Chickenboy
Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002 From: San Antonio, TX Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: EUBanana quote:
ORIGINAL: Chickenboy I doubt you could give me a reasoned argument how RN submarine captains were inherently superior to all Dutch, Japanese, American, German, Italian and other navies that used submarines in WWII. That is my point. I never said they were. quote:
Now, I'll hear your arguments about why their skills should be higher in game terms (e.g., skills of 75-80 or so versus below 60 for aggression, leadership, whatnot), but ex nae on the anfaeoybae, eh? It's not fanboyism to note that RN submarine commanders have a blanket stat of 60 and want something done about that. And that RN admirals in general suck, and that I don't see much historical basis for a lot of that suck. I think it's kinda sad you think it is fanboyism. And I think the subs aren't even the best example. Victor Crutchley in game has leadership 31, inspiration 37, naval skill 52 and aggression 44 (!!!). I know why - because all people thought of when statting him up was Savo Island with the PacWar blinkers on. But this is a man who captained the most successful British battleship of all time, and drove that battleship up a fjord while under fire to tangle with some DDs. Lets just leave his contentious competence out of it for a second for fears of fanboy accusations - aggression 44? No. Simply - no. The logic behind those stats was clearly "He lost Savo Island, lets make him suck". There is simply no justification for those dire stats, none at all. He did have a bad fight but that doesn't mean he sucked golf balls through a garden hose. Admiral Kimmel had rather bad fight himself but his stats are in the sixties. EUBanana, I think I've addressed your question re: the use of emoticons in my original response. If one (not you, of course) reverts to tacit fanboyism, then I'm going to call them on it. PP that posited that RN submarine commanders were the best in WWII and still are without providing additional references or arguments for same deserve to be questioned. If one (not you, of course) backs these nonsensical fanboy arguments then, by extension, you are yielding to fanboyism. I don't really care if you think my logical approach here is sad or not, mate. You've got a point re: the low skills of a number of UK forces, be it naval or otherwise. But it's a far logical cry from saying that low in game skills should be adjusted upwards (reasonable, pending evidence) to stating that UK sub commanders are and have been the best in the world. For USN submarines, I'd kill for blanket early war skills of 60 for my commanders. There are absolute dregs out there and, as PP have indicated, some halfway decent ones. I'd support a similar distribution of skills (or lack thereof) for RN submarine skippers, akin to what the USN is experiencing before the heavy weed out. Prove that of the hundreds of RN subs that there weren't a few dregs that bring down the average that need to be replaced with PPs. Maybe the RN sub captains average skills could be slightly higher than average USN sub captains, but only just. There were well described problems with a seemingly large number of early war USN sub captains vis a vis their timidity and prosecution of targets. I don't recall hearing of these problems in other navies sub branches, but that doesn't mean they didn't exist.
_____________________________
|