Matrix Games Forums

Posted: **Thu Nov 18, 2004 11:11 am**

Was it really toned down?

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 04/27/42

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASW attack at 51,95

Japanese Ships
SS I-25, hits 11, on fire, heavy damage

Allied Ships
AK Ewa
AK Corrales
AK Walter Luckenbach
AK J.L. Luckenbach
APD Gregory
DD Hammann
DD Anderson

[X(]

Posted: **Thu Nov 18, 2004 2:56 pm**

In my opinion, no. Allied ASW TF's (or DD's in any other TF) are capable of destroying huge amounts of Jap subs extremely quickly. And they do this in rather early stages of the war, when the Americans especially shouldn't have too much experience at ASW.

Japanese ASW capability seems to be OK, as they only rarely hit Allied subs with depth charges.

Posted: **Thu Nov 18, 2004 3:26 pm**

Just to split hairs but...

The USN were not a bunch of neophytes at ASW. They didn't wake up on December 7th, 1941 and say, "Holy crap, there are these new thingies called subs! And they're gonna kick our butts if we don't kill them! Now which end do we roll these DCs off?".

In WW1, USN destroyers escorted convoys, and blunted the U-boat threat. From 1939 thru 1941, the USN was escorting convoys and performing ASW duties alongside their RN allies. I do -not- think there should be any sort of -experience- penalty for the USN ASW. Frankly, the tactics on how to find/kill a sub didn't change much after 1941, it was the sub tactics and the ASW weapons we employed against them that got better.

I think the real issue is, the accuracy rating of the DCs (which evidently includes SONAR by default, which is not entirely accurate), and/or the number of shots per salvo should be reduced. I also think there should be a penalty, similar to the AAA penalty, that creates a "diminishing return" for packing 20 ships in the TF. So as with AAA, not all ships get to participate; in ASW, you'd only get a max of 6 ships getting to attack (in convoy or ASW). But now (appearently), all ships in the convoy/ASW get a shot at locating and attacking the sub.

Also be aware that players are far more agressive with their subs (and every other ship for that matter) than our historical counterparts. Regardless of type, most navies were only fielding 20 - 30% of their assets at a time (on a good day). We on the other hand, throw everything out to sea 24-7, our deployment level is usually about 90%. When you've got that much stuff in the water, both using aggressive tactics, there's bound to be lots of action, which simply hurries along everyone's demise.

My 2 pfennigs.
-F-

Posted: **Thu Nov 18, 2004 3:36 pm**

No No, it cant be how they are used, it must be the routines.

Posted: **Thu Nov 18, 2004 3:51 pm**

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

No No, it cant be how they are used, it must be the routines.

Facetious?

Posted: **Thu Nov 18, 2004 4:01 pm**

The program is just that, a program, it can and will have strange things happen, no matter how well it is written, since it uses a randomizer to determine hits. My question is how come the sub didnt sink with 11 hits, you sure it wasnt on the surface and got gunned not depth charged?

Posted: **Thu Nov 18, 2004 4:13 pm**

ORIGINAL: Feinder

Just to split hairs but...

The USN were not a bunch of neophytes at ASW. They didn't wake up on December 7th, 1941 and say, "Holy crap, there are these new thingies called subs! And they're gonna kick our butts if we don't kill them! Now which end do we roll these DCs off?".

In WW1, USN destroyers escorted convoys, and blunted the U-boat threat. From 1939 thru 1941, the USN was escorting convoys and performing ASW duties alongside their RN allies. I do -not- think there should be any sort of -experience- penalty for the USN ASW. Frankly, the tactics on how to find/kill a sub didn't change much after 1941, it was the sub tactics and the ASW weapons we employed against them that got better.

I think the real issue is, the accuracy rating of the DCs (which evidently includes SONAR by default, which is not entirely accurate), and/or the number of shots per salvo should be reduced. I also think there should be a penalty, similar to the AAA penalty, that creates a "diminishing return" for packing 20 ships in the TF. So as with AAA, not all ships get to participate; in ASW, you'd only get a max of 6 ships getting to attack (in convoy or ASW). But now (appearently), all ships in the convoy/ASW get a shot at locating and attacking the sub.

Also be aware that players are far more agressive with their subs (and every other ship for that matter) than our historical counterparts. Regardless of type, most navies were only fielding 20 - 30% of their assets at a time (on a good day). We on the other hand, throw everything out to sea 24-7, our deployment level is usually about 90%. When you've got that much stuff in the water, both using aggressive tactics, there's bound to be lots of action, which simply hurries along everyone's demise.

My 2 pfennigs.
-F-

Feinder, excellent post and agreed. Allies were aggresive in ASW and had good exp in the Atlantic. IJN thought that ASW was a waste of time and did not work hard at it for a while.

And, players on both sides of the water are VERY aggressive with ASW. Kinda have to be as IJN and Allies see good results.

On throwing most of the ships in the water, I would agree. However, sending a TF from SF to OZ will cause a decent amount of SYS damage. You do that once or twice and the ships will need some repairs or suffer. Overall, I do agree, though.

