technical implementation issue may have un-masked - a design issue - which we "thought" was there - but now seems to be more clearly really there - though it may take a bit longer to reach a consensus ... but now we understand why the change happened - that helps !

[Mike Wood]

Hello...

Gary's design has every ship in the task force attack the submarine. When programming the interface, I decided only to show those that might damage the submarine.

While it could be argued, and has been at length, that only three or four destoyers would likely engage the subamrine, instead of ten or twelve, I might point out that those three or four would not fire one or two salvoes and go home. They might fire six or eight, each. Were I to recode the ASW routines, I would likely add new bugs and the players who feel Allied ASW forces are too strong would still feel so, as 12x2 is less than 4x8.

As to accuracy and damage done by depth charges, that would be an OOB issue.

Hope this Helps...

Michael Wood

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

...The problem with ASW is not air spotting per se, but rather still in the overwhelming numbers of ASW vessels allowed to attack.

[asdicus]

Thank-you Mike for taking the time to reply regarding this issue - it is appreciated.

There are plenty of player opinions on the new air-sub spotting routines within this and other threads. I did mention to Mr Frag that it would be nice to know the relative difference in % chance of spotting a sub and a similar sized surface ship in the same hex - all other factors being equal. eg a sub has 50% prob of being spotted compared to surface vessel or 25% etc. This would allow to us see the impact on spotting of the sub being submerged for much of the time. At the moment at a guess I believe the game engine does not take account of the high chance of the sub being submerged during the day.

You mention the chance of a new patch at some point - I have read that v1.50 was going to be the last patch - do you have any more info on this ?

[Mike Wood]

Hello...

Hard to say. Gary finds simple equations amusing. There are a couple dozen equations and the main factors involved in a group's air search include:

1) Presence a base in or near hex being searched
2) If base present, coastal defenses present
3) Cloud cover in hex
4) Has task force been spotted, already
5) If so, by how many aircraft or ships or ground forces
6) Quality and experience or various searchers
7) Number and type of enemy task forces in hex
8) Number and type of friendly task forces in hex
9) Air mission of group
10) Range of group from base
11) Direction of primary search orders (they are not 360 degree searches, artificial intelligence calculates where to search)
12) Flight skill of searching group
13) Naval skill of group leader
14) Base search factor (used for adjusting search effectiveness in game)
15) Water depth
16) Time of day or night

The routine calls a number of other sub-routines, in each of which calculations are made. The TFSearchSize sub-routine calculates the effective size of the task force. This routine looks for each individual ship, based mainly on the size, type and maneuverability of each ship in the task force and terrain of the hex.

Yes, version 1.50 will be the last. Of course the last version of SPWAW was to be 3.0, which I did almost 10 years ago and I just finished verison 8.40, this weekend. So, who can say?

Good Luck...

Michael Wood

ORIGINAL: asdicus

Thank-you Mike for taking the time to reply regarding this issue - it is appreciated.

There are plenty of player opinions on the new air-sub spotting routines within this and other threads. I did mention to Mr Frag that it would be nice to know the relative difference in % chance of spotting a sub and a similar sized surface ship in the same hex - all other factors being equal. eg a sub has 50% prob of being spotted compared to surface vessel or 25% etc. This would allow to us see the impact on spotting of the sub being submerged for much of the time. At the moment at a guess I believe the game engine does not take account of the high chance of the sub being submerged during the day.

You mention the chance of a new patch at some point - I have read that v1.50 was going to be the last patch - do you have any more info on this ?

[asdicus]

1) Presence a base in or near hex being searched
2) If base present, coastal defenses present
3) Cloud cover in hex
4) Has task force been spotted, already
5) If so, by how many aircraft or ships or ground forces
6) Quality and experience or various searchers
7) Number and type of enemy task forces in hex
8) Number and type of friendly task forces in hex
9) Air mission of group
10) Range of group from base
11) Direction of primary search orders (they are not 360 degree searches, artificial intelligence calculates where to search)
12) Flight skill of searching group
13) Naval skill of group leader
14) Base search factor (used for adjusting search effectiveness in game)
15) Water depth
16) Time of day or night

The routine calls a number of other sub-routines, in each of which calculations are made. The TFSearchSize sub-routine calculates the effective size of the task force. This routine looks for each individual ship, based mainly on the size, type and maneuverability of each ship in the task force and terrain of the hex.

Does the type of ship being spotted include whether it is a submarine or a surface ship ? This is the crucial question as it seems that submarines are not getting any special favours for being able to stay submerged. If there is a special reduction for submarines compared to other ship types can it be quantified.

Thanks for your detailed reply - all this extra information is very helpful to help understand the problems you face as a programmer.

[Mike Wood]

Hello...

...This routine looks for each individual ship, based mainly on the size, TYPE and maneuverability of each ship in the task force and terrain of the hex...

Yes. Yes, it does, as I said, before. If it is a submarine, a different sub-routine is called. That sub-routine assumes the submarine is under water in the daytime and on suraface at night.

Bye...

Michael Wood

ORIGINAL: asdicus

Does the type of ship being spotted include whether it is a submarine or a surface ship ? This is the crucial question as it seems that submarines are not getting any special favours for being able to stay submerged. If there is a special reduction for submarines compared to other ship types can it be quantified.

Thanks for your detailed reply - all this extra information is very helpful to help understand the problems you face as a programmer.

[tsimmonds]

If it is a submarine, a different sub-routine is called.

The sub-sub-routine, no doubt. (badaboom)[8|]

[Caltone]

ORIGINAL: Mike Wood

... When we discussed his fix, we agreed that the values might have to adjusted, now that the routine works. I recieved no definative comment from the quality assurance folk during our limited testing period. I assumed that if the end users had an opinion, one way or another, they would express it here and I could revisit the issue, when I worked on the next patch.

