rroberson -> RE: 661 4E`s shot down (4/16/2006 8:05:00 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker quote:
ORIGINAL: rroberson quote:
ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker quote:
ORIGINAL: rroberson quote:
ORIGINAL: aletoledo I really like the PDU, but then again I'm not such a stickler for accuracy. if we wanted accuracy, I suppose we would have to eliminate more than just PDU if we were to get close to the situation in ww2. I think the fact that there is an option for turning on or off PDU is a great solution. if you're the type of player that wants the battles fought just like they were in history, then play with them off and a dozen house rules. otherwise, play in a manner where you think you can guide the ENTIRE war effort better than history. sure its not historical, but its far from "fantasy" as many have labeled it. I think that the moment players turn off japanese sub ops they can no longer complain about accuracy...or realistic or any of those other things. What a crock. [;)] Japanese sub doctrine in the game is vastly different from RL. The doctrine should be directed from the top (the player), not have it programmed for us. The Japanese conducted quite a bit of mercantile warfare, and having this game doctrine on screws it. If you want to simply use your subs as fleet scouts and transports, go ahead. No need to nerf the ability to attack merchant shipping. http://www.combinedfleet.com/ss.htm Given their size, range, speed, and torpedoes, Japanese submarines achieved surprisingly little. This was because they were mainly employed against warships, which were fast, maneuverable, and well-defended when compared to merchant ships. Japanese naval doctrine was built around the concept of fighting a single decisive battle, as they had done at Tsushima 40 years earlier. They thought of their submarines as scouts, whose main role was to locate, shadow, and attack Allied naval task forces. This approach gave a significant return in 1942 when they sank two fleet carriers, one cruiser, and a few destroyers and other warships, and also damaged two battleships, one fleet carrier (twice), and a cruiser. However, as Allied intelligence, technologies, methods, and numbers improved, the Japanese submarines were never again able to achieve this frequency of success. For this reason, many argue that the Japanese submarine force would have been better used against merchant ships, patrolling Allied shipping lanes instead of lurking outside naval bases. Bagnasco credits the Japanese submarine fleet with sinking 184 merchant ships of 907,000 GRT. This figure is far less than achieved by the Germans (2,840 ships of 14.3 million GRT), the Americans (1,079 ships of 4.65 million tons), and the British (493 ships of 1.52 million tons). It seems reasonable that an all-out blitz of the American west coast, the Panama Canal, and the approaches to Hawaii, New Zealand, Australia and India would have caused the Allies more difficulty than did the naval deprivations that were actually achieved. Losing a significant number of merchant ships, and also needing to spread meager defenses even more thinly along two coasts, would surely have had some substantial consequences for the United States in 1942. Not a crock. Its not what they used their submarines for. Yes they did sink some merchant ships here and there, but it wasn't their main use. That why I always always get a good chuckle anytime someone comes here screaming about the reality of this or that...yet their first move is to turn off japanese submarine doctrine. But Rob, that's my point. Japanese sub doctrine as is modelled is basically wrong, Jap sub commanders attacked everything they saw, their bosses just did not send them on too many missions where enemy merchants were plentiful, they wasted the subs on special missions with the fleet or as sub transports. If you don't want to use them as pickets, scouts, transports or what have you, that is for you to decide, and you station and assign your missions to the subs accordingly. Let's say you decide to use them to form a scouting line ahead of KB...guess what, oods are they are not going to run into any merchant convoys along the way unless KB is heading for a major Allied port. The player determines sub doctrine, we don't need the game to tell subs to ignore merchants when that was not what happenned. I get your point [:D] I guess I grow weary of hearing how unrealistic this or that is in the game. I'm still of the mind gamewise that give the the tools they had in 41, it should be up to me how I employ them.
|
|
|
|