Posted: **Thu Nov 18, 2004 4:38 pm**

I have to agree with Feinder regarding the ASW experience and gameplay. Even with agressive ASW tactics and resources assigned only 3-4 Jap subs sunk (FOW 2 for sure) and 2 allied sunk in January. Maybe a slight tonedown of actual hits would be in store IMHO but otherwise I am satisfied. I haven't tried the Jap side yet so don't know exact results just the complaints here. [8|]

Posted: **Thu Nov 18, 2004 4:45 pm**

What defines aggressive Japanese use....sending subs into combat? So much wrong with the sub combat/ASW model I'm as tired of writing about it as I'm sure they (you?) are reading it.[8D]

Posted: **Thu Nov 18, 2004 5:07 pm**

Everybody should try playing as the Japanese and use their subs as they are meant to be used with the sub doctrine on. Give it a try, even if you are fanatic Allied fanboys and can't stand the idea of playing as Tojo.

There IS something wrong with the Allied ASW, even against the AI, who is nowhere near as aggressive as human players. Almost every time my I-Boats attack Allied targets, they are sunk by depth charges. It doesn't matter if they are in deep water or if no Allied planes have spotted them, they die anyway. Almost every time.

Or then I'm doing something terribly wrong or playing a completely different WitP than many of you.

I know the Americans weren't totally inexperienced at ASW in Dec. 1941. But I don't think they were as good and experienced as the British were at that time. And I just can't believe the sub losses I've suffered as the Japanese.

Posted: **Thu Nov 18, 2004 5:57 pm**

Gotta echo Ron "der Sauercrack", tired of all these ASW stuff. at 1 Jan I've sunk ZIPPO IJN boats, they've damaged a couple of mine.

Some others get sunk EVERY time!!!! WOW!!!

gotta think reality is a little in between these 2 samples.

to be honest, though, i don't see the IJN (in WitP) sinking a CV (Wasp) & DD, damaging BB (NC) in a single attack or any number of attacks. with 6-8 DDs even in '42

Posted: **Thu Nov 18, 2004 8:55 pm**

I'm one who hasn't seen a problem. (I'm not saying a problem doesn't exist, I just haven't noticed it).

I'm allies vs AI. It's mid feb 42. I've been trying to sink IJN subs. I got two near Pearl on days 2-5, but I had to sortie ALL ASW ships to do so. That's about 40 DD's.

I've also bagged 2 near Australia. But, I'm trying hard to bag them. I've got about 200 planes on ASW at 1,000 ft between PM, Sydney and Noumea. And I've got all Dutch and Aussie DD's trying to chase down contacts. I think I've damaged two others (one may have sunk, but isn't on the confirmed kills)

My casualties vs IJN subs is CL Java heavily damaged (would have sunk, but one hex from Townsville), two PG's sunk and about 7 AK's & AP's in various states of damage.

So, I've given better than I've taken. But I'm trying hard to sink em. and only 4 or 5 in over two months time. I think that would be a lot, but the first two came from all PH DD's in the first couple of days. So, two more over two months isn't real ugly.

Posted: **Thu Nov 18, 2004 9:52 pm**

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

I'm one who hasn't seen a problem. (I'm not saying a problem doesn't exist, I just haven't noticed it).

I'm allies vs AI. It's mid feb 42. I've been trying to sink IJN subs. I got two near Pearl on days 2-5, but I had to sortie ALL ASW ships to do so. That's about 40 DD's.

I've also bagged 2 near Australia. But, I'm trying hard to bag them. I've got about 200 planes on ASW at 1,000 ft between PM, Sydney and Noumea. And I've got all Dutch and Aussie DD's trying to chase down contacts. I think I've damaged two others (one may have sunk, but isn't on the confirmed kills)

My casualties vs IJN subs is CL Java heavily damaged (would have sunk, but one hex from Townsville), two PG's sunk and about 7 AK's & AP's in various states of damage.

So, I've given better than I've taken. But I'm trying hard to sink em. and only 4 or 5 in over two months time. I think that would be a lot, but the first two came from all PH DD's in the first couple of days. So, two more over two months isn't real ugly.

Using all resources to sink them? Hmmm. How many DDs per ASW TF? How many escorts per convoy? How big are your convoys? Reason I ask is this...if you are using huge convoys (I dislike this ability do to no ops maximums at ports=gamey) with large escort goups/convoy and large ASW TFs (over 4 DDs) you are not covering alot of ground. I use small convoys and ASW TFs (very rare as escorts are needed for the very large number of smaller convoys I'm running (more realistic) and bag a huge number of IJN subs because more sub encounters occur. What this tells me is that the ASW model is completely off as modelled.

Posted: **Thu Nov 18, 2004 10:43 pm**

My game is a new start V1.30 scen 14B?, the campaign that starts May 01 1942, playing Allies v Jap AI. It is now mid August 42, and the total score is about 35 dead Jap subs, virtually all off the NE coast of Australia and about 12 bombed in port at Gili-Gili. My ASW TF's are all 4-6 DD's, none bigger. The IJN subs have sunk 3 DDs, damaged 3 others, also sank or damaged some other ships. Virtually every time they have fired on anything with more than 2 escorts they have died or been seriously damaged.