Hope this Helps...

Michael Wood

From my limited play with 1.5, it needs an adjustment [:D]

While we need to get some more play time in, this could be a real show stopper. As mentioned, it cannot be handled with house rules like the formation of large ASW groups can. Thanks for keeping us in the loop Mike and we appreciate the chance for feedback.

I find it interesting that the QA people had no opinion on this. My experience seems to mirror that of many others, we're seeing LOTS of subs in the first few turns.

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

If it is a submarine, a different sub-routine is called.

The sub-sub-routine, no doubt. (badaboom)[8|]

[:D][:D][:D][:D]

[bradfordkay]

Okay, Mike, I better understand your reasoning behind having all the ships involved. Would it be possible to add one more factor in here: designated speed of TF? As it is, a TF seems to continue on at full speed even though it has executed serious attacks against a submarine (or two). Would not a TF which needed to reach a particular destination within a certain time be unable to assiduously prosecute an ASW assault? I could be way off base, but it stands to reason that a bombardment or fast transport TF would not be staying around to hammer a sub (if they did so, then the timing of their operation would be hacked).

[tabpub]

With the release of 1.5, I noticed an immediate change in the air detection of my subs (as I am sure that everyone has..duh...Iam tired)...tried one thing, seemed to help. Set speed to cruise only, detections cut down, except in the Marshalls, where there seem to be NOTHING but planes that have nothing better to do than fly around looking for subs.

But, I also watch my replay religiously for sighting reports, and then look over the op report to see where his search planes have seen things. Then go there and see if the sub is stationary; if so, it is moved to a different locale. I also prefer the "route" or "box" pattern and usually have 3-5 subs in an operation area at a time. Then, if one makes a contact, the others can vector on its course. Worked well in the beginning, but now have to take a break from heavy ops, as there are around 15 subs heading for the yards to repair damage that is over 15. Am now starting to check commanders for their skill level, especially naval skill. Not necessarily aggression right now, as the USN torps still are too low on hit probs.

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Mike Wood

Gary's design has every ship in the task force attack the submarine. When programming the interface, I decided only to show those that might damage the submarine.

While it could be argued, and has been at length, that only three or four destoyers would likely engage the subamrine, instead of ten or twelve, I might point out that those three or four would not fire one or two salvoes and go home. They might fire six or eight, each. Were I to recode the ASW routines, I would likely add new bugs and the players who feel Allied ASW forces are too strong would still feel so, as 12x2 is less than 4x8.

As to accuracy and damage done by depth charges, that would be an OOB issue.

Hope this Helps...

Michael Wood

First of all many many thanks for your continuous work - we are all indebted to you Mike! [&o][&o][&o]


Regarding the first sentence in your message (that all ships in TF attack submarine) I distinctively remember "Mogami" saying that MAX of 6 (six) ships would ever attack submarine even if there are, for example, 25 DDs in TF (and all are capable of attacking and damaging submarine).

Can you please comment on that?

Thanks in advance!

BTW, I, unfortunately, didn't have time to test this myself (yet)...


Leo "Apollo11"

[Charles2222]

I wonder if anyone has ever seen more than 6 ASW attacks. As an IJN player, for the moment, I find that largely irrelevant anyway because I've never had more than three attack, while there certainly isn't a limit on how many search. It seems Mogami's general take is that having 25 ship ASW Tf's is a waste, but not if your ratio of finding subs is terrifically lower as mine has been. I would be very lucky to achieve 4 attacks that way. 50 would be about right for the early IJN (not that I would do it anyway).

Come to think of it, as the IJN goes you better have a "minimum" of 8 ships, probably more like 12 in a group, if you ever want to entertain the slightest hope in sinking a sub, because it's going to take at least 2 ASW ships dropping and hitting to sink one outright.

[mogami]

Hi, If I were you I'd take Mikes word on the subject. I seem to recall a discusion where he said 6 ships was the number that reached max effectivness. I might have misunderstood. I watch all replays. Every aircombat ship combat and land combat. I have never seen more then 6 ships attack a sub (not always successfully by attack I mean produce a text message in animation "fired weapon xx" I have seen ships fire multiple weapons and score multiple hits resulting in submarine being hit more then 6 times.)
The other ships in excess of 6 seem to always be "unable to locate"

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, If I were you I'd take Mikes word on the subject. I seem to recall a discusion where he said 6 ships was the number that reached max effectivness. I might have misunderstood. I watch all replays. Every aircombat ship combat and land combat. I have never seen more then 6 ships attack a sub (not always successfully by attack I mean produce a text message in animation "fired weapon xx" I have seen ships fire multiple weapons and score multiple hits resulting in submarine being hit more then 6 times.)
The other ships in excess of 6 seem to always be "unable to locate"

I would always take Mike's word on the subject but what we (as players) see is exactly what you described (I think that I can vouch for this 99% as well that only 6 ships MAX would attack though I didn't test this extensively yet)...

Perhaps Mike would get some time and be kind to check this out for us when he gets time...


Leo "Apollo11"

[Sonny]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

..................................

The other ships in excess of 6 seem to always be "unable to locate"

That is because the first 6 already sunk the unluck bastard. It is like the air to ship attacks - if the ship is already sunk then you get the same "unable to locate" message.[:D]

[Ron Saueracker]

If it is a submarine, a different sub-routine is called. That sub-routine assumes the submarine is under water in the daytime and on suraface at night.

Hey Mike. If this is the case something is knackered under the hood somewhere. Is there not a chance that the sub is surfaced during daylight, as I've witnessed aircraft being lost to sub AA? I'm glad to see there is a sub routine for subs which assumes subs are (at least sometimes) submerged during daylight and surfaced after dark.