US subs - doctrinal improvements

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

US subs - doctrinal improvements

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> US subs - doctrinal improvements

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

US subs - doctrinal improvements - 5/24/2003 11:56:03 PM

wpurdom

Posts: 476
Joined: 10/27/2000
From: Decatur, GA, USA
Status: offline

Will the game model the early deficiencies of US sub torpedoes and the discoveries that led to increased success?
In the early history of US submarine warfare, discovery of deficiencies was vital despite the equipment remaining the same. At the beginning of the war, US subs had the following problems cured by doctrinal changes.
Initial doctrine overestimated IJN anti-sub effectiveness and called for extreme caution in attacking all targets. IIRC it even encouraged attacks from below periscope level relying on sonar targetting. A sub skipper following doctrine had no chance of hitting and no way of knowing whether he was successful. This was the easiest cured and resolved itself within a few months.
Second, US sub skippers were supposed to rely on the magnetic influenced detonator and aim for a close miss under the ship so that the torpedo would presumably "break the back" of the ship. Unfortunately, the depth settings were unreliable and typically ran deep (IIRC 15 ft too deep). Additionally, like the early German magnetic influenced detonators the actual detonators were not terribly reliable and if the sub got a straight shot at the ship at the depth it would otherwise hit the ship, the torpedo would likely explode short of the ship. The size of the warheads on the torpedoes were designed underpowered because of the presumed effectiveness of exploding under the enemy ship. (Something for which there was no quick fix).
Eventually, sub skippers began turning off the magnetic influenced detonators, first against orders and then per new doctrine. Then they ran into a new problem. The firing pin was so flimsy that on a straight-on hit it would crumple rather than set off the warhead - only glancing bows would detonate. After about a year they finally wound up checking the torpedoes by crashing them into the sides of cliffs and discovered the problem. Then they replaced the firing pins with sturdier models while correcting the depth to actually hit the ship (compensating for the flawed depth detector) and started reliably sinking ships.
This changes were associated with discrete events at specific times outlined in Silent Victory, although they could probably be modeled in simple percentage increments of improvement to theoretical 100% performance at about a year or a little more into the war.

Post #: 1

- 5/25/2003 3:15:30 AM

Admiral DadMan

Posts: 3627
Joined: 2/22/2002
From: A Lion uses all its might to catch a Rabbit
Status: offline

Uncommon Valor models the three Mk XIV torpedo problems (deep running, magnetic exploder, firing pin)..

Deep running was corrected about August 1942.

Magnetic influence feature was deactivated by 31 December 1942.

Contact exploder problem was solved about April 1943.

_____________________________

Scenario 127: "Scraps of Paper"
(\../)
(O.o)
(> <)

CVB Langley:

(in reply to wpurdom)

Post #: 2

- 5/25/2003 5:47:21 AM

Chiteng

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline

However by allowing you ahistorical use of the Coastal Subs
(specifily because they use the Mark-10) it wont matter.
The reality is the the coastal subs were withdrawn something that
of course wont happen in a wargame. We are more than happy to send men to their deaths in marginal boats.

_____________________________

�It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.�

Voltaire

'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'

French Priest

"Statistic

(in reply to wpurdom)

Post #: 3

Wargames - 5/25/2003 7:18:23 AM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chiteng
[B]However by allowing you ahistorical use of the Coastal Subs
(specifily because they use the Mark-10) it wont matter.
The reality is the the coastal subs were withdrawn something that
of course wont happen in a wargame. We are more than happy to send men to their deaths in marginal boats. [/B][/QUOTE]

Speak for yourself, I do not throw anything away. (But an S-boat did sink the Kako) I'll use them close to allied bases where it is possible the Japanese might show up. (Place them 1-2 days surface TF distance away)

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to wpurdom)

Post #: 4

Re: Wargames - 5/25/2003 7:29:51 AM

Chiteng

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami
[B]Speak for yourself, I do not throw anything away. (But an S-boat did sink the Kako) I'll use them close to allied bases where it is possible the Japanese might show up. (Place them 1-2 days surface TF distance away) [/B][/QUOTE]

An alternative is to have them forcibly withdrawn on sceduale
rather than allow the player to delibretly risk their destruction

OR

Removing the idea of Mark-10 effectiveness so as to remove
the desire to use the boats.

