I am currently playing the RHS mod, but many of you know this answer.
In the game, when looking at an individual ship, it gives an anti-sub rating in the far right hand column.
Please tell me what determines that number as I cannot find the "slot" nor condition which alters that number?
ASW rating?
Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition
-
HansBolter
- Posts: 7457
- Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 12:30 pm
- Location: United States
RE: ASW rating?
I'm pretty sure it is the number of ASW devices the ship carries, which determines the number of attacks per round.
Hans
RE: ASW rating?
That's my understanding as well (at least from stock WitPAE) - it's the straight number of ASW devices present, just like the AAA rating of a task force is the number of AAA guns. I haven't seen ratings affected by qualitative considerations, such as when depth charges are upgraded or the Bofors start replacing the one inch guns.
I know with the AAA that a higher rating isn't always better - such as when the 5" guns are rolled out to the USN and the numerous smaller .50cal and such removed. Even though the net loss of barrels can mean a loss in AAA rating, it's better to have the 5" guns which are able to disrupt attacks rather than the smaller, more numerous "revenge weapons". What I'm unsure of is if there is a similar accounting for device quality in ASW warfare.
I know with the AAA that a higher rating isn't always better - such as when the 5" guns are rolled out to the USN and the numerous smaller .50cal and such removed. Even though the net loss of barrels can mean a loss in AAA rating, it's better to have the 5" guns which are able to disrupt attacks rather than the smaller, more numerous "revenge weapons". What I'm unsure of is if there is a similar accounting for device quality in ASW warfare.
RE: ASW rating?
I would hope it is something that simple..My concern is that as upgrades occur, we have seen DD's with asw ratings as high as "8", (or higher IIRC), and then I wonder if SONAR fits into this rating, (whether effective in game or not?)
RE: ASW rating?
I have not seen anything other than the strict number of "shooting" ASW devices affect the rating; there may be another mechanic besides the rating at play during an ASW encounter.
For example, see that the ASW rating is just the number of depth charge rails:
The ASW rating goes UP when the K-Guns are added:
But the rating is unaffected when the depth charges get upgraded to the 'm1' variant:
For example, see that the ASW rating is just the number of depth charge rails:
The ASW rating goes UP when the K-Guns are added:
But the rating is unaffected when the depth charges get upgraded to the 'm1' variant:
RE: ASW rating?
I would hope it is something that simple..My concern is that as upgrades occur, we have seen DD's with asw ratings as high as "8", (or higher IIRC), and then I wonder if SONAR fits into this rating, (whether effective in game or not?)
The issue of SONAR has apparently been discussed in numerous threads before. Since it is hard to model accurately it has been left out of the ASW rating of the ships. Therefore it would seem that a PT boats passive listening device is every bit as good as a 1945 DE's active SONAR. The ASW rating depends on the number of launchers.
-
RichardAckermann
- Posts: 270
- Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2015 12:07 pm
RE: ASW rating?
Sonar is not that hard to model if one does keep it a bit simple. In my own game engine, I did tests with a sonar device giving a bonus based on device acc and crew exp to boost hit chance and sub detection chance in combat. (modified by deep water and the chance for a thermal layer)
I think it would not be too difficult to change AE to support sonar devices on ships. Questions is if the little of support left for the game will make that happen.
I think it would not be too difficult to change AE to support sonar devices on ships. Questions is if the little of support left for the game will make that happen.
RE: ASW rating?
Thanking all for the great thoughts and ideas..
We remember the original "vanilla WITP made life on a sub very difficult with nearly ANY attack sure death for the subs.
Like Richard (above), I too use the editor A LOT...but I do not feel support for AE waning at all.[8D]
We remember the original "vanilla WITP made life on a sub very difficult with nearly ANY attack sure death for the subs.
Like Richard (above), I too use the editor A LOT...but I do not feel support for AE waning at all.[8D]
RE: ASW rating?
I think sonar is abstracted perfectly fine into the ASW rating. Active sonar would only realistically be used during an actual ASW attack run - not as some general detection device. The ships with high ASW ratings are effective sub hunters without being overpowered, even if the sonar isn't explicitly modeled.
