Matrix Games Forums

That is, should we have them?

OK - let me back up.

Thinking about ASW weapons and how to rate them - it suddenly occurred to me that the biggest problem is probably wholly absent
in game terms. How many DC are dropped on whales? Or on nothing at all? Yet MOST DC were so dropped.

Probably the last time a statistically significant number of DC attacks occurred was the Falklands war. In that war, approximately (or
possibly exactly) 200 attacks were made on datum points that might have been submarines. Only one time was the target really a submarine.
Almost every piece of ASW ordnance in RN was expended. And that one case of a real sub target did NOT damage the submarine - never
mind sink it. At the time RN was specialized in NATO for ASW - to deal with the expected early war rush of Soviet subs in a new Battle of the
Atlantic. No WWII ship had sonar as good - or sonar computers as good - as RN had in 1981. Yet - the only sub sunk was one that could not submerge -
and was caught on the surface by missiles from helos - not DC. [She was playing transport to South Georgia Island] The only sub able to submerge
and attack (two other subs were not used for technical reasons) DID close TWICE enough to shoot (and have torpedoes fail because wires broke) -
but she was detected only one time - and not damaged in the counterattack. In the 1980s - a sub launching torpedoes was detected only half the time - and was never damaged.

In game terms - we only detect subs really present - and nearly 100% of the time if they fire torpedoes. 100% of our DC are used in attacks on real targets - instead of less than 1%.

So my proposal is this: what if we add false subs to the game - let them go with computer control - and let them be detected - and attacked - running down the AS ordnance of escorts? This needs careful thinking. Subs cost the Japanese to build. So rate them cheap - maybe 1 point cheap - so they don't cost a lot to build - and a lot of VP when "sunk." The VP thing can be balanced - equal opportunity for both sides to score free VP. Maybe we make em hard to sink too - with a deep depth rating? This is a brainstorm - not yet thought through

Ideally - false subs should be part of code. Maybe even they are? But if so - why do we not see false attacks on them? Why, indeed, does code identify the sub being attacked? Usually you are not sure there even is a sub - and if so - you have no clue which one? IRL I mean.

El Cid,

I don't think you know how modern ASW combat is like nor how much it is still like the combat of WW1/WW2 era. As a friend of mine who was an Air Warfare Systems Operator, trying to find a D/E submarine running on its electric engines would be the equivalent of trying to listen to your car battery run an electron from postive terminal to negative terminal while having that car parked on the beach.

The submarine that the Argentine Navy operated, the German built Type 209, is revoultionary when compared to even the USN Tench class or Type XXI from the German Navy. It was in some of NATO's ASW circles superior to the Foxtrot or Tango class of D/E submarines that the Soviets were fielding at the time that submarine was built, in the 1960's. It is generally accepted in Western Sources that the reason the ARA San Luis was able to fire 8 torpedos against either the Hermes or the Invincible, and score zero hits was due to poor preventative maintenance by the Argentine Sailors on those torpedos and between the fire control computer, the periscope and the torpedo room. Compared on the other side the Royal Navy the only capable units where thier Type 22 or Broadsword class of frigates with thier 2016 sonar suites. Although these were advanced sonars with improved processing power when compared to what was in the Leander class and the Amazon class of escorts. At the same time the weather conditions in the South Atlantic during the Falklands really taxed the 2016 more then it had been taxed during the testing in the waters around the AUTEC range near the Bahamas let alone a couple of Fjords in Scotland. It was the only advance sonar out there beyond what was being carried by the Lynx and Sea King class of helicopters. Meanwhile the rest of the RN escorts had sonar suites that weren't much improved over ASIDC during WW2.

