Nuclear Subs

[Admiral Scott]

The latest patch (#2) makes matters even worse!

Early war air ASW has been nerfed even more and subs in deep water are even more difficult to sink as of patch 2, so things are going to be even worse!

Allied air ASW in AE should be exactly as effective as was in real life in the Atlantic. EXACTLY. You created a situation with no jap sub doctrine that mirrors the Atlantic, so the allied ASW results in AE should mirror that theater as well.

[jwilkerson]

Everyone be aware - the idea that the Japanese had some different submarine doctrine doesn't really stand up to scrutiny.

All major submarine powers - had pre-war ideas of not attacking merchant ships as a part of their "doctrine". This even included the Germans and Americans. Interwar ideas sustained the (mostly) British bias that submarine attacks against poor ole unarmed merchant ships were "piracy" - but once the combatants were actually at war - everyone abandoned their pre-war nice-nice ideas.

In the first six months of the real war - IJN submarines sank 50+ ships - per Rohwer - most of these were merchants - I've posted the figures in previous discussions on this topic - and sinking 50+ ships is pretty tough to do in the game - unless the Allied player is helping. I came close once in stock when playing an opponent that never escorted any convoy's but never come close in any other WITP or AE game.

But the "historical doctrine" idea doesn't actually stand up - when compared to actual activities in the real war. After Midway - the Japanese did shift things - and started doing a lot more transport missions - and were less aggressive in reaching out and attacking enemy merchants in home waters. But in the first six months - in the real war - they certainly abandoned any pre-war "doctrine" about not attacking enemy merchant ships.

==

We will continue testing and tweaking - but our experience has been that ASW air and ASW TF have always been very over powered - in stock and in early versions of AE - so yes we have been trying to tone down the "uber ASW" capabilities of ASW air and ASW TF - but we will continue watching - testing and adjusting as necessary.

[mjk428]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson



We will continue testing and tweaking - but our experience has been that ASW air and ASW TF have always been very over powered - in stock and in early versions of AE - so yes we have been trying to tone down the "uber ASW" capabilities of ASW air and ASW TF - but we will continue watching - testing and adjusting as necessary.

Ever since the subs were made more durable a couple of years back, that has not been the case for me vs the AI. I strongly suspect, based on people claiming the above in PBEMs, that the results vs AI are determined differently. With the more durable subs they shrug off most attacks but they can easily claim one or more DDs in the exchange.

Because of this I learned to only use minesweepers, or other ships worth 1 point, in ASW TFs. They get slaughtered but at least the subs are wasting torps on them and not something much more valuable. Never use anything to hunt subs that cost more than a torpedo. In two AE starts I sank a grand total of 1 sub. Didn't matter how damaged they were, they could make it back home all the way from CA.

The bottom line for me is that I shouldn't be afraid to send DDs after subs in ASW TFs. A sane sub commander would not take on multiple destroyers and if he did he wouldn't consistently live to tell the tale. Any other TF and the DDs do fine. Send them out hunting and the hunter is always the hunted.

[Buck Beach]

Well I haven't gotten far enough into the game to experience anything, however, I do know that sub activity on the West Coast US in the early part of the war was somewhat successful against merchants especially tankers. I do think that the effectivines against the ASW ships reported here seems very excessive, but, most likely it goes for both sides. This still would make it unacceptable.

This must be an area very difficult to control with the game's mechanics. Even with the major rewrite of the code over that of WITP the problem has been continual. Here is an excerpt of a post of mine complaining to el cid in March of this year:

I have aggressively use your techniques of sub hunting described above. It is 3/29/1942 game time and to date I have lost 9 AKs, 1 TK, 6 DMS, 3 DDs and 2 PCs to subs off the Australian coast. 100% of the warships were on ASW activities and lost in the waters off and between Mac Kay and Townsville. This in exchange for one Japanese sub taken with a 500 lb off Port Morsbey. The activity occurred in about 2 1/2 months game time from mid-January with the Japanese subs started arriving in the area.

It may seem right to you but it feels lopsided to me.

I realize it is not the same game but it is the same problem and it applies to both sides.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
Canoerebel,
Can you please provide more details regarding your ASW aircraft settings around the Southern CA area: numbers of aircraft, patrol zone, air support, leader ratings, airframe, pilot skill, ASW pilot skill, altitude of operation, range, fatigue levels, morale, default weapon loadout for the airframe, etc.

It would be helpful to have a feel for this in order to dissect out any possible problems with your airborne ASW setting. Without having a better feel for these settings, it is difficult for us to make any recommendations.

Yikes, is there anything else I can get you while I begin compiling that information? If not, I'll see you in a week or two. [:D]

I'll get you some of this info later today, but please note that my main concern isn't the ineffectiveness of ASW air patrols and ASW ships, my main concerns are the ability of Japanese subs to sink Allied ASW ships and the ability of Japanese subs to lurk around major bases with near impunity.

Hi Canoerebel,

The lurking of the IJN subs around your major bases with impunity may be due to the fact that they're not getting sighted, scared off or attacked by your airborne ASW assets. There may be some things that you can examine re: your effort in this light.

If your search grid is too wide or set inefficiently (insufficient focal coverage of airborne ASW near the channel islands off CA, for example) or if it's too high (OP have commented on maximum ASW airborne height being about 1-2,000 ft [X(] for maximum effect) or if their leaders suck or if the pilots individual ASW skills suck and haven't been focally trained, all of these can explain a portion of the impunity to which he is loitering near your major bases. All of the plethora of rationale that I mentioned above have been known to impact airborne ASW, for instance.

As with so very many things in WiTP or AE, the devil is in the details. It's clear that you're unhappy with getting pounded with IJN subs. Now, what sort of settings or effort under your control can be done differently that we can discuss in detail?

I won't give away details of my PBEMs here (too many possibilities for prying eyes), but suffice to say that my experiences re: the efficacy of Allied early war ASW, Allied submarine effectiveness, Japanese early war ASW and Japanese submarine effectiveness are different than you have been experiencing. PM me if you want some additional details re: my experiences and recommendations for things to consider.

[Sheytan]

DD's on the allied side are too valuable to use for ASW missions. I used AM KV AMc etc.

ORIGINAL: mjk428

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson



We will continue testing and tweaking - but our experience has been that ASW air and ASW TF have always been very over powered - in stock and in early versions of AE - so yes we have been trying to tone down the "uber ASW" capabilities of ASW air and ASW TF - but we will continue watching - testing and adjusting as necessary.

Ever since the subs were made more durable a couple of years back, that has not been the case for me vs the AI. I strongly suspect, based on people claiming the above in PBEMs, that the results vs AI are determined differently. With the more durable subs they shrug off most attacks but they can easily claim one or more DDs in the exchange.

Because of this I learned to only use minesweepers, or other ships worth 1 point, in ASW TFs. They get slaughtered but at least the subs are wasting torps on them and not something much more valuable. Never use anything to hunt subs that cost more than a torpedo. In two AE starts I sank a grand total of 1 sub. Didn't matter how damaged they were, they could make it back home all the way from CA.

The bottom line for me is that I shouldn't be afraid to send DDs after subs in ASW TFs. A sane sub commander would not take on multiple destroyers and if he did he wouldn't consistently live to tell the tale. Any other TF and the DDs do fine. Send them out hunting and the hunter is always the hunted.

[Canoerebel]

When you're desperate - when subs are sinking everything in sight and have shut down your biggest ports, when your KV and AM and YP are impotent and are getting sunk right and left - then you'll do whatever you can to stop the enemy subs.  That's how I ended up using destroyers on ASW duty.

[jazman]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

When you're desperate - when subs are sinking everything in sight and have shut down your biggest ports, when your KV and AM and YP are impotent and are getting sunk right and left - then you'll do whatever you can to stop the enemy subs.  That's how I ended up using destroyers on ASW duty.

Experiment: Form a cargo TF with a single xAKL ("Target Maru"), larded heavily with ASW assets. Run this TF like you would an ASW TF (granted, it's slower moving), and see if a heavily-escorted cargo TF does better than a pure ASW TF.

[Admiral Scott]

Why is it so easy for jap subs to sink ASW ships?

Why do so few jap subs get sunk by allied ASW aircraft?

Why were allied ASW aircraft so successful in the Atlantic but not in AE?

I think the game has been over-tweaked in THE WRONG DIRECTION!

This game needs more serious tweaking in the other direction immediately.

I was hoping this game would be balanced and bug free by the 2nd patch.
I guess I will have to wait even longer.

[mjk428]

ORIGINAL: Sheytan

DD's on the allied side are too valuable to use for ASW missions. I used AM KV AMc etc.

ORIGINAL: mjk428

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson



We will continue testing and tweaking - but our experience has been that ASW air and ASW TF have always been very over powered - in stock and in early versions of AE - so yes we have been trying to tone down the "uber ASW" capabilities of ASW air and ASW TF - but we will continue watching - testing and adjusting as necessary.

Ever since the subs were made more durable a couple of years back, that has not been the case for me vs the AI. I strongly suspect, based on people claiming the above in PBEMs, that the results vs AI are determined differently. With the more durable subs they shrug off most attacks but they can easily claim one or more DDs in the exchange.

Because of this I learned to only use minesweepers, or other ships worth 1 point, in ASW TFs. They get slaughtered but at least the subs are wasting torps on them and not something much more valuable. Never use anything to hunt subs that cost more than a torpedo. In two AE starts I sank a grand total of 1 sub. Didn't matter how damaged they were, they could make it back home all the way from CA.

The bottom line for me is that I shouldn't be afraid to send DDs after subs in ASW TFs. A sane sub commander would not take on multiple destroyers and if he did he wouldn't consistently live to tell the tale. Any other TF and the DDs do fine. Send them out hunting and the hunter is always the hunted.

I said as much above.

It's also completely beside the point. DDs when used in ASW TFs should not consistently lose fights to subs - especially when they outnumber the subs 4 to 1.

[Lrfss]

ORIGINAL: Admiral Scott

Allied air ASW needs to be more effective at sinking subs. We have Jap subs sinking destroyers, and operating near allied bases with no fear of air attack.
The situation in the game is like the atlantic theater, because there is no jap sub doctrine; but the game doesnt let us counter the jap sub threat like the allies did in the atlantic.
German subs FEARED allied aircraft for good reason. They operated in areas of the Atlantic where land based aircraft were out of range.

AE needs to have better air ASW to counter and balance the effect of no Jap sub doctrine.

Jap subs should fear allied aircraft and ASW task forces hunting them! Instead we have Jap subs operating with near impunity.

Not sure about your Pilots "ASW Skill Levels", or the other numerous factors involved? However I can state that my Air ASW is effective Vs Jap Sub's once the pilot's "ASW" skill level equals or exceeds 70 and also notice another factor which seems to help is the Nav Search skill as well once around 70 plus... Also I notice that the Japs, "Dive Deep" and break off more attacks then prior. I'm at the end of 03/42 atm.

I must say though, not much luck in the Surface ASW area however! How about some "Trainer" Schools for the Capt's?

Later,

Lrfss

[JeffroK]

ORIGINAL: sfbaytf

"You've got to have balance to bave an enjoyable war game.  When players have no way of countering a devastating enemy tactic, there's an unsatisfying imbalance"

I feel the same way about bombardments. Some have said it will balance out later on in the war when the allieds are on the offensive. Personally as the allieds I don't want to have my massive naval, air and land bombardments wipe out or render the IJA impotent and be able to just walk in and take places. We all know that historically that was not the case.

Correct,

It was mentioned above that, "The japanese have the advantage now, the Allies get it later"

Two wrongs dont make a right.

Too many things in AE have been knocked out of kilter, arty deathstars, nuclear subs, which have been accepted because it helps/affects both sides.

Many of them solvable through harder testing and tweaking of the database. Arty effectiveness could have been toned down to a reasonable level (I started this, but will see what the patche does) similarly torp. accuracy and/or effectiveness could be tweaked. You do it in small increments until its right. Sub endurance can be lowered a bit , allow a quick raid on the West Coast but not allow them to set up camp off San Diego.

I've also seen that the game wasn't tested heavily in later years due to continual restarts for bug fixing, the devs should have held the release until it was properly tested, and we should have been patient enough to wait rather than get it rushed and then have problems like this.

[vonSchnitter]

Come on lads !

Any amount of "historical" argument or "prove" about the use of IJN subs (ai or pbm) is going nowhere.

AE just assumes - for the benefit of PBM or "what if" - that Yamamoto could have changed the rules of engagement for subs as radically as Nimitz did.
Which is: Sink anything in sight in designated areas without warning or reference to whatever law, right or usage of the seas customarily adhered to. And that was a readical call !!!

Practically negating the US claims to enter into WW1 . unrestricted sub warfare etc ...

The only interesting question in this is - what ASW tactics work

[John Lansford]

I use minesweepers, YP's, DE's and KV's on ASW sweeps, as well as DD's that are waiting on a transport or other TF to form up.  The RN destroyers are particularly good at ASW, as I would expect.  By putting literally a dozen squadrons on ASW patrol off of the WC ports, I've managed to neutralize the subs there, but they've just moved further west outside of my air search range.  They especially like picking off my tankers, but if I escort TF's with anything with a DC or sonar array, it appears to help.

Of course, not always; I had Yorktown take a torpedo off of Brisbane even though she had six DD's escorting her.  OTOH, I've sunk two subs using my own subs, and while I haven't sunk many with air attacks it does tend to keep them busy and I damage a couple every once in a while.

[vonSchnitter]

Sorry JohnL,

the only thing your post proves is simple: Using any ASW group - aka Hunter Killer group in western approaches parlance - puts just more targets in the sights of hostile subs.

And this cuts both ways - both the IJN the allies are affected.

The only question is: Intended by the defs of not

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: briny_norman

IJN subs in my game as Allied against the AI have not performed unrealistically well.
I have to be careful and I have to be over them all the time and use air ASW extensively, but doing this I'm able to rein them in.
They do get a ship from time to time, but nothing over the top.

My own subs, on the other hand, I found were so effective it just wasn't funny.
It threatened to ruin the game, actually.
I chose to let the computer take over sub operations to make them a little less effective.
And that worked nicely as the computer is a lot less aggressive with the subs than I was.

Well, we really are talking pbemail here. My Allied subs slaughtered the AI even in the early months. So many surface attacks. That is not going to happen vs a good human opponent.

[Canoerebel]

This thread had dropped into the nether regions of something like page ten, but it's time to bring it back the forum's attention.

The thrust of this thread is that submarines are too powerful in the game - a problem that cuts both ways; IE, it affects both sides roughly equally over the long haul.  Early in the war it doesn't affect the Japanese as much since a high percentage of Allied torpedoes are duds.

In my PBEM game with Miller, we're now in January 1943, so the dud rate has fallen...and, as expected, the sub war has become even more bloody.

On January 22, 1943, I-34 sank an AKL near Saumlaki, Seal got an xAK off Shortlands, Salmon got an xAK in Kendari, I-8 got two docked tankers at Karachi (yes, two...docked...tankers...in a major port patrolled by ASW), and Gugeon got an AK off Munda.

Six ships went under in a single day...and this is not an isolated occurrence.  Sub-warfare in AE is far, far too effective.

The attacking of docked ships is particularly ridiculous, especially in big ports (Karachi, for heaven's sake!) patrolled by ASW TFs and ASW air.  This is not an isolated occurrence as I've lost scores of docked ships at my biggest ports during the game.

Since Nuclear Subs appears to cut both ways it doesn't necessarily need fixing to address game balance; but it sure detracts from the historical feel of the game.  In the real war, sub warfare was a cat-and-mouse game.  In my AE PBEM game, sub warfare is just a big, bad gorilla blundering from major port to major port tearing apart everything encountered.

Am I the only one who is finding sub warfare so ridiculously bloody?  It's possible, I suppose.

[Sardaukar]

Latest hotfix, where sub reaction range is restricted to 1 should help a bit.

[Canoerebel]

You mean the Hot Fix that was released a few weeks ago?  If so, that one didn't help the situation.
 
Either that Hot Fix or Patch Two toned down sub effectiveness against ASW ships, which was a big step in the right direction, but subs are much too lethal against other ships.

[ny59giants]

Dan - There is a hotfix that came out on Sunday. I didn't know about it until my opponent sent me an e-mail as I had done my first turn orders using the one that came out just before Christmas. Check Tech Support thread.