I feel WitPAE gets the "operational performance" right.
From my experience, ASW warfare in WitPAE is primarily doctrine-based, which depends on the choices you make in the game. It's an area where combined arms really shines - with the use of both aircraft and ships. Training of the ASW aircrews is important (aim for 70+ overall ASW skill for each ASW squadron) as are the leaders of ASW ships/groups. Spotting with aircraft and via shipboard surface search radar works very well via the detection level system.
Having both day and night air searches helps a lot; instead of the detection level on prowling subs dropping at night, it is maintained if not increased. Then come the ASW killer groups - small task forces set to the ASW mission. You can have up to four ships in these TFs, but three is ideal. A fourth ship doesn't add much (if anything) to the effectiveness of the ASW group, it is better to use the 4th ship to help create another three-ship group. A single ship is as much bait as it is a threat to subs. Two ships is better, but it quickly becomes a one-ship TF if one of them is successfully attacked or needs repair from normal patrol attrition.
The use of ship convoys and adding sufficient ASW rating to TFs helps a lot to cut down on shipping losses to subs. Shipping route selection is important - it's often better to take a longer voyage through an area which is more difficult for your opponent to patrol.
As for the ASW rating of the ships, it roughly breaks down as follows - keep in mind that the ASW rating of the ASW TF is what really matters, but assume these are homogenous three-ship groups with individual ship ratings of the following:
0 - a target
2 - old man yells at cloud (meme)
4 - an annoyance to enemy subs; can be decent at disrupting sub operations if used in conjunction with air patrols, rarely sinks subs
6 - a valid threat to subs; effective at disruption and decent at damaging them consistently, will get a slow but steady stream of kills with the right air support
8+ - a deadly threat to subs; effective at damaging subs consistently and killing a good number of them - again, with air support
Again, that's just a rough 'rule of thumb'.
Even the "deadly" ASW ships don't kill even close to most subs. It's more about making the subs ineffective at conducting their own attacks, wasting their time & ammo defending against attacks or attacking the wrong targets. Damaging them to end their patrols early. Making them think twice about operating in areas which might otherwise be "lucrative" hunting grounds.
Also, even well-designed and implemented ASW in the game is not possible everywhere - you'll have neither the ships nor planes to cover everything. It's part of what makes the game interesting.
ORIGINAL: herwin
OK, I did my PhD research on bat sonar, making heavy use of a professional background in radar and submarine sonar. My lab continues to do work in this area. Sonar, particularly submarine sonar, is messy. You want to follow Wayne Hughes's advice and stick to modelling stuff you understand. Instead, use operational performance data. That's good enough for a game, and it means you don't have to worry about target acquisition and kill mechanisms except in a very gross sense. It's well to realise that most submarines that were sunk were spotted on the surface, either with radar or the Mark I Eyeball. Active sonar played its role later in the engagement, once an escort was sitting on top of the sub.
I feel WitPAE gets the "operational performance" right.
From my experience, ASW warfare in WitPAE is primarily doctrine-based, which depends on the choices you make in the game. It's an area where combined arms really shines - with the use of both aircraft and ships. Training of the ASW aircrews is important (aim for 70+ overall ASW skill for each ASW squadron) as are the leaders of ASW ships/groups. Spotting with aircraft and via shipboard surface search radar works very well via the detection level system.
Having both day and night air searches helps a lot; instead of the detection level on prowling subs dropping at night, it is maintained if not increased. Then come the ASW killer groups - small task forces set to the ASW mission. You can have up to four ships in these TFs, but three is ideal. A fourth ship doesn't add much (if anything) to the effectiveness of the ASW group, it is better to use the 4th ship to help create another three-ship group. A single ship is as much bait as it is a threat to subs. Two ships is better, but it quickly becomes a one-ship TF if one of them is successfully attacked or needs repair from normal patrol attrition.
The use of ship convoys and adding sufficient ASW rating to TFs helps a lot to cut down on shipping losses to subs. Shipping route selection is important - it's often better to take a longer voyage through an area which is more difficult for your opponent to patrol.
As for the ASW rating of the ships, it roughly breaks down as follows - keep in mind that the ASW rating of the ASW TF is what really matters, but assume these are homogenous three-ship groups with individual ship ratings of the following:
0 - a target
2 - old man yells at cloud (meme)
4 - an annoyance to enemy subs; can be decent at disrupting sub operations if used in conjunction with air patrols, rarely sinks subs
6 - a valid threat to subs; effective at disruption and decent at damaging them consistently, will get a slow but steady stream of kills with the right air support
8+ - a deadly threat to subs; effective at damaging subs consistently and killing a good number of them - again, with air support
Again, that's just a rough 'rule of thumb'.
Even the "deadly" ASW ships don't kill even close to most subs. It's more about making the subs ineffective at conducting their own attacks, wasting their time & ammo defending against attacks or attacking the wrong targets. Damaging them to end their patrols early. Making them think twice about operating in areas which might otherwise be "lucrative" hunting grounds.
Also, even well-designed and implemented ASW in the game is not possible everywhere - you'll have neither the ships nor planes to cover everything. It's part of what makes the game interesting.
RE: ASW rating?
From Wiki but otherwise an interesting statistic re ASW weapmon effectiveness. In another recent thread (IIRC: 3 inch ASW mortar)it seems that that the hedgegog weapon system is not accorded its historical effectiveness in WW2.
Statistics show that in the Second World War out of 5,174 British depth charge attacks there were 85.5 kills: a ratio of 60.5 to 1. In comparison, the Hedgehog made 268 attacks for 47 kills: a ratio of 5.7 to 1.[3]
Of note is the fact that the hedgehog was fired ahead of the attacking ASW ship while the ship still maintained active sonar contact with the submarine (in most cases).
Statistics show that in the Second World War out of 5,174 British depth charge attacks there were 85.5 kills: a ratio of 60.5 to 1. In comparison, the Hedgehog made 268 attacks for 47 kills: a ratio of 5.7 to 1.[3]
Of note is the fact that the hedgehog was fired ahead of the attacking ASW ship while the ship still maintained active sonar contact with the submarine (in most cases).
-
el cid again
- Posts: 16984
- Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm
RE: ASW rating? RHS theory fundamentals.
I am the coordinator of RHS. The ASW rating displayed by AE is not very reflective of the ASW value
of a ship. In RHS the displayed ASW rating will be only 0, 1 or 2 -
0 = no ASW weapon system
1 = one ASW weapons system - always a pattern of depth charges
2 = two ASW weapons systems - an ahead throwing system (Hedgehog is the most famous of these)
PLUS a DC pattern. [RHS also has Mousetrap and small ASW mortars, and Squid - a large ASW mortar.]
Ahead throwing weapons are generally late war devices, except for a small 3 inch mortar, which is
ineffective.
The problem is that the details of these systems are only visible in the editor - and that crudely
in the form of a kind of pk. They vary widely in value - from around 1 to something like 90. But
RHS has an elaborate theory for these systems. See below. The numbers roughly correspond to PK in %.
of a ship. In RHS the displayed ASW rating will be only 0, 1 or 2 -
0 = no ASW weapon system
1 = one ASW weapons system - always a pattern of depth charges
2 = two ASW weapons systems - an ahead throwing system (Hedgehog is the most famous of these)
PLUS a DC pattern. [RHS also has Mousetrap and small ASW mortars, and Squid - a large ASW mortar.]
Ahead throwing weapons are generally late war devices, except for a small 3 inch mortar, which is
ineffective.
The problem is that the details of these systems are only visible in the editor - and that crudely
in the form of a kind of pk. They vary widely in value - from around 1 to something like 90. But
RHS has an elaborate theory for these systems. See below. The numbers roughly correspond to PK in %.
-
el cid again
- Posts: 16984
- Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm
RE: ASW rating? RHS Depth Charge Theory.
I studied ASW at a Navy school in San Diego, and served on an ASW armed destroyer
which exercised there. Although destroyers only rarely get to play with a real
submarine, so virtually no one on board can remember the last time, and for that
reason generally are "sunk" in the exercise, we were able to sink ours in a very
rare instance of ECM detection sufficient to permit a fire control solution. I have
some exposure to the subject matter.
WWII era ASW vessels mainly use depth charges. These take time to sink - during which
time the submarine will maneuver. [See Das Boot for a simulation - they don't explain
it but it is clear what they are up to]. Since the sub position, course and speed is
only approximately known, and since these will change before the DC explode, ASW ships
use patterns of DC, either more or less circular, or long rectangles laid along the course
of the submarine, based on elaborate theories of probable maneuvers. Each DC has a lethal
radius. These are based on the thickness of the pressure hull, and RHS actually rates
submarines in this way (although AE made no provision for it). Actual patterns involve
two sized of DC - basically large and small - small being WWI era British inventions -
large being 1930s US inventions. There is also a special case - some DC have better explosives
and get greater lethal radius because of them. All DC are given a kill rating assuming they
need to penetrate 22 mm of steel - the actual hull thickness of German Type VII and IX submarines
and the actual design criteria used for Allied ASW weapons. The rating is a function of the
size of the DC and the number of DC in each pattern. We use the WITP system of "shots" - a ship
gets the number of shots equal to the number of patterns it can drop. The rating of a DC is the
lethal area (calculated from its lethal radius) times the number in the pattern. There are
four basic values - small standard DC - large standard DC - small DC with MINOL explosives -
and one weird special case of a gigantic DC.
A typical small DC is the US Mark 6. A typical large DC is the US Mark 7. The super giant DC is
the British Mark X. Patterns are usually 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 14 or 21. Many US destroyers also drop
mixed patterns of 6 small Mark 6 plus 3 large Mark 7 DC - the Mark 6 are projected to the side
and the Mark 7 are dropped off the stern. This forms a sort of "square" - three lines of 3 DC -
the center line being bigger depth charges. This "center line" corresponds to the probable course
of the target submarine if it was (a) correctly plotted in the first place and (b) if it did not
change direction. Slight changes in speed are covered by dropping 3 patterns. An improvement is a
mixed pattern of 8 Mark 6 plus 6 Mark 7 - with one Mark 7 dropped early, one dropped late, and the
other four dropped at the same time a Mark 6 is fired to each side from a Y gun. That produces a kind
of rectangle - with more lethality on the centerline of the pattern.
This explanation is slightly oversimplified - like other WITP weapons - DC come in series - and within
each series there slight improvements over time - for major powers. Minor nations (e.g. Russia, France,
etc.) essentially use one or two kinds of old, relatively ineffective DC. All weapons are modeled - even
if almost useless. But a late war DE is very dangerous. The lethality of a large pattern of DC should
be respected. USS England sank six - with a single pattern each - in a single deployment!
Depth Charges have a depth rating. This is compared to the depth of a submarine and may result in a pattern
being ineffective in some attacks (determined by computer die rolls). Ships with DC with deeper ratings
are better than ships with DC with shallow ratings. These values - like the PK values - are NOT in the
screen ASW rating of a ship.
Depth Charges are also dropped by aircraft in RHS. This is not unrealistic - aircraft often can see a submarine
from the air.
which exercised there. Although destroyers only rarely get to play with a real
submarine, so virtually no one on board can remember the last time, and for that
reason generally are "sunk" in the exercise, we were able to sink ours in a very
rare instance of ECM detection sufficient to permit a fire control solution. I have
some exposure to the subject matter.