That being said, if you really want to go this way, then would you be willing to accept the lost of your own submarines to your own ASW assets? Blue on Blue happened a few times in WW2 and it is accepted that at least 2 losses out of ten on all sides was from fratricide. We could make that "false" submarine be an I-boat which has just been spotted by an Emily or make it that S-boat which is limping back into Darwin only to be sunk by a RAAF Hudson mis-id'ing a dark object as an I-boat. I would also note that if you really want to do that then lets really complicate the engine some more by adding "biologics" that are strictly controlled by the game engine to waste the AS weapons. Have your PBY's or Mavis's attack a dark object under the water only to find out that you zorched a whale or the mackeral haul off the coast of Ie Shima will be down this year because a couple of schools were killed. Your suggestion of "false" submarine attacks is just adding nothing useful to a simulation which in the realm of ASW Combat already does a pretty good job of simulating WW2 ASW combat in the Pacific. I mean we don't even see the application of Fido or Jezebel on US Navy side, let alone the usage of MAD on the allied side. Where adding these systems which show up late in the war and make a neglicible impact in the Pacific war.

ORIGINAL: YankeeAirRat

El Cid,

I don't think you know how modern ASW combat is like nor how much it is still like the combat of WW1/WW2 era. As a friend of mine who was an Air Warfare Systems Operator, trying to find a D/E submarine running on its electric engines would be the equivalent of trying to listen to your car battery run an electron from postive terminal to negative terminal while having that car parked on the beach.

The submarine that the Argentine Navy operated, the German built Type 209, is revoultionary when compared to even the USN Tench class or Type XXI from the German Navy. It was in some of NATO's ASW circles superior to the Foxtrot or Tango class of D/E submarines that the Soviets were fielding at the time that submarine was built, in the 1960's. It is generally accepted in Western Sources that the reason the ARA San Luis was able to fire 8 torpedos against either the Hermes or the Invincible, and score zero hits was due to poor preventative maintenance by the Argentine Sailors on those torpedos and between the fire control computer, the periscope and the torpedo room. Compared on the other side the Royal Navy the only capable units where thier Type 22 or Broadsword class of frigates with thier 2016 sonar suites. Although these were advanced sonars with improved processing power when compared to what was in the Leander class and the Amazon class of escorts. At the same time the weather conditions in the South Atlantic during the Falklands really taxed the 2016 more then it had been taxed during the testing in the waters around the AUTEC range near the Bahamas let alone a couple of Fjords in Scotland. It was the only advance sonar out there beyond what was being carried by the Lynx and Sea King class of helicopters. Meanwhile the rest of the RN escorts had sonar suites that weren't much improved over ASIDC during WW2.

That being said, if you really want to go this way, then would you be willing to accept the lost of your own submarines to your own ASW assets? Blue on Blue happened a few times in WW2 and it is accepted that at least 2 losses out of ten on all sides was from fratricide. We could make that "false" submarine be an I-boat which has just been spotted by an Emily or make it that S-boat which is limping back into Darwin only to be sunk by a RAAF Hudson mis-id'ing a dark object as an I-boat. I would also note that if you really want to do that then lets really complicate the engine some more by adding "biologics" that are strictly controlled by the game engine to waste the AS weapons. Have your PBY's or Mavis's attack a dark object under the water only to find out that you zorched a whale or the mackeral haul off the coast of Ie Shima will be down this year because a couple of schools were killed. Your suggestion of "false" submarine attacks is just adding nothing useful to a simulation which in the realm of ASW Combat already does a pretty good job of simulating WW2 ASW combat in the Pacific. I mean we don't even see the application of Fido or Jezebel on US Navy side, let alone the usage of MAD on the allied side. Where adding these systems which show up late in the war and make a neglicible impact in the Pacific war.

Well - I suffer the illusion that I know a bit about it. I managed to take the ASW course at San Diego - and even managed a very unusual way to kill a submarine. I also have consulted with submariners in this matter. My test game opponent questioned my logic - so he consulted a son who served in RN submarines - and was told I am in the ball partk. Then too, I have a great deal of data on historical submarine warfare, and a number of simulations. I am so old I come from the era when we did everything by hand - so the data and procedures were out for all to see - and this does help one to understand the tactical process quite a bit. I do not expect a minor routine in a strategic game to compare with a tactical simulation either. I just want it to be in the ball park. But it is certainly true there are vast changes in many respects. The understanding of sonar in WWII was incomplete and imperfect. The equipment was generally less powerful and without much in the way of signal processing aids in the modern sense. The only smart weapons - acoustic homing torpedoes - which in the USN case were so effective production was cut back becasue they didn't need so many - are not even modeled here (yet - I intend to model them). The war began with DC only, and ended with a few ahead throwing weapons now considered obsolete. So surely times have changed. But why allege I am ignorant of any of these things? It is an assumption unrelated to decades of serious study.