Regards

Posted: **Thu Nov 18, 2004 11:07 pm**

Well, I try to have at least two escorts per convoy. My supply convoys aren't too big. Usually about 4 to 10 merchies and 2 to 4 escorts. I have lots of air power on ASW, but until recently haven't run many dedicated ASW task forces. I tried with the PG's, but they got smacked by the subs. I am just now sending out ASW task forces with DD's in them, but they're mostly Dutch and Flush Deck DD's. Exception: in the first 5 days of the game I made quite a few ASW task forces around Pearl and spread them out. The subs all left within 5 days or so, so I stopped my ASW efforts near Pearl.

When I do ASW task forces I keep them with about 4 or 5 ships. I think it's pretty cheesy to have 25 in one task force. I wish the game limited you on this aspect.

So, with all this activity I've sunk 4 IJN subs. Two at the start near Pearl (both with dedicated ASW task forces) and two near Australia. Both were sunk by escorts within the convoys. No airplanes have damaged or sunk a sub to my knowledge. I expect to have a little success now, since I have some DD's at Brisbane that don't have escort duties. Also, I have had probably 20 planes make attacks on subs, but no hits. I've had a lot of my escorts attack subs, but since there are 2 to 4 in the task force, they usually don't get any hits. Finally, I think the IJN subs have had about 10 successful attacks on my ships (not necessarily sinking their target, but getting a hit)

Does this seem ok to you? Am I using my forces in an unhistorical manner? Are people seeing problems when forces are used in the same way that I use them? Ron, are you seeing different results from me? I think my results are realistic. (but I don't know a whole lot on the subject)

Posted: **Fri Nov 19, 2004 1:00 am**

Question:

What is the "right" number of subs to lose?

I am through end of May 1942 and have lost 19 USN to 14 IJN subs.

Posted: **Fri Nov 19, 2004 4:54 am**

I'm playing against AI, Sept '42. I did about the same thing as Bradley with worse results. However bombing Rabual seems to work.
You want lots of smaller ASW forces. Hexes are 60 miles, and the horizon is 30 miles. So the real problem is detection (convoys work the same way).
(danger salty tale on horizon)
We once had a Russian "fishing trawler" get within 20 miles of our ship undetected. Totally hosed our test shot - and was the CO pissed! Tried to run them down.[:@][:@][:@]

Posted: **Fri Nov 19, 2004 6:54 am**

I'm playing just one PBeM game at the moment and in that game we are at 27 March 1942, and the fist IJN sub attack, on one of my escorted convoy, with the sub living to tell the tale happened just a few days back. Before that every single attack by IJN sub ends up with the attacker being sunk. Only good news for the IJN sub force is that one of them managed to sneak in a torpedo into USS Enterprise (well escorted part of 3 CV TF just off Noumea), but it also got smashed by the escorts afterwards.

My convoys don't get more than a 4 DDs as escorts but usually all of them not only attack but they all score at least one hit. Although I think the statistics for succesfull attacks is much more important then the total numer of lost subs, the current score in that game is 7 USN vs 11 IJN subs lost.

One other thing that I see as a problem is that because USN escorts score so many hits not a single IJN sub get's damaged, while I have more than 20 damaged USN subs that made back to port for repairs after being attacked but not sunk. At the moment, due to magazines explosions, I feel more confident that my subs if hit will come back than my BBs [:D]

Posted: **Fri Nov 19, 2004 12:41 pm**

Anyone have a list of actual Japanese (and Allied, for preference [:)] ) sub losses?
I don't know if the IJN loss rate I'm seeing (zero up to early April 42, now up to 8 by early June after I took over from the ai) is historical or hysterical... [;)]
Steve.

Posted: **Fri Nov 19, 2004 12:50 pm**

Like in previous versions, the Jap AI concentrates most subs off Queensland, esp. in the approaches of Townsville. I'm in April '42 of a 41B campaign and have sunk a total of 19 Japanese subs, 10 near Townsville, one near Rockhampton, the rest off Hawaii, Noumea and Suva. Most subs fell victim to my three ASW-TFs of five short-legged MSW and one PG per TF, operating out of Townsville. The subs have killed a few PGs and MSWs, but who cares as long as the subs are being sunk in return by the other ships in the TF. I think the losses are a bit excessive, but IMO that's due to the idiotic positioning of the subs by the AI rather than due to overpowered ASW platforms. Ahistorical strategy leads to ahistorical results...

Matrix Games Forums

Allied ASW

Allied ASW

RE: Allied ASW

RE: Allied ASW

RE: Allied ASW

RE: Allied ASW

RE: Allied ASW

RE: Allied ASW

RE: Allied ASW

RE: Allied ASW

RE: Allied ASW

RE: Allied ASW

RE: Allied ASW

RE: Allied ASW

RE: Allied ASW

RE: Allied ASW

RE: Allied ASW

RE: Allied ASW

RE: Allied ASW

RE: Allied ASW

RE: Allied ASW