WWII era ASW vessels mainly use depth charges. These take time to sink - during which
time the submarine will maneuver. [See Das Boot for a simulation - they don't explain
it but it is clear what they are up to]. Since the sub position, course and speed is
only approximately known, and since these will change before the DC explode, ASW ships
use patterns of DC, either more or less circular, or long rectangles laid along the course
of the submarine, based on elaborate theories of probable maneuvers. Each DC has a lethal
radius. These are based on the thickness of the pressure hull, and RHS actually rates
submarines in this way (although AE made no provision for it). Actual patterns involve
two sized of DC - basically large and small - small being WWI era British inventions -
large being 1930s US inventions. There is also a special case - some DC have better explosives
and get greater lethal radius because of them. All DC are given a kill rating assuming they
need to penetrate 22 mm of steel - the actual hull thickness of German Type VII and IX submarines
and the actual design criteria used for Allied ASW weapons. The rating is a function of the
size of the DC and the number of DC in each pattern. We use the WITP system of "shots" - a ship
gets the number of shots equal to the number of patterns it can drop. The rating of a DC is the
lethal area (calculated from its lethal radius) times the number in the pattern. There are
four basic values - small standard DC - large standard DC - small DC with MINOL explosives -
and one weird special case of a gigantic DC.
A typical small DC is the US Mark 6. A typical large DC is the US Mark 7. The super giant DC is
the British Mark X. Patterns are usually 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 14 or 21. Many US destroyers also drop
mixed patterns of 6 small Mark 6 plus 3 large Mark 7 DC - the Mark 6 are projected to the side
and the Mark 7 are dropped off the stern. This forms a sort of "square" - three lines of 3 DC -
the center line being bigger depth charges. This "center line" corresponds to the probable course
of the target submarine if it was (a) correctly plotted in the first place and (b) if it did not
change direction. Slight changes in speed are covered by dropping 3 patterns. An improvement is a
mixed pattern of 8 Mark 6 plus 6 Mark 7 - with one Mark 7 dropped early, one dropped late, and the
other four dropped at the same time a Mark 6 is fired to each side from a Y gun. That produces a kind
of rectangle - with more lethality on the centerline of the pattern.
This explanation is slightly oversimplified - like other WITP weapons - DC come in series - and within
each series there slight improvements over time - for major powers. Minor nations (e.g. Russia, France,
etc.) essentially use one or two kinds of old, relatively ineffective DC. All weapons are modeled - even
if almost useless. But a late war DE is very dangerous. The lethality of a large pattern of DC should
be respected. USS England sank six - with a single pattern each - in a single deployment!
Depth Charges have a depth rating. This is compared to the depth of a submarine and may result in a pattern
being ineffective in some attacks (determined by computer die rolls). Ships with DC with deeper ratings
are better than ships with DC with shallow ratings. These values - like the PK values - are NOT in the
screen ASW rating of a ship.
Depth Charges are also dropped by aircraft in RHS. This is not unrealistic - aircraft often can see a submarine
from the air.
-
el cid again
- Posts: 16984
- Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm
RE: ASW rating? RHS Ahead Throwing Theory.
RHS ahead throwing weapons are modeled using actual patterns of projectiles
from various weapons - usually in circular patterns - but one variant is
a sort of ellipse. The PK values are historical for the weapon. It is
assumed each ASW attack involves one ahead throwing pattern followed by one
DC pattern.
Unlike DC, ahead throwing weapons do NOT have a meaningful depth rating. They
generally work regardless of the depth of the target submarine. This is achieved
by ratings deeper than subs can go.
from various weapons - usually in circular patterns - but one variant is
a sort of ellipse. The PK values are historical for the weapon. It is
assumed each ASW attack involves one ahead throwing pattern followed by one
DC pattern.
Unlike DC, ahead throwing weapons do NOT have a meaningful depth rating. They
generally work regardless of the depth of the target submarine. This is achieved
by ratings deeper than subs can go.
-
el cid again
- Posts: 16984
- Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm
Matrix WITP Sonar Theory
The detection value of a class is determined by hard code by TYPE of ship.
It is alleged (long ago by people who said they were documenting code) that
there are about three ratings: the best belongs to DE type ships, the
"standard" rating is for a destroyer - and every other type of ship gets
the worst rating. It is unclear where some kinds of escorts lie in this range -
the larger ones might be rated like DEs - the smaller ones like patrol boats.