It is perfectly true that a Type 209 is rather better than most submarines in the Pacific. I note, however, you omit the Japanese Guppy - never mind it was better than a Type XXI - "based on superior hydrodynamic design" - something you have in common with USN - which elected to sink them all untested (because it was assumed that German design must be better). See US Submarines Since 1945, and Submarines of the Imperial Japanese Navy to read these opinions by professional naval historians. Yet in fact the weapons of the 209 failed utterly. In the same conflict, HMS Conqueror was successful ONLY BECAUSE it used WWII era strait running torpedoes - and eshewed the "better" modern ones. Revolutionary perhaps - but not effective. Although she managed two attacks on a carrier - she caused no damage - which isn't any more impressive than the lack of effect of attacks on her. Still - in professional naval circles - the idea RN could expend its entire inventory and never score was considered alarming and unpleasant. It wasn't supposed to be that hard. In my day - we played with actual WWII era fleet boats - although they had better gear and quieting - and it was pretty SOP for the submarine to win vs "modern" ASW. There are a few cases where they didn't. It was so exceptional that submariners didn't like to admit it ever happened. In one case a sub said "you missed" - but surfaced with an unarmed homing torpedo in its sail! [Surely they heard it hit - but apparently thought it glanced off]

As for San Luis herself, her captain writes of his mission in the USNI Proceedings - and nothing he says indicates he got to shoot 8 times. 8 sounds like an assumption (4 tubes - two attacks) - but the SOP for wire guided torpedoes is typically to shoot one at a time. It would be hard to control 4 in one salvo -
and the problem encountered - the wire breaking - implies it is just a waste of ordnance to keep shooting. FYI the wire guided torpedo actually is a WWII weapon - invented by the Germans for shore batteries in France - and although it today finally is apparently mastered - it was still not reilable on either side in the Falklands war - for precisely the same reason as it was not in 1945 - breaking wires.

As for the RN - I completely dispute that only the newest units were "capable." Most of the warships were ASW primary mission ships - the few AAW ships were ASW secondary mission ships. Some of them had variable depth sonar - which is very useful in a sensor suite vs a submarine that may be playing games on the other side of the layer. Even the oldest ships had what were, in 1945, first rate weapons (e.g. Squid). IF you give Squid a good datum point to aim at - it is quite effective - particularly vs a small submarine like a 209. The problem - in ASW - as always - is "how do you get a good datum point to aim at?" RN took no chances - and attacked every possible - which turned out to be wrong 100% of the time: either there was no submarine present at all - or the datum point was not determined close enough to let the weapons be effective. This is VERY MUCH like in WWII - only in WWII it was even more the case than in the 1980s. It does appear, however, from the case of USS England sinking six in a row (a complete patrol line) - in the last instance letting another ship take the shot and miss first - that crew experience may be critical - one part of the AE model which is probably outstanding. Anyone who believes ASDIC in the 80s was comparable to WWII should read US Submarines Since 1945 - or take a sonar course (I have done both and more). The sonar of WWII did no have signal processing in the modern sense - was not as powerful - and until we got to look at German stuff - we lacked the kinds of arrays that we developed post war. [There is a picture in the book of Prinze Eugen's sonar wrapped around the conning tower of a fleet boat - for tests - and it became the foundation of modern Allied sonar arrays] Yet neither more power, more precision arrays nor signal processing was good enough to yield a valid datum. If you go to an ASW school (any navy) you will find that is the standard problem: range is less reliable than bearing, bearing is not as precise as in radar, and being sure you even have the submarine was anything but easy.


And yes - I think you DO lose submarines to own assets. To airplanes in particular. There ought to be a risk of operating subs under ASW air patrols. Also near ASW escorts. Because there IS risk.

But you leave entirely unaddressed here the primary subject of the thread: most AS attacks expend ordnance on a FALSE target. Our escorts - even if perfectly modeled otherwise - ALWAYS have a real target. So 100% of the time there is a statistical chance of hurting a real subarine. That is not how it was in WWII surely - and probably not how it is even now (although there is a real sea change since the 1980s - and we cannot talk about that in any detail without breaking rules).

