Matrix Games Forums

John, since you spelled how the ASW combat worked using a very simplified example, would changing how the weapons are put on planes allow the use of parafrags and rockets?

During all this years, I have played WITP/AE, I have seen maybe 3 times, that ship ran out of DC ammo. And I do not think it is actually possible for not dedicated ASW TF.

I see it pretty regularly. As quantification, I did a search for "out of asw ammo" in the combat reports for a game just entering 1945 and found 109 files reports where this occurred. This is 2 day turns, so around 500 total files, so maybe 20% of turns had at least one ship run out of ASW ammo. In most cases I'm aware of, this is for ASW TFs that started at full ammo.

This is stock scen 1, started on original release. If ammo was tweaked after release or in Babes, your mileage may vary.

ORIGINAL: JWE

Babes has already tweaked the capabilities of depth charges vs diving depth of subs. This one is wrapped up very tightly with the algorithm, so I can’t say much about it. But, there is a bit of fuzzy math going on between the bottom of the drop depth of a DC and the diving depth of a sub, so it is “rational” to set the “drop depth” of a Type-2 at 375 feet, and the “diving depth” of a Balao or Tench at 410 feet, for example. Similarly, it is “rational” to set the “drop depth” of T-95 Mod 2s at 275 feet, while Gars, Tambors, Gatos can dive to 300 to 330 feet. That’s all I can say about it. Looked for hints to give, but just couldn’t find any that wouldn’t screw the pooch.

John -

Many, many thanks for a very clear, basic explanation of how ASW works.

To the other posters: Thank you all - I now have (or at least think I have) a layman's understanding of some of the key factors involved, and greatly appreciate your work in this area.

What continues to impress and delight me, is that there are layers within layers of detail - far beyond what first meets the eye.

Mac

ORIGINAL: Mac Linehan

ORIGINAL: JWE

Babes has already tweaked the capabilities of depth charges vs diving depth of subs. This one is wrapped up very tightly with the algorithm, so I can’t say much about it. But, there is a bit of fuzzy math going on between the bottom of the drop depth of a DC and the diving depth of a sub, so it is “rational” to set the “drop depth” of a Type-2 at 375 feet, and the “diving depth” of a Balao or Tench at 410 feet, for example. Similarly, it is “rational” to set the “drop depth” of T-95 Mod 2s at 275 feet, while Gars, Tambors, Gatos can dive to 300 to 330 feet. That’s all I can say about it. Looked for hints to give, but just couldn’t find any that wouldn’t screw the pooch.

John -

Many, many thanks for a very clear, basic explanation of how ASW works.

To the other posters: Thank you all - I now have (or at least think I have) a layman's understanding of some of the key factors involved, and greatly appreciate your work in this area.

What continues to impress and delight me, is that there are layers within layers of detail - far beyond what first meets the eye.

Mac

+1 on the thanks from me too. Very clear and detailed explanations really, really improve my fun and understanding of the game.

ORIGINAL: Local Yokel

On the subject of radar fitting dates, I went through all the kaibokan TROMS so far published on the combinedfleet site. Unfortunately these give no information at all about the 'Type 22' (strictly, 222 GÔ dentan) fitting dates, and very little about 'Type 13' (13 GÔ dentan) fit dates.

Specific mention is made of the following fittings of Type 13 sets:

CD-37 April 1945 (C-gata class)
Hachijo October 1943 (Shimushu class)
Oki June 1944 (Etorofu class)

On the subject of radar fitting dates, I went through all the kaibokan TROMS so far published on the combinedfleet site. Unfortunately these give no information at all about the 'Type 22' (strictly, 222 GÔ dentan) fitting dates, and very little about 'Type 13' (13 GÔ dentan) fit dates.

There is a clear sense that Type 22 fitting occurs just before Midway on Ise - lots of sources and even photographic evidence. That is an experimental prototype - so surely others should be later in time.

There is an old reference book which published as an appendix data (might be USSBS data) on radar production - and if memory serves - some date data. I have a copy of that page - but having just bought a house - my files remain packed up. There is a copy of the book in my local library - so it may be easier to just go look - but I cannot buy the book because it is not available. The book also gave the Circle programs (the ships ordered each year) in its appendix collection. I collect materials on radar history - and before I moved - I checked AE dates - and found every one seemed to be consistent with history as I understand it (for Japan - I did not check the Allies - which I assumed were easier to get right). What is missing is some of the more exotic radars - and a way to use them as Japan did late war (passively). I experimented with this once - using a naval radar passively increases its detection range - but it can only be done after it is reasonable to assume Allied ships actually have radar to detect! A historical example is Shinano - which detected her attacker. Had she not misunderstood the data - she could have evaded. The captain made two errors in assumptions - and thus made the wrong tactical decision. But he appears to have had the initiative - first detection - something like 45 minutes before he was detected.