Since there is nothing we can do about it - we didn't try.
One thing to remember is that a sub with surface weapons MIGHT try to attack on
the surface - but a sub without guns will NEVER try to attack on the surface.
It is alleged (long ago by people who said they were documenting code) that
there are about three ratings: the best belongs to DE type ships, the
"standard" rating is for a destroyer - and every other type of ship gets
the worst rating. It is unclear where some kinds of escorts lie in this range -
the larger ones might be rated like DEs - the smaller ones like patrol boats.
Since there is nothing we can do about it - we didn't try.
One thing to remember is that a sub with surface weapons MIGHT try to attack on
the surface - but a sub without guns will NEVER try to attack on the surface.
-
el cid again
- Posts: 16984
- Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm
RE: RHS Air ASW weapons.
The most effective of ASW weapons in WWII were code named "mines" and dropped from aircraft.
These were still in service when WITP was designed. Various kinds of air dropped smart
weapons are modeled in RHS. They are likely very effective. They only appear very late in the
war or in a late war scenario. However, aircraft drop DC even early in the war. [But those
DC will improve over time, just like ship DC do]. Air ASW weapons are indicated in the
aircraft loadout - and often in the aircraft name (by the suffix AS).
These were still in service when WITP was designed. Various kinds of air dropped smart
weapons are modeled in RHS. They are likely very effective. They only appear very late in the
war or in a late war scenario. However, aircraft drop DC even early in the war. [But those
DC will improve over time, just like ship DC do]. Air ASW weapons are indicated in the
aircraft loadout - and often in the aircraft name (by the suffix AS).
RE: RHS Air ASW weapons.
Ahead throwing weapons are generally late war devices, except for a small 3 inch mortar, which is ineffective.
Does anybody have a picture of the Japanese 3" ASW mortar? How many barrels/projectiles in a single salvo?
RE: RHS Air ASW weapons.
Any idea why AE (stock AE) uses asw ratings as high as "8"?
Considering the many advances made during the war, I can understand the multiple ratings.
Being a fan of Clay Blair, I also appreciate the research he made in studying the asw capabilities of both sides during the war.
I notice RHS has the correct depth settings for the early Japanese weapons in particular.
Considering the many advances made during the war, I can understand the multiple ratings.
Being a fan of Clay Blair, I also appreciate the research he made in studying the asw capabilities of both sides during the war.
I notice RHS has the correct depth settings for the early Japanese weapons in particular.
RE: RHS Air ASW weapons.
This thread is just going around in circles, inventing unnecessary and largely irrelevant considerations. The answer is very simple and was provided in post #2 by HansBolter.
AE does not have a true ASW rating. All that the misnamed ASW rating discloses is the number of ASW weapons carried by that ship. Period. It is not a rating of effectiveness. It does not abstract sonar or any other detection assets. It is not at all comparable to a ship crews experience level or a pilot's skill ratings. It does not take into account whether any ASW ammo is on board; a ship without any ASW ammo still retains the same ASW rating it had when it was fully ammoed.
No differentiation is made between a depth charge that only operates to 300 feet compared to one that operates to 600 feet. The amount of potential damage which may be meted out by the different ASW devices is not reflected in the ASW rating; a hedgehog is just as good as any other type of ASW device. Two different ship classes may have exactly the same ASW rating even though one class may be incapable of hitting enemy subs.
Alfred
AE does not have a true ASW rating. All that the misnamed ASW rating discloses is the number of ASW weapons carried by that ship. Period. It is not a rating of effectiveness. It does not abstract sonar or any other detection assets. It is not at all comparable to a ship crews experience level or a pilot's skill ratings. It does not take into account whether any ASW ammo is on board; a ship without any ASW ammo still retains the same ASW rating it had when it was fully ammoed.
- A ship with no ASW devices has an ASW rating of 0.
- A ship with 2 ASW devices has an ASW rating of 2.
- A ship with 8 ASW devices has an ASW rating of 8.
- A ship given 413 ASW devices in a player modified scenario has an ASW rating of 413.
