Matrix Games Forums

does higher the speed of a vessel help it avoid submarine attacks in WITP. For instance it was known that the Queen Mary used its superior speed to avoid U-boats in the atlantic making solo trips without incident. Is this modelled in WITP?

These sort of questions should be addressed to Mike Wood I think.

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

These sort of questions should be addressed to Mike Wood I think.

Why would you assume he knows? [:'(]

Speed is a factor when determining the chance of a submarine attacking a TF:

ORIGINAL:  The manual, p. 104

The chance of a submarine attacking a TF varies with the:

1. Sub’s maximum speed
2. TF’s cruise speed
3. Sub crew’s experience
4. Prior detection of the sub

thanks VSWG....

ORIGINAL: VSWG

Speed is a factor when determining the chance of a submarine attacking a TF:

ORIGINAL:  The manual, p. 104

The chance of a submarine attacking a TF varies with the:

1. Sub’s maximum speed
2. TF’s cruise speed
3. Sub crew’s experience
4. Prior detection of the sub

That sounds as though to me that the speed you have either the TF or the sub running do not matter. It always assumes the sub to be at maximum speed and the TF at cruise. Seems there should at least be an exception for CVTF's. It works both ways though. If your CV is severely crippled the sub will have to deal with it as if it were cruising. Also, if your sub is severely damaged it will be going full speed for attack purposes.

CVTFs didn't really steam around at 30+ kts.  In fact, no Naval TF steamed around at 30+ kts for very long.  Doing that uses fuel at a rate that'll have DDs bone dry in 24 hours or so.  Fuel consumption on a warship is a geometric progression, not a linear one.  A 20 kt speed of advance is difficult to maintain for more than a couple of days.  Underway replenishment as practiced in the USN today can alleviate the problem but even then slows things up some.  Underway replenishment a la USN-1941 and a la IJN-WWII slowed things up a lot. 

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

ORIGINAL: VSWG

Speed is a factor when determining the chance of a submarine attacking a TF:

ORIGINAL:  The manual, p. 104

The chance of a submarine attacking a TF varies with the:

1. Sub’s maximum speed
2. TF’s cruise speed
3. Sub crew’s experience
4. Prior detection of the sub

That sounds as though to me that the speed you have either the TF or the sub running do not matter. It always assumes the sub to be at maximum speed and the TF at cruise. Seems there should at least be an exception for CVTF's. It works both ways though. If your CV is severely crippled the sub will have to deal with it as if it were cruising. Also, if your sub is severely damaged it will be going full speed for attack purposes.

Not necessarily. If the sub or TF is damaged, the max and/or cruise speed changes in the game. The formula may take that into account?

ORIGINAL: spence

CVTFs didn't really steam around at 30+ kts.  In fact, no Naval TF steamed around at 30+ kts for very long.  Doing that uses fuel at a rate that'll have DDs bone dry in 24 hours or so.  Fuel consumption on a warship is a geometric progression, not a linear one.  A 20 kt speed of advance is difficult to maintain for more than a couple of days.  Underway replenishment as practiced in the USN today can alleviate the problem but even then slows things up some.  Underway replenishment a la USN-1941 and a la IJN-WWII slowed things up a lot. 

Are you replying to me? If so, while your comments are very nice, I'm not sure it has anything to do with what I said. I was in no way criticising that the target TF should be at max speed when the chance of a sub attack is considered, but rather that if the manual is true that the speed either of the sub or TF don't matter in the least, as it pre-supposes speeds for them, even for the crippled one-hex-a-phase sinking ships who are by themself. So note, my complaint wasn't that crippled CV's are assuming flank speed when the chances are considered, but rather that they are assuming cruise speed, something a severely crippled CV is almost always unable to attain. Not as bad as assuming flank speed, but bad enough. If I wasn't clear enough, not only is every single TF considering to be going at cruise speed, to figure whether there's a sub attack, even if they are not going that speed, but also that the typical easily intervened severely-crippled solitaire ship, just as difficult to attack.

ORIGINAL: Herrbear

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

ORIGINAL: VSWG

Speed is a factor when determining the chance of a submarine attacking a TF:

That sounds as though to me that the speed you have either the TF or the sub running do not matter. It always assumes the sub to be at maximum speed and the TF at cruise. Seems there should at least be an exception for CVTF's. It works both ways though. If your CV is severely crippled the sub will have to deal with it as if it were cruising. Also, if your sub is severely damaged it will be going full speed for attack purposes.

Not necessarily. If the sub or TF is damaged, the max and/or cruise speed changes in the game. The formula may take that into account?

I don't know, but when I see that being so backwards, I have to think the speed of the ships mattering as nothing more than myth. If the speed does matter, perhaps it only affects the performance once the battle commences.

Have you noticed that not one designer/programmer has responded? They just let those with questions like this flounder it seems in most cases. Guess nobody really knows what is under the hood.[8|]

Uh, what is left to answer? As damage increases, a ships cruise speed is reduced, ergo the task force is slower, ergo the probabililty of a successful submarine interception increases. Same with subs: more damage -> slower full speed -> less probability of an interception.

Charles_22, I have no idea why you would think that the game always uses the ships cruise speed in perfect condition, and not the actual cruise speed in damaged condition. The manual says the TF's cruise speed matters, with takes damage level of all ships in it into account.
[&:]

Note that this does NOT say anything about how the code determines which ship in the TF is attacked, nor how the chances of the attack succeeding are computed.

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Have you noticed that not one designer/programmer has responded? They just let those with questions like this flounder it seems in most cases. Guess nobody really knows what is under the hood.[8|]

Or they DO know "what's under the hood" and don't want to expose how little it deals with the points made in this thread...

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Have you noticed that not one designer/programmer has responded? They just let those with questions like this flounder it seems in most cases. Guess nobody really knows what is under the hood.[8|]

Or they DO know "what's under the hood" and don't want to expose how little it deals with the points made in this thread...

My point is that responses to questions are very inconsistent despite the fact that these forums are well monitored. Makes one wonder why some reasonable and intelligent questions get responses and others don't.

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Have you noticed that not one designer/programmer has responded? They just let those with questions like this flounder it seems in most cases. Guess nobody really knows what is under the hood.[8|]

Or they DO know "what's under the hood" and don't want to expose how little it deals with the points made in this thread...

My point is that responses to questions are very inconsistent despite the fact that these forums are well monitored. Makes one wonder why some reasonable and intelligent questions get responses and others don't.

One guess. All the people who do know had to sign employment contracts and confidentiality agreements that prohibit them from explaining actual game mechanics to the players.

I.E., Grigsby thinks that military commanders don't have a clue what they are doing or how to employ their forces.

ORIGINAL: dtravel

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl





Or they DO know "what's under the hood" and don't want to expose how little it deals with the points made in this thread...

My point is that responses to questions are very inconsistent despite the fact that these forums are well monitored. Makes one wonder why some reasonable and intelligent questions get responses and others don't.

One guess. All the people who do know had to sign employment contracts and confidentiality agreements that prohibit them from explaining actual game mechanics to the players.

I.E., Grigsby thinks that military commanders don't have a clue what they are doing or how to employ their forces.

That would preclude any and all responses. Clearly this is not the case because responses do come, albeit few and far between.

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: dtravel

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker




My point is that responses to questions are very inconsistent despite the fact that these forums are well monitored. Makes one wonder why some reasonable and intelligent questions get responses and others don't.

One guess. All the people who do know had to sign employment contracts and confidentiality agreements that prohibit them from explaining actual game mechanics to the players.

I.E., Grigsby thinks that military commanders don't have a clue what they are doing or how to employ their forces.

That would preclude any and all responses. Clearly this is not the case because responses do come, albeit few and far between.

Thus my suggestion that the ones that do get responses are the ones that don't require the explanation "We just pulled it out of our behinds because we were in a hurry to finish...."

ORIGINAL: VSWG

Uh, what is left to answer? As damage increases, a ships cruise speed is reduced, ergo the task force is slower, ergo the probabililty of a successful submarine interception increases. Same with subs: more damage -> slower full speed -> less probability of an interception.

Charles_22, I have no idea why you would think that the game always uses the ships cruise speed in perfect condition, and not the actual cruise speed in damaged condition. The manual says the TF's cruise speed matters, with takes damage level of all ships in it into account.
[&:]

Note that this does NOT say anything about how the code determines which ship in the TF is attacked, nor how the chances of the attack succeeding are computed.

Nevermind, what I had here, but see the post below instead.

VSWG: I've thought about it a little bit more, and I think I know what you're saying. You're saying if the crippled ship's top speed is five, then it's cruise is maybe 3kts. This would make for a very slow cruise, therefore an easy chance of being attacked. IOW you're thinking it's working off the damaged modified speed. I have looked at the quote better, and I can see where you're coming from, I'm just not too confident that's the case.

I suppose setting a TF at cruise speed is a good thing, even if it being no longer able to attain it's true cruise speed isn't possible, but considering the sub at full speed certainly isn't right for the "chances" of a sub attack. Certainly the sub might go to full speed during the attack, but certainly isn't flanking around the sea all the time beause it increases chances of attacking TF's (though they certainly might at various times).

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

That would preclude any and all responses. Clearly this is not the case because responses do come, albeit few and far between.

Well, given the number of questions and unexplained parts, "few and far between" all on its own doesn't cut it.

But have they ever actually given any hard numbers or definitive answers? Or has it been answers like "don't bomb below 6,000'" without actually saying what the code does when you do so? And do the answers actually come from the people with access to the code or do they come for other players who spent days or weeks running tests making their best guesses?