ORIGINAL: oldman45
John, since you spelled how the ASW combat worked using a very simplified example, would changing how the weapons are put on planes allow the use of parafrags and rockets?

Airplanes are a completely different ballgame, Oldman. We leave airplanes for Michael and Timtom. The routines are completely different so they are out of scope for the stuff we are playing with. Sorry 'bout that.

Think we have a good methodology for radars. Know this is the ASW thread, is it worthwhile to start another with this radar stuff?

Ok, the original radar data values were taken from max reported numbers in the literature. Given the game algorithm, this had the effect of reducing to IF<Radar> = TRUE, THEN <Detect> = TRUE, for the most part. So radar didn't have much effect beyond its mere existence. It was yes or no, and the more ships having radar pretty much guaranteed detection due to the rule of sequential probability. So having grainy data was pretty much pointless. There is code driven radar effectiveness increases for the Allies, so the initial data should reflect this. One shouldn't start at 95% and go to 200%.

Air search range data is for maximum range for detecting groups at high altitude. Means you can always detect at 80-100 miles, CAP is always up and ready, bleech. Have decided to standardize air search ranges for those given for "large" planes at 5000'. Obviously, large groups flying higher will be captured earlier, but small planes flying lower will be captured later. "Large" planes are defined as 'bomber' or PBY size. Small planes are defined as TBF or fighter size. This will cut detect range in half for many radars. This does tend to make sense as accuracy and resolution fall off with distance, so even though a raid might be "detected" one can't vector the CAP in until it gets a lot closer. And that is the point of the whole stinking game code exercise, yeah? So limit the air search radars to a range where the effective radial accuracy and resolution come into play.

Same with surface search. 90 feet up, go to horizon, woof, 20+ miles. But that was BBs. Nobody could detect a DD beyond 6-10, except maybe an SG-7. So we have decided to standardize surface search ranges for those given for 'cruisers' and 'large auxiliaries'. Think that might also subsume a DesDiv. This is >90% of game TFs, so it makes sense here too. SurfCom TFs with BBs are just gonna have to do the hind teat.

Anyway, it's looking very good and uniform. A lot better than the by guess and golly stock stuff. And it's actually not that much far off. Will get more specific as we get closer to completion.

ORIGINAL: JWE

Same with surface search. 90 feet up, go to horizon, woof, 20+ miles. But that was BBs. Nobody could detect a DD beyond 6-10, except maybe an SG-7. So we have decided to standardize surface search ranges for those given for 'cruisers' and 'large auxiliaries'. Think that might also subsume a DesDiv. This is >90% of game TFs, so it makes sense here too. SurfCom TFs with BBs are just gonna have to do the hind teat.

This popped into my head, so I going to say it but I am not asking for it or recommending it because I presume it would be a lot of extra work. If you were really hung up on the radar mounting-height versus performance then you could define different radar devices for what you deem to be different heights of mounting (e.g. one for battleship height (high), one for cruisers (medium), one for destroyers (low)).

ORIGINAL: witpqs
This popped into my head, so I going to say it but I am not asking for it or recommending it because I presume it would be a lot of extra work. If you were really hung up on the radar mounting-height versus performance then you could define different radar devices for what you deem to be different heights of mounting (e.g. one for battleship height (high), one for cruisers (medium), one for destroyers (low)).

Yeah, but then every single ship class would have to have it's own radar specs, and accuracy/resolution are going to have to be tagged to range, and it's all different for an 'A' scope vs a PPI scope, or both (if you have them), and can you mode switch or not? Woof !! 2 - 3 man years to even get close to a decent algorithm.

Nah. Pretty much what-ya-see-is-what-ya-get. We are just trying to get all the poop into a nice fudge brownie.

A little too visual with the descriptions there! [X(] [:D]

ORIGINAL: erstad

During all this years, I have played WITP/AE, I have seen maybe 3 times, that ship ran out of DC ammo. And I do not think it is actually possible for not dedicated ASW TF.

I see it pretty regularly. As quantification, I did a search for "out of asw ammo" in the combat reports for a game just entering 1945 and found 109 files reports where this occurred. This is 2 day turns, so around 500 total files, so maybe 20% of turns had at least one ship run out of ASW ammo. In most cases I'm aware of, this is for ASW TFs that started at full ammo.

This is stock scen 1, started on original release. If ammo was tweaked after release or in Babes, your mileage may vary.

Well, it is always better, to get statistics from real game, not test scenario.
Is "out of asw ammo" message shown, after ship uses all ammo, or only from one weapon slot?
Can you check, how is ammo used in multi-ASW-slot ships?


I have found document, about Japanese ASW warfare. I think, I have read somewhere, that early-war USN pattern was 7 DCs, but check this late-war Japanese pattern: