Patch 01 ... Patch 02 ... Patch 03 ...

[cantona2]

I'm also getting the same as posters #436 and #432 above

[goran007]

First of all: I beg you dont make artillery useless.

Artillery does take lives and it effects receiving end as fatigue and disruption.
All that nonsense about my guys in lev 3 fort took artillery bombardment for 20 days and are now destroyed, wtf... just ignore.

If you let you guys being bombarded for week or two and you expect that troops trained and led as bad as Chinese offer resistance to superior numbers of Japan, forget it, that shouldn't happen.

General rule is: if evenly trained and led armies are in combat and attacker has 5:1 artillery; 5:1 in tanks; at least 3:1 in soldiers. Defender will loose 90% of time. Losses should be from 50-80% AV (hard to judge human losses)
Also AE does benefit defenders because easiest way to destroy an army is to envelop it and destroy it with artillery what isen't really modeled in a game.

Another thing is morale of the units, 50% or more for Chinese shouldn't be possible.
People who know that are outgunned, outnumbered, who eat leather belts to survive, who don't belive in country or leaders aren't motivated to fight.

During beta patch i also noticed that medium combat activity in China eats a lot of supplies, a lot more than before. So plz be careful increasing it even more.

[Xargun]

Any chance we can get a fuel request option like there is for supplies ? As japan I'm growing tired of sending AKs to pick up 1k, 2k or even 3k fuel from bases that have never and never will see a combat unit in them ever. And the worse part is within a week or two of picking up the fuel it will be moved back.

Xargun

[pad152]

I hope the issue of unable to create midget subs at some locations is included in the hot fix.

see
tm.asp?m=2314823

[BigJ62]

Don't put any ships at the base which drives up fuel req and if there is a need then fuel is sent.

ORIGINAL: Xargun

Any chance we can get a fuel request option like there is for supplies ? As japan I'm growing tired of sending AKs to pick up 1k, 2k or even 3k fuel from bases that have never and never will see a combat unit in them ever. And the worse part is within a week or two of picking up the fuel it will be moved back.

Xargun

[Xargun]

ORIGINAL: BigJ62

Don't put any ships at the base which drives up fuel req and if there is a need then fuel is sent.

Usually the only ship the visits this base is the AK that is loading up the fuel there. But there are tons of bases that have never had any ships visit that have fuel.


Xargun

[bradfordkay]

ORIGINAL: Xargun

ORIGINAL: BigJ62

Don't put any ships at the base which drives up fuel req and if there is a need then fuel is sent.

Usually the only ship the visits this base is the AK that is loading up the fuel there. But there are tons of bases that have never had any ships visit that have fuel.


Xargun

You might want to make sure that TF is set to "Do not refuel". Could that be the cause?

[herwin]

Hopefully the hotfix will tone down the subs. My opponent put a couple of torpedoes in the Enterprise and then methodically stripped away her escort on the trip home. Once she was alone in the ocean, she took a couple more torpedoes. Bubble, bubble. One CVTF wiped out, no damage to the subs. Yes, I would expect that from modern SSNs, but not from WWII Japanese RO-boats.

[Smeulders]

I'll second that, haven't had much problems with them myself, but I can't blame my opponent for complaining a couple of times, escorts always seem to be the first to go when my subs come in. Hope it gets fixed before he gets a chance to turn the tables

[Don Bowen]

Subs are too strong!

Patch

ASW is too strong!

Patch

Subs are too strong!

Here we go again.

[Kull]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


Subs are too strong!

Patch

ASW is too strong!

Patch

Subs are too strong!

Here we go again.

Chickenboy calls it the "pendulum effect" and I'm inclined to agree with him. In my pathetically small coding experience, one rule of thumb was to change only one variable at a time, and test the hell out of it before even thinking about changing anything else. That (making multiple adjustments) more than anything can drive some real wild swings in behaviour - worse, you're no longer sure which change is driving the results. Assuming you guys know that better than me, the other option is to perhaps return to the original v1.0 values and just alter them by 1/3 of the original tweak. On the other hand, given the Grand Canyon-sized differential between our respective levels of knowledge in this area, I'm probably oversimplifying.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


Subs are too strong!

Patch

ASW is too strong!

Patch

Subs are too strong!

Here we go again.

It's probably unfixable given the game engine, and I doubt it will just come out in the wash. It has to do with speed and tactics. Remember, the Queens usually travelled unescorted--their cruise speed was too great for a sub to get into attack position. Warships moving through or performing operations in an ocean area were more or less vulnerable to ambushes. Convoys' moving at 7-9 knots, on the other hand, were sometimes the focus of major battles as there was opportunity for subs to move into attack position. Methodically stripping the escorts from a CVTF moving at speed to get access to the carrier being escorted is more like a convoy attack than anything ever actually seen.

[herwin]

Let me provide the details of the attack:

I had 3 CVTFs and 2 SAGs on patrol south of Guadalcanal. They encountered a IJN sub and it ambushed the Enterprise, hitting her twice and slowing her to 18 knots. I removed her surface escorts and sent her to Noumea with four good DDs as ASW escort. I also deployed some ASW TFs to the area, one from Noumea and one using local assets.

The following two turns, successive attacks by RO boats stripped off two of the escorting DDs, and chopped up one of the ASW TFs. Finally, on the third turn, one got to the carrier, which had two DDs left, and hit her twice. During this period, I was frantically trying to reinforce the escort and get the ASW TFs into the area. The reinforcements ran into the meet bug, and the stronger of the ASW TFs stayed in Noumea, apparently planning to meet the CVTF there.

Lessons learned:
1. The meet bug has not been squashed.
2. Subs are too effective.

Japanese submarine torpedoes at that point in the war had a range of 7-9,000 meters at 30 knots. A TF making 16-18 knots was several times as fast as a submerged IJN submarine, so the sub could be treated as essentially stationary, functioning like a mine with an effective range of perhaps 3-4 nm. In game terms, each sub covered about 7 nm of a 46 nm hex, so the probability of engaging the major combatants in the TF was about 15% per sub in the hex--or 25% to include engaging the screen. (It was different if the TF were operating in the hex or were moving slow enough that the sub could approach it, but here we're considering a TF passing through the hex.) If the sub was close enough to engage, there was still the problem of getting a decent target solution. What I was seeing here reset my indicator lamps.

(For the Navy types here, I was a system engineer for the IBM BSY-2 proposal, doing the system modelling. I also did communications system modelling for the Centurion class and worked on OBU, ASWOC, and some other more obscure systems. It's not accidental my PhD was a sonar system model, investigating acoustically-guided target detection, tracking, classification, and engagement. A guy down one floor came up with the idea for the BQD-5G WAA.)

[stuman]

ORIGINAL: herwin

Let me provide the details of the attack:

I had 3 CVTFs and 2 SAGs on patrol south of Guadalcanal. They encountered a IJN sub and it ambushed the Enterprise, hitting her twice and slowing her to 18 knots. I removed her surface escorts and sent her to Noumea with four good DDs as ASW escort. I also deployed some ASW TFs to the area, one from Noumea and one using local assets.

The following two turns, successive attacks by RO boats stripped off two of the escorting DDs, and chopped up one of the ASW TFs. Finally, on the third turn, one got to the carrier, which had two DDs left, and hit her twice. During this period, I was frantically trying to reinforce the escort and get the ASW TFs into the area. The reinforcements ran into the meet bug, and the stronger of the ASW TFs stayed in Noumea, apparently planning to meet the CVTF there.

Lessons learned:
1. The meet bug has not been squashed.
2. Subs are too effective.

Japanese submarine torpedoes at that point in the war had a range of 7-9,000 meters at 30 knots. A TF making 16-18 knots was several times as fast as a submerged IJN submarine, so the sub could be treated as essentially stationary, functioning like a mine with an effective range of perhaps 3-4 nm. In game terms, each sub covered about 7 nm of a 46 nm hex, so the probability of engaging the major combatants in the TF was about 15% per sub in the hex--or 25% to include engaging the screen. (It was different if the TF were operating in the hex or were moving slow enough that the sub could approach it, but here we're considering a TF making a passage through the hex.) If the sub was close enough to engage, there was still the problem of getting a decent target solution. What I was seeing here reset my indicator lamps.

(For the Navy types here, I was a system engineer for the IBM BSY-2 proposal, doing the system modelling. I also did communications system modelling for the Centurion class and worked on OBU, ASWOC, and some other more obscure systems. It's not accidental my PhD was a sonar system model, investigating acoustically-guided target detection, classification, and engagement.)

Interesting. And geez, I never get that lucky against CV TFs.

[Canoerebel]

ORIGINAL: goran007
First of all: I beg you dont make artillery useless.

Artillery does take lives and it effects receiving end as fatigue and disruption.
All that nonsense about my guys in lev 3 fort took artillery bombardment for 20 days and are now destroyed, wtf... just ignore.

If you let you guys being bombarded for week or two and you expect that troops trained and led as bad as Chinese offer resistance to superior numbers of Japan, forget it, that shouldn't happen.