Its like the 'mining' problem. In trying to be historical, you ignore
the natural impulse to players to exploit.

In reality you should NOT know that the Coastal Subs are more effective than the fleet subs because of crusty torps.

You should NOT be making deployment decisions based on that
knowledge.

_____________________________

(in reply to wpurdom)

Post #: 5

- 5/25/2003 7:39:40 AM

Zakhal

Posts: 2494
Joined: 1/4/2001
From: Jyv�skyl�, Finland
Status: offline

Maybe you could get big political point penalties for doing suicide attacks with coastal subs.

_____________________________

"99.9% of all internet arguments are due to people not understanding someone else's point. The other 0.1% is arguing over made up statistics."- unknown poster
"Those who dont read history are destined to repeat it."� Edmund Burke

(in reply to wpurdom)

Post #: 6

- 5/25/2003 8:51:02 AM

Platoonist

Posts: 1342
Joined: 5/11/2003
From: Kila Hana
Status: offline

In a wargame ships and units are never used in a historical manner due to hindsight or just a desire to tamper with history. In the real war the Japanese superbattleship Yamato spent seven months swinging at anchor at Truk. Yet I can't think of too many Japanese players who would use her in such a idle manner.

(in reply to wpurdom)

Post #: 7

- 5/25/2003 10:26:46 AM

Chiteng

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Platoonist
[B]In a wargame ships and units are never used in a historical manner due to hindsight or just a desire to tamper with history. In the real war the Japanese superbattleship Yamato spent seven months swinging at anchor at Truk. Yet I can't think of too many Japanese players who would use her in such a idle manner. [/B][/QUOTE]

Not the same thing. Doing that doesnt inflate the sunk ship count.

_____________________________

(in reply to wpurdom)

Post #: 8

- 5/25/2003 7:11:56 PM

TIMJOT

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline

There are limits in useing the Sboats. They have very limited range. It is not as though you can send them off the coast of Japan or any of the major convoy routes for that matter. They cant make it there. Useing S boats anywhere on the very limited map of UV is perfectly legitamate and realistic.

(in reply to wpurdom)

Post #: 9

- 5/25/2003 8:47:11 PM

Chiteng

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by TIMJOT
[B]There are limits in useing the Sboats. They have very limited range. It is not as though you can send them off the coast of Japan or any of the major convoy routes for that matter. They cant make it there. Useing S boats anywhere on the very limited map of UV is perfectly legitamate and realistic. [/B][/QUOTE]

Only if you ignore that they were withdrawn in reality

_____________________________

(in reply to wpurdom)

Post #: 10

- 5/25/2003 9:02:05 PM

TIMJOT

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline

Yes they were withdrawn eventually, but so were other vessels during the course of the war. The Omaha CLs come to mind. I dont see it as a major flaw especially for WitP were their use will be very limited. Perhaps though they could be tied to some sort of upgrade path. Something like if you want a new Gato class sub you have to withdraw an S-boat.

(in reply to wpurdom)

Post #: 11

- 5/26/2003 10:58:16 PM

mdiehl

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

The S-boats turned in excellent service considering their state of repair and general armament. One of the interesting things here is that the S boast could NOT rely on Sonar Spotting because most of them lacked active Sonar. Since their underwater endurance sucked, they almost always ran on the surface, especially when attempting to overtake enemy vessels at night.

There is an excellent book in re life on an S-Boat: [I]Pigboat 39[/I].

They should not mandatory tied to an upgrade path. The principle limitation on their use should be the quality of repair facilities in the area, and the quantity of antique torpedoes for them to use. Eventually the Allied player will withdraw them because they have more value to the Japanese as casualty victory points then they offer to the US as a threat to enemy ships. Perhaps also retiring an S boat should result in immediate experience gains in several fleet boats, as the XO and Skipper get promoted and the crews are integrated with other boats; this would give the Allied player an incentive to ditch them when adequate numbers of newer submarines become available.

