ASW device and weapon changes 7.9x

[Buck Beach]

I am playing MAIO and am still in early 12/41, but I am not getting a good feeling about the changes. I am not a technical person and am not an expert in devices, however, this is my preliminary observation.

A look at the devices shows changes in the actually type of weapon/load to pattern 2,4,8,14 small type with only the accuracy and the load costs increasing incrementally and Pattern 2 etc large type with similar changes. They also now do not reflect any range if that was ever important. The ships use to sometime show multiple weapons but now only show one with an X number pattern weapon.

I am not sure of the effects of these changes as to results, BUT, I do know that previous good to excellent ASW ships (eg British E class DDs) now reflect as anemic. I use the game's evaluating rating for this comment. When forming any TF the ship selection screen will give relative values of each ship possible to be used on that mission. This is done by right clicking on a potential ship. The values are broken down as to AA, Torps & ASW. Just as an example , the British E Class previous had an 8 rating for ASW it now has a 1, As a matter of fact that is the only rating now reflecting on any ship capable of performing an ASW mission or function except for the Kamikaze class DD (having a 3) and I suspect it is only because Sid missed them (please excuse me if this isn't 100% correct).

I will leave it up to Sid to explain/defend these changes.

[Historiker]

The ASW is always just the number of ASW devices - no matter how effective they are.
This change was invented by sid to make ASW less effective, wheter it's too less effective will have to be seen...

Anyway, this will mean now, that you need planes for ASW as it seems most unlikely that subs are sunk by ASW-ships.

[bbbf]

I wonder whether there should be a dummy ASW weapon, with no effect, that can be addded to give the player a quick and easy indication of the total ASW rating of a ship, rather than having to know all the classes and weapon sysytems to determine what will be an effective ship.
 
 
A lot of data entry, but far more approachable for the user.

[spence]

Anyway, this will mean now, that you need planes for ASW as it seems most unlikely that subs are sunk by ASW-ships.

I ran through the TROMs of the IJN submarines at Combined Fleet one by one once to gather statistics regarding the "cause of death" for IJN subs. I was struck by the fact that the ratio of submarines killed by surface ships alone to killed by aircraft or a/c-ship combos was far higher in the Pacific than in the Atlantic: that is to say that a plurality verging on a majority of IJN submarines sunk were sunk by Allied surface ships alone. This is quite the opposite of the statistics against the Uboats and also, I'm pretty sure, the opposite of the Japanese ratios for sub kills.

Were the Allied sub-kills by surface ships related in any significant way to the physical attributes of IJN submarines?.

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: spence

Anyway, this will mean now, that you need planes for ASW as it seems most unlikely that subs are sunk by ASW-ships.

I ran through the TROMs of the IJN submarines at Combined Fleet one by one once to gather statistics regarding the "cause of death" for IJN subs. I was struck by the fact that the ratio of submarines killed by surface ships alone to killed by aircraft or a/c-ship combos was far higher in the Pacific than in the Atlantic: that is to say that a plurality verging on a majority of IJN submarines sunk were sunk by Allied surface ships alone. This is quite the opposite of the statistics against the Uboats and also, I'm pretty sure, the opposite of the Japanese ratios for sub kills.

Were the Allied sub-kills by surface ships related in any significant way to the physical attributes of IJN submarines?.

It could also be related to Japanese doctrine and how the subs were employed.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

I am playing MAIO and am still in early 12/41, but I am not getting a good feeling about the changes. I am not a technical person and am not an expert in devices, however, this is my preliminary observation.

A look at the devices shows changes in the actually type of weapon/load to pattern 2,4,8,14 small type with only the accuracy and the load costs increasing incrementally and Pattern 2 etc large type with similar changes. They also now do not reflect any range if that was ever important. The ships use to sometime show multiple weapons but now only show one with an X number pattern weapon.

I long contemplated these changes, but feared we didn't understand the code well enough. JWE decided to explain the code - so it was clear the gross problems with lethal ASW really should be addressed. He says facing is not a factor - I put it in as chrome in case that is true - but I hope some day code actually is written to work with ahead throwing and stern dropping patterns. He also says there is no range at all - and that does make sense in the simple system GG set up. In spite of that - I DID put in ranges. Just not ranges for DC - these have a range of zero - meaning in my view "the ship must close to zero range of the datum point and drop the pattern". It is for ahead throwing weapons I put in ranges - in case they ever do get used by code - or we export the data to another system - the range data is there. But for DC - range should be zero even if range is a factor. The "range" of a DC thrower is only a way to get the DC away from the side of the ship - you are dropping a pattern - and throwers mean you can more or less have the equal of extra DC racks - or ships sailing right along side - a wider pattern. But the PATTERN is really "at" the location of its center - dead astern - the side charges are to deal with the fact you don't really know where the target is - or where it is moving to - so you are almost certainly off a bit. It is not yet clear if the accuracy is high enough? I used the minimum possible values - 1 for the smallest ASW device - and everything is scaled up from that. If we decided that we needed more accuracy - we could multiply times a constant K. If we need less - we need to divide effect by the constant K. Calibration is the process we are using to decide if K is 1 or some other value? So far - preliminary indications are K may be close to 1 - but it takes massive amounts of data to tell - collecting it now.

[el cid again]

Historiker is correct: the ASW value is not indicated by the ASW rating - just the number of weapons. This is always 1 or 2 or 3 in RHS now - 1 for DCs - 2 if there is 1 ahead throwing weapon - 3 if there are two ahead throwing weapons. Yet a DC pattern can be small or large - and ahead throwing weapons can be horrible 81mm mortars (Japan) - very poor ahead throwing baby DC (Japan) - or Hedgehog or Squid - very deadly. You do NOT see that in the ASW rating of a ship. Just the 1, or later in the war sometimes 2, or rarely 3. A 3 involving Japanese horrible ahead throwers and small DC is worth less than a 1 early in the war if a large pattern of large DC. ALL the 3 means is you get 3 die rolls - but maybe the die rolls are 1 in 100 shots (81 mm mortars) and if you hit - almost no damage chance anyway.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: spence

Anyway, this will mean now, that you need planes for ASW as it seems most unlikely that subs are sunk by ASW-ships.

I ran through the TROMs of the IJN submarines at Combined Fleet one by one once to gather statistics regarding the "cause of death" for IJN subs. I was struck by the fact that the ratio of submarines killed by surface ships alone to killed by aircraft or a/c-ship combos was far higher in the Pacific than in the Atlantic: that is to say that a plurality verging on a majority of IJN submarines sunk were sunk by Allied surface ships alone. This is quite the opposite of the statistics against the Uboats and also, I'm pretty sure, the opposite of the Japanese ratios for sub kills.

Were the Allied sub-kills by surface ships related in any significant way to the physical attributes of IJN submarines?.

Planes are not credited when they should be: In PTO USS England gets 5 subs credit in a single op - but she was in company with a CVE and a whole division of DEs. She got the fatal shots - even when she went second - so she gets the credit. But the planes mattered. Same in the Atlantic. U 505 was cought because planes could see her and "told" the ships where she was (firing MG into the water to show them).

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: bbbf

I wonder whether there should be a dummy ASW weapon, with no effect, that can be addded to give the player a quick and easy indication of the total ASW rating of a ship, rather than having to know all the classes and weapon sysytems to determine what will be an effective ship.


A lot of data entry, but far more approachable for the user.

This is not a terrible idea - except for the two man weeks required to implement it. It is far easier to rewrite a single algorithm - and so I am loth to do it. What is feasible is to publish the possible values of the ASW devices - although that is by no means the whole story in operations. ASW critically depends on wether the ships, planes or subs have radar, snorkels, MAD (etc) - which in turn helps determine if the sub is cought on the surface - or must fight submerged. Below ASW weapons matter - on the surface guns and bombs and rockets count a good deal more.
These devices become more and more used as time passes.

Another complication is the durability of the submarines. These revised scenarios have vastly increased submarine durabilities - but not always. Shallow subs get a lot less durability than deep diving ones.

The biggest change is neither the values of the ASW weapons nor the durability - but the drastic change in die rolls. A ship that used to get 8 or more die rolls now gets only 1 (early in the war) or 2 (later on). This combination - you got to roll for each DC when in fact only one might be hitting the sub (or two near misses which I treat as one hit) - plus we could not use proper durability values (due to production cost issues) -
should have greatly reduced the chances of hitting a sub. Long term AI tests do show subs getting damaged and sunk - however. ASW weapons are more likely to damage a sub than sink it - but if far from home it may burn out or flood out before getting there. On the surface, a sub is much more likely to be sunk outright - particularly by planes - if it is hit - particularly by big bombs. Some planes carrly bombs as well as DC and/or ASW torpedoes (which in fact are misnamed DC with revised accuracy).

[Historiker]

I don't think this is really needed. After some days of play, one will know it anyway - and there are a lot of other things to do...

[el cid again]

And I have now published values for the weapons - in its own thread -

it also was sent as a spreadsheet (easier to read) to the primary distribution list.

Someday no doubt it will be posted on the RHS site.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: treespider

ORIGINAL: spence

Anyway, this will mean now, that you need planes for ASW as it seems most unlikely that subs are sunk by ASW-ships.

I ran through the TROMs of the IJN submarines at Combined Fleet one by one once to gather statistics regarding the "cause of death" for IJN subs. I was struck by the fact that the ratio of submarines killed by surface ships alone to killed by aircraft or a/c-ship combos was far higher in the Pacific than in the Atlantic: that is to say that a plurality verging on a majority of IJN submarines sunk were sunk by Allied surface ships alone. This is quite the opposite of the statistics against the Uboats and also, I'm pretty sure, the opposite of the Japanese ratios for sub kills.

Were the Allied sub-kills by surface ships related in any significant way to the physical attributes of IJN submarines?.

It could also be related to Japanese doctrine and how the subs were employed.

Polmar and his coauthor also think this - and note that not one of the subs in the patrol line rolled up by USS England tried to warn the others or HQ there was a problem.