General rule is: if evenly trained and led armies are in combat and attacker has 5:1 artillery; 5:1 in tanks; at least 3:1 in soldiers. Defender will loose 90% of time. Losses should be from 50-80% AV (hard to judge human losses)
Also AE does benefit defenders because easiest way to destroy an army is to envelop it and destroy it with artillery what isen't really modeled in a game.

Another thing is morale of the units, 50% or more for Chinese shouldn't be possible.
People who know that are outgunned, outnumbered, who eat leather belts to survive, who don't belive in country or leaders aren't motivated to fight.

During beta patch i also noticed that medium combat activity in China eats a lot of supplies, a lot more than before. So plz be careful increasing it even more.

In other words, please ignore that fact that in real life China was huge mess that was laregly stalemated for the entire war; and let's ignore the fact that the intention of the game designers was to replicate this historical quagmire. The fact that the Japanese can blitzkrieg through the country now is cool!

[Canoerebel]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

Subs are too strong!

Patch

ASW is too strong!

Patch

Subs are too strong!

Here we go again.

I'm one of those saying subs are too strong. Until about two weeks ago, I never had an issue wtih subs in AE (nor in WitP nor in UV). I just know that something happened that turned subs into nucelar devices that are death on ASW and able to operate with near impunity IN major Allied base hexes that have multiple ASW TFs and ASW air patrols operating there.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

Subs are too strong!

Patch

ASW is too strong!

Patch

Subs are too strong!

Here we go again.

I'm one of those saying subs are too strong. Until about two weeks ago, I never had an issue wtih subs in AE (nor in WitP nor in UV). I just know that something happened that turned subs into nucelar devices that are death on ASW and able to operate with near impunity IN major Allied base hexes that have multiple ASW TFs and ASW air patrols operating there.

subs in a PBEM aren´t as strong as vs. the AI but in an AI game you knock out the IJN by the end of 42 with subs alone. I can tell you what made subs what you call nuclear devices: the patrol order and the fact that subs react and follow targets on their own. This makes them ten times more dangerous than in WITP.

In a PBEM you should be able to limit the subs´ effect somewhat by your actions (if you know what you do [;)]) but they will still be far more potent than in WITP due to the new possibilities. And not you should be the one that is complaining but Miller, because you are the one who will get 200+ of the buggers to hunt his shipping.

[Canoerebel]

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

Subs are too strong!

Patch

ASW is too strong!

Patch

Subs are too strong!

Here we go again.

I'm one of those saying subs are too strong. Until about two weeks ago, I never had an issue wtih subs in AE (nor in WitP nor in UV). I just know that something happened that turned subs into nucelar devices that are death on ASW and able to operate with near impunity IN major Allied base hexes that have multiple ASW TFs and ASW air patrols operating there.

subs in a PBEM aren´t as strong as vs. the AI but in an AI game you knock out the IJN by the end of 42 with subs alone. I can tell you what made subs what you call nuclear devices: the patrol order and the fact that subs react and follow targets on their own. This makes them ten times more dangerous than in WITP.

In a PBEM you should be able to limit the subs´ effect somewhat by your actions (if you know what you do [;)]) but they will still be far more potent than in WITP due to the new possibilities. And not you should be the one that is complaining but Miller, because you are the one who will get 200+ of the buggers to hunt his shipping.

The react feature is just part of the problem. The two biggest concerns are that subs are taking out ASW with wild abandon and subs are able to operate in heavily defended ports with impunity.

I realize Allied subs will shut down the Japanese if this issue isn't fixed and I don't want that to happen.

[witpqs]

I don't think 'react' should be any kind of problem. It's just a tool to reduce required micromanagement, as is patrol zones. The real issues are:

1) "Are subs too successful offensively?"

AND

2) "Are subs too difficult to suppress or hit with:

[center]a) surface ASW

OR

b) airborne ASW?" [/center]

I haven't put enough time in with Patch 2 to have a direct opinion on current code. Prior to Patch 2, they seemed OK to me on all three counts (1, 2a, and 2b). Allied vs AI, IJN subs were a definite pain in the neck, but the threat could be managed. That had the flavor of IRL WWII as I understand it. Surface ASW took it on the chin for a while. Air ASW took time to ramp up, both in terms of experience and in terms of capable assets. Once it did, it was much easier to avoid IJN subs and, with capable surface assets, easier to attack them (though still not entirely safe). Also, escorting a convoy in any way helped a great deal with reducing carnage to tankers and merchantmen.

As I said, my experience was pre-Patch 2. If something changed to make subs 'nucular' ([:D]) in the Patch then that's where we should focus, not on patrol zones or react range settings.

[Admiral Scott]

I think we will get subs and ASW fixed...........eventually.
Hopefully the next hotfix patch will be an improvement in this area.