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to wpurdom)

Post #: 12

- 5/26/2003 11:23:26 PM

TIMJOT

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline

I dont really think they should be held to an upgrade path either. Just some people have a problem with them being used for the duration. I personally think their limited endurance will make them unattractive enough to use later in the war. By the time they get to there patrol area they will have to turn back. A finite number of mark 10s might do the trick or maybe an escalating system damage routine and a corresponding slow repair rate might aslo make eveyone happy.

(in reply to wpurdom)

Post #: 13

- 5/27/2003 3:27:35 AM

TIMJOT

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline

Come to think of it an upgrade path may not be such a bad idea. It isnt as though the USN would keep expirenced S boat crews on their decrepit boats once new Gato's became available.

(in reply to wpurdom)

Post #: 14

- 5/27/2003 3:38:03 AM

mdiehl

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

Well, they did, in general, until operational circumstances provided for relief. I guess an upgrade path is okay if a Gato subron arrives on station to relieve the S-Boat and the S-boat's crew then improves the next batch of Gato's and so one. The Sboats should have pretty crummy operational characteristics, however. The aformentioned Pigboat 39 shows that keeping the relics running was a serious challenge.

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to wpurdom)

Post #: 15

- 5/27/2003 4:57:54 AM

TIMJOT

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline

Well I think it was more a decision of expediency. It was deemed more important to keep the boats on station at the time. But it wasnt though there were a bunch of empty Gato's standing idle at PH at the time. I believe the S boats were withdrawn as new boats came available. Being able to transfer expirence S-boat crews to Gatos would give the essentive to withdraw the Sboats, because even though they are somewhat more effective early on, they are aslo more vulnerable. I think most players would prefer to preserve their crews for the long haul.

(in reply to wpurdom)

Post #: 16

- 5/27/2003 6:03:55 AM

madflava13

Posts: 1530
Joined: 2/7/2001
From: Alexandria, VA
Status: offline

Although this is all speculation, I would wager that there won't be many surviving S-Boats by mid-1943 anyways... This is about when they were historically withdrawn, and if my losses in UV are typical of the WiTP experience, the S-Boats won't make it past 1942 (I operate them at a pretty high tempo anyways...)

But to address Chiteng's concern, I don't see how it would be too difficult to force withdraw them at the historical point - this used to happen to the Brit ships in Pacwar, and happens to air units in UV now. Probably won't matter though - If I have any surviving S-Boats by then, I'll probably port them anyways because the Mk. 14 torps will be working properly and I won't need the Pigboats anymore.

_____________________________

"The Paraguayan Air Force's request for spraying subsidies was not as Paraguayan as it were..."

(in reply to wpurdom)

Post #: 17

- 5/27/2003 6:08:47 AM

Chiteng

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by madflava13
[B]Although this is all speculation, I would wager that there won't be many surviving S-Boats by mid-1943 anyways... This is about when they were historically withdrawn, and if my losses in UV are typical of the WiTP experience, the S-Boats won't make it past 1942 (I operate them at a pretty high tempo anyways...)

But to address Chiteng's concern, I don't see how it would be too difficult to force withdraw them at the historical point - this used to happen to the Brit ships in Pacwar, and happens to air units in UV now. Probably won't matter though - If I have any surviving S-Boats by then, I'll probably port them anyways because the Mk. 14 torps will be working properly and I won't need the Pigboats anymore. [/B][/QUOTE]

That is exactly my point. It is ahistorical usage, displaying perfect hindsight. Odd how it isnt complained about when it favors the USN tho.

_____________________________

(in reply to wpurdom)

Post #: 18

- 5/28/2003 8:06:12 AM

byron13

Posts: 1589
Joined: 7/27/2001
Status: offline

Chiteng, I don't think there is much you can do about the perfect hindsight "problem." You've got two choices: either let people take advantage of perfect hindsight (and assume the AI will as well) or force contemporary doctrine and beliefs down a players' throat. Most posters seem to want the ability to change history and don't want to be tied to doctrine which, in hindsight, was irrational, e.g., Japan maintaining large land-force commitments in China.

