Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

Well thats not always true with subs. The Barb for example used to raise its periscope and observe a target while they maneuvered to get in front of it thus staying over the targets horizon. Makes sense that they would probably use that method (periodically if nothing else) to spot as well, so that would increase the observation range a lot.

I think this was referred to as 'high periscope watch'. IIRC, aboard O'Kane's Tang they welded small platforms to the periscope shears on which lookouts could stand, thereby giving a few additional feet of altitude to enhance the spotting range.

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
6. There is no limit to the number of TFs that a single TF can react to and/or engage - just fuel, ammo, and damage considerations.

What about ops points?

No, you get new ops points every day.

You will propably use up movement points in one day prior to using ops points.

ORIGINAL: TMFoss

The formula for visible ranges to the horizon is distance is miles = the square root of 1.5 times the height in feet.  So, a six foot tall man standing at sea level would theoretically be able to see 2.89 miles to the horizon.  If the observed object is above the horizon, then you add the height of both objects to get the range.  Due to atmospheric refraction, the actual distances can be up to 20% higher.  Of course, this is assuming very clear weather.  So, and I am just going to throw some very numbers here, a sub commander on the surface with eye level at 15 feet above sea level looking at a ship with a superstructure 40 feet above sea level should be able to see it at a range of a little over 9 miles- maybe as much a 10.5 with atmospheric refraction.

Add to this the ability to track on the pall of black smoke coming out of the usually clapped out Merchantman.

Another thing that maybe deserving of a "house rule":

http://www.valoratsea.com/wolfpacks.htm

(From "HELLCATS" At the bottom)
By the early part of 1945, the normal Pacific hunting grounds for U.S. submarines had all but dried up - due to the greatest extent to their own effectiveness against enemy shipping. There was however one area of enemy waters that had remained basically untouched throughout the war and in which Japanese merchant shipping transited unmolested: The Sea of Japan. The biggest and most dangerous challenge was just getting to it. Access to the "Emperor's lake" was limited to just a few entrances, all of which were heavily mined by the Japanese. It was not until the introduction of the FM sonar did American submarines venture into these locations.

The FM sonar was an electronic weapon used to detect Japanese mines. Originally developed late in the war for navy mine sweepers, they were seen by VADM Chales A. Lockwood (ComSubPac) as being just what the doctor ordered to enable American submarines to negotiate the Tshushima Straits, which was considered to be the safest route due to its' depth, into the Sea of Japan.

The term "Hellcats" is a title of distinction given to those boats which participated in the carefully planned Operation Barney by braving the mine infested entrances in an effort to penetrate the Sea of Japan. The term is derived from the nickname applied by the US Navy to IJN mines - "Hell Pots". When the FM sonar picked up a contact there was, in addition to a visual "blip" on the screen, an audible bell-like tone which was referred to as "Hells Bells".

Passing through minefields by subs is almost a given, there being little to no threat. Mines in AE are very scarce and mining non-base hexes is nearly foolhardy because of the lack of mines in the game. Therefore I would suggest that allied subs be prohibited from the sea of Japan until 1945 because of it.

Edit: Actually upon reflection I would amend that to include any coastal hex of the Japanese home islands as well as it is likely there were minefields there as well.

Bump since the games will be starting soon!

Speaking of which ...who wants to be my first non-test opponent?

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger
Actually upon reflection I would amend that to include any coastal hex of the Japanese home islands as well as it is likely there were minefields there as well.

Are subs as weak in AE as they are in WITP? I've mostly seen subs sent in the Japanese rear areas just be targets - at least in PBEM.

ORIGINAL: UniformYankee

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger
Actually upon reflection I would amend that to include any coastal hex of the Japanese home islands as well as it is likely there were minefields there as well.

Are subs as weak in AE as they are in WITP? I've mostly seen subs sent in the Japanese rear areas just be targets - at least in PBEM.

Well considering that 80% of the torps that US subs fire are duds early in the war...(as they were IRL).

ORIGINAL: treespider
Well considering that 80% of the torps that US subs fire are duds early in the war...(as they were IRL).

Speaking of IRL.

Only 52 US subs were lost in WWII. 2 of those were in the Atlantic, and 2 were operational losses. That leaves 48 lost in action in the Pacific, 4 of which were grounded on reefs/sandbars. So Japan managed to sink 44 US subs through force of arms, which is about 1 a month for the entire war.

12 of those were lost as a result of Japanese air involvement, but of those 12, 5 had surface vessels credited with helping in their sinking's. So for the entire war just 7 US subs were lost to Japanese air attack.

http://www.valoratsea.com/losses1.htm

So the question is, are they still highly vulnerable to air attacks in AE? WitP saw far too many subs on both sides lost to air attacks.

Jim

I think one of the differences between RL and WITP is the fact that the Japanese player uses his assets more effectively. My opponent uses the convoy system, escort ASW groups, and plenty of hunter killer groups specifically devoted to getting my subs. None of these were utilized by the Japanese until it was way too late for them to be effective. In my game, if I do not move a submarine and it is spotted, I can expect his ASW groups to pounce.

You have to keep that in mind when you compare the game to RL. Torpedo duds were a defect in the torpedo that is modeled into the game. Bad ASW strategy is modeled into the game also...most Japanese players just choose to ignore it. IJN ASW assets are used as they should have been to be effective much as the US player uses his assets more effectively also.

Treespider i can be your 1st opponent[:D] As long as you play as Japs[:D]


Question: And what about limiting the nr of PT boats at a base??? i remeber in vanilla WITP you could have like 40 of those in different
TF and make a base immune to Jap naval bombardment[:D]

ORIGINAL: TMFoss

The formula for visible ranges to the horizon is distance is miles = the square root of 1.5 times the height in feet.  So, a six foot tall man standing at sea level would theoretically be able to see 2.89 miles to the horizon.  If the observed object is above the horizon, then you add the height of both objects to get the range.  Due to atmospheric refraction, the actual distances can be up to 20% higher.  Of course, this is assuming very clear weather.  So, and I am just going to throw some very numbers here, a sub commander on the surface with eye level at 15 feet above sea level looking at a ship with a superstructure 40 feet above sea level should be able to see it at a range of a little over 9 miles- maybe as much a 10.5 with atmospheric refraction.

You forgot smoke.

When I was on a boat the farthest you could spot anything was about 14 miles give or take .5, even smoke. All that's really left to consider is the height of your vessel where you are standing. Once you can no longer see over the curve of the earth (all dependent on your height above it, get in a space shuttle and you can see it all!) that's it. Other than some atmospheric differences there should be a theoretical maximum sight range for each vsl based on it's height above sea level at the point where a lookout would stand.

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns



So the question is, are they still highly vulnerable to air attacks in AE? WitP saw far too many subs on both sides lost to air attacks.

Jim

My impression is No they are not still highly vunerable....reasoning is IIRC...Aircraft now have to be be set on ASW to spot subs...and each pilot has a separate ASW skill ....which is IIRC different than the NavSearch skill.

In my tests against Yammy he had several subs lurking around Java that I occasionally (not never) spotted in spite of having half the Dutch Air Force on ASW Patrol.

The actual formula (in nautical miles) is 1.24*(SqRoot(Observer)+SqRoot(Observed Object) - that's what we were taught and my job then depended on that being right...

Therefore a submarine running at dusk or dawn on the surface with the observer in the tower at say 25ft above sea level observing the top of a merchantman which is say 64ft above sea level can see this out to 16.1nm in ideal conditions.

Submarines without radar or sonar tend not to find things using either search or attack scopes, they use their low profile to give them the edge and the hours between dusk and dawn to search for targets.  Running submerged (and therefore using periscopes) makes them as slow as their targets (so how do they close) and with far less endurance (sure they could snorkel if fitted with one, but that's mighty uncomfortable at any speed as every time the snorkel gets washed, the diesels use the 'cabin' air makes your ears pop and fills the cabin with fumes - ask a submariner - I did when we still had diesel boats).

So at 16 knots surface running during the 12 hours of darkness, a submarine could (in theory) travel 192 nm and with visible area of just shy of 815 square nautical miles at any given moment.  So 5 attacks in 3 hexes is eminently possible in 12 hours (let alone a full day), so why does that require a house rule?

ORIGINAL: treespider
My impression is No they are not still highly vunerable....reasoning is IIRC...Aircraft now have to be be set on ASW to spot subs...and each pilot has a separate ASW skill ....which is IIRC different than the NavSearch skill.

In my tests against Yammy he had several subs lurking around Java that I occasionally (not never) spotted in spite of having half the Dutch Air Force on ASW Patrol.

Thanks for the answer Treespider, this is absolutely awesome news.

Jim

Back to the thread topic.

I only see the need for one houserule now.[;)]

1. Restricted LCU's need to pay PP's to convert to an active HQ to deploy outside their initial area.

Boundaries are the one major thing that hasn't been coded into the expansion.
A lot of recoding would've been needed.

This'll only be needed in a PBEM game.
As the AI will throw everything at you regardless of restriction, and you'll probably have to respond back the same way to balance it.

ORIGINAL: Halsey

Back to the thread topic.

I only see the need for one houserule now.[;)]

1. Restricted LCU's need to pay PP's to convert to an active HQ to deploy outside their initial area.

Boundaries are the one major thing that hasn't been coded into the expansion.
A lot of recoding would've been needed.

This'll only be needed in a PBEM game.
As the AI will throw everything at you regardless of restriction, and you'll probably have to respond back the same way to balance it.

It may have already been mentioned, but adding more uses of national boundaries, including tying them to restricted commands, is on the (rather large) AE patch "wish list" so it may be added to the game later on.

Andrew

Sounds good to me.[;)]