v1.3 Patch And Japanese ASW

[cdrsubron7]

Just wondering what you guys think of the Japanese ASW with the 1.3 patch installed? I've made 2 patrols sofar since the patch came out and I've been unable to get closer than 3400 yds when trying to approach a convoy at periscope depth with my sub at battlestaions and rigged for silent running and speed set at one knot. As soon as I here the pinging the merchants start zigging making it impossible to get a shot at them from 3000 yds. The one time I did manage to get my torpedos fired and then headed deep the Japanese DDs spread me all over the bottom of the Pacific within about five minutes.





cdrsubron7

[Jmack]

maybe you are doing it the wrong way ...

i usually get in front of the convoy and turn my tail or nose to them ( smalest reflection possible )

[BH]

Japanese ASW is completely lacks historical accuracy.

Wait until beery finishes the updated version of RFB.

[joea]

Originally Posted by BH

Japanese ASW is completely lacks historical accuracy.

Wait until beery finishes the updated version of RFB.

Read Tater's answer, we don't want arcade easy.

[FAdmiral]

I tried the 1.3 just today with a test mission of mine. As I approached
within 6000, 2 DDs started straight for me. I dove to 300, went silent at
1/3 and zig-zaged my way towards the 3 targets. The DDs went by me and
started search patterns. I waited till I was fairly close to target 3, a battleship.
I came up to PD and give a look. It was doing the zig-zag dance but I closed with 900 and fired 4 fish. All hit and the BB went down fast. Within 2 min, 5 DDs
were all converging on me fast. I did my 300 thing again and headed for a
seaplane carrier. The DDs were good at blasting gaping holes in the sea but
none hit home. I managed to elude them and came up to PD for a shot at
the SC. Sent 2 fish her way at 750 but 1 was all that was needed. I went
deep again and hid under the lifeboats but since 1.3, they are not safe now.
The DDs came right into the middle of them and dropped DCs. All drops were
too shallow so I came out OK. Looks like a different ballgame with 1.3 guys....

JIM

[tater]

Toning the AI down too much would be a mistake, IMO. Remember that the stock campaign has 2 options, really good, and really crappy, yet there are actually 5 skill levels, even if the game rarely uses any but 1 and 3. On top of that, convoys are grossly overescorted.

If you read an overview book like Silent Victory it's pretty apparent that boats that made atatcks were usually attacked by escorts if there were any escorts with the target. The attacks were usually not fatal.

It's not that the IJN escorts had poor capability, it's that as a % of ships at sea, they have very few escorts, and poor doctrine for deploying them.

As an example, if you have 10 DDs that are every bit as capable as the best US escorts, you could use them very effectively to escort 1 or 2 convoys if your doctrine was to convoy ships. If your doctrine ws to take the 10 DDs, and give 1 to each of 10 ports, then have the DDs patrol zones alone, the effectiveness might be near zero. Same ships, all highly capable, utterly different outcomes. The japanese use was more like the 2d example.

tater

[cdrsubron7]

Originally Posted by tater

Toning the AI down too much would be a mistake, IMO. Remember that the stock campaign has 2 options, really good, and really crappy, yet there are actually 5 skill levels, even if the game rarely uses any but 1 and 3. On top of that, convoys are grossly overescorted.

If you read an overview book like Silent Victory it's pretty apparent that boats that made atatcks were usually attacked by escorts if there were any escorts with the target. The attacks were usually not fatal.

It's not that the IJN escorts had poor capability, it's that as a % of ships at sea, they have very few escorts, and poor doctrine for deploying them.

As an example, if you have 10 DDs that are every bit as capable as the best US escorts, you could use them very effectively to escort 1 or 2 convoys if your doctrine was to convoy ships. If your doctrine ws to take the 10 DDs, and give 1 to each of 10 ports, then have the DDs patrol zones alone, the effectiveness might be near zero. Same ships, all highly capable, utterly different outcomes. The japanese use was more like the 2d example.

tater

I'm not really looking for a way to tone down the enemy AI, just trying to get some ideas so I can sucessfully attack a convoy without being detected beyond 3000 yds. At 3000 yds with the enemy knowing you're around somewhere its hard to hit anything.




cdrsubron7

[tater]

I was replying to BH mostly, shoulda been more clear.

Part of the problem is that there are so many convoys, and they all have 4 fleet DDs escorting them. That would be a heavy escort for a military convoy from Truk to Rabaul. For shipping at large... lol. No.

The first step to a little more realism is to have fewer escorts, and less capable types (subchaser and minelayer).

tater

[Suicide Charlie]

Hmmm... I just got the game so I haven't been able to get enough time in the Command Room for me to really evaluate the AI's ASW effectiveness.

I was able to pentetrate a convoy somewhat easily earlier. There were three Akizuka destroyers. The closest two were on me pretty quickly, but seeing as I at 7knts and not running silent (and in TC so I don't have too much info on their initial detection and early closure) so I expected to be detected. I dove to about 130ft, dodged a few terribly emplyed Depth Charge runs and continued on past them. They continued to run search and attack patterns on an old position for pretty much the rest of my attack. Even after lighting up three merchants and sending them down they were just starting to turn back to investigate the trouble.