At the outset of the war, it was believed that the Mark 14 would be more effective than the Mark 10. Even after sub skippers begain having suspicions and then were even convinced that there were defects in the Mark 14, the higher headquarters (that's us in game terms) did not believe them and continued to insist on ineffective tactics. We, as players, won't suffer under those misconceptions and will know on December 7th that you have to use a Mark 10 to hope for a kill. S boats will be highly valued as a result and will not be used historically. But I don't see how you can force-feed contemporary doctrine down a player's throat (other than forced withdrawal, which I'm not opposed to). If you could, then you would force players to attack fleets with B17s from high altitude - even though we know that to be a complete waste of time - because it was believed that the pickle-barrel-accurate Norden on a B17 was an effective defense against invasion fleets. Or, assuming a no PH scenario, you might force the American to sally forth with his battleships for the great battle of the titans because the senior brass still had that mentality. Or - well you can describe any number of pre-war fallacies that were disproved only after months of combat experience or circumstance.

Not sure how you can hard-code fallacy and, to an extent, incompetence into the game. Better, I think, to leave the ahistorical element in the game, since (i) the advantage of hindsight is minimal in most cases (e.g., how much more damage can a player achieve knowing only Mark 10s are effective? Not much) and (ii) the ahistorical advantage disappears in a relatively short period as the combatants discovered fallacies through their own hindsight and experience (e.g., torpedo malfunctions were corrected and someone realizes that the B17 sucks as a high altitude ship-killer after numerous tries).

Besides, most players want to play to see if they can do better than their historical counterparts. Doubt there are any battleship disciples among us, and none would want to be forced to follow a particular doctrine. Kind of hard to play the game without subconsciously knowing that the carrier will be the dominant weapon of the naval war. How many players on turn one would consider the carrier to have a scouting function for the battleships? Let's face it: hindsight is a necessary "evil" that cannot be entirely hard-coded out, and any attempt to do so would only cause more harm than good.

Besides, if a player wants to operate under historical handicaps, he can, to a large extent, voluntarily operate under them. Right?

(in reply to wpurdom)

Post #: 19

- 5/28/2003 8:10:33 AM

Chiteng

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by byron13
[B]Chiteng, I don't think there is much you can do about the perfect hindsight "problem." You've got two choices: either let people take advantage of perfect hindsight (and assume the AI will as well) or force contemporary doctrine and beliefs down a players' throat. Most posters seem to want the ability to change history and don't want to be tied to doctrine which, in hindsight, was irrational, e.g., Japan maintaining large land-force commitments in China.

At the outset of the war, it was believed that the Mark 14 would be more effective than the Mark 10. Even after sub skippers begain having suspicions and then were even convinced that there were defects in the Mark 14, the higher headquarters (that's us in game terms) did not believe them and continued to insist on ineffective tactics. We, as players, won't suffer under those misconceptions and will know on December 7th that you have to use a Mark 10 to hope for a kill. S boats will be highly valued as a result and will not be used historically. But I don't see how you can force-feed contemporary doctrine down a player's throat (other than forced withdrawal, which I'm not opposed to). If you could, then you would force players to attack fleets with B17s from high altitude - even though we know that to be a complete waste of time - because it was believed that the pickle-barrel-accurate Norden on a B17 was an effective defense against invasion fleets. Or, assuming a no PH scenario, you might force the American to sally forth with his battleships for the great battle of the titans because the senior brass still had that mentality. Or - well you can describe any number of pre-war fallacies that were disproved only after months of combat experience or circumstance.

Not sure how you can hard-code fallacy and, to an extent, incompetence into the game. Better, I think, to leave the ahistorical element in the game, since (i) the advantage of hindsight is minimal in most cases (e.g., how much more damage can a player achieve knowing only Mark 10s are effective? Not much) and (ii) the ahistorical advantage disappears in a relatively short period as the combatants discovered fallacies through their own hindsight and experience (e.g., torpedo malfunctions were corrected and someone realizes that the B17 sucks as a high altitude ship-killer after numerous tries).

Besides, most players want to play to see if they can do better than their historical counterparts. Doubt there are any battleship disciples among us, and none would want to be forced to follow a particular doctrine. Kind of hard to play the game without subconsciously knowing that the carrier will be the dominant weapon of the naval war. How many players on turn one would consider the carrier to have a scouting function for the battleships? Let's face it: hindsight is a necessary "evil" that cannot be entirely hard-coded out, and any attempt to do so would only cause more harm than good.

Besides, if a player wants to operate under historical handicaps, he can, to a large extent, voluntarily operate under them. Right? [/B][/QUOTE]

Really?

I can ignore the ahistorical use of the B-17?
Have you added up just how many unreal elements there are in UV?

The majority of which favor the US.

_____________________________

(in reply to wpurdom)

Post #: 20

- 5/28/2003 9:01:29 AM

byron13

Posts: 1589
Joined: 7/27/2001
Status: offline

Admittedly, I'm assuming you are playing against the AI. House rules in a PBEM is another matter. I believe that, if you want to operate under historical constraints, you can do so. Keep the S boats patrolling near the shoreline and set B17s to naval interdiction. Doesn't that largely recreate the historical constraints?

The game may provide for capabilities that were not historically used initially, but I think this is the lesser evil than trying to hard-code restrictions. Players will just be too upset. Though skip bombing wasn't developed until later, I would guess that the game will allow B-10s to skip bomb on December 7th. Not historical, but it was a capability that existed; it simply wasn't tried. I maintain that it is probably better to allow players to skip bomb with B-10s on December 7th than to eliminate capabilities via hard-coding that physically existed but weren't tried. Understand that I understand the problems with this, but allowing the player to use perfect hindsight to use tactics and capabilities that weren't "discovered" until later is simply the lesser evil. The alternative is to have players whine because they can't send S boats on long-range missions or do other things that they know is POSSIBLE, but the coding won't allow for.

This acknowledges that there is some unrealistic stuff in UV. There will always be balancing decisions that will be unpopular, and no algorithm can take everything into account. Gary's games are already magnificently/horridly complex, but they will never be perfect. Dampening one effect will only create discrepancies somewhere else.

But this is getting off of what I thought was your point: perfect hindsight results in unrealistic use of assets. Acknowledged. But I think that is a lesser evil than trying to hard-code some restriction to model, say, the U.S. ignorance of Mark 14 malfunctions. Players can choose to model or recreate such ignorance - if they want to - but would have no choice with hard-coded modeling. My only point is that players will be more upset with the latter than the former. Personally, I will, more than most, probably play the game by forcing myself to operate under many of the fallacies that the Allies were operating under initially. If nothing else, it gives the Japanese a boost and makes the game more interesting.

(in reply to wpurdom)

Post #: 21

- 5/28/2003 9:14:48 AM

Chiteng

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by byron13
[B]Admittedly, I'm assuming you are playing against the AI. House rules in a PBEM is another matter. I believe that, if you want to operate under historical constraints, you can do so. Keep the S boats patrolling near the shoreline and set B17s to naval interdiction. Doesn't that largely recreate the historical constraints?

The game may provide for capabilities that were not historically used initially, but I think this is the lesser evil than trying to hard-code restrictions. Players will just be too upset. Though skip bombing wasn't developed until later, I would guess that the game will allow B-10s to skip bomb on December 7th. Not historical, but it was a capability that existed; it simply wasn't tried. I maintain that it is probably better to allow players to skip bomb with B-10s on December 7th than to eliminate capabilities via hard-coding that physically existed but weren't tried. Understand that I understand the problems with this, but allowing the player to use perfect hindsight to use tactics and capabilities that weren't "discovered" until later is simply the lesser evil. The alternative is to have players whine because they can't send S boats on long-range missions or do other things that they know is POSSIBLE, but the coding won't allow for.

This acknowledges that there is some unrealistic stuff in UV. There will always be balancing decisions that will be unpopular, and no algorithm can take everything into account. Gary's games are already magnificently/horridly complex, but they will never be perfect. Dampening one effect will only create discrepancies somewhere else.

But this is getting off of what I thought was your point: perfect hindsight results in unrealistic use of assets. Acknowledged. But I think that is a lesser evil than trying to hard-code some restriction to model, say, the U.S. ignorance of Mark 14 malfunctions. Players can choose to model or recreate such ignorance - if they want to - but would have no choice with hard-coded modeling. My only point is that players will be more upset with the latter than the former. Personally, I will, more than most, probably play the game by forcing myself to operate under many of the fallacies that the Allies were operating under initially. If nothing else, it gives the Japanese a boost and makes the game more interesting. [/B][/QUOTE]

Why is it that ahistorical things are the 'lesser evil' only when they favor the US?

_____________________________

(in reply to wpurdom)

Post #: 22

- 5/28/2003 9:28:15 AM

madflava13

Posts: 1530
Joined: 2/7/2001
From: Alexandria, VA
Status: offline

Chiteng,
What allied/US favoritism are you talking about? Can you cite some more examples, because I was under the impression that this game (UV at least) was pretty balanced, considering certain limitations (Japanese sealift, etc.)....

_____________________________

"The Paraguayan Air Force's request for spraying subsidies was not as Paraguayan as it were..."

(in reply to wpurdom)

Post #: 23

- 5/28/2003 9:41:01 AM

Chiteng

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by madflava13
[B]Chiteng,
What allied/US favoritism are you talking about? Can you cite some more examples, because I was under the impression that this game (UV at least) was pretty balanced, considering certain limitations (Japanese sealift, etc.).... [/B][/QUOTE]

I will start a new thread with a list

_____________________________

(in reply to wpurdom)

Post #: 24

- 5/29/2003 6:19:03 AM

byron13

Posts: 1589
Joined: 7/27/2001
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chiteng
[B]Why is it that ahistorical things are the 'lesser evil' only when they favor the US? [/B][/QUOTE]

I'm not sure you've started the new thread, but I'm all for consistency. Consistent with the lesser of two evils, I think the Japanese should be able to completely denude China of Japanese forces if they wanted to. Why? Because Japan was physically capable of doing it - even though it was not the historical policy. This doesn't favor the U.S., does it?

Consistent with the lesser of two evils, I'm all in favor of allowing the Japanese submarine force to prey on cargo shipping to the extent the subs are physically capable of doing it. Hindsight shows that the U.S. devastated Japanese logistics and production because the U.S. used its subs primarily in that strategic role rather than the tactical role of sinking war ships. Using that perfect hindsight, it would be ahistorical for a Japanese player to be able to similarly focus on cargo shipping. Rather than hard-coding that Japanese subs can't (and I'm sure Gary would not), the lesser of the two evils is to allow the Japanese the benefit of perfect hindsight and use such tactics.

Chiteng, I think you believe that I'm attacking you personally or that I'm an Allied fanboy (not sure if mdiehl believes there is such a thing). I'm not. I acknowledge the unfortunate fact people will use perfect hindsight to improve over historical performance, and the Mark 10/Mark 14 torpedo issue is only one good example that you focused on. But the point can be made with examples that will favor a Japanese player using perfect hindsight as well. My only point - after agreeing with you that perfect hindsight will distort things if the players let it - is that this is a lesser evil than hard-coding incompetence, doctrine, and fallacy.

(in reply to wpurdom)

Post #: 25

- 5/29/2003 6:46:54 AM

Chiteng

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by byron13
[B]I'm not sure you've started the new thread, but I'm all for consistency. Consistent with the lesser of two evils, I think the Japanese should be able to completely denude China of Japanese forces if they wanted to. Why? Because Japan was physically capable of doing it - even though it was not the historical policy. This doesn't favor the U.S., does it?

Consistent with the lesser of two evils, I'm all in favor of allowing the Japanese submarine force to prey on cargo shipping to the extent the subs are physically capable of doing it. Hindsight shows that the U.S. devastated Japanese logistics and production because the U.S. used its subs primarily in that strategic role rather than the tactical role of sinking war ships. Using that perfect hindsight, it would be ahistorical for a Japanese player to be able to similarly focus on cargo shipping. Rather than hard-coding that Japanese subs can't (and I'm sure Gary would not), the lesser of the two evils is to allow the Japanese the benefit of perfect hindsight and use such tactics.

Chiteng, I think you believe that I'm attacking you personally or that I'm an Allied fanboy (not sure if mdiehl believes there is such a thing). I'm not. I acknowledge the unfortunate fact people will use perfect hindsight to improve over historical performance, and the Mark 10/Mark 14 torpedo issue is only one good example that you focused on. But the point can be made with examples that will favor a Japanese player using perfect hindsight as well. My only point - after agreeing with you that perfect hindsight will distort things if the players let it - is that this is a lesser evil than hard-coding incompetence, doctrine, and fallacy. [/B][/QUOTE]

Except that of course Jap subs have been hard coded to be less effective, and yet USN subs remain untouched.