Yes - you are on the right track re my intent. It was to simulate biologics that I propose ghost submarines. What else might they be?

Okay you want the short and simple to your answer?

I think it would be a giant waste of time and a giant waste of code to try and introduce false postives into ASW combat. Simply cause the game engine is already being taxed enough in between rounds, that everytime we end the turn, the game engine will have the patrol aircraft (PBY, PB2Y, PB4Y, PBM, PV, Emily, Mavis, Alf, Pete, etc) attacking every dark object out there. Which would mean during each air phase, it would take many hours and a long drawn out operational report with sightings and attacks all over the place. From the mainland Asia all the way around to Aden and even to base that is to represent the east coast of the United States. That doesn't count the ship based float planes and the carrier based units set up for naval search finding that would report the same sort of situtation. I already expend somewhere close to two hours a turn in setting up with about another hour during execution. So that means an average turn for me is three hours. To add additional aircraft missions resoultion just so we can introduce even more FOW into the game as it comes in question of the ASW combat seems unrealistic in wasting players time. If we add in the surface component that convoy escorts responding to every last feathered wake being reported by the transports, then we have yet even more time and processor capabilties being wasted to resolve attacks that are just introducing FOW for no useful purpose.

I would note that some of the board games which have covered either a portion of the theater or the whole Pacific war don't even have a player's time waster like your proposing. Remember we are simulating being either Nimitz or Yammato at the level of command, so for them to hear during the daily/weekly/month intel report that the USS Caine attacked a dark object while escorting the USS Belinda to particpate in Op Skyhook isn't going to happen. Instead the wheat vs chaff filter is going to happen, so while the Caine would have attacked a suspected submarine, in reality at some level that attack is going to be ruled as not significate to be reported higher up the food chain. In turn Nimitz isn't going to hear about it during his brief from his staff.

You have misunderstood my proposal in a technical sense:

I was NOT proposing CODE changes - only OB changes. My proposal adds no routines or lines of code - only submarines as targets which, in fact, are not actual, armed and dangerous, submarines. I have not though through how to do that precisely, in detail - but I am 99% certain it can be done.

This is a forum for game modders - so it is mainly restricted to what modders CAN do. It is rare to get Matrix to make a code change. [The first such change I was able to get - way back in UV days - was to let AKs carry fuel - at a penalty] We can PROPOSE code changes - but getting them implemented is not in our power. So I propose OB changes - and other changes (e.g. pwhexe - which we can change too) - as a mechanism to affect things. This is very powerful - it is possible to simulate many things by such means. I was able to simulate midget submarines, blimps, off map movement tracks, a primitive ESM device - create a Russian navy when code forbid one - in WITP - and a great deal more which now is SOP - by such mechanisms. And at least one thing - guerilla formations - has not been adopted in AE - but it works just fine in AE even so. This is a radical new proposal - but for modders - not for coders. Lets demonstrate it works before asking for code changes. Code could - I admit - do it better. But here I want to talk about the IDEA -
not about code changes.

You seem content to have ASW units attack only real submarines - and not lose shots on false ones. Would you then agree we should take out a fraction (that is, most) of the ASW shots - to simulate that you only have a smaller one when you do have a real target? [Hmmm - that might be a simpler and better idea - got to think about it]

For experimental purposes,
I have defined "ghost submarines"
that seem to be real ones - but
cannot cause any actual damage (using "false torpedo track" torpedoes with
good range but no ability to hurt things)
and having no guns to engage on the surface with
and having radar so they detect things well and submerge -
and having great range, diving depth, etc - but very little cost.

The theory is players are supposed to let the computer control these.
But it does not matter. The submarines appear at widely different places
over years of time - and won't be easy to concentrate in any given place -
and to the extent a player tries to do that - it only means he will pick a place
the enemy is likely to have AS forces in for that game - which means the
subs will tend to do their mission - be "false targets" - which AI might not
be too good at optimizing.

It is vastly too small a number, but I added 104 submarines - just enough
to get some statistical sense of this concept.