[Zero Niner]

Originally Posted by tater

As an example, if you have 10 DDs that are every bit as capable as the best US escorts, you could use them very effectively to escort 1 or 2 convoys if your doctrine was to convoy ships. If your doctrine ws to take the 10 DDs, and give 1 to each of 10 ports, then have the DDs patrol zones alone, the effectiveness might be near zero. Same ships, all highly capable, utterly different outcomes. The japanese use was more like the 2d example.

That's also my understanding of the Japanese doctrine on ASW and convoy escort. IIRC, convoy escort was regarded as something demeaning. Hence the IJN did not assign their capable skippers, nor the resources, into ASW and convoy duties.
I wonder if SH4 simulates this? :hmm:

[BH]

Even after the war started, it wasn't until late 1943-early 1944 that a effort was made to increase the amount of resources devoted to ASW. By that time, it was a matter of too little, too late. No ahead-firing weapons equivalent to the Hedgehog or Squid were developed, although an ASW projectile for many naval guns and a simple mortar for merchant ships were introduced late in the war.

Japanese attacks were usually broken off too soon and the DC settings were too shallow.

source:http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WAMJAP_ASW.htm


Joea, SH4 is suppose to be a simulation. They do make mods that make the ijn preform beyond historical reality and provide an excellent challenge(triggermaru)

[tater]

Yes, BH, those statements quoted are true. Regardless, they DID prosecute attacks, read the reports from our subs.

There is a difference between strategic doctrine regarding ASW and defense of the sea lanes, and particular tactical engagements between ASW assets and submarines.

The resources devoted to ASW (mentioned in the quote) are not just technical inovation (which was certainly lacking), or training, but simply SHIPS. Escorts, the notion of actually putting merchants together and escorting them. The Fleet DDs that are always with merchant in game were simply not tasked in large numbers except on the front, and even then, not in the numbers seen in the stock game.

It's the NUMBERS of escorts that are the biggest issue in stock SH4, NOT the quality, IMO. The sheer numbers of escorts---and the type, fleet DDs---in the stock game show the largest historical inaccuracy wrt ASW.

The specifics of how the warships prosecute attacks is honestly pretty minor. We have 5 skill levels to play with, in addition to various sensor settings. There is a setting to adjust their loiter time or something similar. Rl IJN DDs were excellently crewed. They were very capable platforms, but had specific issues (DC depth setting is a prime example). I think DC depth can be set, but I think it is global, not by date...

It needs some playtesting, but there are a few things needed to make the IJN ASW capability accurate.

1. A totally new campaign. The stock campaign has absurdly high resources given by the Combined Fleet to ASW outside of naval escort. Meaning that warships would get escorts, invasion forces, and direct military shipping, in particular the % of the merchant marine commandeered by the IJN shipping supplies to front line naval bases. Regular merchant traffic should be pretty much SOL until 1943, and then only barely escorted by stock SH4 standards. Convoys that do get escorted need smaller escorts. Maybe the odd fleet DD as leader, but subchasers and minesweepers (or armed trawlers) as the more typical units (late in the war Kaiboukans or Matsu DEs which we lack). Simle test is to add up TFs and convoys weighted by the tiem interval between spawns and % chance, and see how many DDs are expected (average). Look at the "subhunter" groups, too. They amount shouldn't exceed the actual number of DDs in the IJN, ideally it should be less by some margin. Other escorts then take up the slack, or indeed form the bulk of such forces.

2. Within the new campaign, the skill levels get tweaked. With the 1.3 AI capability, AI can probably default to the middle setting (in stock it's either novice or veteran with rather a lot of "elite" in TFs). In stock SH4 "novice" AI is useless, you can surface near them and they ignore you. This can go a long way to mitigating the AI to the extent it is ahistorically capable in SH4 1.3. I'm not sure it is, however, my deaths seem to be mistakes on my part, not super capability on theirs.

3. DC mods. DCs are way too powerful. DCs with more realistic power will make even depth accurate attacks (assuming modding the shallow early war DCs is not possible) far less effective than stock.

4. The last step would be tweaks to the sensors, etc., though those will feed back with the AI settings.

tater

[Capt. Shark Bait]

i don't think it needs to be changed. i spent almost 2hrs submerged and stationary at 330ft while a DD and a d@mm tincan subchaser dropped and fired depth charges all around, above and below me. before i ordered all stop i was at 250ft, well below the layer, and both seemed quite able to find me despite running silent at 1-3kts

[Ducimus]

I just thought id mention the obvious that thermal layer implmentation in SH4 is not a magical boundry from which no sonar may pass. It is merely a reduction in signal strength, nothing more. Even when below a layer, there is still more variables at play which help the AI detect you.

Think of thermal layers in Sh4 as a pair of earmuffs or earplugs. Even while wearing them, you can still hear people talk. You may not make out every word, but you can usually understand whats being said none the less.

[orangenee]

I have to say since 1.3 I'm getting a lot more DDs coming after me on their own well away from any convoys, I even had a Gunboat come after me as well before, this is in '41!! So they appear to be really switched on now!!