_____________________________

(in reply to wpurdom)

Post #: 26

- 5/29/2003 7:24:29 AM

madflava13

Posts: 1530
Joined: 2/7/2001
From: Alexandria, VA
Status: offline

My experience has been the complete opposite - its the US Subs (fleet types) that are hard coded to be poor. I am averaging 1 torpedo hit per every 8-10 subsurface attacks with Fleet boats. (I checked over the last couple days of game turns.

With the IJN subs, its something more along the lines of 1 hit per every other attack. And the IJN torps do a number on ships they hit too. I don't see the unfairness in that.

And although the S-Boats hit/sink more ships than historically occured, they're also being sunk at a much faster rate. I think this is ok too, but thats just my opinion.

_____________________________

"The Paraguayan Air Force's request for spraying subsidies was not as Paraguayan as it were..."

(in reply to wpurdom)

Post #: 27

- 5/29/2003 7:35:03 AM

byron13

Posts: 1589
Joined: 7/27/2001
Status: offline

Jesus H. Cristus, Chiteng, you have a real Japanese persecution complex bordering on . . . on . . . somebody help me here with the right psychiatric diagnosis.

I am truly floored by that last statement. Your first posts on this thread were whining about how unfair it was for the U.S. player to recognize on December 7th that only the S Class boats could sink anything because the Mark 14 renders other classes useless pieces of s***. As a result, the U.S. player would use his S Classes in an ahistorical way as the primary sub weapon.

Now, somehow, you argue that only Japanese submarines are hard-coded to reduce effectiveness and that U.S. submarines are untouched.

Am I imagining things, or is this a complete contradiction? Please, please explain this to me.

I don't think Axis Fanboy fits, but Axis Whine-boy does. Jeez, I wish you'd say something positive once in awhile.

(in reply to wpurdom)

Post #: 28

- 5/29/2003 8:02:50 AM

Chiteng

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by madflava13
[B]My experience has been the complete opposite - its the US Subs (fleet types) that are hard coded to be poor. I am averaging 1 torpedo hit per every 8-10 subsurface attacks with Fleet boats. (I checked over the last couple days of game turns.

With the IJN subs, its something more along the lines of 1 hit per every other attack. And the IJN torps do a number on ships they hit too. I don't see the unfairness in that.

And although the S-Boats hit/sink more ships than historically occured, they're also being sunk at a much faster rate. I think this is ok too, but thats just my opinion. [/B][/QUOTE]

I am simply quoting from the Matrix patch notes. Read them.
Jap subs used to match USN subs. They were delibretly
made less effective. It is in the notes.

_____________________________

(in reply to wpurdom)

Post #: 29

- 5/29/2003 8:05:24 AM

Chiteng

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by byron13
[B]Jesus H. Cristus, Chiteng, you have a real Japanese persecution complex bordering on . . . on . . . somebody help me here with the right psychiatric diagnosis.

I am truly floored by that last statement. Your first posts on this thread were whining about how unfair it was for the U.S. player to recognize on December 7th that only the S Class boats could sink anything because the Mark 14 renders other classes useless pieces of s***. As a result, the U.S. player would use his S Classes in an ahistorical way as the primary sub weapon.

Now, somehow, you argue that only Japanese submarines are hard-coded to reduce effectiveness and that U.S. submarines are untouched.

Am I imagining things, or is this a complete contradiction? Please, please explain this to me.

I don't think Axis Fanboy fits, but Axis Whine-boy does. Jeez, I wish you'd say something positive once in awhile. [/B][/QUOTE]

I suggest that you dont understand what I said.
I would like the SS boats restricted to the actual way they were
used. They were NOT used to lay mines in Rabaul harbor.
That would be a VERY dangerous mission in a unsafe boat.

I would happily settle for Equal fleet sub effectiveness
with the proviso that USN torps did suck.

_____________________________

(in reply to wpurdom)

Post #: 30

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> US subs - doctrinal improvements

Page: [1] 2 next > >>