No differentiation is made between a depth charge that only operates to 300 feet compared to one that operates to 600 feet. The amount of potential damage which may be meted out by the different ASW devices is not reflected in the ASW rating; a hedgehog is just as good as any other type of ASW device. Two different ship classes may have exactly the same ASW rating even though one class may be incapable of hitting enemy subs.
Alfred
RE: RHS Air ASW weapons.
ORIGINAL: Alfred
This thread is just going around in circles, inventing unnecessary and largely irrelevant considerations. The answer is very simple and was provided in post #2 by HansBolter.
AE does not have a true ASW rating. All that the misnamed ASW rating discloses is the number of ASW weapons carried by that ship. Period. It is not a rating of effectiveness. It does not abstract sonar or any other detection assets. It is not at all comparable to a ship crews experience level or a pilot's skill ratings. It does not take into account whether any ASW ammo is on board; a ship without any ASW ammo still retains the same ASW rating it had when it was fully ammoed.
- A ship with no ASW devices has an ASW rating of 0.
- A ship with 2 ASW devices has an ASW rating of 2.
- A ship with 8 ASW devices has an ASW rating of 8.
- A ship given 413 ASW devices in a player modified scenario has an ASW rating of 413.
No differentiation is made between a depth charge that only operates to 300 feet compared to one that operates to 600 feet. The amount of potential damage which may be meted out by the different ASW devices is not reflected in the ASW rating; a hedgehog is just as good as any other type of ASW device. Two different ship classes may have exactly the same ASW rating even though one class may be incapable of hitting enemy subs.
Alfred
Alfred, I have respected your comments for years..If your memory is any good,,you already know that.
I have such great respect for the game engine, (ever since Uncommon Valor) that I was innocently curious, and not trying to start a "F4F vs Zero" pissing contest, my old friend.
Your take is that the mechanics are far more abstract than I had believed..
I am in no position to argue and remain curious.
Thank you...Bob
RE: RHS Air ASW weapons.
m10bob,
There are two elements to this thread, (a) what exactly does the ASW rating represent, (b) the "effectiveness" of the rating. The former is really quite simple and was answered in post #2 but subsequent posts muddied the waters and the subsequent posts on the latter sent off the thread onto fantasy land as far as the game engine is concerned. For the simple fact is that the displayed ASW rating is not factored into the combat algorithms.
The fact is that naval electronics are not directly represented in the game. There is no fire control in the game, no sonars, naval radar is trumped by the human eyeball mark I for the opening salvo etc. In as much as it gets abstracted individual devices have their stats "tweaked" and there are some hard coded time thresholds "improvements".
One thing to bear in mind is that the abstractions allow some fudging. A submarine whose maximum diving depth is greater than the enemy's ASW device's maximum depth, is not guaranteed to be 100% immune to the ASW attack. The ASW combat algorithms are not as simplistic as some may think, after all you wouldn't expect JWE/Symon to not try to insert as much realism as possible. It is just that the displayed ASW rating is not where the complexity is found.
Alfred
There are two elements to this thread, (a) what exactly does the ASW rating represent, (b) the "effectiveness" of the rating. The former is really quite simple and was answered in post #2 but subsequent posts muddied the waters and the subsequent posts on the latter sent off the thread onto fantasy land as far as the game engine is concerned. For the simple fact is that the displayed ASW rating is not factored into the combat algorithms.
The fact is that naval electronics are not directly represented in the game. There is no fire control in the game, no sonars, naval radar is trumped by the human eyeball mark I for the opening salvo etc. In as much as it gets abstracted individual devices have their stats "tweaked" and there are some hard coded time thresholds "improvements".
One thing to bear in mind is that the abstractions allow some fudging. A submarine whose maximum diving depth is greater than the enemy's ASW device's maximum depth, is not guaranteed to be 100% immune to the ASW attack. The ASW combat algorithms are not as simplistic as some may think, after all you wouldn't expect JWE/Symon to not try to insert as much realism as possible. It is just that the displayed ASW rating is not where the complexity is found.
Alfred