Bullwinkle58
Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: el lobo
quote:
ORIGINAL: HansBolter
You are also correct that I rashly jumped to erroneous conclusions.
My one foray into PBEM took place back in the days when Uncommon Valor was very popular (I started on UV before graduating to WITP) was a complete disaster and left such a sour taste in my mouth that I swore off PBEM play forevermore.
Unfortunately it also colored and tainted my perspective toward Japanese players.
As a UV noob I was duped into agreeing to play the UV version of Japan on steroids. I was told by the experienced Japanese player that the side needed the extra boost to be able to go the distance and put up a credible fight to the end.
I bought it hook, line and sinker and started a game.
He had no intention whatsoever of going the distance. He used the beefed up force to come after my main bases in a ploy for autovictory.
I fought tooth and nail and in spite of my inexperience prevented him from succeeding.
I even orchestrated a decisive carrier battle victory, following which, quit like a little child and took his toys home.
I have also seen far too many games in the AAR forum where the Japanese player enjoys his day in the sun, runs rampant and as soon as his heyday is over he simply quits and denies the Allied player his day in the sun.
Now every time I see what appears to be a Japanese player convincing an Allied player that the Japanese side needs a boost to be competitive I automatically think the worst.
I sincerely apologize for my actions and hope you both enjoy your game.
Hay Hans,
I'm sorry to hear about your unfortunate PBEM experience. It's a shame that some players just go for the quick win when there is so much more to the game.
I hope that some day you will find a worthy opponent and you take the plunge again.
Terry and I have one house rule. Auto-victory does not count. It's worth more than all of the others combined.
If you don't mind a little advise from a newbie, and I base this from our above discussions, don't worry too much about what the Japanese player has. So what if he has half the planet and the kitchen sink. The Allies have the other half with ump-teen times the industrial strength.
You are obviously a competent and knowledgeable player and I am sure that your advise, especially to newbies, is more than welcome.
Now, go help Terry use the subs of which he has control. You were right about another thing. I am going to deprive him of his subs. It's called ASW. 
I'm coming to this thread late for various reasons. Seems there were multiple disagreements/misunderstandings by both players and some commentators. Everyone kissed and made up. But there might be a few comments on the sub war to make.
First though, an aside on auto-victory made many times but possibly missed if the players are newbies: The Allies can't win the game in any way under the design EXCEPT by auto-victory. It's impossible. When players say they're "ignoring auto-victory" they often mean they're not trying for one on the earliest day possible under the design. That's fine. But if playing the game as a game you have to attend to it at some point if you're Allied. It's mandatory.
Back to subs . . .
The auto-sub setting, as you found out, is locked by the Japan player at set up. This is not well covered in the manual IMO. Michael can reverse this as has been explained, and I would urge you both to re-consider this. Auto-subs for the Allies can be a big negative. At best, ironically, auto-subs make for MORE work for the Allies than not, in PBEM. I'll explain below.
I played my first GC against the AI as Allies, all the way to completion. Over five years ago now (wow.) I had played WITP, but AE's expansion made me leery of piling on the work load, so I went with auto-subs. I left them on for at least the first year; don't recall. Maybe longer. I turned them off at some point as I didn't like the patrol zones the AI assigned.
I played my second full GC against the AI with them off from the start. Much better.
I'm playing my second and third PBEM games now, one in September 1943, one in December 1941. Both with auto-subs off. I am also an ex-submariner in RL and have read widely on the submarine war in the PTO. I say this only to illustrate I think I have a grasp on the issues in the game as well as how the game models history. I also have seen how two very good Japan players do ASW in different eras.
In short, when playing the Japan AI, the ASW efforts are lackluster. Especially the air portions. In that environment the patrol zones assigned by auto-sub work just OK. Typically those zones are 3x2, do target choke points, don't consider shallow water much, and don't consider much or at all other subs in supporting zones. Patrols can be assigned to meaningless islands. Not sure if they assign to islands with no garrisons but red color; don't recall from five years ago. They may. In many of those cases that would be a completely wasted asset.
What's different in PBEM? Human Japan players invest a great deal in ASW, especially air assets, and especially at greater ranges than the AI does. They also are far more creative at assigning waypoint routes for merchants, using shallow water extensively as well as heavy short range air patrols over chokes. If you see a very high Jake ops loss rate chances are good those are ASW patrollers.
So if you have auto-subs ON in a PBEM game the code will try to assign 3x2 zones and send boats right into shallow water/air ASW kill zones as played by a human. If you let this happen you lose subs, or at least have most of them bingo home with damage before they can really hunt. The alternative is to intervene ON EVERY PATROL and countermand the auto-assigned zone and make it logical for a PBEM game. You have to really monitor your outbound subs to do this, thus the higher workload. If you play with auto-subs off, all you do is have every sub disband at homeport. This makes them visible in the Ships tab when you filter on Subs only, and you can quickly see who is repaired and ready for a zone. They don't sneak out on you to their doom.
When you assign zones as a human player you need to be creative. With massive Japan air ASW you can't go much inshore and not get damaged. A mission kill is enough for Japan. You need to work barrier patrols in open ocean. They need to reinforce each other, both in direction, length, and relative speeds. Near islands you need to sometimes dip into shallow water to hunt, but pull back to deep offshore to "cool off" the DL. You can't park in choke points; you'll be seen and a high DL makes a sub all but worthless offensively. You need to jab and move, jab and move. Auto-subs makes all of this more work and the code constantly tries to "take back" its subs.
As Japan, which I've only played for six months game time against AI, the challenges are somewhat similar, but the defensive ASW reaches monster proportions by the fall of 1943. Look at the ASW ratings of Allied SCs, DEs, and PFs as well as their numbers. Japan also has to weigh the fuel investment of sending subs deep into Allied waters by mid-game. The Allies get enough merchants that Japan subs will never really dent logistics even if the Allied ASW weren't so good. And it is that good.
But IMO auto-subs is a bad thing for the Allied player. It's not determinative or anything close, but in my experience it adds work and clicks rather than lower them in a PBEM game. In an AI game it's an OK choice, although I wouldn't use it myself. In a PBEM game it's not even close.
< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 6/27/2015 6:22:53 PM >
_____________________________
The Moose
|
Printable Version
Allied Subs Refusing Human Control? - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread